Pearl Harbor WI: the U.S. Navy had put torpedo netting around their battleships?
- Thread starter rob2001
- Start date
Yes, but the IJN kept asking about them and would have been aware they had been placed. Probably fewer torpedo bombers and more high-level bombers; but then again there weren't enough of those as it was. It would have caused problems.
Hoist40
Banned
It would have saved a few ships but it would not change the war much.
The USN was not going on the offensive for at least a year beyond a few raids so whether the battleships were intact or not would not change much. Even in the OTL the remaining battleships were sent to the West Coast and did some convoy work, and not much else for the first year or so of the war
That is why the Japanese attack was such a failure, it did not give the Japanese 6 months freedom of action since they already had that even if they did not attack Pearl Harbor.
The only thing it did was stop the US from doing something crazy like sending its fleet in a premature relief of the Philippines, the battle that the Japanese had been hoping and preparing for for decades
The USN was not going on the offensive for at least a year beyond a few raids so whether the battleships were intact or not would not change much. Even in the OTL the remaining battleships were sent to the West Coast and did some convoy work, and not much else for the first year or so of the war
That is why the Japanese attack was such a failure, it did not give the Japanese 6 months freedom of action since they already had that even if they did not attack Pearl Harbor.
The only thing it did was stop the US from doing something crazy like sending its fleet in a premature relief of the Philippines, the battle that the Japanese had been hoping and preparing for for decades
If the USN actually look hard at Taranto
they might very well conclude torpedo nets were not worth the inconvenience
The italians had a lot of netting at Taranto (though they later claimed only 25% of what was needed)
However much they had, it did very little good because the FAA used deep running fish that went under the nets
and magnetic exploders that in the calm waters of a harbour worked well
... so I doubt more of their original sort would have been better.
A lot more and a lot deeper were needed ... and that made them much clumsier and more a restriction to mobility.
Simlarly the USN had already decided to deploy nets at Pearl anyway.
but had also decided that the currently available designs restricted traffic too much
and were in the process of looking for a better set. ... essentially lighter and more easily removed.
Even if the USN had got more and deeper nets, then maybe one or two of the older BBs would have been less damaged... which would have been irrelevant.
they might very well conclude torpedo nets were not worth the inconvenience
The italians had a lot of netting at Taranto (though they later claimed only 25% of what was needed)
However much they had, it did very little good because the FAA used deep running fish that went under the nets
and magnetic exploders that in the calm waters of a harbour worked well
... so I doubt more of their original sort would have been better.
A lot more and a lot deeper were needed ... and that made them much clumsier and more a restriction to mobility.
Simlarly the USN had already decided to deploy nets at Pearl anyway.
but had also decided that the currently available designs restricted traffic too much
and were in the process of looking for a better set. ... essentially lighter and more easily removed.
Even if the USN had got more and deeper nets, then maybe one or two of the older BBs would have been less damaged... which would have been irrelevant.
Placing torpedonets is one thing, placing them to cover everything is an entire different thing. Most standard torpedo do cover not more than about some 20 feet of depth, so a torpedo running deeper will still get past it and still hit a ship with enough draught accordingly. Only layered torpedonetting, as the Germans used with Tirpitz in Norway, would protect a ship completely. As the USA were still unexperienced and at peace, this was not likely.
katchen
Banned
The Japanese might well have put more of an emphasis on going after the real prizes; finding and either sinking or taking as prizes, with paratroopers and possibly gas, the real prizes: the aircraft carriers. Without the carriers, those battleships are just that: antiquated, WWII vintage mostly, battleships.
I've thought for a while that the Japanese hurt themselves strategically by sinking rather than boarding and taking enemy capital ships.Especially aircraft carriers, which Japan had too few of. Taking prizes like that turns naval strategy into a game in which captured assets become enemy assets.
And the gas need not necesarily be lethal (or immediately lethal) to be effective. Chloroform is easy to manufacture and probably no more flammable than CS teargas, Chlorine or hydrogen sulfide/mustard gas. And if the Russians can aeresolize fentanyl IOTL to put terrorists asleep in a theatre with hostages, the Japanese may be able, with some experimentation, to aeresolize heroin so that it can be inhaled. The Japanese just need to override their aversion to capturing enemy troops alive with orders that recognize the hostage value of captured American POWs, and the value of not being guilty of wartime atrocities that could mobilize an enemy, something Yamamoto was well aware of when taking on the US.
And the Japanese were fully capable of controlled parachute landings. I have read that ninja had silk "parachute robes" that could catch air like a parachute--or a flying squirrel-- if the ninja was catapulted onto a wall or roof with a trebuchet. The ninja would simply extend his arms and legs in "jumonji" position and the robes would fill with air, enabling the ninja, after a few seconds, to coast to a survivably soft landing where he aimed for. And what ninja can do, they can teach Japanese paratroop soldiers to do.
Better protected ships in Pearl Harbour. might have forced Admiral Yamamoto to think more outside of the box and come up with tactics such as this.
I've thought for a while that the Japanese hurt themselves strategically by sinking rather than boarding and taking enemy capital ships.Especially aircraft carriers, which Japan had too few of. Taking prizes like that turns naval strategy into a game in which captured assets become enemy assets.
And the gas need not necesarily be lethal (or immediately lethal) to be effective. Chloroform is easy to manufacture and probably no more flammable than CS teargas, Chlorine or hydrogen sulfide/mustard gas. And if the Russians can aeresolize fentanyl IOTL to put terrorists asleep in a theatre with hostages, the Japanese may be able, with some experimentation, to aeresolize heroin so that it can be inhaled. The Japanese just need to override their aversion to capturing enemy troops alive with orders that recognize the hostage value of captured American POWs, and the value of not being guilty of wartime atrocities that could mobilize an enemy, something Yamamoto was well aware of when taking on the US.
And the Japanese were fully capable of controlled parachute landings. I have read that ninja had silk "parachute robes" that could catch air like a parachute--or a flying squirrel-- if the ninja was catapulted onto a wall or roof with a trebuchet. The ninja would simply extend his arms and legs in "jumonji" position and the robes would fill with air, enabling the ninja, after a few seconds, to coast to a survivably soft landing where he aimed for. And what ninja can do, they can teach Japanese paratroop soldiers to do.
Better protected ships in Pearl Harbour. might have forced Admiral Yamamoto to think more outside of the box and come up with tactics such as this.
No, just no, real life just don't work like that I'm afraid
and as for the battleships being antiquated, WWII vintage mostly, erh, it's WWII, they'd hardly be post war vintage would they......redundant for their main task on the other hand, that's a different kettle of flying fish.Truly, the Japanese would have improved their lot in World War Two if they had only pursued the possibility of ninja-flying-squirrel suits more thoroughly.
katchen
Banned
You're right in a way. As Newt Gingrich has pointed out in his AH novel, the Japanese did not intend Pearl Harbour to be a fight to the finish. They wanted to make a point that they were not to be trifled with, and to do that, to deliver to the US the equivalent of, if not a bloody nose, no more than a broken jaw or leg would be in a fight between people. They wanted Pearl Harbour to be the prelude to a negotiated peace.No, just no, real life just don't work like that I'm afraid
The tailwind that made the Pearl Harbour attack happen BEFORE the Japanese Ambassador could announce the opening of hostilities, (or delay on the part of the Japanese embassy staff and Foreign Ministry), according to Gingrich, turned the attack into a sneak attack that the US would feel obliged to avenge. Having done that, according to Newt, the Japanese should have followed through with a third wave attack on fueling and dry dock faciities that would render Pearl useless as a forward naval base--then hunted down the aircraft carriers, although even Newt Gingrich dosen't see using gas to seize enemy ships instead of sinking them in deep water.
Then again, taking enemy assets and turning them against the enemy is something that modern nations simply do not do unless they are feeling desperate. The US NEVER used enemy ordnance against either the Germans or the Japanese in World War II. Americans and I think Brits and Australians as well, always destroyed enemy assets that fell intact into their hands. It was the RUSSIANS, whose war was far more desperate who repainted Nazi Tiger tanks and used them against their builders--and the Nazis did the same with Russian T-34s they captured. ISRAELIS use whatever weapons fall into their hands no matter whose they are or how they acquired them, as do the Taleban. As did the Viet Cong.
I suppose using enemy assets in war these days is something that is considered asymmetric warfare and therefore dishonourable. Something one stoops low to doing. And thus, something these days that is rarely done, even if it is practical. It means that one is thinking in terms of a war practically without end and no quarter or surrender, negotiated or otherwise until the enemy gives up and leaves.
The Japanese never thought of themselves in that position until it was too late. Japan's winning move in it's conflict with the United States would have been to realize FDR's implacability by 1939-1940 and to do whatever was necessary to keep him from winning another term, whether by ensuring Wendell Wilkie's election if possible, or if not, assassinating him in such a way that the blame pointed toward Germany or something domestic. In other words, the kind of tactics that served people like Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu well at different times during Japan's Sengoku Period and served Japanese politicians well against each other.
Good point. The single USN battleship fight of 1942 was fought with ships that were not at PH, or even operational 7 Dec.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
The Red Ball Express used captured German vehicles I believe. It is a sign of desperation to use foreign ordnance and supplies; it means one's one side cannot supply it sufficiently. It is hard to get parts when they are only manufactured in the enemy's nation. The Richelieu shows how hard it is to use foreign ships. The US had to specially manufacture the main guns' shells, but the US also had excess production.
The attack on Pearl would have been seen as a surprise attack unless the IJN had waited until newspapers had published the news, IMO. Killing FDR is original, no idea how well it would have worked if pulled off successfully.
The attack on Pearl would have been seen as a surprise attack unless the IJN had waited until newspapers had published the news, IMO. Killing FDR is original, no idea how well it would have worked if pulled off successfully.
According to At Dawn We Slept, some of the Japanese aerial planners, including Fuchida & Genda secretly developed a contingency to deal with torpedo nets on their own, which involved some airplanes deliberately crashing into the nets to blast holes in them large enough for following bombers to send torpedoes through, but didn't inform their superiors out of fear that they would forbid the use of suicide attacks, even if it was the only way to get past torpedo netting.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
It isn't that simple, to take an enemy ship intact requires it to be in port and you to hold the port long enough to get the ship under way, the enemy to surrender the ship intact for some reason, or to capture the ship fast enough for the other side not to scuttle it. The Japanese would not do the first at Pear Harbor, though they did capture some minor allied ships that way. The US was not willing to surrender any major units intact, and those ships are big with many watertight compartments, to gas the crew deep in the hull you have to already hold the air system, and deep in the hull is where the scuttling cocks are. Even if you do take the ships, unless the escorts are all taken care of, which would ruin the element of surprise and give time for the ships to prepare for gas, the escorts will scuttle the big boys with Torpedoes (ala the Japanese at Midway). So pretty much it's impossile to do so
I know the US used captured German artillery for two artillery battalions in late 1944 as a stopgap due to ammo shortages, but that was low echelon
It's more that it's simpler on logistics to take captured equipment, cut it up for scrap and use the scrap to make your own equipment, than have to rely on capturing enemy parts that may not be available, or set up additional production lines for limited use items. When you have enough industrial capacity it's more efficient to scrap and remake, when you don't have the industrial capacity (Germany and USSR during WWII, Early Israel, Guerrillas etc.) you make do with what you get
Gas. Um.
First, the ships were designed to cope with this - it was thought in the prewar period that gas would be used against ships.
Its pretty easy to stop deep in teh ship, you just shut the ventilation duct...
Gas isnt like in the movies, you dont just fall over. Also, because of the expectation of gas, the ships had gas masks available.
First, the ships were designed to cope with this - it was thought in the prewar period that gas would be used against ships.
Its pretty easy to stop deep in teh ship, you just shut the ventilation duct...
Gas isnt like in the movies, you dont just fall over. Also, because of the expectation of gas, the ships had gas masks available.
>
>
>
I've read Patton's command would use up captured artillery before turning it in, shoot off all the ammo first. I'd imagine this was done quite widely by many units, but not a set policy. Some photographs and newsreels show GIs carrying or firing German mgs and subs in action.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Also, if the IJN used gas at Pearl Harbor, they might escalate the war, even if non lethal. And Singapore in particular has very nasty gas... capturing a few more ships may cost the Japanese the Malay (Malaysian?) peninsula and the Philippines.
A few, mostly by small units on a ad hoc basis. The trick was without spare parts the vehicles usually were inoperable in a few weeks or days.
Primarily a non divisional Group. Cant recall the unit number. It had two battalions, one formed out a intelligence unit formed to evaluate captured artillery, and the other converted temporarily from a existing US Army artillery battalion. I think they were either a 12th AG or a US 3rd Army unit. Butied on YouTube is a Army news film that has a few minutes of video of this unit.
There were efforts to do the same by other US artillery units on a small and temporary basis. Captured French ammunition was used where found. The US 155mm cannon were based on French designs and the projectiles fit some models.
The planning for Overlord contemplated that the French would ultimately collect the Germans weapons for their use, or scrap. In the longer run this policy was the norm, but during the supply problems of late 1944 the US Army did use some captured equipment.
The French salvaged dozens of German tanks and assualt guns in 1944-45. In 1945 a battalion of Panther tanks was formally organized. It remained in existance post war for a couple years.