A war in the pacific in the 1940s. Britain is not at war in Europe but Japan is involved in China.
Who would have won a war between Britain and Imperial Japan?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
- Status
No war in Europe/North Africa etc, Britain has the resources and forces available to increase the defences of the Empire in the Far East significantly.
Firstly, it is likely a large portion of the Home Fleet would be able to deploy east, and that at least a half dozen (if not more) divisions would be deployed to protect Malaysia etc. It is also likely that a more competent commander would be available compared to OTL, and thus Singapore isn't surrendered anywhere near as quickly (if at all)
Firstly, it is likely a large portion of the Home Fleet would be able to deploy east, and that at least a half dozen (if not more) divisions would be deployed to protect Malaysia etc. It is also likely that a more competent commander would be available compared to OTL, and thus Singapore isn't surrendered anywhere near as quickly (if at all)
The British Empire outweighs Japan by an even greater amount than the proportion of the US/Empire war effort in OTL.
As long as Britain goes on a war footing, the Japanese are doomed.
As long as Britain goes on a war footing, the Japanese are doomed.
With a much higher proportion of the RAF and Army committed, and most of the carrier force...yes, eventually, although not without several ugly surprises along the way. Kido Butai is going to make a terrible name for itself.
The question is, what does "winning" entail? I doubt either side is going to invade the other's home islands in this scenario. There are also going to be political pressures from other parties. Both the US and France have interests in this hypothetical conflict, and it's unlikely that they wont be at least politically involved in it. I think the most likely scenario is a peace agreement made under pressure from the US that somehow enables both sides to not loose face.
As to who does more damage to the other until that point, I am going to agree with the rest and say Britain is going to have the upper hand. Even if there wasn't the economic disparity, the mere fact that Japan is actively engaged in invading and subduing a huge landmass is a serious disadvantage for them. And since Imperial Japanese rule makes british colonialists look like nice people, the British are unlikely to have similar problems.
And interesting result might be that the Chinese Nationalists might win their civil war eventually, provided Churchill or someone similarily anti-communist is in power in Britain. If the British seriously invest in supporting the Nationalists and only them, Mao might loose even if he keeps out of fighting the Japnese as much as possible.
As to who does more damage to the other until that point, I am going to agree with the rest and say Britain is going to have the upper hand. Even if there wasn't the economic disparity, the mere fact that Japan is actively engaged in invading and subduing a huge landmass is a serious disadvantage for them. And since Imperial Japanese rule makes british colonialists look like nice people, the British are unlikely to have similar problems.
And interesting result might be that the Chinese Nationalists might win their civil war eventually, provided Churchill or someone similarily anti-communist is in power in Britain. If the British seriously invest in supporting the Nationalists and only them, Mao might loose even if he keeps out of fighting the Japnese as much as possible.
I remember that the British plan was to blockade the Japanese home islands until they concede defeat in the event of a war between the British Empire and the Japanese.
I always find these kind of situations quite funny because they fail to expand on the rest of the world in any meaningful way.
The premise "UK v Japan - Japan involved in China; Britain not in Europe - who wins?" is too simplistic.
Can Britain win? Why? Why is Britain not in a war in Europe? Because the Soviets and Germans are involved in an all out war first? Because Weimar never fell? Because Germany (under the Nazis) simply haven't attacked yet.
Britain *might* be able to beat Japan, but if Germany (or the Soviets) are strong and threatening in Europe, launching the entire fleet off to the Far East is a sure fire way to turn Sealion from that TL's ASB forum to it's post-1900 forum.
Why is the US not involved, and what is the status of France (Ally or enemy of the UK)? All of these factors would determine what Britain could or could not reasonably be expected to throw at Japan.
The premise "UK v Japan - Japan involved in China; Britain not in Europe - who wins?" is too simplistic.
Can Britain win? Why? Why is Britain not in a war in Europe? Because the Soviets and Germans are involved in an all out war first? Because Weimar never fell? Because Germany (under the Nazis) simply haven't attacked yet.
Britain *might* be able to beat Japan, but if Germany (or the Soviets) are strong and threatening in Europe, launching the entire fleet off to the Far East is a sure fire way to turn Sealion from that TL's ASB forum to it's post-1900 forum.
Why is the US not involved, and what is the status of France (Ally or enemy of the UK)? All of these factors would determine what Britain could or could not reasonably be expected to throw at Japan.
I'm not sure how easy that would have been. Blockading Germany's Baltic coast is one thing. Blockading a huge island nation is a different beast entirely.
I only provided the bare details because I find that people work best with creative freedom.
Riain
Banned
Britain has an economy triple the size of Japan and the W/LNT up to 1936 gave Japan a navy of 2/3 of Britain. Without a threat from Germany and Italy what will British rearmament look like? Will it even happen? If not Britain might be on struggle street, but at least it might avoid the 14" gun battleships and armoured hangar carriers.
It would help if you provided more information. For example, you said that Britain is not at war in Europe. However, is war likely there? Even if they are not at war, if they are facing off against something akin to Nazi Germany, or even an expansionist Italy in the Med, they will have to keep some significant military forces close to home. If, by contrast, Europe is all sunshine and roses, they can send a relatively larger force East.
What is the US doing? They are not at war with Militarist Japan (I presume this is still Militarist Japan, since they seem to be stuck in a major war in China), but are they a true neutral? Are they willing to sell military equipment to the Brits, but not to Militarist Japan? Are they willing to sell to both sides? To neither? Will they sell oil? Are they isolationist enough that Militarist Japan does not have to worry too much about them entering the war, or does the IJN have to keep a lot of ships in home waters out of fear of the US joining in?
On the question of blockading Japan, I agree that it would be difficult to blockade the entire Japanese archipelago, and it would require quite a number of ships. However, even just some relatively long-legged submarines patroling the Taiwan Strait could do a lot of damage. British control of Singapore can be an important choke point, too, of course.
What is the US doing? They are not at war with Militarist Japan (I presume this is still Militarist Japan, since they seem to be stuck in a major war in China), but are they a true neutral? Are they willing to sell military equipment to the Brits, but not to Militarist Japan? Are they willing to sell to both sides? To neither? Will they sell oil? Are they isolationist enough that Militarist Japan does not have to worry too much about them entering the war, or does the IJN have to keep a lot of ships in home waters out of fear of the US joining in?
On the question of blockading Japan, I agree that it would be difficult to blockade the entire Japanese archipelago, and it would require quite a number of ships. However, even just some relatively long-legged submarines patroling the Taiwan Strait could do a lot of damage. British control of Singapore can be an important choke point, too, of course.
Germany still can't get across the channel unless they're planning to use actual sealions. Britain only needs a token force against the Kreigsmarine and she's only going to fear invasion if Germany has the channel ports so she'll be able to send most of her forces East. Unless this ATL has an identical fustercluck to our own, Britain will have a lot of strategic flexibility.
RodentRevolution
Banned
I think it is fairly straight forward to conclude that Europe is not a war threat and that the British can concentrate their main effort in the Indian Ocean/Pacific.
Now Each side does have other foes to worry about. The Chinese and the Soviets for the Japanese with a weather eye on the Americans and Britain has a wide range of Imperial commitments plus Europe.
That said in the long run the money is on the British, The Japanese Kido Butai might come as something of a shock and the British lack the ability to out build them and swamp the oceans with carrier spam the way the US did but the Japanese lack the ability to ultimately take out Australia and India as British bases.
British carrier doctrine has weaknesses but they can do night flying and their carriers are built to take punishment in a way neither US nor Japanese carriers were and damage control is much closer to American quality.
We might have gotten to see what the Malta Class was made of though or something similar...people talk of an armoured deck Essex, this made little sense for the US but might have made sense for the British.
Also in terms of submarine and anti-submarine warfare the British would have the edge with Commonwealth submarines being able to eventually work out the joys of sinking Japanese merchantmen and theirs meeting hedgehog as they stalked the British carriers.
Now Each side does have other foes to worry about. The Chinese and the Soviets for the Japanese with a weather eye on the Americans and Britain has a wide range of Imperial commitments plus Europe.
That said in the long run the money is on the British, The Japanese Kido Butai might come as something of a shock and the British lack the ability to out build them and swamp the oceans with carrier spam the way the US did but the Japanese lack the ability to ultimately take out Australia and India as British bases.
British carrier doctrine has weaknesses but they can do night flying and their carriers are built to take punishment in a way neither US nor Japanese carriers were and damage control is much closer to American quality.
We might have gotten to see what the Malta Class was made of though or something similar...people talk of an armoured deck Essex, this made little sense for the US but might have made sense for the British.
Also in terms of submarine and anti-submarine warfare the British would have the edge with Commonwealth submarines being able to eventually work out the joys of sinking Japanese merchantmen and theirs meeting hedgehog as they stalked the British carriers.
I look on these as academic or laboratory studies. They are useful for studying military questions like doctrine, tactics, weapons technicalities, logistics, without endless definitions/discussions of the politics. The political reality is suitable for a broader question/s of political strategy & economics. Those are important aspects & in the long run cant be ignored, but there is a place for the more abstract technical conversation based on a much simplified political/stratigic premise.
Admiral Beez
Banned
With no war with France or the Netherlands there are no Japanese troops in FIC or DEI, or likely in Thailand for that matter. Thus there is way Japan can threaten Malaya, unless they fight across China to the Burma border, which will be difficult.
So, Malaya is safe, though Hong Kong will likely fall. Meanwhile, there is more oil in a jar of peanuts than in Japan - so how is the IJN fueling its ships without DEI oil? Unless, claiming neutrality, DEI sells the oil to Japan. That would annoy the Brits, with RN subs from Singapore likely targeting the oil transports.
Australia and PNG will be well defended, so there is no Japanese threat there. Assuming we still have OTL rearmaments (did Germany change late in 1939?), Britain possesses the largest naval fleet in the world with massive and safely located oil supplies via APOC, with an airforce of radar guided fighters, some of the best tanks (not up to German spec - but Japan?). In India, Britain can call on over one million sepoys.
So given the above resources of the British Empire, if the resources of Malaya can't be had, just why is Japan going to war against its former ally?
So, Malaya is safe, though Hong Kong will likely fall. Meanwhile, there is more oil in a jar of peanuts than in Japan - so how is the IJN fueling its ships without DEI oil? Unless, claiming neutrality, DEI sells the oil to Japan. That would annoy the Brits, with RN subs from Singapore likely targeting the oil transports.
Australia and PNG will be well defended, so there is no Japanese threat there. Assuming we still have OTL rearmaments (did Germany change late in 1939?), Britain possesses the largest naval fleet in the world with massive and safely located oil supplies via APOC, with an airforce of radar guided fighters, some of the best tanks (not up to German spec - but Japan?). In India, Britain can call on over one million sepoys.
So given the above resources of the British Empire, if the resources of Malaya can't be had, just why is Japan going to war against its former ally?
Last edited:
- Status