So how would the war of played out if the three U.S. aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor and sunk (with all of the planes on them!). In addition three of the severly damaged battlecruisers that ended up surviving in real life... didn't survive. To put salt in the wounds the Japenese destroy the United States oil stockpiles in Pearl Harbor. How would this of changed the war in the Pacific/ war in general.
Worst Pearl Harbor
- Thread starter RyanBrune
- Start date
The air groups wouldn't have been on them: it was standard practice - still is - for them to fly off as the ship approaches harbour, and base themselves on shore. Otherwise, they couldn't do any flying practice when the ship is at home. Of course, ITTL the aircraft would probably been destroyed on the ground, though most of the crews would have survived.
Battlecruisers? Well, if the USN loses 3 more BBs, it depends on how many of the crews survived - this may be a blessing in (heavy) disguise as the USN will have a couple of thousand, minimum, trained men spare to work up new ships.
Oil: you're assuming a third strike, which is more likely if the KB know the carriers are wrecked. Rebuilding the oil stocks will require quite a bit of tanker capacity.
There's others here with a lot more knowledge of this stuff than me, mind.
Battlecruisers? Well, if the USN loses 3 more BBs, it depends on how many of the crews survived - this may be a blessing in (heavy) disguise as the USN will have a couple of thousand, minimum, trained men spare to work up new ships.
Oil: you're assuming a third strike, which is more likely if the KB know the carriers are wrecked. Rebuilding the oil stocks will require quite a bit of tanker capacity.
There's others here with a lot more knowledge of this stuff than me, mind.
Last edited:
To see why the Japanese didn't do a 3rd strike (and a lot of other problems that they had) see Caravaggio's article ""Winning" the Pacific War," in Naval War College Review (Winter 2014): http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2014---Winter.aspx, pages 85-118. IMHO, a fantastic article.
It certainly would have made things a boatload harder. Although japanese losses may have been high. As for ongoing effects...
Despite the advice of several proponents, PH was essentially diversionary. Heavily committed to, but ultimately not the primary theater of operations. Not much changes in terms of battles in the first two or three months following. It's possible that the what remains of the US asiatic fleet (such as it was) is recalled and hoarded in australia, but it's equally likely that it is destroyed as was OTL
With the loss of hawaii's infrastructure and supplies, it becomes necessary to rebuild it before restoring the fleets ability to realistically force the western pacific. This means that although portions of the atlantic fleet are transfered, they must base on the west coast until Pearl is re-established. If (as in OTL) the Japanese more or less ignore hawaii henceforth, they have only to contend with however much the japanese contest the crossing of US re-supply. Probably with subs, maintaining even part of the Air fleet that far is unlikely.
If they do attempt further attacks or even landings Hawaii must be rapidly re-inforced or lost in total. Regardless, the loss of pearl harbor as a staging base almost certainly prevents the US contribution to Coral sea and similar operations. Midway probably does not occur. Japanese advances would probably be bolder not having the US to account for.
I don't think it changes the ultimate outcome, although it certainly makes the road there much longer and bloodier. The same factors are in play as before, it just takes longer to get there.
Despite the advice of several proponents, PH was essentially diversionary. Heavily committed to, but ultimately not the primary theater of operations. Not much changes in terms of battles in the first two or three months following. It's possible that the what remains of the US asiatic fleet (such as it was) is recalled and hoarded in australia, but it's equally likely that it is destroyed as was OTL
With the loss of hawaii's infrastructure and supplies, it becomes necessary to rebuild it before restoring the fleets ability to realistically force the western pacific. This means that although portions of the atlantic fleet are transfered, they must base on the west coast until Pearl is re-established. If (as in OTL) the Japanese more or less ignore hawaii henceforth, they have only to contend with however much the japanese contest the crossing of US re-supply. Probably with subs, maintaining even part of the Air fleet that far is unlikely.
If they do attempt further attacks or even landings Hawaii must be rapidly re-inforced or lost in total. Regardless, the loss of pearl harbor as a staging base almost certainly prevents the US contribution to Coral sea and similar operations. Midway probably does not occur. Japanese advances would probably be bolder not having the US to account for.
I don't think it changes the ultimate outcome, although it certainly makes the road there much longer and bloodier. The same factors are in play as before, it just takes longer to get there.
TFSmith121
Banned
Given the economic disparity between the US and
Japan, Japan was going to lose any war in the Twentieth Century.
Given the realities of transoceanic amphibious operations in the 1940s, and the strength of the Oahu defenses as they were in 1941, there was no way the Japanese could deploy, sustain, and replenish an expeditionary force strong enough to take a useful beachhead in the Hawaiian archipelago - much less on Oahu - much less reinforce such an expedition from the western Pacific faster than the US could reinforce from the US West Coast.
Hawaii to Tokyo is {roughly} four thousand nautical miles; Los Angeles to Hawaii is roughly two thousand five hundred miles.
It is worth remembering that, among other useful resources, the US West Coast had a vertically integrated oil industry that - in California alone - was more productive than the fields in the NEI the Japanese were going to war over in the first place...
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the aspirations and realities of Japan as a major power in the Twentieth Century - the only peer competitor they had fought unaided prior to WW II was Russia - and the record there was one win and one loss.
Despite all the structural advantages Japan has over Russia in terms of a conflict in eastern Asia, honors were still even. Now think about that in terms of Japan's ability to deploy and sustain combat power east of the Dateline.
Best,
Japan, Japan was going to lose any war in the Twentieth Century.
Given the realities of transoceanic amphibious operations in the 1940s, and the strength of the Oahu defenses as they were in 1941, there was no way the Japanese could deploy, sustain, and replenish an expeditionary force strong enough to take a useful beachhead in the Hawaiian archipelago - much less on Oahu - much less reinforce such an expedition from the western Pacific faster than the US could reinforce from the US West Coast.
Hawaii to Tokyo is {roughly} four thousand nautical miles; Los Angeles to Hawaii is roughly two thousand five hundred miles.
It is worth remembering that, among other useful resources, the US West Coast had a vertically integrated oil industry that - in California alone - was more productive than the fields in the NEI the Japanese were going to war over in the first place...
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the aspirations and realities of Japan as a major power in the Twentieth Century - the only peer competitor they had fought unaided prior to WW II was Russia - and the record there was one win and one loss.
Despite all the structural advantages Japan has over Russia in terms of a conflict in eastern Asia, honors were still even. Now think about that in terms of Japan's ability to deploy and sustain combat power east of the Dateline.
Best,
As long as the ships are sunk in harbor and there isn't a significant crew loss the only downside is a slower start into late 1943. There may be a couple carriers coming from the Atlantic but Ranger WON'T be one of them. This will reduce the load on the oil reserves in the short term. During this period the submarines are going to have take up the slack for the next year.
Once the U.S. fills the production pipeline in mid to late 1943 the effort will change to the Island hopping campaign we're familiar with. The U.S. Navy will rebuild. There will be plenty of ships coming as long as we have a core of experienced crews to train the new sailors and provide a backbone to the fleet.
How much further would the Japanese advance than they did in OTL? They may take Midway (I almost hope they do it forces them to bring targets closer to my sub base at Pearl? They may complete the base on Guadalcanal but where do they go from there?
Yes the war may go into 1946 but all the weapons that won the war are still going to be there. Eventually the B-29s will attack the home islands from the Marianas. If it takes six months or so longer it might allow more time to work out problems with the B-29 engines.
I'm not sure if the Soviets gain much in this time line. The extra effort needed for the U.S. fleet recovery has to come from somewhere. I believe that will be at least partially be from Lend Lease. Especially once the German offensives have been stopped I would expect the amount of Lend Lease to be slowed. this would slow up the Soviet offensives some so the transition to a the Asian theatre would be delayed.
Once the U.S. fills the production pipeline in mid to late 1943 the effort will change to the Island hopping campaign we're familiar with. The U.S. Navy will rebuild. There will be plenty of ships coming as long as we have a core of experienced crews to train the new sailors and provide a backbone to the fleet.
How much further would the Japanese advance than they did in OTL? They may take Midway (I almost hope they do it forces them to bring targets closer to my sub base at Pearl? They may complete the base on Guadalcanal but where do they go from there?
Yes the war may go into 1946 but all the weapons that won the war are still going to be there. Eventually the B-29s will attack the home islands from the Marianas. If it takes six months or so longer it might allow more time to work out problems with the B-29 engines.
I'm not sure if the Soviets gain much in this time line. The extra effort needed for the U.S. fleet recovery has to come from somewhere. I believe that will be at least partially be from Lend Lease. Especially once the German offensives have been stopped I would expect the amount of Lend Lease to be slowed. this would slow up the Soviet offensives some so the transition to a the Asian theatre would be delayed.
very bad (realistic) case?
Leaving out a third strike, here's one possible VERY bad atack:
There's carriers in the harbor; they are blown into little tiny pieces--and a lot of the trained aircrew are killed. Then, a ship is sunk in the channel--worst case, a battleship, which is hard to break up in place. If it went up like the Arizona, refloating it would be out of the question. AQdd in some damage to the sub base, and you have a BIG mess--but not a war-winner.
It would be even worse if the sinking ship swung some so that even small ships can't squeeze through...
Having Pearl closed for the time it takes to remove the hulk would be a major hassle.
Leaving out a third strike, here's one possible VERY bad atack:
There's carriers in the harbor; they are blown into little tiny pieces--and a lot of the trained aircrew are killed. Then, a ship is sunk in the channel--worst case, a battleship, which is hard to break up in place. If it went up like the Arizona, refloating it would be out of the question. AQdd in some damage to the sub base, and you have a BIG mess--but not a war-winner.
It would be even worse if the sinking ship swung some so that even small ships can't squeeze through...
Having Pearl closed for the time it takes to remove the hulk would be a major hassle.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Channel is both wide and deep,
The Channel is both wide and deep, and is fairly straight. Here's a scaleable map - note that the "shoal water" markings up on Ford Island show the wrecks of Arizona and Utah {blue water}; comparing those with the Channel, even at its narrowest point, suggest how difficult it would be to block the Channel in any substantive way:
http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=19366
It is also worth noting that even if Pearl Harbor's capacities as a naval station are degraded in any significant way in December, Honolulu harbor is and was a significant cargo and passenger port.
The only way for the Japanese to "close" Pearl Harbor would be the same way they closed Manila Bay, by invasion - and given the available forces, they could not do that...
Best,
The Channel is both wide and deep, and is fairly straight. Here's a scaleable map - note that the "shoal water" markings up on Ford Island show the wrecks of Arizona and Utah {blue water}; comparing those with the Channel, even at its narrowest point, suggest how difficult it would be to block the Channel in any substantive way:
http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=19366
It is also worth noting that even if Pearl Harbor's capacities as a naval station are degraded in any significant way in December, Honolulu harbor is and was a significant cargo and passenger port.
The only way for the Japanese to "close" Pearl Harbor would be the same way they closed Manila Bay, by invasion - and given the available forces, they could not do that...
Best,
In order get a worse Pearl Harbour, you need to get Japanese spies on to the base. I read Walter Lord's Day of Infamy a couple of months ago and he talks about how the Japanese were never able to develop good intel where certain things were at Pearl Harbour, which is partially why they focused at most all of their attention on sinking the carriers and the battleships. They did not bomb the base communication centre and the main administration building, both of which should have been high on their target list, because they didn't know where they were. They thought main adminstration building was actually the Officer's Club and they bombed a baseball diamond because they had had information that it concealed an underground fuel resevoir that had been planned in 1936, but was actually never built.
Uh... no. The United States never actually fully tapped its full industrial capacity during the war and the lend-lease the Soviets are going to be asking for are not the same as what the US Navy needs for Japan.
Some time ago I was reading one guy's theory that The Japanese didn't need to land at Oahu. There were two islands one to the SE and one to the SW. One had a port and the other had an airfield. He suggests that since Oahu wasn't self-sufficient in food, that it would only take 30 days for them to surrender.
===
Side-bar of sorts: we complain about the AI in computer games. But one guy related how as the Japanese he took Pearl Harbor, the the Panama canal and then he shipped his fleet and army through the canal to invade the east coast of the US. The computer re-took the canal thebery, cutting him from his supply and he wasn't going to be able to get back fast enough to keep from starving, running out of fuel and ammo, etc..
Last edited:
Assuming the Japanese win the greatest possible victory here - the ships sunk, something sunk in the channel, base facilities and airfields destroyed, air groups ravaged and fuel supplies going up in smoke - all you've done is delayed Japan's defeat and caused a bigger mess in the southeast Indies. Without American help the Dutch and British in the Indies are worse than screwed in the short term and the Japanese will be able to ravage the northern portions of Australia. Invasions of Hawaii or Australia wouldn't happen because the Japanese don't have the logistical capacity to support it. Best case for them after that is that they garrison Midway and attempt to use it to patrol the Pacific to give the IJN defensive depth.
Hawaii gets garrisoned to the eyeballs and as much of the Atlantic fleet as possible to the West Coast. For the short term the fleet sorties from San Francisco and Los Angeles. The submarine force is first to really move out. As soon as Pearl Harbor's facilities are fixed, the USN goes back there, and Midway becomes target #1. The USN digs the BBs out of the mud at Pearl and drags them back to the west coast for rebuilds. The Essex class carriers are given priority to all other vessels. The Iowas are finished but too late to do anything in the war. The Midways are finished in time to help attack Japan.
As much as possible of the Marines fight in southeast Asia, but without air support they get run back to Australia. Land-based air from Australia still makes the life of Japanese defenders on New Guinea, Timor and Java miserable. The Timor Sea becomes a slugout between the RAN and the IJN. The ABDA force might escape to fight another day and add to the pain here.
The war undoubtedly lasts in 1946, but the need to rebuild the USN might well reduce the lend-lease support, and the US will want to handle Japan themselves.
Hawaii gets garrisoned to the eyeballs and as much of the Atlantic fleet as possible to the West Coast. For the short term the fleet sorties from San Francisco and Los Angeles. The submarine force is first to really move out. As soon as Pearl Harbor's facilities are fixed, the USN goes back there, and Midway becomes target #1. The USN digs the BBs out of the mud at Pearl and drags them back to the west coast for rebuilds. The Essex class carriers are given priority to all other vessels. The Iowas are finished but too late to do anything in the war. The Midways are finished in time to help attack Japan.
As much as possible of the Marines fight in southeast Asia, but without air support they get run back to Australia. Land-based air from Australia still makes the life of Japanese defenders on New Guinea, Timor and Java miserable. The Timor Sea becomes a slugout between the RAN and the IJN. The ABDA force might escape to fight another day and add to the pain here.
The war undoubtedly lasts in 1946, but the need to rebuild the USN might well reduce the lend-lease support, and the US will want to handle Japan themselves.
I thought this was going to be about the Ben Affleck movie.
Now that is something to consider. An alternate history where that movie is never made!
Oh, I would LOVE to see that!
Or maybe a TL where Steven Spielberg makes Pearl Harbor and its actually good, or at least watchable.
Part of my thought is that the route into Siberia would not be available and that the resources needed to convoy the supplies would not be available.
Also with more naval forces needed to use in the Pacific in 42-43 I think The resupply of malta and the invasion of North Africa would be a more difficult task. This would require more support of the British (or British self reliance) which would reduce assets available for the Soviet Union. This would all be in the critical period of 1942 when the Soviet needs are most critical.
A 'more successful' Pearl Harbor - for whatever value of 'success' you choose (CVs sunk, BB sunk in channel, oil blown up, whatever) does have knock-on effects:
It buys Japan six months and two more a-bombs.
Mike Turcotte
It buys Japan six months and two more a-bombs.
Mike Turcotte