A different Washington Naval Treaty

As we know it, maybe, but not the attack itself. That was driven by perceived strategic need & internal politics. It wouldn't cease to be just because there were no CVs. In fact, it might end up being more devestating.:eek: Picture a handful of IJN heavies shelling the tank farm.:eek::eek::eek::eek: And Kimmel sortieing the Fleet--& losing his heavies in deep water.:eek::eek::eek: You thought 2400 KIA was bad.:eek::eek::rolleyes:
That would be counter to every Japanese plan, which emphasized attriting the US Battle Line First then engaging it at a place of their choosing, they are not going to risk their fleet on such a foolish endeavor that would require them to get a lot closer before attacking meaning they would likely not be undetected

This assumes they have the fuel, they likely will not as Battleships use more fuel than carriers and they will be bringing at least 8 and have to go at least 300 miles further, OTL they used every trick they had and the escorts almost ran out of fuel, here it will be far worse
 
Not to mention having to get within 10 to 15 miles of the coast undetected as opposed to 300 miles, and having to get back out of range of any surviving US ground-based power, which would take at least ten hours. Granted, the US land-based airpower was near worthless hitting ships early on in the war, but the Japanese wouldn't know that.

That would be counter to every Japanese plan, which emphasized attriting the US Battle Line First then engaging it at a place of their choosing, they are not going to risk their fleet on such a foolish endeavor that would require them to get a lot closer before attacking meaning they would likely not be undetected

This assumes they have the fuel, they likely will not as Battleships use more fuel than carriers and they will be bringing at least 8 and have to go at least 300 miles further, OTL they used every trick they had and the escorts almost ran out of fuel, here it will be far worse
 
That would be counter to every Japanese plan, which emphasized attriting the US Battle Line First then engaging it at a place of their choosing, they are not going to risk their fleet on such a foolish endeavor that would require them to get a lot closer before attacking meaning they would likely not be undetected

This assumes they have the fuel, they likely will not as Battleships use more fuel than carriers and they will be bringing at least 8 and have to go at least 300 miles further, OTL they used every trick they had and the escorts almost ran out of fuel, here it will be far worse
I don't count the chances of it high. I do think, with the perceived necessity of eliminating the Pacific Fleet, something would have to be done.
 
I don't count the chances of it high. I do think, with the perceived necessity of eliminating the Pacific Fleet, something would have to be done.
Their plan was to threaten the Philippines and force the USA to come charging to the rescue while using carrier strikes, submarines and night torpedo attacks to damage the US battle line before a decisive engagement, then pull back, repair, refit and rearm to do it again to the US Atlantic Fleet, at which point lacking a Navy they assume the US will negotiate

Without the Carriers it is probably impossible to touch the Pacific Fleet in port to any great degree
 
The treaty doesnt get signed, in all probability.

That, or it gets ignored or circumvented. Sort of like the way Germany ignored (submarines for example) or circumvented (training the LW in civilian service) the military terms of Versailles. The potential of air power was far too clear even by then for any nation to willingly give up carriers.
 
Their plan was to threaten the Philippines and force the USA to come charging to the rescue while using carrier strikes, submarines and night torpedo attacks to damage the US battle line before a decisive engagement, then pull back, repair, refit and rearm to do it again to the US Atlantic Fleet, at which point lacking a Navy they assume the US will negotiate

Without the Carriers it is probably impossible to touch the Pacific Fleet in port to any great degree
At one point the US navy had a plan to fully "co-operate" with this so carriers may not have been quite so essential.
 
I wonder, the Lex, and the Sara, both originaly had 8 inch guns, Could the US get away with calling them Cruisers?
docfl
 
Their plan was to threaten the Philippines and force the USA to come charging to the rescue while using carrier strikes, submarines and night torpedo attacks to damage the US battle line before a decisive engagement, then pull back, repair, refit and rearm to do it again to the US Atlantic Fleet, at which point lacking a Navy they assume the US will negotiate
Which was the classic plan, to be countered by Orange. By '41, IJN had already recognized "threaten" wasn't going to get it. Moreover, USN had abandoned the "charge to the rescue", so even invasion of P.I. wasn't going to produce the "decisive battle" both sides had previously anticipated. Did IJN know that? I can't say.

I can say IJN was never going to leave the field clear for IJA to dominate with the Southern Operation. The internal politics was a strong motivator for IJN's attack at Pearl to begin with. That does not go away, even if CVs do.
At one point the US navy had a plan to fully "co-operate" with this so carriers may not have been quite so essential.
They weren't. In fact, CVs were still mainly considered scouting units by IJN & USN both. Battle was expected to be decided by the gun line, as it had been for centuries. Nobody fully appreciated yet how much things had changed.:eek::rolleyes:
 
I can say IJN was never going to leave the field clear for IJA to dominate with the Southern Operation. The internal politics was a strong motivator for IJN's attack at Pearl to begin with. That does not go away, even if CVs do.
Yet without CV's there is no way to heavily hit the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The Gun Line would either not have the fuel to reach Pearl without throwing away the escorts and submarines could not do enough damage to matter

You are correct about internal politics however
 
Top