What if your average Japanese Invasion of the Hawaiian Islands Scenario occurs but is successfully repelled with relatively low casuallties to the Americans, beyond OTL's Pearl Harbor attack. How could this happen? and what would be the effect if it did?
AHC/WI: Japanese Invasion of Hawaii ends in disaster
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
I've actually been playing with this, mainly so when it comes up, someone can say "look here" and be done with it.
What sort of invasion force might be assembled for a landing on Hawaii? I think the Japanese were really stretched thin in terms of manpower in their simultaneous attacks on British, Dutch, and American holdings in the Pacific Rim and SEAsia in December 1941.
The Japanese were planning an attack on Oahu for sometime in the Fall of '42, had they won Midway and gone ahead with the follow-on operations (Fiji-Samoa, New Caledonia, then Johnston/Palmyria). Three divisions (2nd, 7th, and 57th), plus a tank regiment, engineers, additional artillery, etc. When Midway ended the way it did, the FS operation and all other follow-on ops were cancelled. Hard to mount those with four of your six heavy carriers now on the bottom....
I'm doubtful that the United States can be made any angrier than it already was IOTL, so I suppose the big difference would be the inability of whatever forces were committed (and presumably lost) to the Japanese attack. Fewer forces available against Wake or the Philippines comes immediately to mind. On the other hand, a positive confirmation of the Americans' OTL invasion fears might draw even more of their own forces away from those areas.
Indeed. The number of them that would work with an invading Japan is vanishingly small (probably countable on one hand).
redlightning
Banned
An actual invasion of the Hawaiian Islands might extend the war by a few months at most, but it will be limited and easily repelled by an American response as all other occupied US territories at the time. It will be quick because the islands are so close to the West Coast and so small in size. The Japanese will never take and hold Hawaii for long.
Tohno
Banned
I doubt it. Many Japanese in Hawaii for example were not U.S. citizens even.
In OTL they were not deported because they were too valuable to the sugarcane fields.....even though they were the only Jpaanese who provided aid/shelter to those who hit Pearl Harbor. There prolly would be some nominal executions at most.
Given what Nation of Islam and whatnot got away with for example....
they did assist downned zero pilots in OTL.
Hell, there are still Hawaiian royalty alive in that timeline. They can pull a Manchuko and reestablish a Hawaiian kingdom.
sharlin
Banned
For an invasion of Hawaii to take place you need three miracles.
Miracle No 1. The IJA must agree with the IJN and give the troops over to take part in the invasion.
Miracle No 2. The IJN must somehow scrape together enough transports to support a successful invasion force.
Miracle No 3. For all of this to not go undetected by the US. Hawaii was already a considerable fortress before Pearl Harbour, but after it had something in the region of 45000 ground troops and support personnel defending it, not counting the Naval crews who could easily be armed and used to fight. An assault on Hawaii would be a bloodbath for the IJA.
Also to anyone seriously looking at an invasion of Hawaii. Read this first.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
Then come back to us.
Miracle No 1. The IJA must agree with the IJN and give the troops over to take part in the invasion.
Miracle No 2. The IJN must somehow scrape together enough transports to support a successful invasion force.
Miracle No 3. For all of this to not go undetected by the US. Hawaii was already a considerable fortress before Pearl Harbour, but after it had something in the region of 45000 ground troops and support personnel defending it, not counting the Naval crews who could easily be armed and used to fight. An assault on Hawaii would be a bloodbath for the IJA.
Also to anyone seriously looking at an invasion of Hawaii. Read this first.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
Then come back to us.
Because the nisei and sansei are so loyal to a nation that they were never part of.
Many legally immigrated, and their children were.
You mean the Niihau incident?
The actions of the entire 3-man population on the most isolated island in the Hawaiian islands do not speak for the rest of the population.
As I just said, three people do not represent the entire Japanese population of Hawaii.
Only the most diehard royalist would even try to take that throne.
Isn't this scenario the Pacific War equivalent of the USM?
I thought that was the Japanese invasion of California?
Why hasn't anyone written that one up..???
I thought that was the Japanese invasion of California?
Why hasn't anyone written that one up..???
One cannot simply ship in to Mordor....I mean California!
California is a long way from any Imperial Japanese held ports, and as such an invaison fleet may have to be somewhat substial in size, and hence easy to detect, it's just a folly from the very beginning in principle...let alone practice.
On the otherhand, had Imperial Japan taken a line out of the British book to build singular very large troopships that could carry several thousand personale each, they could have in principle given any of the 'undefended Allied Islands' a huge run for they money. If even a couple of such vessels could make it to Alaska and offload then that could have been a serious wake up call for America/Canada. However it would not help the Imperial Japanese and would just hasten their defeat.
Indeed, doctrinally the Japanese Navy wasn't all that in favour of large troopships for historical reasons of them being time consuming to unload, and that is why the Japanese in the 1930s developed smaller landing craft for that very purpose of being able to allow a larger troopship to be able to unload quickly and/or on a contested coastline.
The notion of a Japanese Invaison of Hawaii is borderline ASB, had they pulled it off (unsucessfully) they would have made far fewer gains elsewhere in the Pacific during the initial phases of the conflict.
One might argue this does them some favours for possibly resources will not be squandered in Guadacanal and other regions of conflict, and hence operations may be more intense in Malaysia, Borneo and the Phillipines, but it also gives the Allies a much more massive naval flexibility if more Indonesian/Guinea bases are left avalible.
This will lead to the Japanese getting ruined at sea perhaps as much as a year eariler depending on how the engagements play out.
A successful taking of Hawaii could possibly mean that the Japanese may be able to capture an American warship or two, but it is fairly unlikely, yet even if scuttled, it leaves Pear Harbour a poorer port for the Americans when they recapture it. When that recapture operation occurs...well I might doubt its sooner, and may suggest it's later, yet if the Japanese go full victory diease and capture all the other American holdings in this time then the American psyche might be far more wounded.
Of course if the Japanese concentrate here, they don't in south-east Asia, and they leave their logistics shipping woefully exposed.
The Americans will therefore stave those garrisons out via logistics interdiction and win the pacific war fairly bloodlessly on the American part.
What we often forget is that these islands are totally insignificant land masses that are only valuble for naval points of call, the Japanese trading land and blood for time and morale was a gamble that failed, but it had a lot of sense behind it....burning your bridges and exacting a terrible price for something barely worth it. The gamble failing because the Americans were so angered from events at Pearl Harbour.
In the case that the Imperial Japanese fought like they did at Iwo Jima and Okinawa but instead at places like Johnston Island, then the American Generals may really wonder about continued fighting, if they don't stave out the garrisons.
Yet, the Japanese may not go for the 'defense perimeter' strategy if they have well and truely succeeded. Instead they may opt to trade land for ambush.
What we can only say is in the long run, the vunerability of the Japanese Navy in terms of industrial capacity compared to the US, means that long term the US is going to 99 times out of a 100 going to win the naval war, and therefore the war in the Pacific.
sharlin
Banned
Lets not also mention the difficulty of supplying the islands once captured. Hawaii was dependent on food imports as it could not sustain its population. The Japanese would have to ship food to the island for their troops and the civilian populace if they wanted to keep them passive, but then again this is the IJA and they had a *great* record when it came for looking after a conquered populace...
They would also have to ship in oil for their aircraft and ships based there. It would be a logistic nightmare and the US subs, even with wonkey torps that now might be fixed earlier would have a field day considering the IJN went 'Fuck the police!' when ever someone mentioned the evil word 'convoy'.
They would also have to ship in oil for their aircraft and ships based there. It would be a logistic nightmare and the US subs, even with wonkey torps that now might be fixed earlier would have a field day considering the IJN went 'Fuck the police!' when ever someone mentioned the evil word 'convoy'.
there were quite a large depot of oil at Pearl Harbour but yeah, it would be depleted after a while (or blown up during the battle) and all the other supplies would need to be transport.
the only change Japan has is an unnatural invasion of the island followed by a quick evacuation after destroying the ships and the harbour.
the only change Japan has is an unnatural invasion of the island followed by a quick evacuation after destroying the ships and the harbour.
something like that. and like a burglary it won't be cost/risk effective. Japan would most likely fail.