Can the Japanese Get Luckier in the Pacific War?

[CalBear]

In Robert Cowley's What If series there is one essay that postulates that if the Japanese had taken Hawaii, the US would be forced to take the Alaskan Option for the Pacific War. Instead of island-hopping in the middle of the Pacific, Alaska would be reinforced like crazy in order to base enough forces that would be able to lead a spearhead attack down the Aleutian Islands towards Hokkaido. One interesting idea here is that, if the US needed to invest in building superhighways and military bases from scratch in Alaska, that money could come from funds that would have gone to the Manhattan Project. The bomb would as such have been delayed, perhaps until after the war.

I doubt that scenario is very realistic, but it is interesting.

Taking Oahu isn't luck, its ASB.

As far as the OP, of course they could be luckier.

The sub that hit the Sara could have hit her with a full spread and not just one torpedo.

Hasey could have been 12 hours early on December 7th.

Yorktown could have been lost at Coral Sea.

A sub could have stumbled across the Doolittle TF as it approached Japan and taken out one or the carriers.

There are any number of possibilities. None of them matter. On or about June of 1944 the U.S. takes the Marianas. On or about August 10 1945 Japanese cities start disappearing in unscheduled sunrises. Game over.

 

[usertron2020]

There are a few possibilities for them to get lucky, yes. A really interesting one is a Japanese victory at Leyte Gulf. Even they had no delusion that this would somehow win them the war, but they did quite reasonably expect to be able to destroy the fleet backing up MacArthur's army. Halsey came very near to losing the Allies that battle IOTL. I wonder what happens in this scenario if the IJN destroys itself.....and destroys the fleet supporting MacArthur with it?

How would THAT impact the later period of WWII? Of course this *is* just "getting luckier" not "winning the war." That they need less luck and more a fleet of pro-Japan ASBs goostepping in perfect order.

Mr. Featherston

I fell for a poorly researched (and published) short story on this basis. When I brought it up on AH.com, I got severely slapped down for not being aware of the 36+ destroyers that were laying in wait for the Japanese even if they HAD fought their way through Taffy. Coming towards the anchorage completely disassociated and arriving piecemeal as a squadron the Central Force would have been easy meat for all those DD's torpedo attacks (not to mention that this time the US destroyer crews will be in better shape and the torpedoes are now working 100%). Other than the Yamato herself the Central Force wasn't in too great a shape by this time.

I am going to PM you on some more about this.

 

[Hyperion]

USS Saratoga was torpedoed twice in 1942, and survived both attacks to live and fight another day. Either one of these events could have gone the other way. The second torpedoing would have been especially bad as it happened right around the time the USS Wasp was sunk. Loosing two carriers in a short amount of time would have been a morale blow to say the least.

 

[marcus_aurelius]

By "luckier" do you mean "Japan came out of the war less damaged" or "more initial success earlier on"? Because, quite frankly, they can't win the war. At all.

Marc A

P.S. I have a question of my own: suppose McClusky's bombers missed the Japanese carriers completely, and the IJN won the naval Battle of Midway, how would things develop from that point on?

 

[BlondieBC]

In Robert Cowley's What If series there is one essay that postulates that if the Japanese had taken Hawaii, the US would be forced to take the Alaskan Option for the Pacific War. Instead of island-hopping in the middle of the Pacific, Alaska would be reinforced like crazy in order to base enough forces that would be able to lead a spearhead attack down the Aleutian Islands towards Hokkaido. One interesting idea here is that, if the US needed to invest in building superhighways and military bases from scratch in Alaska, that money could come from funds that would have gone to the Manhattan Project. The bomb would as such have been delayed, perhaps until after the war.

I doubt that scenario is very realistic, but it is interesting.

I can assure you Hawaii is not realistic.

 

[Johnrankins]

Ummm... Yes, the Japanese could have gotten a lot luckier. They could have lost earlier, with far few civilians killed.

Best answer yet!!!!

 

[usertron2020]

I can assure you Hawaii is not realistic.

Pre-Midway, with "Victory Disease" in full swing, the Japanese themselves determined it would require the assistance of an ASD (Alien Space Dragon).

 

[WSoxfan]

The best luck the Japanese could get would be to not get the victory disease and to fight a war of attrition and hope for a negotiated peace. A war of attrition could keep Japan's carriers alive longer, and thus prolonging the war( or maybe causing a peace).

 

[usertron2020]

The best luck the Japanese could get would be to not get the victory disease and to fight a war of attrition and hope for a negotiated peace. A war of attrition could keep Japan's carriers alive longer, and thus prolonging the war( or maybe causing a peace).

The problem for Japan was that everything had gone so easily for them that plans for Coral Sea and Midway were drawn up as if the US would act exactly as they wanted. To keep being "lucky", that would have to continue.

I personally feel that no matter what the level of Japanese victories in an ATL Coral Sea and Midway, the IJN's plans for New Caledonia would have represented for Japan their having "Gone An Island Too Far".

 

[Hyperion]

There are any number of possibilities. None of them matter. On or about June of 1944 the U.S. takes the Marianas. On or about August 10 1945 Japanese cities start disappearing in unscheduled sunrises. Game over.

No offense CalBear, but as good of a writter and researcher as you are, you make this comment a lot. I can't believe someone like you is so close minded, or possibly a bit racist.

 

[Snake Featherston]

No offense CalBear, but as good of a writter and researcher as you are, you make this comment a lot. I can't believe someone like you is so close minded, or possibly a bit racist.

Given the peacetime USA was working on building a fleet that would have flatly overwhelmed Japan, added to by the economic miracle of the wartime USA.......he's understating it. The details of Japan's defeat can change but not that defeat in itself.

 

[Hyperion]

Given the peacetime USA was working on building a fleet that would have flatly overwhelmed Japan, added to by the economic miracle of the wartime USA.......he's understating it. The details of Japan's defeat can change but not that defeat in itself.

I don't deny the inevitable. In the end, Japan looses, it's just a question of how bad the butcher's bill is for them.

What I do remain skeptical about is how they loose. I don't see them being able to take Hawaii. I agree that that is ASB.

That being said, the idea of them doing something elsewhere which throws off the US and/or other allied forces for say three to six months, to me, isn't out of the question.

I also don't take into consideration the possibility of someone in the US or British or Australian camp doing something stupid and the Japanese being able to take advantage of it somehow.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I don't deny the inevitable. In the end, Japan looses, it's just a question of how bad the butcher's bill is for them.

What I do remain skeptical about is how they loose. I don't see them being able to take Hawaii. I agree that that is ASB.

That being said, the idea of them doing something elsewhere which throws off the US and/or other allied forces for say three to six months, to me, isn't out of the question.

I also don't take into consideration the possibility of someone in the US or British or Australian camp doing something stupid and the Japanese being able to take advantage of it somehow.

It doesn't really matter as the Allies have the PEACETIME US Navy plus the WARTIME one which together have the capacity to simply spam Japan in weaponry. Even if the war's a foregone conclusion it doesn't mean the poor people condemned to fight it are any less dead/wounded/maimed.

 

[tchizek]

No offense CalBear, but as good of a writter and researcher as you are, you make this comment a lot. I can't believe someone like you is so close minded, or possibly a bit racist.

I point you to This link and the fact that between 1942 and 1943 the US produced over 80, count them 80 carriers. Yes most of these were CVE but these were still flight decks. In the same time period the Japanese produced 6 carriers of all types.

The Japanese can get completely and totally lucky and sink every single ship the US has between Dec 7 1941 and June 1942 and not loose any ships, and by January 1944 they will be outnumbered by 6-7 to one. The longest possible delay they can impose - in this case is maybe 3 - 6 months. But that assumes the US follows the same path of taking the same islands that they took iOTL.

It just doesn't matter how lucky the Japanese get in the first 6-12 months, they are buried under a flood of ships, aircraft and troops by 1944 and in 1945 they start catching nukes. They can think they are doing better right up until things fall apart - the US is not in any mood to negotiate after Dec 7 1941. Maybe, just maybe if Japan declared war first and gave the US 7-10 days to prepare then just maybe the US wouldn't freak out about the losses but I wouldn't bet any money at all about that. Plus I am not convinced that they could pull a Pearl Harbor against an actually prepared Oahu.

 

[Brother Stormhammer]

We could always give the Japanese the best / worst luck scenario...they do much better at Leyte, and (for whatever reason) the LeMay Instant Sunshine company doesn't go into business. So...what does a better defense of the Home Islands and no nukes get them? Either an invasion (which would probably lead to the wholesale depopulation of the targeted islands, along with massive allied casualties), or a "blockade and bombardment" treatment that would've resulted in the essential destruction of Japanese society. I really can't see how their luck could possibly be better in the long term than it was in OTL. It's true that they suffered military defeat, and massive damage to civilian and military infrastructure, but when the smoke settled, the Emperor was still on his throne (Warhammer 40K flashback there!), their society was still relatively intact, and within 20 years they were an economic powerhouse. Not a bad outcome, all things considered.

 

[hairysamarian]

The best luck the Japanese could get would be to not get the victory disease and to fight a war of attrition and hope for a negotiated peace. A war of attrition could keep Japan's carriers alive longer, and thus prolonging the war( or maybe causing a peace).

Unfortunately, the "victory disease" dates at least to the Russo-Japanese war, when the Japanese defeated what was still a 19th-century opponent and came away with an erroneous sense of strength of their own military and tactics.

As for a war of attrition, well, that's what they got . And as noted multiple times by other posters in this and other threads, they didn't have a yellow snowball's chance in hell of keeping up.

 

[tchizek]

We could always give the Japanese the best / worst luck scenario...they do much better at Leyte, and (for whatever reason) the LeMay Instant Sunshine company doesn't go into business. So...what does a better defense of the Home Islands and no nukes get them? Either an invasion (which would probably lead to the wholesale depopulation of the targeted islands, along with massive allied casualties), or a "blockade and bombardment" treatment that would've resulted in the essential destruction of Japanese society. I really can't see how their luck could possibly be better in the long term than it was in OTL. It's true that they suffered military defeat, and massive damage to civilian and military infrastructure, but when the smoke settled, the Emperor was still on his throne (Warhammer 40K flashback there!), their society was still relatively intact, and within 20 years they were an economic powerhouse. Not a bad outcome, all things considered.

Many dead allied troops, many many dead Chinese civilians, many many many dead Japanese - orders of magnitude worse than OTL. Remember Halsey's quote about where Japanese would be spoken? It might very well be true by the end of this. The Allies would feel very guilty about it 20-30 years later - if anyone survived because without the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it becomes much more likely someone uses nukes after WWII during the cold war and it escalates out of control.

 

[CalBear]

No offense CalBear, but as good of a writter and researcher as you are, you make this comment a lot. I can't believe someone like you is so close minded, or possibly a bit racist.

Sorry you feel that way. It is the simple truth.

Japan could not defeat the U.S. Utterly Impossible. Germany could not defeat the U.S. either. Germany, due to geographic advantages, could have forced a stalemate in certain, exceptionally unlikely circumstances (all related to a combination of the USSR being defeated and the U.S./UK choosing not to force the issue).

The Japanese were not logistically capable of invading and holding Hawaii. The Japanese were not capable of competing with the U.S. building program. The Japanese lacked sufficient raw materials to survive a blockade and still produce weapons, to construct the higher performance aircraft engines that were needed to compete as the war progressed, and to simply feed its population without imports.

The United States had so much building capacity that it wound up abandoning as many battleships in advanced stages of construction (two) as the Japanese produced during the war simply because they were not needed. The United States built TWENTY SIX Essex fleet carriers during the war (again abandoning two in advanced stages of construction) and was mere weeks from commissioning the first of the Midway class (a ship class so advanced that, with modifications, served into the 1990s). Japan built four. The United States built more destroyers of a single class (the Fletcher class) than Japan build destroyers.

The United States had so much excess capacity that it built the Atom Bomb without causing even a hiccup in production. It spent $20 BILLION 2005 dollars just to produce one bomber class (B-29). The U.S. built 32,000 four engine bombers during the war. The Japanese produced less that 500 four engine aircraft of all types.

Japan had no hope. None. It is impossible to avoid the mathematics.

 

[Cryptic]

But, what I'm saying is, could the Japanese have been more successful than they were without stretching believability to the requirement of Alien Space Bats?

The Japanese battle plan (extremely complex as usual) had some real potential. Concievably, the Japanese could have created better luck.

Leyte was the first use of suicide planes and had the potential to give a devastating blow. The preperation and coordination of the Kamikazes, however, was horrible. Improvised planes manned by poorly trained pilots took off at random and with out escorts and then tried to find and crash targets.

Mnay more U.S ships would have been hit if the first use of Kamikazes was in mass, properly escorted, supported by good reconassiance of targets and using prepared planes (armoured, heavy planes when possible) flown by capable pilots.

Other possiblities for more success include:
-Airfields constructed in advance to give fleets better coverage
-straits swept for submarines

 

[BlondieBC]

No offense CalBear, but as good of a writter and researcher as you are, you make this comment a lot. I can't believe someone like you is so close minded, or possibly a bit racist.

It reflects the number of shipyards. Building a military-industrial complex takes decades. I doing some background work on very basic military production in west Africa in the 1910's for a timeline, and I can assure you their is a huge number of support industries and other factors that need to be their. Literate workforce, technical training process for metal workers, right port site, dry docks, heavy cranes, health infrastructure, railroad, iron mines, coal mines, metal foundry, advance metal foundry to produce harden steel plates, bauxite mines, aluminum smelters, hydroelectric dams, university system (need multiple of those), enough food production to feed workers, export industries to pay for what you can't produce locally, and on , and on.

Even something as simple as modifying a freighter to launch seaplanes is not simple to build from scratch. Or for that matter a small 5" gun factory. Japan would need to add another zero to all its industrial production to be competitive with the USA. Most of this production will need to be added in what is now mainland China. After a large area of China is fully under Japanese control, Japan will need to do all the things I listed above. Japan could have challenge the USA one-on-one, and won, IF China conquers the Yellow River basin in 1910 and begins the largest industrialization process the world had ever seen up until that point and somehow in the intervening 30 years makes the average "Yellow River Person" a loyal citizen of the Empire of Japan.

It would be racist to say that with a POD of 1880, the Japanese could have never had equaled the USA on production because of cultural flaws. It is not racist to point out existing industrial production levels.