Absolutely. The participants may have changed but the theatre hasn't. It's damn near impossible to fight a war in East Asia between two naval powers without amphibious operations as a key component, the geography demands it.
Commonwealth forces will be coming north from Singapore and Australia, in order to link up these two avenues before they reach Taiwan you need to effectively control (or at least deny to the enemy) virtually the entire Indonesian Archipelago, something that can't be done without landing troops.
 
I wonder if one of the lessons taken from this war will be amphibious warfare/beach landings? The first prototypes of the Landing Craft Assault were developed in 1938, and the war would certainly speed development/production up. Even if an invasion of Japan itself doesn't occur, it is likely there would be at least some island hopping during the war.
The Navy still have their MPL10s (Motor Powered Launches) and probably a few X-Lighters in stores for emergencies. So the question is, how long do they think the war will be? Start producing what you have now (MLP) or do they have time to wait for the LCA and hope it's better.

Long or short war, that's the question.
 

Deleted member 94680

By 1938 the British have only a few of the X-Lighters left. Most have been sold to
“private firms and shipping agents, and also to the governments of France, Egypt, Greece and 26 to the Spanish Government of which 11 survived the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, 27 were in the N. Russian campaign of 1919 of which 3 were lost. 1922/23, 16 lighters were taken to Malta (Malta being the support base for the Gallipoli campaign).
...
5 of the UK X lighters were used in the Dunkirk evacuation; all returned to Ramsgate.” Source:
X Lighters - the Black Beetles

That would imply that not that many were available to the British for an operation in 1938.
 
Time to reinvent the previous War stuff and hopefully expand it with new technology and ideas.
Well, the reinventing part is done at least, by this point the LCA already exists in prototype form. Now comes the fun part, retooling and producing. iOTL the LCA entered limited production in April of 1939. That could probably be moved up a bit given the much greater need iTTL.
 
Well, the reinventing part is done at least, by this point the LCA already exists in prototype form. Now comes the fun part, retooling and producing. iOTL the LCA entered limited production in April of 1939. That could probably be moved up a bit given the much greater need iTTL.
What changes might the Japanese make ITL?
 
Yes but other naval changes as well.
Well so far their landing doctrine from OTL has worked fine thanks to the sparseness of British forces in the region. As the Brits shift more of their weight into the region there will be fewer opportunities for unopposed/barely opposed landings so things like their BBs not partaking in shore bombardment will start to show. But by that point they may not be on the offensive anymore.

In terms of naval doctrine in general they actually haven't yet developed many of the standout features of OTL's Pacific War. There is no Kido Butai for instance, though I believe the experience at Borneo may hasten its development.

They may also try to work on night time carrier ops, but I think that may also require the development of new planes.

ASW was one of their worst failing iOTL, and they're already failing iTTL. Whether they can turn it around or not remains to be seen.
 
Well so far their landing doctrine from OTL has worked fine thanks to the sparseness of British forces in the region. As the Brits shift more of their weight into the region there will be fewer opportunities for unopposed/barely opposed landings so things like their BBs not partaking in shore bombardment will start to show. But by that point they may not be on the offensive anymore.

In terms of naval doctrine in general they actually haven't yet developed many of the standout features of OTL's Pacific War. There is no Kido Butai for instance, though I believe the experience at Borneo may hasten its development.

They may also try to work on night time carrier ops, but I think that may also require the development of new planes.

ASW was one of their worst failing iOTL, and they're already failing iTTL. Whether they can turn it around or not remains to be seen.
Very interesting. Do you think they'll still develop aircraft torpedoes that can be dropped in shallow water like they did for the Pearl Harbor attack?
I imagine PH will be butterflied here, can't see them getting the element of surprise.
 
Very interesting. Do you think they'll still develop aircraft torpedoes that can be dropped in shallow water like they did for the Pearl Harbor attack?
I imagine PH will be butterflied here, can't see them getting the element of surprise.

They got the idea from the FAA attack on Taranto so PH is a no go.
 
They got the idea from the FAA attack on Taranto so PH is a no go.
Yes, but the IJN had been looking at a Port Arthur style preemptive attack on the US battleline for a while, and aircraft and subs are about the only way to do that, so the IJN independently devising the operation is still a possibility.
 
9. And the rest of the world hadn’t stopped to watch [Part 2: the Americas]
Pinoy Problems: America’s colony caught between Japan’s pincers

The Dutch weren’t the only ones whose overseas possessions were located awkwardly in the middle of a warzone. America had much the same problem, though with the benefit, or drawback, of being the second greatest naval power in the world.

For America the Philippines was Key to America’s command of the Pacific. Or rather that’s what the army believed. To the army’s never ending disgust, the Navy had no intention of conducting a forward defence of Philippines, despite Manila being a Singapore-tier facility. Worse, as 1939 dawned the navy began discussing shelving its “through line to Manila”, intended to relieve the Philippines garrison, in favour of a more cautious approach to war with Japan. This change in conversation was brought about by the deteriorating situation in Europe. A two front war was perceived as likely.

As the US Army began to consider its own plans for a potential European war, the Philippines garrison found itself without a voice with which to influence the government. So it turned to its recently retired field marshal, America’s #1 boy scout,[1] Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur, then still a civilian advisor to Filipino President Quezon, had brushed elbows with many of the US’ political class, and was also a fairly popular figure. He would make an ideal public face for a lobbying effort to shore up the Philippines.

hqdefault.jpg

MacArthur at an interventionist rally, warning of the dire consequences should America shrink back to allow Japanese ascendancy.

The families of those serving in the Philippines, Filipino Americans, and those businesses with interests in the Philippines were not the only forces that lined up behind MacArthur. The influential China Lobby saw reinforcing the Philippines as a means to apply pressure to Japan. Another ally came in the form of political activist, nationally known lawyer turned executive, and part time interventionist, Wendell Willkie.

The Campaign for the Security of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was off to a rocky start. Non-interventionists like Charles Lindburg and Thomas Dewey had more clout. Additionally, Britain’s naval victory off Borneo had seemingly eliminated the threat of the IJN.

The campaigner’s one windfall came from the highest office. President Roosevelt was more than willing to commit to a small increase in troop numbers on the islands.[2] More importantly, though an executive order on the 1st of February 1939, he arranged for the US Pacific Fleet to be rebased in Hawaii, something that had been scheduled to happen anyways the next year, and ordered the preparation of a fortification scheme for the Pacific islands.


The Prodigal Son: Chile lends rents a hand to Britain

On the southern most extreme of the Americas lay a nation that had a special relationship with Britain.

The hero who helped it win its independence? British.

Its creditors? British.

Its navy? British built.

The previous year had seen a German funded coup attempt, and the present year saw friction between the nation’s military and Chile’s new left-leaning president, Pedro Aguirre Cerda. Worse, On the 25th of January an earthquake ravaged central Chile, inflicting tens of thousands of casualties and leaving the nation’s third largest city without power or running water.


It is under these circumstances that the British made an offer to acquire Almirante Latorre in exchange for additional monetary aid. Almirante Latorre had served under the Union Jack during the Great War as HMS Canada and since being received by Chile its one notable action had been to host a mutiny in 1931. It underwent a refit in 1937, but the improvements had been meager.[3]

Cerda was by no means eager to rent out his nation’s flagship. At the same time, he had a great need for a quick buck, and no inclination to be particularly charitable to the military. Further, he had Halifax’s word that the ship would contribute to the containment of Germany.

With the Chileans on board with the scheme, it just had to be ratified by parliament. And that meant disclosing it to parliament. And that meant letting Churchill know that the Foriegn Ministry had arranged to procure a superdreadnought on its own initiative.[4]

The argument Halifax presented, was that the departure of so much of the RN for the Far East had left him with no stick to carry in negotiations in Europe. HMS Canada was a British ship, with an armament (14”) that was heavier than that of the Italian (12”) and German (11”) battleships. Theoretically, Canada’s reacquisition would handily resolve the naval balance in Europe.

Churchill was miffed at the slight. Somewhere at the back of his head there was probably a voice telling him that logistics or crew constraints would make the matter of fielding Canada more complicated than laid out. But a much louder voice was yammering on and on about various schemes that could be enabled by having a battleship in the eastern Pacific. Canada would return to the Royal Navy, but not to Britain or anywhere else in Europe for that matter. No, Canada was to visit its namesake.

Almirante_Latorre1.jpg

HMS Canada near Esquimalt, British Columbia.

---

[1] Alternatively, Eisenhower would have one believe him to be America’s #1 hellbound playboy

[2] Actually FDR wanted a surge of troops to the area like the Dutch were doing, but he understood that America had no stomach for such at this time

[3] Most notably this refit added anti-aircraft cannons to the ship. Two of them. For a capital ship

[4] It was a fairly open secret that this was in part tit-for-tat retaliation for Churchill’s unilateral and undisclosed decision to disregard the Netherland’s neutrality.

Q: You actually posted on a Saturday?

A: Yes.

Q: So are we back to regularly scheduled programming?

A: That is my intention, though updates may well be shorter (like this one) now that I’m working full time again.

MacArthur entering politics? Churchill planning something brash and ill-advised? Tune in next week for the long anticipated China update!
 
Love it! She’s obviously not a frontline ship, but can free up frontline ships to go to the Pacific, as well as serve as a training ship if needed.
 
My, what COULD go wrong? Churchill is such a level headed guy and the Japanese would NEVER try to do anything in Philippians waters.
 
No HMCS Canada? Understandable, but ;(
Give it some time. After resupply and possible minor refitting in Esquimalt you can bet the lads in Victoria are going to be lining up for the chance to serve on a genuine battleship. Note that the RN sent the Almirante Latorre/Canada/Hand-Me-Down straight to BC, so it'll be most convenient to staff her with Canadians lead by whichever officers the RN can send. It wouldn't surprise me if before the end of the war Canada gets an extra 'C' in her prefix as the RCN's wartime expansion reaches the point where they can afford a flagship of that size/prestige.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
I think that the The French and Dutch are going to be a bit twitchy over their Far East possessions. The Japanese have attacked an uncommitted British Empire that was quietly minding its own business in the Far East. I suspect that simple prudence would encourage these Empires to send out some additional resources to their possessions. possibly in the form of some additional naval units and more modern equipment for their garrisons. the Americans would most likely do the same for the Philippines.

However, I’m not sure the Japanese would see it that way. their view might be that the Western Empires are increasing their military in the area to strike at the Japanese to support their ally/friend the British Empire. indeed this might encourage the Japanese to strike at everyone with the intention (similar to OTL) of capturing enough territory that the western powers would be forced to bleed so much to recapture it, that this strategy would force them to the negotiating table.
This is my thinking as well. Given what I know about how Japan thought of themselves compared to the colonial powers at the time, any buildup of forces in East Asia, no matter how reasonable and cautious it might seem to those doing the moving, is likely to be seen by Japan as antagonistic. This is why I kind of assume an attack on the Philippines is close to inevitable.
America: "Hm, not sure I can trust Japan to keep this between himself and Britain. I'd better move some extra guys over to Manila just to keep things safe."
Japan: "I KNEW IT! They're ALL determined to keep me down like China! I'LL SHOW THEM, BECAUSE PEOPLE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU WIN!"

I don't think the Japanese are destined to go nuts like that in this TL. Sure, they could think along the lines you describe in this TL, but they also do not have all these other countries, France, Netherlands, USA, under occupation or massively distracted like they did when they made the leap to attack them in OTL. If Japan's universal reaction to powers' beefing up their Far East forces was attacking, then they would have attacked the Soviet Union in OTL too, but they did not.

It may make some sense to treat the French and British as a unit because of their alliance in WWI and in contemporary Europe. While not as strong, there may be a case to treat the US as a loyal associate, especially if it does any embargoes in the aftermath of Anglo-Japanese war, because of its WWI association.

The Japanese really don’t have to regard the Dutch the same way though, the Dutch were neutral in WWI, and their territory isn’t necessarily a vital thoroughfare, as long as Dutch policy is neutral and the Dutch remain open to trade. The Dutch were always considered the least obnoxious and missionary westerners to the Japanese. I suppose there is *one* prior example of Dutch hostility against Japan (against a Japanese domain that was harassing foreign shipping) in coalition with other powers, back in the 1860s, but I’m not sure how relevant that is.
 
then they would have attacked the Soviet Union in OTL too, but they did not.
That's a fair point except for that last sentence, as the Battle of Khalkhin Gol demonstrates. Now, that particular event hasn't happened yet in this timeline but might still happen anyway, even with the war against Britain, since the border dispute with the Soviets is still unresolved and Japan really wants to secure their claims on China (and the Army is very jealous of the Navy getting all the attention in the early part of the war). KhalKhin Gol was yet another example of Japan making an opportunistic attack against an opponent they thought they could get an easy win against, the difference being they lost. The Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression treaty was signed soon after.

The trouble with the Philippines in this Anglo-Japanese War is that they are inconveniently in the way. Both sides are going to have to go past them to strike at the other but regardless of how officially neutral the US is will Japan ever believe they aren't inclined to support Britain if push came to shove? Japan hasn't taken an extra three years of casualties against China in TTL, so they might feel themselves quite capable of handling the Americans in Manila if an inciting incident convinces the leadership in Japan a conflict is inevitable, so they'd best make sure it happens on their initiative. I suspect the 'inciting incident' could be as simple as America (ironically) trying to act the peacemaker and telling Japan "Kindly stop fighting or we'll start cutting off your iron and oil exports" in the old carrot-and-stick routine they tried OTL only earlier because they like Britain more than China (and they rather like China).
If/when the US gets dragged into the war against its wishes all the exports that were fueling Japan's industrial base will get cut off. At the time (to the best of my knowledge) the Dutch East Indies are the largest source of available oil in Asia, so when American imports are cut off Japan is going to be forced to either come to the negotiating table or try to get it from the Dutch. All the Dutch have to say is "no, we're being neutral and not increasing sales to belligerents" for Japan to start planning the possibility for invasion, while if they say "yes, we'd be happy to sell you all the resources you want" the Netherlands will now be in hot water with the British, who are in an even better position to express their displeasure with the Dutch supplying their enemy. Of the two which do you suppose is more likely?
 
That's a fair point except for that last sentence, as the Battle of Khalkhin Gol demonstrates. Now, that particular event hasn't happened yet in this timeline but might still happen anyway, even with the war against Britain, since the border dispute with the Soviets is still unresolved and Japan really wants to secure their claims on China (and the Army is very jealous of the Navy getting all the attention in the early part of the war). KhalKhin Gol was yet another example of Japan making an opportunistic attack against an opponent they thought they could get an easy win against, the difference being they lost. The Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression treaty was signed soon after.
Kind of, it was also in response to a Soviet incursion against one of Japan's client states. They underestimated Soviet strength in the area, but some sort of military response was arguably justified.
 
Top