Japan attacks somewhere else other than Pearl Harbor?
- Thread starter Starforce
- Start date
Starforce
Banned
Didn't see any.
I'm not sure exactly how they would do this, but what would it take to invade and take the Panama Canal?
McPherson
Banned
Actually not a bad move if they had the special forces for it in conjunction with Pearl Harbor. It would 2x the American naval problem if they succeeded.
1. You need 2 dozen fast oilers. Don't have enough.
2. You need to re-engine and re-gun the IJN capital ship fleet.
3. You need better destroyers.
4. The minimum flattop fleet for mission is 9 units but you only have 6.
5. The USAAF has a say and you head right into their TEETH.
6. You forgot KANSAS, OHIO, MISSOURI and especially NEW YORK, GEORGIA and CONNECTICUT. That is where US aviation is actually designed and built.
Last edited:
At last three divisions with sustained battleship and carrier support, which isn't happening in a million years for all the same reasons it's not happening on Oahu.
And that's just based on what was there in 1939.
McPherson
Banned
Which is why a commando/sabotage operation to blow the locks and the sustainment dam is the only way and why I think
nbcman
Donor
It would take a miracle.
Also the Coastal defenses such as Fort Amador.
Plus two mobile 14" guns that could traverse the canal
14-inch M1920 railway gun - Wikipedia
Popular Mechanics
Popular Mechanics inspires, instructs and influences readers to help them master the modern world. Whether it’s practical DIY home-improvement tips, gadgets and digital technology, information on the newest cars or the latest breakthroughs in science -- PM is the ultimate guide to our high-tech...
books.google.com
Let us look at the basics again:
The Japanese goal was to get US out of the way so the 'Southern Resource Areas' could be occupied, gaining the resuorces to conquer China.
Only way to achieve this was to hit US hard. And as a bonus, the US - cowards as they are - would sue for peace.
Where did we see any concentration of US naval power? PH
San Diego? not so much in December '41
Maybe it could have been done better/smarter/faster/etc, but there was only one place to cripple US naval power in the Pacific - only one way of slowing US down enough for Japan to achieve its goals.
I also think we have some 3-4 threads on the same topic?
The Japanese goal was to get US out of the way so the 'Southern Resource Areas' could be occupied, gaining the resuorces to conquer China.
Only way to achieve this was to hit US hard. And as a bonus, the US - cowards as they are - would sue for peace.
Where did we see any concentration of US naval power? PH
San Diego? not so much in December '41
Maybe it could have been done better/smarter/faster/etc, but there was only one place to cripple US naval power in the Pacific - only one way of slowing US down enough for Japan to achieve its goals.
I also think we have some 3-4 threads on the same topic?
Starforce
Banned
If they struck Pearl Harbor, and the Panama Canal, that'd be quite a blow wouldn't it? America would be much more enraged. Would this encourage the US to hold onto the Canal?
Wasn't exactly whacky.. Just no Cary through and no way to stop the USA from just sitting and waiting and rebuilding...
Ie if they could take out pearl.. And manage to inhibit production then sure, they had no way to do the second part.
Even a third option that is pretty far out such as disabling the canal... Unless they can keep up said damage.. Eh
Deleted member 94680
Are we... are we seeing the birth of a new genus of USM?
All the unmentionable pinniped threads are collected, time for “alt Pearls” to be as well?
Uh... Duh? It's a massively strategic canal, they're going to hold onto it if it's the last thing they do.
Leaving aside the plain impossibility of doing both.
Japanese logistics were stretched extremely thin with the PH raid and other offensives, sending even say a couple of merchies packed with troops below decks, which probably wouldn't work, would be hard
1. You need 2 dozen fast oilers. Don't have enough.
In what alternate history? Are you sure you're not totally missing the point here? After being on the sunny side of one of the most lopsided sea battles of all time precisely because the other lot didn't have a fleet train- the Russian Baltic Fleet at Tsushima- it's not that much of an AH stretch to have them put two and two together.
2. You need to re-engine and re-gun the IJN capital ship fleet.
In order to serve the operational concept that you have in mind, whatever that is? Doesn't seem to be the same as mine.
3. You need better destroyers.
For...again what concept? In principle yes, you always need better destroyers, which leaves this somewhere between an empty tautology and a data point without a set.
4. The minimum flattop fleet for mission is 9 units but you only have 6.
Are you from Boskone? Or worse yet, Frunze? Didactically precise comment without context, I can but presume that you are referring to Soviet Operational Art. 'More than the other guy, factoring quality, readiness, position and operational expectations into "more" ' is the actual requirement and always has been.
5. The USAAF has a say and you head right into their TEETH.
In 1941? They improved with practice - they began as bloody abysmal. Hit them hard enough early on and you stunt their growth anyway, which was kind of the point.
6. You forgot KANSAS, OHIO, MISSOURI and especially NEW YORK, GEORGIA and CONNECTICUT. That is where US aviation is actually designed and built.
Lots of headquarters and design shops say otherwise, and well, if you think that lot is feasible from a carrier in the Pacific, admittedly Hornet flew off B-25s, but you can't just transpose the digits.
The only way to hit New York- and Grumman and Electric Boat- hard enough to hurt would be to get a team together from Unit 731 to covertly release enough bubonic plague and anthrax in the New York subway system to...actually that might be feasible. Supremely nasty, but doable.
[/QUOTE]
In what alternate history? Are you sure you're not totally missing the point here? After being on the sunny side of one of the most lopsided sea battles of all time precisely because the other lot didn't have a fleet train- the Russian Baltic Fleet at Tsushima- it's not that much of an AH stretch to have them put two and two together.
2. You need to re-engine and re-gun the IJN capital ship fleet.
In order to serve the operational concept that you have in mind, whatever that is? Doesn't seem to be the same as mine.
3. You need better destroyers.
For...again what concept? In principle yes, you always need better destroyers, which leaves this somewhere between an empty tautology and a data point without a set.
4. The minimum flattop fleet for mission is 9 units but you only have 6.
Are you from Boskone? Or worse yet, Frunze? Didactically precise comment without context, I can but presume that you are referring to Soviet Operational Art. 'More than the other guy, factoring quality, readiness, position and operational expectations into "more" ' is the actual requirement and always has been.
5. The USAAF has a say and you head right into their TEETH.
In 1941? They improved with practice - they began as bloody abysmal. Hit them hard enough early on and you stunt their growth anyway, which was kind of the point.
6. You forgot KANSAS, OHIO, MISSOURI and especially NEW YORK, GEORGIA and CONNECTICUT. That is where US aviation is actually designed and built.
Lots of headquarters and design shops say otherwise, and well, if you think that lot is feasible from a carrier in the Pacific, admittedly Hornet flew off B-25s, but you can't just transpose the digits.
The only way to hit New York- and Grumman and Electric Boat- hard enough to hurt would be to get a team together from Unit 731 to covertly release enough bubonic plague and anthrax in the New York subway system to...actually that might be feasible. Supremely nasty, but doable.
[/QUOTE]
BlackDragon98
Banned
Germans pulled off Norway the same way.
Possible, but hard.
SNLF troops should do the job if the deception is a success.
The German merchants loaded with supplies and men were only used after naval units captured the ports. This is against 28,000 men of the US Army, not to mention coastal artillery and warships, a sabotage mission might work, but you can't TAKE the canal without a large assault force-tens if not hundreds of thousands of men
What are the Japanese sacrificing to get these ships? They weren't exactly swimming in money during the Interwar period, there's a strong argument to be made that Japan had maxed out its shipbuilding budget during this period just building what they started the war with and the massive expansion from the late 1930s on was made on the government equivalent of a credit card.
Presumably, something less monomaniacly focused on surface combat as Japanese destroyers tended to be. Something more focused on AAW and ASW
The bombers may not be much of a threat, but I would not want to take the Kido Butai against the kinds of fighter fleets the Continental US could throw up.
It doesn't really matter how much aviation capacity is on the West Coast. The Japanese have a very limited ability to actually stop production with carrier aircraft. The kind of aviation-industrial complexes in Southern California are kinds of targets you work over for months with a thousand heavy bombers, not a few carrier deckloads. At best this disrupts production briefly before everything goes back online.
Driftless
Donor
On a Panama Canal attack. I think from the degree of difficulty standpoint, I would be a commando-type operation to damage lock controls. The locks on both ends are far enough from the respective sea shores to make naval bombardment very iffy.
It would be near impossible for a strong carrier or battleship fleet to get within striking distance, while passing through some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Also, I'd think it difficult to really damage those locks and other hard structures via naval aviation.
It would be near impossible for a strong carrier or battleship fleet to get within striking distance, while passing through some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Also, I'd think it difficult to really damage those locks and other hard structures via naval aviation.
BlackDragon98
Banned
I didn't mean an take and hold.
Sabotage is the only way.
Blow the locks and the Canal kaput.
Yeah that's what I've been saying-I posted the idea of taking out the Canal and people started talking about taking the Canal
An actual naval strike on Panama means no attack on Pearl. A commando strike on the locks would be plausible. But it will still only delay the inevitable. The necessary ships for the Pacific have to go around South America, it takes long, but they will get there.
I wonder if they'd be able to transports the necessary ships, in parts, to the west coast over land... No? I'll be off then. *runs away*
I wonder if they'd be able to transports the necessary ships, in parts, to the west coast over land... No? I'll be off then. *runs away*