Japan wins the Battle of the Coral Sea

I once read and agreed to that if the battle of Midway would have resulted in a Japanese victory(all American carriers sunk, no Japanese) the Japanese would have island hopped their way towards Hawaii by December 1942. Midway was supposed to become a huge air and naval base to control the pacific with.
This is rather ASB, considering:

1. Japanese logistics and overstretched lines at that point.
2. The size of Midway. There isn't much of room to make Midway a major base. Midway was perfect as it was to exercise control over the immediate area surrounding it. That's why bombers and reconnaisance aircraft were stationed there: to observe, collect intelligence and strike on targets either in self defence or when opportunity rose.

However stacking up supplies, ammo, fuel and converting Midway to a major staging area for further large operations is rather difficult, considering the size of the island, the available infrastructure, its position (in the middle of nowhere) and Japanese logistics capabilities at that point.
 
The best the Japanese could have done was sink 2 carriers at Coral Sea, which would probably have meant no Battle of Midway, as the US would not have risked 2 carriers against 4 or even 6 fleet carriers.

Thus the Japanese may indeed capture Midway, turn it into a strongpoint and dug in. The US will however not be ready to strike back yet. Running out of targets (with the next US target being Hawaii), the Japanese have several possibilities now:

1. A campaign towards Alaska, mainly a war against US industry, fishing, etc in the area.

2. An Indian ocean cruise, pounding the British in India.

3. A larger committment in the Salomon islands.
 
Before Midway operation was decided on, wasn't there a Japanes faction that advocated a move South -East to isolate Australia?
So with a Japanese 'win' at Coral Sea - the Japanese would have headed off in the direction of Fiji - to restrict US supplies & reinforcements going to Australia.
Consequences: the US borrows a RN carrier earlier than OTL, and maybe the US offensive is by the USN rather than the twin-prong approach i.e. with MacArthur.
 
Excuse me, but how can "Germany First" be a US strategy in 1940, when:
1. The US not in the war in 1940.
2. Only Germany and Italy are in the war in 1940, with Japan still preparing.
???

Um. Nations can adopt war strategies before they're actually at war, you know.

The Roosevelt administration anticipated -- correctly -- that they'd probably end up fighting all three Axis powers. They got the details wrong (there was an assumption that it would be a replay of WWI, with war growing out of Lusitania-style atrocities in the Atlantic) but on the grand strategy, they were dead right.

The strategic discussions predated 1940 by many years. Google up the "Rainbow Plans", which were finalized in 1938 -- these were contingency plans for the US fighting one or more Axis powers, either with or without allies. (RAINBOW 5 was the one we ended up with, but the others are interesting too.)

What happened in 1940 was that the US planners decided (1) it was likely that, if we entered the war, we'd end up at war with all the Axis, and (2) if so, Germany First. The consensus was summarized in Admiral Stark's Plan Dog memo of November 1940, which won instant approval from Marshall and FDR.


Doug M.
 
Thus the Japanese may indeed capture Midway, turn it into a strongpoint and dug in. The US will however not be ready to strike back yet. Running out of targets (with the next US target being Hawaii), the Japanese have several possibilities now:

1. A campaign towards Alaska, mainly a war against US industry, fishing, etc in the area.

2. An Indian ocean cruise, pounding the British in India.

3. A larger committment in the Salomon islands.

1. The US starts sending more planes to Alaska, problem solved.
2. Japan does not have nearly enough oil to burn in doing so. It is running out of oil and there are better things to do with it than pounding the Brits in India. This is also a problem with 1
3. May be possible but if doesn't work the Japanese are in even worse shape than OTL. Gaudacanal cost Japan more than the island was worth.
 
Last edited:

Markus

Banned
The Battle of the Coral Sea was characterized by supreme confusion on all sides. Both sides land based recon planes produced a never ending stream of incorrect messages, number of ships, position of ships, type of ships. They usually got all of that wrong, very wrong. So wrong that a 1943 IJA inquiry stated even with the benefit of hindsight it was hard to make sense of the reports. It wasn’t any better on the allied side. As a result Takagi was sneaking up on Fletcher, but did not know Fletcher was ahead of him, just like Fletcher had no idea Takagi was behind him. Have one side do a better search and that sides most likely wins.

However, if Japan sinks both USN CV does that mean they can take Port Moresby? The Japanese Army was not good at set piece attacks on prepared defenders. In case the under trained Aussies are reasonably well equipped and well dug in a Japanese victory on the ground is not a given.

And even if the Japanese win that´s all they can do. Logistics make an invasion impossible, given that the distance from Port Moresby or the Solomons to Sidney is longer than that from Maine to Florida a blockade is not possible too.
 
1. The US starts sending more planes to Alaska, problem solved.
Is that so?
In OTL land based bombers were not highly effective in sinking IJN ships. Therefore one can advocate that an assault upon the Alaska coast could indeed have a respectable result on the United States in the region. Lots of merchants sunk, big propaganda effect.

2. Japan does not have nearly enough oil to burn in doing so. It is running out of oil and there are better things to do with it than pounding the Brits in India. This is also a problem with 1
Call me a fool here, but weren't oil resources secured at that point through the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Dutch East Indies? After all the Japanese did not have the foresight that they would lose the Dutch East Indies' oil at that point. With the Port Moresby secured they had another cornerstone in their defensive "belt", so they may have felt pretty secure.

I am not saying they would go all the way to the Persian Gulf with their fleet. But couldn't one expect them to send cruiser squadrons into the Indian Ocean going after the convoys, while the Kido Butai would strike Ceylon for example?

3. May be possible but if doesn't work the Japanese are in even worse shape than OTL. Gaudacanal cost Japan more than the island was worth.
Getting the aircraft carriers around Guadalcanal could mean that the Japanese would deny US vessels from approaching the area. Thus they could pound and bomb Henderson field and move more troops in by troop transporters, rather than the Tokyo Express. With more preparatory bombardment, better air surveillance with carrier borne aircraft and secure seaways, the US may find it difficult to resupply the Marines in Guadalcanal.
 
Is that so?
In OTL land based bombers were not highly effective in sinking IJN ships. Therefore one can advocate that an assault upon the Alaska coast could indeed have a respectable result on the United States in the region. Lots of merchants sunk, big propaganda effect.


Call me a fool here, but weren't oil resources secured at that point through the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Dutch East Indies? After all the Japanese did not have the foresight that they would lose the Dutch East Indies' oil at that point. With the Port Moresby secured they had another cornerstone in their defensive "belt", so they may have felt pretty secure.

I am not saying they would go all the way to the Persian Gulf with their fleet. But couldn't one expect them to send cruiser squadrons into the Indian Ocean going after the convoys, while the Kido Butai would strike Ceylon for example?


Getting the aircraft carriers around Guadalcanal could mean that the Japanese would deny US vessels from approaching the area. Thus they could pound and bomb Henderson field and move more troops in by troop transporters, rather than the Tokyo Express. With more preparatory bombardment, better air surveillance with carrier borne aircraft and secure seaways, the US may find it difficult to resupply the Marines in Guadalcanal.

When you can put as many planes in the air as the US could they didn't need to be the best. The US sank four carriers at Midway so they weren't that bad. Part of the reason it succeeded there was that it could (and did) put so many planes in the air that Japan couldn't stop them all. Any landing of troops in Alaska will be squashed in days as the US army starts shipping troops in massive amounts via trains in US/Canada and Canada might itself send troops.

The oil fields were badly damaged by the Dutch and Japan never got a lot of oil out of them. http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm By the time they were able to repair them they couldn't get their tankers past US subs in large numbers.


If it works, maybe. If it doesn't Japan loses even more ships and planes. Japan must also use much more oil to do that, which it doesn't have.
 
Is that so?
In OTL land based bombers were not highly effective in sinking IJN ships. Therefore one can advocate that an assault upon the Alaska coast could indeed have a respectable result on the United States in the region. Lots of merchants sunk, big propaganda effect..

the B17 was indeed a poor performer against ships, but the B25 and A20, using skip bombing tactics (which were developed late 1942) were deadly, as were land based Dauntless and Avenger bombers during the Guadalcanal campaign, as well as later in the Solomons campaigns of 1943 and later. Look at the Battle of the Bismark Sea for an example of just how deadly land based USAAF bombers could be.

Call me a fool here, but weren't oil resources secured at that point through the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Dutch East Indies? After all the Japanese did not have the foresight that they would lose the Dutch East Indies' oil at that point. With the Port Moresby secured they had another cornerstone in their defensive "belt", so they may have felt pretty secure..

the oilfields were indeed secured, however, in the book "The Prize" (a history of the oil industry, and an extremely thorough one) as well as other sources it is noted that the Dutch and American employees of the refineries sabotaged them in the DEI and did extensive damage, and by pure dumb luck an Allied submarine sank the transport carrying the specialists needed to quickly restore those to full production. The Japanese in addition used most of their reserves for the Midway campaign, and this severely impacted operations during the Guadalcanal campaign.

I am not saying they would go all the way to the Persian Gulf with their fleet. But couldn't one expect them to send cruiser squadrons into the Indian Ocean going after the convoys, while the Kido Butai would strike Ceylon for example?.

This was indeed an option, but only if the Japanese decided not to do the Midway campaign. They did not have the fuel to carry out full scale operations in both theaters (Pacific and IO) at the same time.

Getting the aircraft carriers around Guadalcanal could mean that the Japanese would deny US vessels from approaching the area. Thus they could pound and bomb Henderson field and move more troops in by troop transporters, rather than the Tokyo Express. With more preparatory bombardment, better air surveillance with carrier borne aircraft and secure seaways, the US may find it difficult to resupply the Marines in Guadalcanal.

The US did find it difficult to supply Guadalcanal, but sufficient numbers of aircraft were kept operational to destroy several day time reinforcement attempts by the Japanese, while the Battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were a draw and defeat for the US, but inflicted so much damage to the Japanese that their carrier air groups were gutted.

See here for my take on the most likely result of a Japanese victory at Coral Sea

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2283310&postcount=35
 
When you can put as many planes in the air as the US could they didn't need to be the best. The US sank four carriers at Midway so they weren't that bad. Part of the reason it succeeded there was that it could (and did) put so many planes in the air that Japan couldn't stop them all. Any landing of troops in Alaska will be squashed in days as the US army starts shipping troops in massive amounts via trains in US/Canada and Canada might itself send troops. .

Rail isn't an option, as there are no railroads connecting the US and Canada to Alaska in the 1940s..it is why the Alaskan Highway was constructed. However, the Inside Passage would have been easily secured for sea transport from Seattle / Vancouver to Juneau, and the awful weather in the Gulf of Alaska makes interdiction by the Japanese of US / Canadian convoys iffy at best (not to mention the extreme distance from Japanese bases).

Operations in that theater suffered higher casualties from the weather (on both sides) then enemy action, which is the main reason after securing Kiska the US did not pursue further operations in that area.

As to landing in Alaska, the Japanese would have found the lack of bases and support, the weather, and the terrain daunting to say the least. It took years for the US to build up a base structure there, and that is with superior US logistics and engineering capabilities and equipment.

The US would have had an easier time interdicting Japanese efforts to supply anything in Alaska via the Gulf of Alaska, as its with easy air and naval range of Vancouver, Seattle, Prince Rupert and Juneau. The weather would still have been a problem, so some Japanese convoys would have slipped through. But probably not sufficient numbers to maintain a force and build up a large basing structure (something the Japanese did not do well during the war in any case).
 
Rail isn't an option, as there are no railroads connecting the US and Canada to Alaska in the 1940s..it is why the Alaskan Highway was constructed. However, the Inside Passage would have been easily secured for sea transport from Seattle / Vancouver to Juneau, and the awful weather in the Gulf of Alaska makes interdiction by the Japanese of US / Canadian convoys iffy at best (not to mention the extreme distance from Japanese bases).
I would imagine that if the Japanese were trying to work their way up the Aleutians that the AlCan highway would be supplemented by rail - rail was extended to Fort Nelson long after WWII. It could have been built that far during WWII, if needed. Probably could build past that point, but I'm no railway engineer.
 
They might have been able too take away US presence in the Pacific in total by sinking the Enterprise and Hornet and invade Hawaii.
Japan could never, repeat never, control the Pacific uncontested. Invasion of Hawaii was a Yamamoto opium dream. Victory at Coral Sea might have led Nimitz or King to move USN forces, especially subs, back to Pearl, which has very beneficial effects on the commerce war, bringing Japan closer to defeat much sooner...
Forget Australia then, for them its over.
Australia was never under serious threat.
Next to that, the US mainland is at stake.
Only if Japan signs an alliance with the Romulans.
All of new Guinea would have been occupied, as well as the Solomons and maybe even new caledonia and Fiji.
Possible, presuming Yamamoto doesn't demand Op MI anyhow. If he does, the balance is redressed in an afternoon.
No way for the allies to take them back untill the Japanese fleet was destroyed.
Really, really not. USN would have more carriers than Japan going into November '43. Stronger Japan in SWPA is liable to encourage a one-road CPac strategy, rather than the wasteful 2: Tarawa, Saipan, Oki. Presuming subs all in Pearl, these 2 factors could end the war by the end of '44.
who knows how the Japanese are faring in Burma and China. if they won that, they might actually have won the war overall.
LOL. Burma & China were enormous traps for IJA forces. (Allies, too, unfortunately...)
they would enter the USA and reach all the way, to my guess, Dallas before being stopped.
ROTFLMAO. I haven't heard anything so funny since a Cardinal told Buddy Hackett, "Absconde obeseri illegitimo.":D
Japan is bombed into submission by 1946.
I broadly agree, except the change in priorities, as noted, is liable to mean it wouldn't even take as long as OTL.
And this assumes that America does not even go back on Germany first as a temporary measure.
It didn't happen after Pearl Harbor; I see no reason it would TTL. A loss does have interesting knock-ons for ETO, tho. Presume 1-road PTO, a) more shipping is available to move troops (less tied up in PTO, not least 'cause it's not swinging at anchor waiting to be loaded/unloaded & b) more LC are available for ETO, so 1.) more 'phib ops can go in Italy (presuming the lunatic mainland campaign goes ahead:eek:) & 2.) Anvil can go simultaneous with Neptune. This likely means no Bomb used on Japan...which (as I've said often elsewhere here; are you tired of hearing it yet?:p) may mean nuclear war in the '50s...
Getting the aircraft carriers around Guadalcanal could mean that the Japanese would deny US vessels from approaching the area. Thus they could pound and bomb Henderson field and move more troops in by troop transporters, rather than the Tokyo Express. With more preparatory bombardment, better air surveillance with carrier borne aircraft and secure seaways, the US may find it difficult to resupply the Marines in Guadalcanal.
True. However, it presumes Japan believes there are more Americans in Guad, which she didn't. And honestly, more IJA in Guad was a bigger problem for Japan than for the U.S.; she could scarcely maintain the forces she did send.
3) They'd have to occupy Port Moresby, which would be a huge PITA and almost certainly more trouble than it was worth. All supply would have to come around the long tail of New Guinea, where it would be ridiculously vulnerable to Allied air, submarine and surface attacks.
I never thought of that.:eek: Y'know, that's a really good argument for keeping subs in Oz. It'd inflict severe attrition on IJAAF, too: even relatively minor battle damage & lack of spares took aircraft right out of action. (IJA didn't seem able to cannibalize parts, if Fire in the Sky is right.) More pressure on logistics means more opportunities for everybody's subs...not to mention 5h AF.
 
Last edited:

burmafrd

Banned
The IJN was actually fairly lucky at Coral Sea. Shokaku could have been easily lost as it was at Midway. Lexington could just as easily have not had that explosion and been at Midway as well.
 
Top