Japanese victory in the pacific war - is it really ASB?

While I know you are kind of joking being effective in combat when you get there doesn't mean much without the rest (oh and killing however many pilots due to difficulties in piloting it).
Oh, I know. I think what I would say is that I have to give the Me-262 an "Incomplete" grade.
 
Actually the Luftwaffe had much higher accident rates then the Western Air Forces. They operated with a more devil may care attitude, and suffered from a shortage of instrument rated pilots, particularly in the Fighter Arm. The rapid build up of the Luftwaffe in the mid 30's forced the Germans to cut corners. In the Winter of 43-44 the weather over Germany was so bad the 8th Air Force had to blind bomb by radar. The Luftwaffe Fighters still had to go up, an try to intercept the bombers. They lost very few fighters in combat, but suffered many times more operational loses.

As for the ME-262 it was an advanced program that was both delayed, and rushed. The Germans were short on the strategic metals needed to make heat resistant turbine blades. The throttle controls were a work in progress, leading to frequent engine stalls. Allied Jets were far more reliable, because the programs were less rushed, they had access to raw materials, and they had extensive testing programs. The Germans did hit on swept wings, so the Meteor, Comet, and Shooting Star were slower, by at least 50mph, but could turn better, and make quicker throttle changes. I also believe the ME-262 had a higher service ceiling as well.

The Germans seem to have built 1,200-1,400 Me-262's, but only 200-300 ever saw combat. Lack of fuel, and the general collapse of industry, and the transportation system in the last year of the war prevented many weapons, and supplies from being delivered to frontline units. Even when a large group of ME-262's were able to launch a mass attack, and shootdown 65 B-17's in one battle it had no effect on the Air War, Allied Air power was simply overwhelming. My favorite Attack Plane in WWII is the A-26 Invader. It had a top speed of over 350mph, and could attack ground targets at 300mph. She often carried 14, 50cal machineguns, 10, 5" HVAR rockets, and 2 tons of bombs. A few of them could really ruin you whole day.

Like the Civil War I'm very skeptical of any scenario were the Axis wins the war. The deck is just too badly stacked against them. They might have advanced further, and held out longer, but the writing was on the wall. Once all the Allies are united against them it's only a matter of time, and lives, the outcome is almost assured.
 
What about bringing the Soviet Union into the Axis in 1940, proceeding against the various Colonies in 1941/1942, having the UK finished off in 1942/1943, and proceeding to attack the US some time later?
 

nbcman

Donor
What about bringing the Soviet Union into the Axis in 1940, proceeding against the various Colonies in 1941/1942, having the UK finished off in 1942/1943, and proceeding to attack the US some time later?
A very long time later for any coalition of Axis powers to build enough ships to get to the Western Hemisphere...
 
Unless they take hold of captured British and French warships, then an invasion of USA is definitely possible. Canada is also right next to USA...
Those ships would likely sail for America if it looks like Britain would be lost. Which is very unlikely unless the British completely screw up in so many ways. Also the U.S. would have to be binge drinking lead paint to ever allow a hostile force to be built up in Canada.
 
What about bringing the Soviet Union into the Axis in 1940, proceeding against the various Colonies in 1941/1942, having the UK finished off in 1942/1943, and proceeding to attack the US some time later?
They could even take the Middle East, but how does that defeat the UK? At some point the Soviet Union and her Axis partners would have a falling out. Hitler wanted to attack Russia in 1924, and enslave the Russian People. Japan hated, and feared the ideology of Communism. Japan and Russia were competing for influence in China. They're all authoritarian powers, sharing no common values. Only their ambition, and greed could unite them on a temporary basis. They would turn on each other whenever it was to their advantage.
 
Unless they take hold of captured British and French warships, then an invasion of USA is definitely possible. Canada is also right next to USA...
I have to disagree. It took the massive industrial power of the UK, USA, and Canada years to build a fleet of transports, staging from Britain to land 5 Divisions in Northern France, and then months longer to shuttle the rest of the Allied Armies into France. Canada would still be fighting, so even if they can cross the Atlantic Ocean they have no land based air support. How does the Axis defeat the USN, and the USAAF? How long does the initial landing force have to hold out, till they can shuttle reinforcements across the Ocean?

The French Fleet has several up dated pre WWI Battleships, 2 small modern Battleships, 2 incomplete modern Battleships. 1 small slow carrier, some modern cruisers, a class of large destroyers, and some submarines. The RN would sail to Canada in the incredible unlikely event of a German Invasion of Britain. The RN being around makes an invasion of Britain a twilight zone episode. There is just no man in the high tower.
 
...Only their ambition, and greed could unite them on a temporary basis. They would turn on each other whenever it was to their advantage.
In 1940 there were active talks about the Soviets joining the Axis. And I would have been shocked if they had not turned on one another after a final victory too.
 
Unless they take hold of captured British and French warships, then an invasion of USA is definitely possible.
Only if they captured the entire Royal Navy and MN intact, and were able to crew both. And then built a whole lot of amphibious assault ships. And captured a large staging area within 100 miles of the American mainland. And the entire USN had already been sunk, and all American shipyards burned to the ground, and the entire USAAF was melted down for scrap.
 
Only if they captured the entire Royal Navy and MN intact, and were able to crew both. And then built a whole lot of amphibious assault ships. And captured a large staging area within 100 miles of the American mainland. And the entire USN had already been sunk, and all American shipyards burned to the ground, and the entire USAAF was melted down for scrap.
alien space bats.jpg
 
Given the race card had already been well and truly played against them (and by them as well), it's probably to not going work very well




Only isolationist doesn't mean stupid, plus there's no way the Japanese can win in time to stop the US manufacturing and population from steam rolling them. And once Japan attacks that's it you've poked the bear and the bear won't stay isolationist or at least won't until you are good and mauled




Only looking at the impact of them, they didn't have much impact.

Also you've taking some very specific and isolated items to highlight but the reality was German aerospace and naval technologies were not in advance of the allies in terms of air forces and navies (or air force and navy tactics, let alone air force and navy logistics)



While I know you are kind of joking being effective in combat when you get there doesn't mean much without the rest (oh and killing however many pilots due to difficulties in piloting it).
He apparently goes for flash over substance. German weaponry tended to be flashy at the war but didn't actually work well. They weren't ready for "Prime Time" but they looked cool.
 
Last edited:
Going back to the original question....

"While amateurs discuss tactics, professionals study logistics ". And Grand Strategists study economics, finance, production processes and timescales.

Any such strategist would realise Japan cannot win a war against the United States alone, let alone one when it is at war also with the British Empire, beleaguered though it be at the time. It can only hope to grap enough territory and resources to wear the US down. Then hope for a compromise peace that lets it keep what it really needs.

OTL the Japanese operations in the first six months of the war went far better than could be reasonably expected. They rolled double if not treble sixes each time. And there's no scope to add extra operations like an invasion of Hawaii without jeopardizing the seizure of Malaya and the DEI.

From a strategic POV the only other options would be to attack the European Empires only OR the US only. The disadvantages of leaving the Philippines, USAF and USN sitting astride the SLOCs to the Southern Resource Area rule that one out as other posters have said. In Japanese eyes even if it would make for an interesting TL.

The US only option is even riskier. The assumption that seizing Hawaii (IF possible at all), and maybe the Aleutians too, would lead the US to accept a status quo ante offer made a few months later is pretty risible. I'll leave it to Americans to express how unlikely it is. As to hoping that Britain etc. would be cowed into dropping their embargoes.... Churchill would seize the opportunity to DOW Japan to place the US under a moral obligation to the UK.

So they're too ASB even for Japanese strategists

We're left in mid -1942. The only strategic option I can see that helps Japan is to bolster its outer defences. Possibly Operation Final Strike to see of it can seal Australia off from the US.

No Midway operation, no Decisive Battle delusion.

But, you have to butterfly away the Doolittle Raid. Or stop Japan overreacting to it.
 
Last edited:
The assumption that seizing Hawaii (IF possible at all), and maybe the Aleutians too, would lead the US to accept a status quo ante offer made a few months later is pretty risible.
Even it rolls all sixes and takes Oahu, it would deeply compromise its ability to seize the oil resources of the Netherlands East Indies, which is the critical reason that drove the decision to to go to war in 1941 in the first place. It needs all the troops and logistics needed OTL to take the Philippines, and many of those were redeployed to the DEI campaign afterward.
 
The US only option is even riskier. The assumption that seizing Hawaii (IF possible at all), and maybe the Aleutians too, would lead the US to accept a status quo ante offer made a few months later is pretty risible. I'll eave it to Americans to express how unlikely it is.
Ironically, the Japanese attempting to invade Hawaii, or even capturing one of the islands, would shorten the war. Just not in Japan's favor.
 
Even it rolls all sixes and takes Oahu, it would deeply compromise its ability to seize the oil resources of the Netherlands East Indies, which is the critical reason that drove the decision to to go to war in 1941 in the first place. It needs all the troops and logistics needed OTL to take the Philippines, and many of those were redeployed to the DEI campaign afterward.
Precisely.

Its hope (vain) would have to be that the UK and DEI would stay neutral and drop the embargoes.
 
We're left in mid -1942. The only strategic option I can see that helps Japan is to bolster its outer defences. Possibly Operation Final Strike to see of it can seal Australia off from the US.

No Midway operation, no Decisive Battle delusion.

But, you have to butterfly away the Doolittle Raid. Or stop Japan overreacting to it.
Just on that, FS can't seal off Australia unless it goes as far as Melbourne. Sure, island-hopping through New Caldedonia, Fiji, Efate and so on can force the convoys further and further south - but it can't ever stop the Allies sending cargoes from New York -> Capetown -> Perth -> Melbourne.

I have serious doubts that the strategists of Imperial Japan ever owned an actual globe of the world.
 
Just on that, FS can't seal off Australia unless it goes as far as Melbourne. Sure, island-hopping through New Caldedonia, Fiji, Efate and so on can force the convoys further and further south - but it can't ever stop the Allies sending cargoes from New York -> Capetown -> Perth -> Melbourne.
Detouring the New Hebrides would add an extra week or so to travel times from the U.S., but otherwise...

The bigger problem is that Japan did not have the capability to take these islands. By August, the U.S. had a 30,000 man garrison on New Caledonia (including the Americal Division, perhaps the best in the U.S. Army at the time) and numerous squadrons; Samoa and Fiji had between 10 and 15,000 men garrisons. Throw in whatever carriers Nimitz plans to use to defend them, and you have a disaster in the making for the Combined Fleet if it tries. It might have got as far as Espiritu Santu and Efate, possibly, if it moved early enough and had some luck.

Otherwise, it would have been better off going all in in the spring to just secure Port Moresby and the Southern Solomons to complete its perimeter, and then just start digging in everywhere. It is not a winning strategy, but it's the least bad one, I think.
 
After securing the Southern Resources Area, Japan should have limited themselves in the Pacific to taking Port Moresby, and the Southern Solomon's. No Midway Operation. The only major offensive should have been to invade Ceylon. From Ceylon the Japanese Navy could threaten British lines of communication across the Bay of Bengal, and the Indian Ocean. A Japanese Submarine blitz against allied convoys to Suez in the Spring, and Summer of 1942 could have disrupted the North African Campaign at a critical junction.

One of the great Axis failures was not coordinating strategy. The Germans wanted the Japanese to take the Ceylon Option, and the navy considered it. However the army had little interest. The Japanese could rarely agreed to any joint operations, let alone one the Germans suggested. Of course after the disaster at Midway such and operation was out of the question. After Midway Japan was on the strategic defensive, and defeat was all but inevitable, despite any tactical victories they might achieve.
 
Top