Naval War Wank: The West v. Japan


There are two flaws in his calculation. First he based it on Japan's economic output in 1937, not 1941, and there is a big difference. In fact Japanese industrial output increased ten times between 1931 to 1941. One of the reasons the Japanese decided to go to war with the US was due to the overconfidence in this economic trend continuing.

By 1940 according to the timeline of this scenario, Japan would be stronger than that chart showed. Probably on par with France, and growing rapidly. With little threat of air raid on its industrial heartland, no war in China to bog it down, and being geographically closer to the action, Japan cannot be counted on to lose the war.

The second flaw is presenting the case as total war. Total war rarely exists. The US was not nearly as mobilized in WWII as the Soviets or Japanese. To say that "every ounce" of American might was put into the war effort is incorrect. Americans never had to face the kind of deprivation others did. Milk still got delivered, beef was still what's for dinner. Fact is, America didn't need to mobilize every ounce to win the war since it had such a massive industrial advantage.

So would a war between Japan and the Anglo-French alliance be a total war? It might be for Japan, but it's hard to see the alliance as committed to defeating Japan as they did with Germany. The threat just wasn't there.
 
What's this rubbish about British planes being bad?
The Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber going.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What's this rubbish about British planes being bad?
The Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber going.

I know I will live to regret this, but...

How, exactly, did you come up with that conclusion? It wasn't even the best torpedo bomber the FAA used during the war.
 
BHR, Markus, we have to work within the confines of the scenario posited by JJJ, which first of all isn't all that detailed, and second of all should be in the ASB section.

What he wanted to know was basically who would defeat who in an Anglo-French/Japanese Justland or Leyte Gulf style naval engagement on January 1st 1940, the conclusion which has been arrived by people who know more about the subject than me is that the Japanese would've walked it. We are not talking about an entire war here, be it land based or even purely naval based, but if we were, then yes, of course the Allies would eventually grind Japan in to dust as per OTL.
 

Markus

Banned
What he wanted to know was basically who would defeat who in an Anglo-French/Japanese Justland or Leyte Gulf style naval engagement on January 1st 1940, the conclusion which has been arrived by people who know more about the subject than me is that the Japanese would've walked it.

Ok, if we are just talking about one isolated battle that has each side fight with it´s OTL-1940 forces and not an actual war preceded by years of tension that will be the case. But this scenario is purely theoretical, not AH.
 
So would a war between Japan and the Anglo-French alliance be a total war? It might be for Japan, but it's hard to see the alliance as committed to defeating Japan as they did with Germany. The threat just wasn't there.

No, the Japanese knew what was in for them if they got involved in total war. Didn't the Japanese doctrine call for a 'descisive battle', forcing the enemy to commit inferior forces (in this case, some of the Anglo-French Battleships vs. IJN carriers) and then smashing them to pieces?

The Anglo-French alliance would commit considerable forces to meet the 'Yellow Peril' 'cos in this TL the only threat was Japan.
 
No, the Japanese knew what was in for them if they got involved in total war. Didn't the Japanese doctrine call for a 'descisive battle', forcing the enemy to commit inferior forces (in this case, some of the Anglo-French Battleships vs. IJN carriers) and then smashing them to pieces?

The Anglo-French alliance would commit considerable forces to meet the 'Yellow Peril' 'cos in this TL the only threat was Japan.

Japan knew they couldn't win a long war with the US, that doesn't extend to Britain and France. You say the alliance "would commit considerable forces", I say depends on what they would be fighting over. Allies go to total war to defend Indochina and Malaysia? I don't think so. It would just be a limited colonial war.
 
What, with battleships and cruisers? Has anybody mentioned Japanese Subs yet? Long Lances man, LONG LANCES!

Rember the IJN did not think of useing its Subs against merchent fleets they were trained to attack warships only . Also the long lance has a great range but most of them missed there targets then hit when fired at long range ..
Also rember the British and French navy torpedols were better then the US navies were up to 1943 .
 
Rember the IJN did not think of useing its Subs against merchent fleets they were trained to attack warships only . Also the long lance has a great range but most of them missed there targets then hit when fired at long range ..
Also rember the British and French navy torpedols were better then the US navies were up to 1943 .

That's the point. The IJN was trained to attack only warships, though carriers later were prioritized too. OK what effect could the IJN submarines cause? Marginal effects?
 
Most probably Japan would try to use the torpedo tactics they planned to use on the USN before coming up with the PH strike idea. The aim was to have a series of torpedo ambushes from subs, carrier aircraft and light forces to whittle down the enemy heavies prior to the 2nd Tsushima. This is far more in line with Japanese intentions than the wonderful, but very novel and not even thought of, massed carrier strikes that people seem to assume that Japan was using in 1939.

The IJN expected and needed a 15% torpedo hit rate to achieve their goals against the USN, but in 1942 only achieved 12%. Against the RN I think the IJN would fare far worse since the RN had trained intensively for these sorts of action as a result of the poor showing of their light forces in WW1.
 
Last edited:
Top