No IJN carriers

would they still attack PEarl harbor ? with torpedo boats /subs at night like they did with Port arthur ?
would they use shore based longrange Nel or Betty ?

what kind of war in pacific would have occured ?
 
I think either this is ASB, or we would see a land based invasion of the Soviet Union with the only naval action being in support roles.

The reason is that, with the advent of aviation, by the 1930s ship to ship combat was pretty much a thing of the past, and even a blind man could say that. Submarines have no use in a land based war. If Japan goes into WW2 with no carriers, she would still probably have had some early success against the Philippines and Indonesia/Singapore, but after mid 1942 she would (remember, no OTL Midway and Coral Sea,) have a huge nightmare. Even though America only had 3 carriers at the start of the war, that's still 3 more than Japan has ITTL, and we ended the war with 79, AFTER taking losses.

In other words, no Japanese carriers equals a stupid move on part of the IJN, and an earlier victory for the US.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No carriers = no chance.

The Bomber option is, frankly, impossible. Nothing the Japanese had in their bomber inventory had the range. They could have staged some sort of attack, albeit on a very small scale with H6K Mavis flying boats, but even here the logistics would have been a nightmare and the supportable number of aircraft would have been very low. (BTW: The H6K was a remarkable aircraft, possibly the best Japanese design of any type during the war. Huge range, quite rugged for a Japanese aircraft, a FLIGHT endurance of 24 hours, in all an excellent unit. http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/h6k.htm)

The Torpedo boat option is even worse, unless you are talking about actually sailing the Combined Fleet's destroyers right into the harbor (something likely to draw attention). Japan didn't really have any "torpedo boats" the type having evolved into the multi-purpose destroyer. The small "fast attack" PT boat of WW II wasn't a component of the IJN force structure until the war was underway, and it was never a very successful design.
 

MrP

Banned
I fear I must Poepoe, er, pooh-pooh this idea. There's simply no reason for the IJN not to build carriers and still be in any position to fight the USN. The IJN and every other navy had seen at least part of the value of carriers in WWI. The best you can hope for is that the battleship admirals insist on even more BBs instead of CVs during the '20s and '30s. So they'd lie about the tonnage and armour, and hide guns ready to stick 'em on for war.
 
Without carriers the IJN is totally screwed. I don't think a few torpedo boats or even destroyers are going to be much of a threat to the Pacific Fleet.
 
The best chance the Japanese would have without carriers would be to use their submarines to attack American convoys coming across the Pacific.
 
would they still attack PEarl harbor ? with torpedo boats /subs at night like they did with Port arthur ?
would they use shore based longrange Nel or Betty ?

what kind of war in pacific would have occured ?

That's assuming that the US Pacific Fleet would even set up in Pearl Harbor, which historically it did so only a year or so before the Japanese carried out their Hawaii Operation. Before then it was anchored in San Diego.

But assuming it does take up position in Oahu, that would be quite an amazing feat just to make it into the harbor through a well-guarded and patrolled mouth and channel.

Also, the harbor wasn't very deep, and was actually very shallow IIRC - OTL the Japanese were afraid that they couldn't use torpedoes until one of them developed a new kind of fin that allowed the torpedo to be deployed in very shallow water.

Not sure if submarines could perform their duties in such water; I have no doubt that they could move on the surface, but that would negate their advantages and actually expose them.
 
The torpedoes used by the IJN were similar to the ones used by the Royal Navy's torpedo-bombers during the Battle of Taranto (had special shallow-dive stabilisers). And they did manage to get a sub inside the perimeter, except it sank immediately after firing its torpedoes (Japanese midget subs weren't known for their exceptional reliability).

Anyway, without carriers there'd be no way they could power-project. Radar-guided AAA and proximity fuses were several years away (and they weren't in Japanese service anyway). While a defensive-oriented fleet (possibly with a sealane interdiction component) would have indeed required a lot less supplies to build, operate and maintain, that single economy wouldn't have had much of an impact on the greater raw materials problem.
 
If the IJN doesn't have Carriers, I would assume that no one else has then,
This requires the non invention of HTA till after WW2. [almost requires ASB's]
Pearl is attacked my a massive fleet of Large Airships.
 

Kiwiguy

Banned
The whole point of attacking the secure anchorage at Pearl Harbour was an aerial attack based ironically on War Plan Orange.

War Plan Orange was developed by the USMC in 1932 predicting a scenario for a successful attack on Pearl Harbour.

So without flat tops you'd need to lure the fleet out and then ambush them with submarines.

Taking Midway Island first might have been the lure and then basing aircraft there to attack the fleet from the air is another possibility.
 
The whole point of attacking the secure anchorage at Pearl Harbour was an aerial attack based ironically on War Plan Orange.

War Plan Orange was developed by the USMC in 1932 predicting a scenario for a successful attack on Pearl Harbour.

So without flat tops you'd need to lure the fleet out and then ambush them with submarines.

Taking Midway Island first might have been the lure and then basing aircraft there to attack the fleet from the air is another possibility.

How are the Japanese going to take Midway without any flat tops in the first place?
 
Conventional amphibious assault, naval bombardment etc.

The Japanese had no proper ambhibious assault doctrines to speak of. Their amphib troops, during 1941-42, had more often than not met landing successes shores and beaches that were lightly-defended. When said shore defenses proved to be tough to crack (look at the initial invasion of Wake Island, eg.), they were always forced to withdraw or risk annihilation.
 

Kiwiguy

Banned
Their amphib troops, during 1941-42, had more often than not met landing successes shores and beaches that were lightly-defended. When said shore defenses proved to be tough to crack they were always forced to withdraw or risk annihilation.

Yes, but we're talking about the opening shots of WW2 when they were unlikely to hit well prepared defences.

Someone asked for an alternative strategy.

The only point of attacking Midway is to bring the the US fleet out from Pearl into the face of an ambush by submarines instead.
 
No Carriers means that Japan can't project power. It can take a few islands, but has no hope attacking places like the Phillipines, or any island that has ground outside the range of its battleships, it can't expect any success against any island thats outside of a slowly developed ring of islands that can support land based aircraft.

No Carriers= No Decisive Japanese ability to surprise/overwhelm any defenders, irregardless of nationality or location. It would require a very slow development of airfields that would've taken decades in my opinion.

Just sayin....
 
Yes, but we're talking about the opening shots of WW2 when they were unlikely to hit well prepared defences.

Someone asked for an alternative strategy.

The only point of attacking Midway is to bring the the US fleet out from Pearl into the face of an ambush by submarines instead.

Their transports get sunk by any US planes in the area. Without any flat tops there is nothing stopping any planes in the area sinking your transports.
 
Top