No Pearl Harbor Attack

fred1451

Banned
It seems to me the moment any AH situation is discussed, the Japanese always seem to do worse than they did historically. I take you must think that Nimitz, King, Fletcher, etc., had to all be totally incompetent? Because what other explanation than US commanders being incompetent could account for the fact that ANY other scenario plays out worse for the IJN. How did Nimitz do so badly that you would think another outcome must be worse for the IJN?

Or maybe they think that if you give the man more resources to use against the IJN he'll use them, the odds will be worse than the OTL, so things will be worse than OTL for the IJN?
 
It seems to me the moment any AH situation is discussed, the Japanese always seem to do worse than they did historically.


The Japanese got really lucky with everything they did, right up to Midway.

Remember, their economy is only slightly better than that of Italy, and just a dependent on Oil.
If their operations against the Dutch would have failed, the Japanese Empire would be in terrible shape by 1943.

But they got lucky, time and time again.
Until Midway, when Luck ran our and reality set in.

They got thrashed with the US devoting maybe 20% of warmaking effort their way
 
Top