Pacific War Stalemate

As long as the enemy is an island or they don't have a hand tied behind their back then us or the enemy is unwilling to resort to unconventional tactics or the enemy lacks an untouchable ally providing support then yes you are correct

'Hand tied behind the back' and 'stab in the back'.

Interesting to see how a mythology develops.
 
We did not prosecute that conflict to the full possible extent we could have, that is an indisputable fact

Yes I know. I've heard all about it and I've seen the movies.

Since this thread is about the Pacific War I won't pursue the point.

But try to think of the consequences if your country did prosecute to the greatest extent. Perhaps we wouldn't be here to discuss anything.
 
Yes I know. I've heard all about it and I've seen the movies.

Since this thread is about the Pacific War I won't pursue the point.

But try to think of the consequences if your country did prosecute to the greatest extent. Perhaps we wouldn't be here to discuss anything.
Agreed this is derailing the thread, though I will say we would not have had to go that much further than OTL

Anyway the point is Japan cannot win, the USA is out for blood and outweighs the combined Axis by more than 2 to 1 (Japan by 11-12 to 1) in war making capacity, unless there is ASB intervention or massive mistakes the USA can absorb whatever Japan can throw and bury them
 

Sumeragi

Banned
The only way Japan could have made this a slatemate is bringing Chiang to his knees and thereby freeing the troops for deployment into the Pacific. But even then, the basic lack of strategy on part of the IJA would mean there would be a lot of waste.
 
The only way Japan could have made this a slatemate is bringing Chiang to his knees and thereby freeing the troops for deployment into the Pacific. But even then, the basic lack of strategy on part of the IJA would mean there would be a lot of waste.
It still wouldn't help much, they lacked the logistics to use more troops than OTL against the US, they were over 3 million tons in the hole with regards to merchant shipping when the war started and things would only get worse as the war wears on, you might have a minor increase in those deployed to the Pacific but not enough
 

Sumeragi

Banned
It still wouldn't help much, they lacked the logistics to use more troops than OTL against the US, they were over 3 million tons in the hole with regards to merchant shipping when the war started and things would only get worse as the war wears on, you might have a minor increase in those deployed to the Pacific but not enough

Exactly the point. Given that the IJA had no strategic plans for ever deploying into the Pacific, there was never any effort to build up the logistics for any substantial buildup in troops. Only if China was defeated by 1942 (pretty much impossible) would there by any hope that the IJA might strike into India, and that's calling for daydreaming.
 
If Japan had used its submarines against the Americans' transports they could have forced the Americans to pull ship from the front lines to assign to escort duty, thus reducing the actual military strength they'd have had to face, at least at first.
 
Only if China was defeated by 1942 (pretty much impossible) would there by any hope that the IJA might strike into India, and that's calling for daydreaming.

The whole point of Japan going to war was because they knew they couldn't finish off the Chinese if the west continued to apply sanctions and kept supplying Chiang with weapons and funds.

If they believed victory in China was possible any time soon it is unlikely that they would have gone to war in the Pacific.

The Japanese plan was to capture as much territory as possible and then consolidate and dare the Western powers to accept heavy casualties by attacking them. They gambled that the US and Britain would negotiate rather than fight a long costly war.

By bombing Pearl Harbor the way they did they simply made the Americans angry.
 
The reality for the Japanese was that they knew full well they had a resources problem - which was the reason for the war in the first place - and their entire game plan was to shove the Americans back as far as possible, forcing the US to acquisce to Japan's territorial ambitions. That didn't work, as soon as it was clear that the US was going to fight hard, it showed. Yamamoto's fear in 1941 turned out to be exactly right - Japan awoke the sleeping giant, and all hell broke loose for them.
 
The idea of the IJN making a successful advance into India is about as ASB as invading Hawaii, and for similar reasons.

The British and Indian armys are sitting on top of a major logistical hub & resource, with good interior communications, and on terrain where even the 2nd string British armour will destroy any IJN armoured force with ease.

The IJN have to bring all their supplies over some of the most inhospitable terrain in SE Asia....
 
Yes, greater success impacts the war, maybe even by months, but it does not cause a stalemate.
With that, I agree. Japan achieving a stalemate needs ASBs.
There is nothing special or high tech about an oil storage tank.
One, yes. This wasn't just one. And it wasn't just building them: it was filling them. Which you completely ignored.
Now fewer operations by the navy while the fuel tanks are rebuilt is possible, and certainly something like the coral sea or the raid on Japan might be cancelled, and this might delay the war a few months.
And you think Japan's additional success isn't going to make the road back harder & bloodier?
On the fuel, we would conserve somewhere to make up the difference. Fewer naval operations is likely as is cancelled/delay operations. For example the invasion of North Africa is delayed for a few weeks or month due to lower fuel reserves.
"Lower fuel reserves"? How about no tankers to supply the task forces? How about fewer ASW patrols in the Atlantic because there isn't fuel for DDs? More losses to ships in convoy? Cancelled bomber operations because fuel can't be delivered? Cancelled offensives, for the same reason? Additional famine in Bengal or India, when the Brits stop fuel deliveries to make up shortages at home? Revolt in India as a result?

And if ops do get cancelled, what about more German victories in Africa? Or easier Japanese victories in Burma & India? It's all connected.
On replacing 140 million gallons, seems like USA is about 5 million barrels a day, which is near 210 million gallons. A lot depends on the crude, but 10 to 30% of total crude is burnable in ships is reasonable.
It's not just production: as I've said already, it's delivery. Every tanker tied up in replenishment is one not available for other duty, & the losses off the East Coast in Paukenschlag meant there were already tanker shortages.
The Navy might be low on fuel for a few months at most, ships steam at slower speeds, big ships kept in port on west coast.
Steaming at slower speed isn't an option in combat... And I've already mentioned the impact of West Coast basing...
Conclusion

They cannot lose a war in Asia against a less technologically advanced enemy.
:D:D Even President Chauncey Gardiner :p couldn't screw it up.
 
The US industrial capacity during WWII was truly obscene, to say nothing of the fact that it was the Saudi Arabia of the day on steroids. It could afford to take massive losses and make massive mistakes and still win. Its only potential weakness really was that its political will was not inexhaustible. Doing Pearl Harbor removed that constraint from the Pacific side of the war. I could see a Japan with even more incredible luck than OTL resulting in a somewhat longer war, and ironically helping the Germans a lot more through diversion of US resources (the war against the Germans did NOT have inexhaustible political will in the US, which IMO explained the very conservative overall strategy by US generals in that theatre).
 
Forcing a stalemate is difficult to impossible, the US started gearing up for war in 1940 so the carriers etc that defeated Japan were under construction long before Pearl Harbour.

I'll go with what others have alread said. Destroying the oil tanks in Hawaii means a firm limit on major fleet operations until they can be rebuilt an refilled, and that will take months. Until then the main ships of the US fleet will have to operate from the west coast, but they might operate from Seattle or maybe Alaska and draw attention northwards. Similary a submarine offensive against the west coast and Hawaii will have to be defeated before offensives in the western Pacific can be undertaken. That too will take months to get on top of, and will delay the refilling of oil tanks in Hawaii.

I wouldn't think the US could mount major operations from Hawaii until maybe August, when the tanks rebuilt and refilled and enough subs sunk to limit that threat. But then the foot goes to the floor and off they go.
 
Of course, waiting till August isn't just going to slow them up for that time, with the Japanese even more heavily entrenched and Australia even more isolated it will take even longer to beat the Japanese back.
 
Well,
to help the japanese you need
- the japanese learn that thier code is broken
- the japanes sink the two carriers in pearl AND destroy the fuel tanks and facilitis and power plant here....
- they take midway, cause they do it in the december 7th.
- the japanese use their subs rightfull
- the japanese do not build shinano (from start, maybe even mushasi is cancelled, instead they build two more shikakukus(spelling?))
- the japanese use real convoys and try to improve asw from day1
- the japanese sink the british east asian fleet in april (with some luck they find em and if they find more as hermes the british fleet is toast....)
- the japanese stop the shipping in this part of the ocean, so no troops and supply for the british 8th army... in the consequence of this rommel in africa can win this war and take alexandria....
- the saratoga goes down instead of beeing damaged in january 42... basically with this the americans have nil carriers... so they stay in defence untill at last 5-8 carriers are avaiable...
- the germans start paukenschlag with 20 subs or even 30... so the americans loose tripple numbers of tankers... means even less tankers in the pacific
- the americans have such a shortage in tankers that all "big" sorties are cancelled, australia has no real supply and as a consequence port morseby is taken by the japanese... the same with the solomons, maybe even noumea...

this bring 12-24 months delay for the americans... in the beginning.
if they act smarter as otl they have the luck that a certain general s a japanese prisoner and the counterstrike is faster.... if the usa drops the germany-first strategy they can take even more speed here, but in europe things are really bad (with africa beeing axis the italians are in a much better position and also the germans... they cannot take the oil at basra, but they can damage or destroy the wells.... so less oil for the allies... )

can the usa produce even more? yes
can the usa produce more in faster times? no - not without huge quality problems -> this lead to higher losses and more lost battles...

so war in the pacific is a stalement in 1942-1943/early 44... latest from here on the steamroller will take back what the japnese had taken.

the brits cannot help, cause with the loss of alexandria and egypt, they will stay in defence in india...
so no pressure and no losses for the japanese here...


but honestly, if the japanese have so much luck it is not asb, but very very very unrealistic.

in the end japan has lost. this is sure from day1
 

BlondieBC

Banned
And you think Japan's additional success isn't going to make the road back harder & bloodier?

"Lower fuel reserves"? How about no tankers to supply the task forces? How about fewer ASW patrols in the Atlantic because there isn't fuel for DDs? More losses to ships in convoy? Cancelled bomber operations because fuel can't be delivered? Cancelled offensives, for the same reason? Additional famine in Bengal or India, when the Brits stop fuel deliveries to make up shortages at home? Revolt in India as a result?

And if ops do get cancelled, what about more German victories in Africa? Or easier Japanese victories in Burma & India? It's all connected.

It's not just production: as I've said already, it's delivery. Every tanker tied up in replenishment is one not available for other duty, & the losses off the East Coast in Paukenschlag meant there were already tanker shortages.

Steaming at slower speed isn't an option in combat... And I've already mentioned the impact of West Coast basing...

:D:D Even President Chauncey Gardiner :p couldn't screw it up.

It probably reduces USA losses since the USA will launch the attacks with larger forces, but maybe the Japanese have higher losses. Until the Coral Sea, the USA did not accomplish much with its navy. The raid on Japan was more a publicity stunt, and carrier raids in early 42 did little lasting damage. On Burma and India, the USA navy did little to impact the campaign in 1942. As I said before, Japanese logistics had more to do with the pace of the Japanese advance in early 1942 than the US Navy. If the raid on Tokyo is cancelled, which is very likely in your no fuel for navy scenario, then Japan stop expanding anyway. It took the raid on Tokyo to get the approval to attack Midway.

A lot of what the USA did in 1942 was not very effective. Bomber operations in 1942 and 1943 in Europe accomplished little, so less fuel for them might help the war, not hurt. Delaying torch a few weeks has some impact but not huge. You seem to be assuming the USA commanders chose the most sensitive/dumbest areas to conserve fuel instead of being somewhat intelligent. Destroyer operations in the Atlantic will be the last thing cancelled.

Yes, steaming slower speed is possible for combat ships. Now in combat they will do full speed, but they can go 15 not 25 knots when moving around and fuel consumption is roughly a second power relationship on a ship. An the tanker problem can be worked around. Some is made up by cancel naval operations, some by slower steaming, some by optimizing tanker routes, etc.
 
Well if the Japanese won at Midway, the plan for Nagumo and his carrier fleet was to raid Sydney and then prepare for invasion of New Caledonia. Whether that would still be the case if they had won big at Midway would still be the case I don't know. The US would still have the Sara to conduct raids isolated Japanese outposts and the Misway would be used as a Live practise"range for the new Essex carriers and long range fighters and bombers, just like Wake was OTL.

I don't know how the Japanese could really have forced a stalemate except that the Americans lose their political will.. which is what the Japanese had hoped/ After reading these books :http://www.amazon.com/Midway-Battle...4288/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322305816&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Masatake...r_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322307715&sr=1-20 I personally think the Japanese High Command was deluded to think that they could even bring the Americans to the table, they were wofefully unprepared for the war.

If someone can fix the link it would be nice.
 
Last edited:
One thought has occurred, one of the reasons for the embargo was Japanese aggressions in French Indochina, but what if Germany has conquered all of France in the west and they'd given Japan free reign, would FDR recognise them as the rightful owners of the area and thus any troop movements as entirely acceptable, or would he see French Indochina as a separate entity, and thus any significant troop movements as aggression?
 
One thought has occurred, one of the reasons for the embargo was Japanese aggressions in French Indochina, but what if Germany has conquered all of France in the west and they'd given Japan free reign, would FDR recognise them as the rightful owners of the area and thus any troop movements as entirely acceptable, or would he see French Indochina as a separate entity, and thus any significant troop movements as aggression?

If you mean the French Empire now belongs to Germany then I think Roosevelt would send Hitler a very big thanksgiving turkey.

Roosevelt could tell the American people that Hitler really was trying to take over the world. With Nazis in the Pacific too he may well be able to persuade congress to come into the war long before Pearl Harbor.
 
Top