Sunk Beneath the Coral Sea

I've always been interested in World War 2. Who wouldn't? It's the closest any group has really come to taking over the world. Had things gone differently on even one or two occasions, the entire war could have been lost or won. Anyway, on to the PoD.

In April of 1942, the United States was not winning the war with the Japanese. Whenever I see a thread on the WW2 Japanese, there's always some mention of them as comparative weaklings, but aside from two events (Changsha and the Doolittle Raid), the US had very little success against them.

The true turning point of the war with Japan was the Battle of the Coral Sea, in which US and Australian ships intercepted an attempt by Japan to invade Port Moresby. In reality, this battle was a paper victory for the Japanese, but a tactical victory for the Allied forces. We, historically, stopped their invasion and gained valuable battlefield experience that was later used to great effect in the Battle of Midway, which, if effective, would have effectively given Japan a safety net from any further Allied attack (it was motivated by the above-mentioned Doolittle Raid, in which Tokyo was bombed).

But what if, instead of doing fairly well out of the Coral Sea, the US had suffered a crushing defeat. They lose the experience, men, and commanders that allowed them to win at Midway. The Japanese, however, do not only win at the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, though; those repeated defeats would be a major blow to morale back at home. After losing so many good men, calls would be going up to cease the war, try and find peace with the Japanese, maybe even the Axis as a whole. As I recall, one of the reasons Americans were so isolationist for so long was that they still recalled how much WWI had cost them. With such crushing defeats now, they most likely would have retreated into their shells again, leaving the other Allies to their own devices.

Now, my question: provided that the Japanese win at the Battle of the Coral Sea (this one is semi-likely, unlike some other threads I've read), would it go as I imagine it? From what I see, it not only gives Americans incentive to try and forgive and forget, but it also opens Australia to assault, perhaps even capture (Moresby was located in New Guinea). What do the experts of AH.com think of this?
 
Now, my question: provided that the Japanese win at the Battle of the Coral Sea (this one is semi-likely, unlike some other threads I've read), would it go as I imagine it? From what I see, it not only gives Americans incentive to try and forgive and forget, but it also opens Australia to assault, perhaps even capture (Moresby was located in New Guinea). What do the experts of AH.com think of this?

While Port Moresby may fall, Japanase invasion of Australia was highly problematic due to logistic and geographical constrains. Furthermore, the US public opinion was outraged by the Pearl Harbour attack, a loss at Coral Sea was not going to have a big effect on national morale.
 
While Port Moresby may fall, Japanase invasion of Australia was highly problematic due to logistic and geographical constrains. Furthermore, the US public opinion was outraged by the Pearl Harbour attack, a loss at Coral Sea was not going to have a big effect on national morale.

You can't deny that it would have had major impact on Midway, though, and that, as I recall from my lessons, was the straw that broke the camels back.

Besides, with a navel base close enough to the Australia and an invention admiral or two, they could have effectively restricted Australians to Australia until such a time as the Axis could look in that direction. I'm sure the Japanese realized they couldn't take it all, but I could see them wanting at least some of the pie.

Of course, they also invaded China, so I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't have at least tried an Australian invasion.
 
You can't deny that it would have had major impact on Midway, though, and that, as I recall from my lessons, was the straw that broke the camels back.

Besides, with a navel base close enough to the Australia and an invention admiral or two, they could have effectively restricted Australians to Australia until such a time as the Axis could look in that direction. I'm sure the Japanese realized they couldn't take it all, but I could see them wanting at least some of the pie.

Of course, they also invaded China, so I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't have at least tried an Australian invasion.

Naval base close to Australia? I hope you are not talking about Port Morseby, because that certainly didn't count. US- Australia SLOCs would be threatrened to a limited extent, but any operations against Australia was not feasible due to lack of available army forces and naval transports. Also, the logistic demand of such an operation is just way over what the Japanase could provide. Finally, don't forget the size of Australia....

Midway would be affected but it just the start of the final defeat of Japan. I personally consider the subsequent Soloman Campaigns more important.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I've always been interested in World War 2. Who wouldn't? It's the closest any group has really come to taking over the world. Had things gone differently on even one or two occasions, the entire war could have been lost or won. Anyway, on to the PoD.

In April of 1942, the United States was not winning the war with the Japanese. Whenever I see a thread on the WW2 Japanese, there's always some mention of them as comparative weaklings, but aside from two events (Changsha and the Doolittle Raid), the US had very little success against them.

The true turning point of the war with Japan was the Battle of the Coral Sea, in which US and Australian ships intercepted an attempt by Japan to invade Port Moresby. In reality, this battle was a paper victory for the Japanese, but a tactical victory for the Allied forces. We, historically, stopped their invasion and gained valuable battlefield experience that was later used to great effect in the Battle of Midway, which, if effective, would have effectively given Japan a safety net from any further Allied attack (it was motivated by the above-mentioned Doolittle Raid, in which Tokyo was bombed).

But what if, instead of doing fairly well out of the Coral Sea, the US had suffered a crushing defeat. They lose the experience, men, and commanders that allowed them to win at Midway. The Japanese, however, do not only win at the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, though; those repeated defeats would be a major blow to morale back at home. After losing so many good men, calls would be going up to cease the war, try and find peace with the Japanese, maybe even the Axis as a whole. As I recall, one of the reasons Americans were so isolationist for so long was that they still recalled how much WWI had cost them. With such crushing defeats now, they most likely would have retreated into their shells again, leaving the other Allies to their own devices.

Now, my question: provided that the Japanese win at the Battle of the Coral Sea (this one is semi-likely, unlike some other threads I've read), would it go as I imagine it? From what I see, it not only gives Americans incentive to try and forgive and forget, but it also opens Australia to assault, perhaps even capture (Moresby was located in New Guinea). What do the experts of AH.com think of this?

Forgive and Forget? Yea' that was going to happen.:rolleyes:

Coral Sea is insignificant in the larger scheme of the war. Australia was not going to be invaded and conquered. Japan utterly lacked the lift and troops to make that work. Australia is a CONTINENTAL landmass & Japan couldn't have taken the island of Oahu if the future of the human race depended on it.

Lets say that the Kido Butai succeeds completely and takes out Yorktown along with Lady Lex. So what? Yorktown was lost six week later in any case. Midway's major damage was done by Bombing & Scouting Six sinking the Kaga and Akagi, with Bombing Three getting the Soryu. Hiryu was sunk by a composite SBD group from Enterprise. The Japanese never even FOUND TF 16.There is no reason to believe that the IJN would have done any better if Soryu had survived an extra two hours. And even if they had, what difference would a victory at Midway make in the Pacific War?

None at all. At best, Okinawa isn't invaded before the USAAF starts dropping nuclear weapons on Japan and the American submarine blockade starves the Home Islands to death.

You can find a number of threads here that go into great depth on this issue.
 
Forgive and Forget? Yea' that was going to happen.:rolleyes:

Coral Sea is insignificant in the larger scheme of the war. Australia was not going to be invaded and conquered. Japan utterly lacked the lift and troops to make that work. Australia is a CONTINENTAL landmass & Japan couldn't have taken the island of Oahu if the future of the human race depended on it.

Lets say that the Kido Butai succeeds completely and takes out Yorktown along with Lady Lex. So what? Yorktown was lost six week later in any case. Midway's major damage was done by Bombing & Scouting Six sinking the Kaga and Akagi, with Bombing Three getting the Soryu. Hiryu was sunk by a composite SBD group from Enterprise. The Japanese never even FOUND TF 16.There is no reason to believe that the IJN would have done any better if Soryu had survived an extra two hours. And even if they had, what difference would a victory at Midway make in the Pacific War?

None at all. At best, Okinawa isn't invaded before the USAAF starts dropping nuclear weapons on Japan and the American submarine blockade starves the Home Islands to death.

You can find a number of threads here that go into great depth on this issue.

I've waiting been waiting for your eminent appearance in this thread and now I bow humbly to your eternal wisdow.:D
 
Forgive and Forget? Yea' that was going to happen.:rolleyes:

Coral Sea is insignificant in the larger scheme of the war. Australia was not going to be invaded and conquered. Japan utterly lacked the lift and troops to make that work. Australia is a CONTINENTAL landmass & Japan couldn't have taken the island of Oahu if the future of the human race depended on it.

Lets say that the Kido Butai succeeds completely and takes out Yorktown along with Lady Lex. So what? Yorktown was lost six week later in any case. Midway's major damage was done by Bombing & Scouting Six sinking the Kaga and Akagi, with Bombing Three getting the Soryu. Hiryu was sunk by a composite SBD group from Enterprise. The Japanese never even FOUND TF 16.There is no reason to believe that the IJN would have done any better if Soryu had survived an extra two hours. And even if they had, what difference would a victory at Midway make in the Pacific War?

None at all. At best, Okinawa isn't invaded before the USAAF starts dropping nuclear weapons on Japan and the American submarine blockade starves the Home Islands to death.

You can find a number of threads here that go into great depth on this issue.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be bitter. But, as mentioned above, a key reason to stay out is the casualties. How did Europe respond to Hitler and Mussolini? They gave in and hoped for the best. Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties, particularly American ones; if so many of us hadn't been dying in Vietnam, there definitely would have been much less of a protest, eh?

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Any battle with consequences later on is immensely important. This prevents Midway from going our way, which opens endless speculation.

In addition, I'm deeply thankful that I have the attention of one so learned. Maybe I should do more the these...
 
I'm not saying they wouldn't be bitter. But, as mentioned above, a key reason to stay out is the casualties. How did Europe respond to Hitler and Mussolini? They gave in and hoped for the best. Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties, particularly American ones; if so many of us hadn't been dying in Vietnam, there definitely would have been much less of a protest, eh?

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Any battle with consequences later on is immensely important. This prevents Midway from going our way, which opens endless speculation.

In addition, I'm deeply thankful that I have the attention of one so learned. Maybe I should do more the these...

Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties? This is a very ill- conceived conception of how Americans think about war and casualties. Don't forget US lost a lot of soldiers before withdrawing from Vietnam which arguably is least supported US war. The 'CNN effect' is a very modern notion and been blowed much of out proportion.

While the horrible loss suffered by European nations in WWI certainly contribued to the reluctance of the public to endorsed a harder stance against Nazi Germany, the relationship between casualties is much les clear cut as what you depicted.

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Excuse me?! If England and UUSR which had suffered much more serious reverses in the early part of WWII without ever considering suing for peace, why would US, with intact industeries in CONUS and other branches of armed forces, surrounding to a opponent weaker than the nazis?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm not saying they wouldn't be bitter. But, as mentioned above, a key reason to stay out is the casualties. How did Europe respond to Hitler and Mussolini? They gave in and hoped for the best. Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties, particularly American ones; if so many of us hadn't been dying in Vietnam, there definitely would have been much less of a protest, eh?

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Any battle with consequences later on is immensely important. This prevents Midway from going our way, which opens endless speculation.

In addition, I'm deeply thankful that I have the attention of one so learned. Maybe I should do more the these...

Flattery will get you nowhere (but, please, don't let that stop you).:p

I would suggest that you take a look at some of the newspapers of the time, or some of the histories written immediately post-war. The America of today is not the America of 1942. The United States was at war with the Japanese PEOPLE, not the Japanese Government. Unlike Europe, where we were fighting the Nazi's, it was VERY personal in the Pacific. Admiral Halsey spoke for most Americans when he stated that, when the war was over, Japanese would be a language spoken only in Hell. Be it because of Pearl Harbor, stories about treatment of the Chinese and of Allied PoWs, or just plain old racism, the United States was on a Crusade against Japan. Nothing, & I do mean nothing, was going to keep the U.S. from ripping out Japan's throat. If it took four years, fine; if it took ten, well that was okay too, Japan was going to be ground to dust.

From the more pragmatic perspective, Japan simply couldn't compete with the American industrial capacity. To use a single example: From 12/7/41 to 9/10/45 the United States commissioned 20 fleet carriers (with Three more completed by the end of 1945) along with 9 fast light carriers, and around 100 escort carriers. During the same time, the Japanese completed twelve aviation ships of all kinds, seven of which never were used operationally (several being sunk before they could even embark aircraft).

There are any number of similies you can use regarding the Japan/U.S. conflict, they are all true. Japan never had a prayer.
 
Let me sum up the nature of the US/Japaness conflict during WWII: when given the choice of invading the Japaness home islands and suffering a million casulties or nuking Japan, we nuked Japan. Japan, on the other hand, had to be nuked twice before they surrendered to us. NO amount of setbacks, up to and including a total American defeat, would keep the US from fighting Japan to the death during WWII.
 
I'm not saying they wouldn't be bitter. But, as mentioned above, a key reason to stay out is the casualties. How did Europe respond to Hitler and Mussolini? They gave in and hoped for the best. Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties, particularly American ones; if so many of us hadn't been dying in Vietnam, there definitely would have been much less of a protest, eh?

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Any battle with consequences later on is immensely important. This prevents Midway from going our way, which opens endless speculation.

In addition, I'm deeply thankful that I have the attention of one so learned. Maybe I should do more the these...

This is not actually right about yanks being squeenish.

It is just that Isolationist USA didn't want to fight any foreign wars.
In the US civil war the losses the union forces took were percentage wise the highest in the history of warfare in a per capita sense.

Now lets look at the Pacific war.

Japan attacked sovereign US territory sank the US pacific fleet and seized US trust territories.

Forgive and forget is NOT going to happen.

Now even if the US lost every ship at the Coral Sea as do Australia then it still makes little difference to the overall outcome of the war.

The USA's production potential was so great that all this loss would have done was delay their victory in the Pacific by at most six months.

As for an Australian invasion the Japanese lacked the manpower, the sealift ability and the ability to keep the supply lines open.
Sure they could land troops on Australia's lightly populated top end but that is were they would stay.
The defense of Australia should invasion happen was to fall back to the brisbane line and conceed control of the north and let the Japanese chock on the undeveloped territory.
They would have to ship in food, labour, supplies and a heap of other stuff just to keep the army alive.
They would have to do this while Australian and US submarines play havoc with the japanese supply ships.
Remember at this time there were no sealed roads in the north or railways.
The Japanese would have to walk or drive though some of the most inhospitable territory on earth for thousands of kilometres before they reached anything worth while.
while doing this they would have to carry their own water and supplies.

An Australian invasion would be a very good way for the Japanese army to lose a lot of men for no gain.

In relation to morale.
These losses wouldn't really matter because America was attacked and this was a vengence war.
Any real losses that set back the USA's goals might have caused the US to go to a pacific first strategy which would have resulted Japan being defeated sooner possibly or at the same time.
If this happens then the only real difference to the outcome of WWII would be Germany being nuked in september / october to end the war.
 
The thing about the Pacific war is that the US govt had already decided to build the armed forces needed to crush Japan well over a year before the war started. There was a thread in the last week or so about if the US had decided in lae 1940 to push several aircraft into production in their initial versions as soon as possible. It was posited that about 700 aircraft of the types that won the war; P47, P38, Corsair etc could have been in sqn service by Pearl Harbour if such a decision had been made.

This is what the Japanese were up against, and it happened very early on in the war. The US won air superiority wherever they were fighting from about mid 1942, and never lost it. So the IJN could sink every prewar USN carrier in battles up to Midway and still be screwed because the US knows it can rely on land based planes for 18 months while the Essexes are being built in big numbers.
 
I'm not saying they wouldn't be bitter. But, as mentioned above, a key reason to stay out is the casualties. How did Europe respond to Hitler and Mussolini? They gave in and hoped for the best. Americans have always been squeemish about any kind of casualties, particularly American ones; if so many of us hadn't been dying in Vietnam, there definitely would have been much less of a protest, eh?

In addition, before various morale boosters (often in the form of bombs), the Allies spent most of the war getting their rears handed to them on a plate. Morale was very important, and a series of major defeats could have broken us easily.

Any battle with consequences later on is immensely important. This prevents Midway from going our way, which opens endless speculation.

In addition, I'm deeply thankful that I have the attention of one so learned. Maybe I should do more the these...

1) Hitler and Mussolini were mainly ignored cos' England had a faulty government. They came through anyway when Churchill went in.
2) Squeamish? You are talking to the Americans who have been given a dose of 100% pure morale steroids in the form of Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle raid (Shangri-La remark also played some role). They even had ALL Japanese foreigners or Japanese people born in America (Nisei) arrested for no reason whatsoever.

A loss at Coral Sea wouldn't even dent the American morale. Remember, Roosevelt was fighting a 'holy war' and the Americans were on 'God's side'. They had 20 carriers (as CalBear pointed out) on the prod. lines and a loss at Coral Sea would have given more morale to the Americans.
 
I've always been interested in World War 2. Who wouldn't? It's the closest any group has really come to taking over the world. Had things gone differently on even one or two occasions, the entire war could have been lost or won.

This is totally wrong. The Second World War was a colossal mismatch.
 
You can't deny that it would have had major impact on Midway, though, and that, as I recall from my lessons, was the straw that broke the camels back.

Sorry, it looks like a Japanese victory at Coral Sea wouldn't have changed all that much in WWII. I think it would have interesting effects, but besides perhaps making the war last longer or a few more battles I can't see it changing all that much. You can't expect one battle, especially in such a colossal mismatch, to make this many effects.

In short, Midway was the camel that broke the straw's back.
 
Top