The Enemy Within...

Was Pearl Harbor the Best Target and should it have been attacked in a different way? Why were San Diego and Manila not attacked?

Reason I ask this is that whilst working out how Germany could have conducted spoof attacks, I thought of Japanese ingenuity and a better use of their resources. The minisubs that attacked Pearl could conceivably have been human torpedoes with frogmen and scuttling charges/limpet mines.

Aircraft, bombs and torpedoes are glamorous, but why not consider something less expensive in resources? Also, consider whether Japanese suicide bombers (equivalent of terrorist attacks) and saboteurs could have paralysed responses by attacking 'soft' targets. Maybe not explosive waistcoats in Congress, but certainly incendiaries and explosives in refineries and nitrate works.

In effect, a way to attack the continental United States and spread fear and despondency. Also to divert US resources in fighting the 'Enemy Within'.
 

GarethC

Donor
Was Pearl Harbor the Best Target and should it have been attacked in a different way? Why were San Diego and Manila not attacked?
Pearl Harbor was where the battleships were.

IJN doctrine expected the war to be resolved by a Mahanesque clash of battle lines, so sinking the battleships should have been decisive.

San Diego was not attacked because
a) it was even more likely that the carrier striking force would have been spotted and counterattacked
and
b) it was so far away from any Japanese-controlled anchorage that even with all of the oilers available to the IJN, Kido Butai did not have the range to get there and back.

Manila was within range of land-based air on Formosa, and the US air force there was bombed on the ground a few hours after Pearl Harbor - so carrier attacks were correctly regarded as unnecessary.

Reason I ask this is that whilst working out how Germany could have conducted spoof attacks, I thought of Japanese ingenuity and a better use of their resources. The minisubs that attacked Pearl could conceivably have been human torpedoes with frogmen and scuttling charges/limpet mines.
Even then, the minisubs were not very successful. A diver-sabotage attack would be better done as a night operation (as the Italian mining of Queen Elizabeth and

Aircraft, bombs and torpedoes are glamorous, but why not consider something less expensive in resources? Also, consider whether Japanese suicide bombers (equivalent of terrorist attacks) and saboteurs could have paralysed responses by attacking 'soft' targets. Maybe not explosive waistcoats in Congress, but certainly incendiaries and explosives in refineries and nitrate works.

In effect, a way to attack the continental United States and spread fear and despondency. Also to divert US resources in fighting the 'Enemy Within'.
All of those covert actions raise the likelihood of someone being caught and interrogated, so that all those planes lined up in neat rows so handy for strafing A6Ms at Ford Island and Hickam and Wheeler Fields actually scramble to intercept the raid. An actively-defended Pearl Harbor would have a more catastrophic effect on the Japanese war effort than the extra damage such raids might do would offer.
 
Hooray, a response!

However...

...I'm considering that the IJN capital ships (including carriers) were best used elsewhere, so the attack came from modified merchant ships and small fleet units. Loading 5,000 tonnes of explosives aboard a ship that is detonated in reasonable proximity to oil tanks, for example, could have crippled the USN.

...Think outside the box - this is AH!!!:D
 
Heligoland 1919?

Yes - I'm on holiday from end next week and I'll pay for wi-fi time...

...But I was starting another hare, hence this idea. It seemed to me that the Japanese (thankfully, OTL) under-used some natural strengths. There are occasions when machismo and glamour are less effective than common sense. Examples - the High Seas Fleet and the Kido Butai, when U-boats and other weapons caused more damage and dislocation. Being pedestrian and plodding is where democracies score over glamorous autocracies - survival is more important than grandiose statements.

Continue, please...
 
if the japanese belived the american carriers where somewhere else they would launch their attack their instead, where ever you would want that to be...
 
The Japanese submarines I-5, I-9 & I-25 were on operational patrol at Pearl Harbour during the attack of December'41. An aircraft from I-5 actually flew a reconnaissance patrol over the American ships. Pearl Harbour was to be attacked again by aircraft fron I-15, I-19 and I-26 during March '42.
For an ATL suppose at the time of the Pearl attack these 6 submarines were deployed of the West Coast as per the September '42 attacks by I-25, but used to hit urban/small airfields in dawn terror attacks, the USA would be looking for a second CVBG, bringing their own back to the mainland, which in theory could butterfly away the Battle of Midway.
 
I was starting another hare, hence this idea. It seemed to me that the Japanese (thankfully, OTL) under-used some natural strengths. There are occasions when machismo and glamour are less effective than common sense.
If the Japanese had been using common sense rather than machismo, wouldn't they have looked a lot harder for a way to avoid the war? :confused:
 
Yes - I'm on holiday from end next week and I'll pay for wi-fi time...

...But I was starting another hare, hence this idea. It seemed to me that the Japanese (thankfully, OTL) under-used some natural strengths. There are occasions when machismo and glamour are less effective than common sense. Examples - the High Seas Fleet and the Kido Butai, when U-boats and other weapons caused more damage and dislocation. Being pedestrian and plodding is where democracies score over glamorous autocracies - survival is more important than grandiose statements.

Continue, please...

For your vacation get a copy of "Strike from beneath the Sea" by Terry C Treadwell. It'll give you an insite to Japanese thinking outside the box.:)
 
Was Pearl Harbor the Best Target and should it have been attacked in a different way? Why were San Diego and Manila not attacked?
Because for San Diego at least it was too far away. IIRC the raid on Pearl Harbor was right at the very extreme edge of what the Japanese could achieve logistically which was part of the reason why the US didn't expect it. You then have to decide to either split your forces which gives you worse results or hit one and then the other later meaning that the Americans will know that there's a war on and be ready and looking for you.


However...

...I'm considering that the IJN capital ships (including carriers) were best used elsewhere, so the attack came from modified merchant ships and small fleet units. Loading 5,000 tonnes of explosives aboard a ship that is detonated in reasonable proximity to oil tanks, for example, could have crippled the USN.

...Think outside the box - this is AH!!!:D
And how pray tell are these modified merchant ships meant to just sail into military harbours, sidle up to the tank farms and then self detonate? Whilst they weren't expecting air attacks the Americans had more than enough coastal artillery and anti-torpedo nets that it's unlikely they would of made it through, if they were more than able to spot and sink the Japanese midget-subs I don't think they're going to miss the fuck off massive transport. You might be able hit civilian targets at the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbour but I have to wonder how much benefit you'll get for civilian rather than military infrastructure in return for a lost transport, something that the Japanese got exceedingly short of.
 
I am suddenly reminded of that embarrassingly long thread where pages and pages were spent trying to convince a handful of people that camouflaged Japanese kamikaze cargo vessels were not going to just waltz in and blow up the Panama Canal locks.
 
I am suddenly reminded of that embarrassingly long thread where pages and pages were spent trying to convince a handful of people that camouflaged Japanese kamikaze cargo vessels were not going to just waltz in and blow up the Panama Canal locks.
That one might actually be reasonable. Did they do cargo inspections to see what each ship was carrying before letting them through back then? If not then time it so that you have a number of ships packed to the gunwales going through the canal at the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbour and have them ram and detonate next to the lock gates. I've got no idea how much if any serious damage they might do or how quickly they could be repaired but it at least seems vaguely possible.
 

Hyperion

Banned
However...

...I'm considering that the IJN capital ships (including carriers) were best used elsewhere, so the attack came from modified merchant ships and small fleet units. Loading 5,000 tonnes of explosives aboard a ship that is detonated in reasonable proximity to oil tanks, for example, could have crippled the USN.

...Think outside the box - this is AH!!!:D

Civilian cargo ships went nowhere near the naval base. Any cargo ship that even tried to head for the entrance to Pearl Harbor would be stopped by picket destroyers, and if the ship refused to stop, destroyers and shore batteries would blow it up before it could even reach the mouth of the harbor, let alone get anywhere near the oil tanks.

Targets closer to Japan where already well within range of overwhelming land based Japanese airpower, so having Nagumo's carriers would be overkill, and essentially unnecessary.


Now if you really want to do realistic damage. Have three or four long range submarines drop mines near San Diego and San Francisco, maybe have one lay a few mines off the entrance to Puget Sound up in Washington state.

No offense corditman, but while I get what you're saying, this thread reaks of poor research, and a lack of common sense usage. Pearl Harbor was the maximum range for the Kido Butai, and only after they loaded every ship in the strike force with as many extra drums of oil as the possibly could to ensure that every ship sent out wouldn't run out of gas on the way home. Attacking a target like San Diego, might result in more immediate damage depending on the target(s) hit, but the end result would be Nagumo's carriers and escorting battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and auxiliary ships setting out in the middle of the Pacific, not even past the International Date Line, out of power and out of gas.
 
Now if you really want to do realistic damage. Have three or four long range submarines drop mines near San Diego and San Francisco, maybe have one lay a few mines off the entrance to Puget Sound up in Washington state.

In the various ATL's i've seen, I don't think i've seen one that involves this...certainly more interesting and simpler than suicide ships etc.
 

GarethC

Donor
However...

...I'm considering that the IJN capital ships (including carriers) were best used elsewhere, so the attack came from modified merchant ships and small fleet units. Loading 5,000 tonnes of explosives aboard a ship that is detonated in reasonable proximity to oil tanks, for example, could have crippled the USN.

...Think outside the box - this is AH!!!:D

Bear in mind that this sort of thing is exactly what Hawaii was actually looking for.

There was a war warning passed to Kimmel and Short; Japan was expected to commence hostilities against the US. The primary threat expected in the Hawaiian islands was that of sabotage. The base defences and naval patrols of the harbor and surrounding water (which did spot a midget sub and called in the destroyer which sank it even before the air attack alerted defences) were focused on the possibility of some kind of commando raids.

Those patrols will stop any merchant or AMC before it lands troops or gets into detonation range.

A destroyer attack will be even more roughly treated; sailing in to Pearl Harbor is going to end badly, not to mention that short-legged destroyers will need oilers to cross the Pacific. Frail, slow, irreplaceable oilers, that wallow in the waves like fat... targets.

Maybe the Panama Canal thing would work; my gut feel is that there is no sweet spot between range, warload, and looking innocent that would allow either a commando force to seize and sabotage the Canal or a bombship to damage it enough. Sink a blockship in it certainly, but that's something that will be an issue for merely weeks, not months.
 
Damaging the Panama Canal is unlikely. There was an extensive debate about such an attack on here a few months ago. I'd always thought it would be worth a try but there were some very convincing analyses of the defences by more knowledgeable members which showed that any sabotage attack on the Canal by land, air or sea, inclusing explosives-packed merchant ships, was unlikely to succeed.

Mines were the most successful anti-shipping weapon for much of WW2, and I think PMN1 and Hyperion are correct in that being the best way to go here as well. Sticking some commandos on a false flagged merchant ship, or use one as a minisub transporter, for an attack on a West Coast port (that is likely to be less heavily defended than Pearl Harbour) could cause some damage but it wouldn't affect the outcome of the war in any way so would then probably be futile. Laying mines is more practical and effective.
 
That one might actually be reasonable. Did they do cargo inspections to see what each ship was carrying before letting them through back then? If not then time it so that you have a number of ships packed to the gunwales going through the canal at the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbour and have them ram and detonate next to the lock gates. I've got no idea how much if any serious damage they might do or how quickly they could be repaired but it at least seems vaguely possible.

The US had the Panama Canal locked up real tight as they were extremely paranoid of that kind of sabotage. To the extent that they'd actually remove the ships' civilian crews and drive them to the other end of the canal by truck, put USN or Coast Guard personnel aboard the vessel to steer it through the canal, then return the vessel to its original crew. Also, they were ridiculously thorough about checking cargo manifests and inspecting ships for hidden smuggling compartments and what have you.

And of course, there are the conventional defenses of the entire Panama Canal Zone as well. Six miles (about 10 km) of heavily fortified and mined approaches on either side of the canal, a ludicrous amount of AA defense, and airstrips galore.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Damaging the Panama Canal is unlikely. There was an extensive debate about such an attack on here a few months ago. I'd always thought it would be worth a try but there were some very convincing analyses of the defences by more knowledgeable members which showed that any sabotage attack on the Canal by land, air or sea, inclusing explosives-packed merchant ships, was unlikely to succeed.

Mines were the most successful anti-shipping weapon for much of WW2, and I think PMN1 and Hyperion are correct in that being the best way to go here as well. Sticking some commandos on a false flagged merchant ship, or use one as a minisub transporter, for an attack on a West Coast port (that is likely to be less heavily defended than Pearl Harbour) could cause some damage but it wouldn't affect the outcome of the war in any way so would then probably be futile. Laying mines is more practical and effective.

OTL IJN submarines where historically the only Japanese warships that managed to get to the west coast directly, though from what I recall they stopped at French Frigate Shoals and other odd locations between Japanese held territory and Hawaii to refuel at least a couple of times.

Have one with a second deck gun or a single larger than standard deck gun surface at night in range of an oil refinery and manage to fire a dozen or so rounds into the refinery before leaving or being forced off or sunk by any US defenses in the area.

That or have the odd submarine lay mines near San Diego. Would be ironic if upon leaving San Diego to head to Pearl Harbor in December 1941, USS Saratoga promptly runs into one of these mines.

A single mine probably wouldn't sink her, but it would be a huge moral blow, and it would probably terrify the locals in San Diego, seeing one of the most powerful warships afloat at the time setting temporarily crippled just offshore.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Better target practice might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

Have the captain of the I-17 have his gun crew get some better target practice before going out on deployment.

Didn't hurt that the boat's captain had actually stopped in the area to refuel once before the war while he was the skipper of a merchant ship.

Had his crew managed to blow up a couple of oil tanks and maybe a well or two, in the long run it wouldn't be a crippling loss to the US, but it would probably add to the invasion scare, and cause a bit of a logistics issue for a while if it where to shut down or slow operations at Ellwood.
 
Don't be so serious...

...the bombship was just a stalking horse to trigger discussion of better alternatives.

Unfortunately, the discussions I've read mostly consider the carrier attack on Pearl Harbor the sole Japanese option. That's like claiming that Napoleon HAD to invade Russia. Alternatives to PH don't seem to appear - so I wanted to sound the waters.

Hyperion, I agree that mines are a logical weapon - the German HSKs were sent as far as the Pacific to mine waters off Australia and New Zealand, IIRC. Japanese equivalents could clandestinely mine US ports and deploy frogmen to mine ships. Not war-winning, but a nuisance and a massive diversion of defence resources.

Let the discussion continue...
 
Top