War in the Pacific without Pearl Harbour

Would Japan, paradoxical as it may seem, have had a better chance to defeat the Americans, if they had drifted into war without an attack on Pearl Harbour ? In immediate terms, it would have freed up between 2 and 4 aircraft carriers (two might have needed to be based on Truk or somewhere to counter potential US naval moves, another one or two perhaps needed to remain in home waters for the same reason). But in strategic terms, might not the survival of an intact US battleline have led to a more battleship-orientated thought process for the Americans, and thus removed something of the advantage that came by being forced to develop the carrier taskforce out of necessity ?

Presumably, Hector C Bywater's "1931 - The Great Pacific War" offers some idea of what the US strategy would be. If we assume that the Japanese, other than Pearl Harbour, continue OTL plans elsewhere, then the US strategy would be fixed upon defending the Philippines. At Pearl in December 1941 are two carriers (Enterprise and Lexington) with another joining them (Saratoga). Using these carriers as the Japanese used their light ones in the initial attacks (i.e. to cover the battleline, and attack coastal installations). US thinking would remain focused on the potential battleship-versus-battleship clash ahead, with the carriers presumed to be in a support role.

Japanese submarine strategy was to use them to support the combined fleet - thus, for once, the US plans to come West would play into Japanese submariners hands. Since Japan is the one preparing for war, it would also have time to establish picket lines of submarines, and patrols in areas the US Pacific Fleet is going to need to come through.

It of course needs to be remembered that no one assumed that some of the Allied installations could fall as quickly as they did, so US reaction to the outbreak of war is not going to be panicked. It might thus not be until about the 20th December (allowing time for Saratoga's arrival and replenishment) that the US fleet sorties from Pearl. It may even be later, depending on US reactions to news of the invasion of the Philippines

The question, I suppose, is can Japan win at sea in this scenario ? If the US carriers are used as adjuncts to their battleline, can a similar Japanese response result in sufficient success that the balance of forces over OTL is improved in their favour ?

And having fought their fleet as a battleship-first formation, would not the US, even after its mauling, continue to think in these terms and reinforce Pearl with battleships as a priority, thus prolonging this method of thinking ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
What if sinking the Reuben James caused a war between the US and Nazi Germany? If the US is fighting Hitler and Japan avoids attacking the US then maybe the IJN has more time to expand and fix some of it's problems.
 
It needs to be very clear that, as long as the American public retained its will to resist and fight on, the Japanese had absolutely no chance of "defeating" the United States and "winning" the Pacific War, no matter what strategy or plan they developed or used. There are few absolutes when studying history, but I believe this to be one of them.

However, with that said, I believe that if the Japanese were to have any hope of breaking the will of the American people and forcing some sort of negotiated peace, the above scenario is the only viable one they had. It is one of the great ironies of history that Japan's only real hope was to allow the U.S. to follow its established war plans and come steaming across the Pacific in a majestic battle line.

Absent the attack on Pearl Harbor, there would have been a tremendous amount of public pressure on an intact U.S. Fleet to relieve the Philippines. If FDR had given in to this pressure and sent the Fleet west, there is a very good chance that it would have suffered a crushing, titanic defeat. The Japanese were experienced, motivated, highly trained and well equipped. The Americans last fleet action was in 1898, their motivation (ITTL) was tenous at best, and training proficeincy was set at peace time standards. Absent the kick-in-the-butt motivation of Pearl Harbor, it is at least plausible that the annihilation of the Fleet at the "Decisive Battle" would have broken the will of the American public and we would have sought terms.

This is a tricky thing to predict, though. Accurately gauging how the public will react to any given event is extraordinarily difficult, as public mood and perception teeters on very fine points indeed.

Dave

www.pigboats.com
 
War in the Pacific without Pearl Harbour
Reply to DaveJ576

Thank you very much for your reply - I found it a very cogent and accurate assessment, and was thus duly pleased :) Its always nice to know I'm not talking bollocks

I certainly liked your idea of a losing titanic battle and the question of what that would do to American morale. Especially if upon its heels came the unexpectedly swift collapse of the most of the Philippines (OTL Mindanao held out longer than the rest, but is less important except as a bolthole).

Would such a defeat accelerate Japanese action in the East Indies, or was that already going as fast as possible ? One supposes that US cruisers coming up from the South could have continued to act with British/Australian/Dutch forces as per OTL

FDR is only half way into his third term, so won't be inclined to throw in any towels, so his government's immediate reaction would be to rebuild the BATTLESHIP fleet at Pearl. At the same time, he has to deal with Germany's declaration of war and what that means for US strategy going forward

Can the Japanese EXTEND their successes of OTL in a scenario in which they win such a titanic clash of the battleships ? If so, are we looking at no Solomon Sea etc, certainly no Midway, only token US delaying fights based around cruisers with the role of the aircraft carrier still evolving and possibly the major ones being husbanded, kept away from the main battles of the first half of 1942 so as to be available to SUPPORT the battlefleet once it gets rebuilt ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
How does the war start without Pearl Harbor?

Why can the US not simply go for both carrier and battleship superiority (As it did OTL)?

Why would losing even the entire battleline in an early fight off of the Philippines 'break' the US' will to fight?
 
As I stated before, public perception and mood is a tricky thing. Despite the fact that IOTL we got our collective asses handed to us in the Philippines, the public perception is that we had put up a fighting defense against overwhelming odds and had given the mighty Japanese juggernaut a bloody nose. We were proud of our boys despite the fact that they had lost and this steeled our resolve to resist. As much as it galls me to admit it, this was mostly MacArthur's doing with his bold promouncements and rallying cries.

The Pearl Harbor debacle was viewed as a dastardly stab in the back and it really pissed us off, again despite the fact that we were totally unprepared and literally caught sleeping.

A huge fleet wide defeat (not just the battle line) in a Orange/Rainbow type Decisive Battle off the Philippines may have, depending on circumstances, been viewed as a first rate screw up and national embarrassment. Depending on the level of fear that this perception was able to raise amongst the people, this may have been just enough to tip the scales in favor of seeking a negotiated peace so that we could devote 100% of our efforts in Europe.

I must emphasize that this is not a sure thing. There are so many variables and fine points to consider that can make this go either way. In general though, when the American public (not individuals) feels fear and embarrassment we tend to shrink back and re-assess. When we feel anger and rage we get very aggressive and determined. It would depend on which emotion was triggered by Japanese actions.

Dave

www.pigboats.com
 
If they could somehow make this more a political difference than a clash of cultures IE: a formal declaration of war forced on them by Roosevelt, they might be able to divide American opinion enough to get a reasonable compromise peace treaty. Maybe give back the Philippines but keep Guam, Midway and a free hand in the DEI. They would also have to treat POWs and civilians better or risk a massive backlash.
 
On the economic front, if the Americans are in the position of building up their battleship fleet again, that would be very expensive.

I can't cite an actual price for a carrier, but battleships (because of the guns IIRC) would be significantly more expensive. Building a dozen or so battleships would probably take a very large slice of the naval budget.
 
In "Rising Sun Victorious" there's a scenario fairly close to this. Yamamoto decides not to attack Pearl Harbor as it's shallow and most of the ships could be refloated. He instead attacks the Phillipines and ambushes Kimmel's Fleet when they sortie out to respond with some nice pieces of deception.

MacAuthur claims to have sunk five carriers, though they were actually freighters refitted to appear like carriers as decoys. This makes Kimmel confident the combined Fleet is disabled and he steams on full speed ahead, subjecting himself to submarine ambushes and an ambush from the actual Combined Fleet.
 
With the start of the war in europe FDR had proposed legislation to massively expand the US Navy. This was passed and the US was already in the process of a massive build up when Pearl Harbor took place. Thus even without Pearl Harbor the US Navy would be on it way to a major increase in size by 1942.

While the Battleship continued to be the most respected weapon in the navy the aircraft carrier was becoming a key component in the navy's plans. The US Navy had seen what the carrier could do with the British attack on Italy's naval base ans the search for the Bismarck. Thus many more of them would be available in 1942.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Dave you are falling into the same trap so many do nowadays. You are projecting year 2009 culture and society in 1941.
War would not be declared unless certain things happen. US public will would be the key. Once we are at war we go for the throat as we always have. At this time the war in Europe had been going on for over 2 years and people were beginning to realize that we would get caught up in it sooner or later. So in many ways we already were ready for it to begin. Japan had been making trouble in the Pacific and especially China for years so no surprise there.

Now some here are so willing to think the US Fleet would get creamed - that is not a given. The IJN had some critical weaknesses as well.

The sub scouting line would have been discovered as their tactics were not good. I really doubt they would have been able to cause anywhere near the damage the IJN was counting on.

Now in carrier fighting I agree the edge would have been definitly for the IJN. It would depend on how many of OUR carriers were brought forward to be part of the fleet movement. If we would ahve had the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise and maybe Yorktown all together that would have made a powerfull force. At that time they would have been concentrated unlike the way they were operated early on in the OTL.
 
Dave you are falling into the same trap so many do nowadays. You are projecting year 2009 culture and society in 1941.

Could you please explain this statement? I don't see how anything in my two posts in this thread indicates this.

Now some here are so willing to think the US Fleet would get creamed - that is not a given. The IJN had some critical weaknesses as well.

I did not state in either of my posts that the U.S. Navy getting creamed by the IJN was a given. I said that it was plausible given the circumstances outlined. Just like it was plausible that the USN could have lost Midway. We survived the first 6 months of the OTL war because we were pissed off and determined to see it through to the bitter end. Not to mentioned a little luck was thrown in. Pearl Harbor provided that kick in the pants that pissed us off. In the absence of that, it is plausible that IF a Rainbow/Orange type Decisive Battle had taken place in early 1942 we would have lost it for the reasons that I stated in my earlier post. With that type of loss, it is plausible that the American public would have wanted to cut their losses and set up negotiations with the Japanese.

I fully and completely agree that the IJN had critical weaknesses. It was the reason they lost the war! But the USN had critical weaknesses too in 1941 and without the motivation of Pearl Harbor, those weaknesses pretty much leveled the playing field. This situation was thrust upon the USN by isolationist politicians and a somewhat naive American public who thought we could ignore the rest of the world.

Dave

www.pigboats.com
 
The thing about Pearl Harbor's impact on US morale vs a major defeat in the Phillipines is basiclly morality.

At Pearl OTL, the Japanese sucker punched us and it was personal. It wasn't as if they were the better man, they just landed a surprise blow and we plowed forward knowing we could defeat them in an even fight.

If the Pacific Fleet is crushed defending the Phillipines the moral aspect of the blow is completely different. They met us head to head and beat us. That's a bitter pill to swallow, but the whole of the country isn't going to be gung-ho eager to continue the war against opposition that's demonstrated it can crush our finest.
 
Top