What if the US Pacific Fleet remained based on the West Coast over 1940-1? I am assuming that US policy remains otherwise the same but that the objections of Admiral Richardson, who may have called Pearl a "god-damned mousetrap", are accepted.
Whether that inspires the same outrage among the American public the Pearl Harbor attack did, I don't know.
so they might do the same thing to the Filipino facilities they did to Pearl.
Not. The attack was on the Fleet to keep it out of SWP. Japan never expected the war to last long enough for the facilities to matter.Simon said:I expect that they would hit Pearl Harbour and the surrounding airfields to take out the infrastructure.
Care to substantiate that claim? Moreover, that requires re-engineering the ships, so he's without the authority to do it off his own bat, absent approval of BuC&R (BuShips).BlondieBC said:First, [Richardson] would have had the wooden decks replaced by armored on all carriers at the start of the War.
Sitting on his hands for any length of time will get him fired, & he'd damn well know it.BlondieBC said:Richardson in charge almost immediately butterflies away most things that happen in the Pacific War, since he likely does almost nothing for 6 months.
First, he would have had the wooden decks replaced by armored on all carriers at the start of the War. So the carriers are in dry dock for a few months.
Second, he did not believe enough supplies (fuel and ammo) were available to conduct plan orange...
Richardson in charge almost immediately butterflies away most things that happen in the Pacific War, since he likely does almost nothing for 6 months.
They can't Pearl Harbor was the absolute limit of their striking rangeNot. The attack was on the Fleet to keep it out of SWP. Japan never expected the war to last long enough for the facilities to matter.I have my doubts they'd strike at San Pedro or Dago, if the Fleet was based there.
The Japanese never considered attacking the British or Dutch possessions with the Philippines still in American hands, and furthermore the US stated they would go to war if Japan attacked the DEI and were most likely going to from what I have heard on the boardThat, of course, presumes Congress declares war on Japan without Japan actually attacking Hawaii...Which is by no means a certainty. And is, IMO (& the opinion of others who know more than me), the strategy Japan should have adopted. She wouldn't OTL because of IJN/IJA politicking in Japan's government. With the Fleet on the West Coast, IJN likely loses that argument.
Which means things will likely go very, very badly for the Brits & Dutch.
(Until Hitler does something colossally stupid in the Atlantic...
)
They can't, literally cannot, small sub raids yes, large scale carrier raids, no, Pearl Harbor was far enough away they were worrying about having to abandon the escorts, this will be worseLike MerryPrankster was saying we're going to see probably a larger operation against the Phillipines, however if it is known that the fleet is at San Diego or San Pedro it's going to be fair game as well.
Hitting a target in densely-populated California is going to incite national fervor even more so than Pearl Harbor...
They can't, literally cannot, small sub raids yes, large scale carrier raids, no, Pearl Harbor was far enough away they were worrying about having to abandon the escorts, this will be worse
They won't, they cannot sail their ships that far and get them back, it is physically impossible, they lack the tankerageYeah the Japanese weren't ones to give up a plan they had no matter how inadvisable. It would be a different attack, but an attack nevertheless, not the half-baked raids of the historical war, but a serious attack.
To even do the kinds of damage that Pearl Harbor did (surprisingly not that much) would be... ambitious of them to expect to say the least.