...And you'd pretty much see every sub in Pearl raising anchor and making flank speed with THAT rich a prize.
They were already there. One screen close in on Midway, a second screen between Midway & Oahu
...And you'd pretty much see every sub in Pearl raising anchor and making flank speed with THAT rich a prize.
I have strong doubts as to the Japanese being able to take Midway even if the naval battle had gone their way, American defenders were numerous, motivated, and extremely well-armed, Japanese would have had an extremely difficult time getting troops thru the reef under very heavy automatic weapon and cannon fireThree different ways you can take this, but I wonder about the outcome of each long term.
1. The Japanese take Midway, but at a high cost to themselves with most of their ships and planes being destroyed and a relatively low cost to the Allies
2. The Japanese force pushes the Allied navies out, with slightly more losses for the Allies than the Japanese.
3. A total Japanese Victory, with minimal casualties for them and almost the entire Allied force involved in the fight being destroyed.
Does any of these change the strategic situation at all? Is #3 even possible? What changes does this make to the Allied war effort?
How much damage could be done to a 2.4 sq mi atol If the IJN used let's say Yamato, two other battleships, 3 heavy and 4 light cruisers?
How much damage could be done to a 2.4 sq mi atol If the IJN used let's say Yamato, two other battleships, 3 heavy and 4 light cruisers? The CV used just for fleet to fleet action.
Do the ships have to stay still when shooting at land targets? I believe they sail faster then a sub. And why wouldn't they carry HE rounds, they did carry a lot on the CVs to bomb Midway instead of focusing on the enemy fleet. I mean you want to destroy the US CVs but you expend your precious aircrews on useless ground targets. They had about 10 BB involved in the Midway operation, they could use 3 of them to bomb the island. Yes you might loose some BBs, maybe even Yamato, but if you achieve your goal, that is the US carriers, I believe is worth it. Because if you lose the war you lose everything.
Do the ships have to stay still when shooting at land targets? I believe they sail faster then a sub.
And why wouldn't they carry HE rounds,[
they did carry a lot on the CVs to bomb Midway instead of focusing on the enemy fleet. I mean you want to destroy the US CVs but you expend your precious aircrews on useless ground targets.
They had about 10 BB involved in the Midway operation,
they could use 3 of them to bomb the island. Yes you might loose some BBs, maybe even Yamato, but if you achieve your goal, that is the US carriers, I believe is worth it. Because if you lose the war you lose everything.
Do the ships have to stay still when shooting at land targets?
And why wouldn't they carry HE rounds, they did carry a lot on the CVs to bomb Midway instead of focusing on the enemy fleet.
I mean you want to destroy the US CVs but you expend your precious aircrews on useless ground targets. They had about 10 BB involved in the Midway operation, they could use 3 of them to bomb the island. Yes you might loose some BBs, maybe even Yamato, but if you achieve your goal, that is the US carriers, I believe is worth it. Because if you lose the war you lose everything.
...
The US carriers were NOT the goal. The American battleships were. The Japanese did not deem the carriers to be more important targets than battleships, that's WHY they sent the carriers in at Midway while holding their own battleships back.
The US carriers were NOT the goal. The American battleships were. The Japanese did not deem the carriers to be more important targets than battleships, that's WHY they sent the carriers in at Midway while holding their own battleships back.
snip
Never claimed otherwise. But that's not what was being said.
Oh okay. Sorry.Was supporting your remarks. Not arguing with you.
When bombarding shore targets, ships are relatively stationary, they get better accuracy that way. Especially if you have troops landing, in ship to ship combat short rounds kill fish, with amphibious landings...
The Japanese error was expecting to fight the same sort of war as happened in 1894 and 1904-5. Those WERE classic colonial empire wars, over bit and pieces of territory that were simply pawns on a chess board, useful but not vital. What Japan failed to realize is that WW I, especially WW I on the Western Front, utterly changed the other Great Powers vision of what war really was. The Japanese were not unique in this, the Italians under Mussolini also thought the same 19th Century rules would continue to apply.
Both countries thought they were getting into a dogfight with other dogs, dogs can kill each other in fights, but it isn't the point most of the time. The point is usually about territory or mating or some specific bit of food, both sides generally walk away, one more scuffed up than the other, but they both walk away. What they actually got into was a Pride Dominance fight between lions, kill or die is the only rule in those, which is why smaller males avoid fighting bigger ones.
The Japanese actually believed that they could do the same thing that had been done after the Panay Incident, although on a larger scale. There was actually at least discussion, if not an actual finalized plan in place, to offer a large indemnity to the U.S. and UK after the successful of the acquisition of the "Southern Resource Area" and what was expected to be a fiat accompli as far as the war went. The discussion included granting the Philippines "independence" within the Co-Prosperity Sphere as a part of the smoothing of America's feathers.
The idea was actually remarkably similar to the way that the Seven Year's War ended in the Western Hemisphere, or even the end of the U.S./Mexico War, where money changed hands for territory, a real estate deal with gunfire.
Problem was it was no longer 1760 or 1849, and The Great Game had ended.