WI Pearl Harbor more coodinated

[NapoleonXIV]

I realize that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was coordinated with other attacks throughout Asia and the Pacific but have still always wondered why it wasn't more directed at America

WI the plan on Pearl Harbor had included an actual invasion some days later. A second wave attack would almost certainly have been part of that. They knew the Carriers weren't there, what if the Japanese carriers had more fuel and went looking for them instead of withdrawing, while the Invasion fleet began to shell Honolulu.

But other things were possible. WI Japanese freighters, supposedly peacefully unloading, were actually rigged as giant bombs and were detonated in the harbors of Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and the Panama Canal on Dec 7. If they were able to contain even a hundred tons of TNT each undetected they could cause a lot of damage, particularly in Panama.

This seems plausible to me on the surface. Its what I would have done if I wanted a short war where the US would have to bow out quickly or face disaster. True the US would be even madder, but also in a lot worse position. With the entire Pacific cut off from the US for several months and Pearl almost certainly taken I could use the return of Hawaii as a bargaining chip to force America to a negotiated peace where they would essentially withdraw from Pacific affairs, which was the Japanese objective as I understand it.

Is this scenario silly or impossible? and what might have happened if it had occurred?

 

[Redbeard]

I like your idea of sending innocently looking merchants loaded with explosives into key areas (or it more exactly has me shiver). A common merchant would be capable of carrying thousands of tons - disguised as marcipan! When considering what a few tons of fertiliser did in Oklahoma City imagine what 3000 tons of proper explosives detonated at navy yards, in harbours at major cities and in the locks of the Panama Canal will do. Production and communication will be seriously interrupted and tens of thousands will be killed by the flood waves created.

But you won't exactly have the giant sleep any longer by sounding more alarm bells!

Next question is - could anybody do this today, and when will they try?

Regards and hoping the best

Steffen Redbeard

 

[David S Poepoe]

The Japanese will still be defeated in the end. While the possession of Hawaii is important to waging a Pacific campaign for the United States, having the Japanese seize it would place them only at an initial disadvantage. The Japanese, on the other hand, will be at a permanent disadvantage for holding Hawaii.

Holding Hawaii will cost the Japanese in manpower and material and tie them down from operating in other theaters. I won't even go into great detail the fact that the Japanese couldn't even afford to invade Hawaii and never had the logisitical capability of doing so.

 

[panzerjay]

the IJN did not give 100% that day or to the planning of it

 

[edvader]

WI Pearl Harbor were more coordinated

Check out the AT DAWN WE Slept Book and its followups by Gordon Prange, Donald Goldstein. Prange was my history prof. Brought Mitsu Fuchida! to one of his sessions on Peaarl. I believe there might be brief speculation on WI.scenario. ALSO Harry TurtleDove is planning a TWO(!) volumn set on a scenario whihc might bre similar. LOCUS Mag. ,however, doesn't list it yet in its ForthComing Books. I'' let you know about it.

 

[edvader]

WI Pearl Harbor...

Darn!. There is a paperback collection(trade) MAY be edited by
artin H. Greenberg-the anthology man which deals with ALTERNATE pearl harbors. IF I get the title I WILL let you all know.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think a "do more damage @ Pearl" scenario would probably involve destroying the fuel tanks and other facilities. Those would have been targeted in a "third wave" of attacks, but the Japanese for some reason decided not to launch one.

The third strike would have probably wrecked Pearl Harbor as an operating base for quite awhile. Though the Pacific Fleet could operate out of San Diego, it'd probably cause all sorts of delays.

 

[Torqumada]

On December 6th, 1917 two ships collided in the harbor at Halifax, Nova Scotia. One of them was carrying less than 3000 tons of various explosives. The town was devestated. The toll of the Halifax Explosion was enormous. Over 1600 men, women and children were killed instantly. An additional 9000 were injured and over 25,000 building spread over 325 acres were destroyed and that is at a relatively small harbor. The explosion evern created a local tsunami. That is the damage that could happen with a ship filled with lots of explosive. I could see the damage this could cause on Dec 7th, 1941.

Now, to modern day. The Coast Guard is rigorously inspecting all inbound ships, outside of our territorial waters to insure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Is it a possibility? Yes. Lets hope it doesn't.

Torqumada

 

[Art]

Invasion of Hawaii

Not really practical, unless you are saying they withdraw Army units from China. And they wouldn't do that.

 

[Hendryk]

WI Japanese freighters, supposedly peacefully unloading, were actually rigged as giant bombs and were detonated in the harbors of Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and the Panama Canal on Dec 7. If they were able to contain even a hundred tons of TNT each undetected they could cause a lot of damage, particularly in Panama.

I'd like some input from knowledgeable people about the bit on Panama. Would it have been possible for the Japanese to blow up an explosive-filled civilian ship while it was in the waterlocks or other sensitive part of the canal? Would that have made the canal impracticable, and for how long? And how severely would that have hampered the American response to the Japanese attacks?

 

[David S Poepoe]

I'd like some input from knowledgeable people about the bit on Panama. Would it have been possible for the Japanese to blow up an explosive-filled civilian ship while it was in the waterlocks or other sensitive part of the canal? Would that have made the canal impracticable, and for how long? And how severely would that have hampered the American response to the Japanese attacks?

You should read Hector Bywater's The Great Pacific War. The fascinating book has the Japanese begin the war by blowing up portions of the canal.

 

[mattep74]

If such an attack were to happen, would America allow anyone alive in Japan?

 

[Hendryk]

You should read Hector Bywater's The Great Pacific War. The fascinating book has the Japanese begin the war by blowing up portions of the canal.

How do things play out?

What kind of structural damage would the canal receive from the explosion of a ship? How long would repairs take?

 

[Astrodragon]

The problem with all these wonderful coordinated attacks is that in the WW2-era such coordination wasnt practical.
In fact, I'd say it still isn't practical, despite what some planners seem to think.

The more balls you have up in the air, the more something is likely to go wrong. Badly wrong. Something breaks down, gets found, does something stupid.... and once anything gives the game away, Pearl harbour fails, or at least becomes a lot less likely. And PH was the crwon jewel of the Japanese attack strategy - if it went south, their whole plan is shot to pieces. As it was, attempting to complicate JUST the PH attacks with things like subs and mini-subs almost brought disaster for them (only saved by some stunning incompetance on behalf of the US command at PH)

So all in all, I'd say what they went with was probably the best way to do it.
After all, what will blowing a few ships up do? The only practical strategic target is the canal, in the other cases docks are (deliberately) not that close to military bases, even when they share the same port. And while a few thousand tons of explosive blowing up would cause a lot of damage, it would be limited against naval targets (it would cause the most damage to facilities, in which case the ships move somewhere else until they are fixed), and IIRC at Pearl the merchants didnt dock anywhere near the military base.

And I believe they did have precautions at the canal - it was rather an obvious target.

 

[ARoadWarrior]

This makes me think...what if this happend, and America complety ignored the European theater? Of course, that might not happen since the Britsh were having some trouble over there...or a lot of it, because of the germans. They still had the lend-lense in effect though. So, my question is this: If japan invaded Hawaii, would/could the USA ignore the European front, military wise (No D-Day, No Battle of the Bulge) and turn all of its attention on the Pafic campgain?

 

[stevep]

Guys

I don't think the Japanese had the logistics to actually invade Hawaii. It would need a lot of transporters that they desperately needed for their far more vital attacks in the south, as well as quite a lot of oil which they were already short of. Furthermore their strike force against Pearl was a relatively small, fast moving force. If their going to try and invade on the heels of the air strike that would mean the landing force, in much slower transporters, would have to set sail some time before the carriers. This means much more chance of the attack being detached some time before it, and their other operations, are ready, which would be fatal for them. Also, while it might lure the US into a quick attack to retake the islands, as David S Poepoe says holding them would be a pig for the Japanese as it means holding and supplying a base several thousand miles away in a different direction from anyone else.

On the question of taking out the Panama canal I have read that if one of the main sets of lock gates was taken out the resulting flooding from one of the artificial lakes established when it was build could close it virtually permanently. If this was possible that would seriously impact allied logistics. While railways across the US could carry a lot of goods it reduced the effective shipping available to them a lot as MS can't be effectively transferred between the Pacific and European theatre.

Actually, as I have said before, the only way the Japanese might get a win is not to attack the US at all. If the US is able to overcome isolationist opposition and get a dow on Japan then hit the Phillippines hard and hope that political pressure forced the US to try and relieve the islands. In that case and operating at the end of a long supply line in the situation the IJN have long trained for the US could suffer a serious defeat that might, under the different political circumstances persuade them to make peace.

Steve

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The point of the Japanese attack was to score quick wins and then negotiate a settlement. Any attack guaranteeing American enmity defeated the whole purpose of the operation which was not to face a long-term grudge war against the US.

And Japan simply didn't have the logistical capacity to invade Hawaii.

 

[lothaw]

Not really practical, unless you are saying they withdraw Army units from China. And they wouldn't do that.

You dug up a five year old thread to say that?

 

[Hendryk]

The point of the Japanese attack was to score quick wins and then negotiate a settlement. Any attack guaranteeing American enmity defeated the whole purpose of the operation which was not to face a long-term grudge war against the US.

Leaving out the obviously implausible idea of an actual invasion of Hawaii, would a bombing of the Panama canal be considered beyond the pale by the Japanese leadership? It's not like their second-guessing of American reactions to the raid on Pearl Harbor were all that accurate.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Aerial bombing can't be done, Japan's every carrier is already assigned to an entire series of missions. An ahistorical terror attack which kills thousands of civilians in the Canal Zone pretty much invites war to the knife.

Also a single small carrier or even two might be destroyed before it could penetrate the defenses.