if carriers were sunk at pearl harbour

[Guest]

He doesn't actually study it. He is just violently opinionated about it.

Sorry, Werner. You open yourself up for that one and it was too good to resist.

[Werner]

Touch�. I actually meant to say that I do not regard history as a discipline, so I am not busy with cross-references and the busy work that makes it a "study" in my sense.

I do study anatomy and paleontology. That's enough.

[Tracy White]

I'm glad you corrected yourself; it would be damning for the senior mod in the History section to state he doesn't study history

[nick]

Well if that would have happened, WW2 History would have really changed...

[Tracy White]

The battles would have but not the end result. The Axis lost the war the minute the US's industrial and manpower capacity officially entered the fray.

[bengtsson]

The battles would have but not the end result. The Axis lost the war the minute the US's industrial and manpower capacity officially entered the fray.

I have to agree there. It is interesting to study the battles of 1942 when forces were fairy evenly matched. But all that year the US mobilization of it's human and industrial forces made the defeats of 1943 inevitable. All the while the USN and IJN were trading blows, the US was building a massive Carrier Fleet and all that goes with it. These new forces were so much greater than what Japan could build that defeat was a sure thing.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that alot of brave men still had to carry out the fight to the end. Germany and Japan sould have been finished before they were. That they fought on so long is a credit to their skill and courage.

Bob B.

[Gone Asiatic]

The battles would have but not the end result. The Axis lost the war the minute the US's industrial and manpower capacity officially entered the fray.

And the industrial/manpower resourses of the Soviets.

[Seasick]

Pearl Harbor strike force blunders into a USN submarine training exercise. Two WW1 era submarines fire older torpedos at two IJN carriers as they are withdrawing after the attack.

1. Four torpedos fired at Soryu: two duds hit, one sinks to low, one hits and explodes flooding engineering spaces electrical power lost, sea water floods one boiler room. Speed reduced to 15 knots.

2. Three torpedos fired at Akagi, two hit. Moderate dammage to the Akagi speed down to 20 knots. The second submarine fires one of it's stern tube immediatly after firing at Akagi the single torpedo misses its target and hits and sinks an escorting destroyer.

The IJN force believes that they are being attacked by multiple submarines, and that the Americans have located them. Akagi can probably keep up with the raiding force but Soryu is incapable.

You expect an American submarine attack soon. What do you do?
1. Detach Soryu to return on its own.
2. Slow down the raiding force so Soryu can keep up.
3. Scuttle Soryu.

[Filipe Ramires]

And the industrial/manpower resourses of the Soviets.

Errrr, well...if the "corporal" didn't commited the mistake of moving his forces down when he was about to take Moscow I doubt that the industrial/manpower resources of the Soviets would have been of any good to them. Later in the war yes they did the difference and there is also to take into account the moral boost to the Soviets after Stalingrad falls. Before that they were pretty much taking a beating seriously. 1 million POWs in the first month of Barbarossa?!?!? That pretty much tells how willing the Soviets were to fight and die for Mr. Stalin...not to speak of the lack of decent superior officers, killed or arrested previously by Stalins purgues, to lead them. Always wondered why Zhukov was "assigned" to the "non-interest place to improve your career" in Eastern Siberia?

[Filipe Ramires]

1. Detach Soryu to return on its own.

The wisest option I believe. Leave a couple of destroyers escorting her. They can always scuttle the carrier with Long-Lances if the US is trying to recover her. I doubt they would ever leave the entire carrier force with Soryu in that case. Their agenda was full and they were well aware of how important those carriers were. Better to risk just one other then 6.

[Werner]

1. Detach Soryu to return on its own.

The wisest option I believe. Leave a couple of destroyers escorting her. They can always scuttle the carrier with Long-Lances if the US is trying to recover her. I doubt they would ever leave the entire carrier force with Soryu in that case. Their agenda was full and they were well aware of how important those carriers were. Better to risk just one other then 6.

If nothing else, Soryu would be a sacrificial lamb to absorb any retaliatory blow directed at the force from Hawaii. In this case there is no benefit to scuttling unless capture by boarding is in the offing.

[Filipe Ramires]

If nothing else, Soryu would be a sacrificial lamb to absorb any retaliatory blow directed at the force from Hawaii. In this case there is no benefit to scuttling unless capture by boarding is in the offing.

Yes, agreed. A couple of things to add though. No matter the damage or the situation the carrier is in you always need to have a couple of escorts or ships nearby...even if it is only to recover the survivors. Destroyers usually play this role and in a few cases they were in fact there and scuttled the carrier after...or attempted to do so.
Leaving the carrier abandoned, with no escorts, without crew or with just a skeleton one, is hardly acceptable to any Navy. The simple moral boost that could be given to the US Forces by capturing a Japanese carrier at sea and the propaganda impact that that would have could have been a serious blow to the IJN credit. Actually it would have been a first time in History that an enemy carrier was captured at sea after a battle by anyone. A carrier is a capital ship afterall....not a mere submarine or destroyer like many cases took place regarding smaller ships being captured during WWII.

[RNfanDan]

Why wouldn't you believe "Shattered Sword"?

Because I trust no one in these matters.

Such trust (or lack thereof) seems utterly meaningless, with the ship in question lying on the bottom of the Pacific after being attacked. Ultimately, at least one US bomb set into motion the events that caused the ship's loss. Period.

If the issue was one of trust, perhaps then the carrier in fact, did survive and was merely kept secreted away, just to fool future historians? I trust in the facts, not in the conjecture. US planes attack; ship is in trouble; ship lies on bottom. As someone said earlier, Game, set, and match.

[MartinJQuinn]

i bought that book and still haven't read it.... i read the first few pages and it was too technical... i prefer more of a story than a recount.

Actually, one of the things I like most about Shattered Sword was it's conversational tone - I felt like the authors were talking to me and not at me. IMO, it was well written and very entertaining.

Why wouldn't you believe "Shattered Sword"?

Because I trust no one in these matters.

Kind of a silly statement, IMO. If you trust no one, I suggest you stop buying books and do future research yourself.

[Yamato1701]

To go back to the original theme of the thread. If you read "Day's of Infamy" and "End of the Beginning" by Harry Turtledove, he cover's several aspects of a different attack on Pearl Harbor. The basis of the books is that instead of just trying to wipe out the Pacific Fleet at Pearl, the Japanese actually land troops and conquer the islands. The end result is that Enterprise is sunk on December 8th (in the real world, she was nearly back to port), and islands are firmly under Japanese control till 1943. It eventually takes the Doolittle raid taking place on Oahu instead of Tokyo and one abortive re-invasion attempt for the US to take the islands back and begin the stage for taking the japanese out over a longer perid of time. just food for thought.

[Werner]

Kind of a silly statement, IMO. If you trust no one, I suggest you stop buying books and do future research yourself.

In re-reading this thread, I think the original thought process was somewhat obscured by my choice of words. Shattered Sword is an excellent book, and an excellent read; not as tedious as similar works, but more conservative in style than Morrison, who I believe takes too many liberties with the language.

The reason I said I didn't trust Shattered Sword on the sinking of Akagi is because although their narrative is a reasonable deduction of the events, they have to rely on a larger than I would have liked amount of supposition regarding the location of the bombs which came down on her that day. Several additional hits were recorded by the pilots and all are discounted in the text.

If we accept Shattered Sword's analysis of the hits and dismiss the pilots out of hand, what does this tell us of the last hours of Yamato & Musashi? Admittedly, I have been on the "other side" of the argument where the battleships are concerned. I will have to reread Shattered Sword and Morrison again and ponder this.

[Werner]

...The end result is that Enterprise is sunk on December 8th (in the real world, she was nearly back to port), and islands are firmly under Japanese control till 1943....

This is actually impossible. From an occupation standpoint this would tie down several divisions, and nearly all food, fuel and provisions would have to come across the Pacific from Japan on ships that would also have had to carry sufficient fuel outbound for the return voyage. Nearly every merchant hull was tied up in the first quarter of 1942 with the much more important occupation of South East Asia and the Philippines.

It would have been more difficult to take and hold Hawaii than it was the Philippines, because of the larger presence of US civilians and troops there, and the possibility of an immediate counterstrike from the US homeland.

From a strategic standpoint, Hawaii is the most important US base in the Pacific Area. For the Japanese it would confer no strategic advantage except to deny it to the US Navy. It's too far from the US mainland to serve as a base for long range bombing, and the large population guarantees prying eyes would be reporting all ship and troop movements back to the US Military.

[MartinJQuinn]

Kind of a silly statement, IMO. If you trust no one, I suggest you stop buying books and do future research yourself.

In re-reading this thread, I think the original thought process was somewhat obscured by my choice of words. Shattered Sword is an excellent book, and an excellent read; not as tedious as similar works, but more conservative in style than Morrison, who I believe takes too many liberties with the language.

The reason I said I didn't trust Shattered Sword on the sinking of Akagi is because although their narrative is a reasonable deduction of the events, they have to rely on a larger than I would have liked amount of supposition regarding the location of the bombs which came down on her that day. Several additional hits were recorded by the pilots and all are discounted in the text.

If we accept Shattered Sword's analysis of the hits and dismiss the pilots out of hand, what does this tell us of the last hours of Yamato & Musashi? Admittedly, I have been on the "other side" of the argument where the battleships are concerned. I will have to reread Shattered Sword and Morrison again and ponder this.

When you put it that way...I can understand your point. Consider, however, how inaccurate pilot reports are in the heat of battle. How many hits were claimed by the Marine bombing squadrons earlier in the day?

[MartinJQuinn]

To go back to the original theme of the thread. If you read "Day's of Infamy" and "End of the Beginning" by Harry Turtledove, he cover's several aspects of a different attack on Pearl Harbor. The basis of the books is that instead of just trying to wipe out the Pacific Fleet at Pearl, the Japanese actually land troops and conquer the islands. The end result is that Enterprise is sunk on December 8th (in the real world, she was nearly back to port), and islands are firmly under Japanese control till 1943. It eventually takes the Doolittle raid taking place on Oahu instead of Tokyo and one abortive re-invasion attempt for the US to take the islands back and begin the stage for taking the japanese out over a longer perid of time. just food for thought.

Shattered Sword makes it pretty clear (that is, if you trust it ) that the Japanese never had any intention of invading Hawaii. Not only did they not have the resources in troops or transports, but they knew they would have never been able to hold it. Remember, it's not only Oahu that has to be invaded and subdued - but the big Island, Maui, etc. have to be invaded, subdued and held as well.

I don't even think the Japanese would have been able to conduct a successful landing on Oahu, let alone eliminate resistance and hold it.

[Filipe Ramires]

I will have to reread Shattered Sword and Morrison again and ponder this.

Morrison was a first of a kind but that doesn't make him the best on the field...even more because he did his research and writing during and immediately after the war. Many elements only got "up to the surface" long after he wrote his books.