History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
What could Japan do differently?
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:57 AM UTC
We needed some new topics so here goes! What do you think that Japan could have done differently (during the course of the war) to change the outcome?
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 01:08 PM UTC
Nailed the carriers at Pearl for a start. But also developed new and better fighter and bomber aircraft that were on a par with the Allied air forces.
Silantra
Member Since: March 04, 2004
entire network: 2,511 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,296 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 01:32 PM UTC
dont build the yamato but build more carrier??
or defend Malaya and never leave it and concenrate on singapore??
maybe..... hehe
or defend Malaya and never leave it and concenrate on singapore??
maybe..... hehe
Zacman
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 02:50 PM UTC
Not entered in the first place!
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 04:00 PM UTC
Not attacked Pearl Harbor and concentrated on the capturing British and Dutch colonies. Roosevelt would have found justifying war with Japan far more of a problem without provocation.
Japan wanted the oil, mineral and other natural resources of Malaya, Borneo and Indonesia, not pointless Pacific Islands.
Japan wanted the oil, mineral and other natural resources of Malaya, Borneo and Indonesia, not pointless Pacific Islands.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 04:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Not attacked Pearl Harbor and concentrated on the capturing British and Dutch colonies.
Japan needed the Pacific sealanes, and could not secure them without outposts and airfields on the islands. War with the US was inevitable due to the existant trade war. Pearl Harbour was one of the most brilliant moves of the war, if it had worked fully.
bgazso
Member Since: January 25, 2006
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 08:59 PM UTC
What could they have done to alter the outcome? Not a thing. They might have dleayed the outcome a bit longer, but for the Japanese military leaders to think they could have defeated the Allies was delusional. Yamamoto told them as much. As much as the race card is played from the U.S. end, the Japanese were perhaps even more virulent in that regard. This of course leads to underestimating your enemy - never a good idea. The Japanese, I believe, just didn't understand the industrial jugernaut they unleashed. And to think that the U.S. provided major material support to the British and Soviets at the same time, and fought a two front war, well, they had no chance whatsoever.
Yes, they killed a lot of people, mostly civilians, but accomplished little else.
Yes, they killed a lot of people, mostly civilians, but accomplished little else.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 09:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Nailed the carriers at Pearl for a start. But also developed new and better fighter and bomber aircraft that were on a par with the Allied air forces.
That's a bit hard to do when they aren't there. Enterprise by rights should have been there, and I'd imagine at least half the torpedoes that hit the Oklahoma and West Virginia would have clobbered her.
One thing they could have done is go after the oil storage, sub base, and repair bases. There could have been a third wave with those as targets.
The fact that they didn't go after such targets to me points out one of the great failings of the Japanese, the fact they didn't think that such things as supplies, mechant convoys, etc, were "sexy" enough, or honorable enough, to bother with. That was a big mistake as far as their submarine forces were concerned. They were used for scouting, or attacking warships, instead of all the transports, oilers, and supply ships.
Along similar lines was their failure to develope effective anti-submarine warfare enough. While the British were masters at ASW, and were able to support themselves, the Japanese were reduced to mounting depth charges on ships like cruisers, which kind of shows how desperate they were. Even so they pretty much destroyed as a nation by the US submarine campaign. More effective ASW would have at least prolonged matters.
Lastly they didn't arm their destroyers with a good double purpose main gun, like the American 5" 38 D.P. Their destroyers were much less effective at stopping the air attacks than American cans were. This also could have prolonged the war a bit.
I do wonder this what would have happened if the Japanese followed David, Drader's, plan. I understand the need to protect their sea lanes and flanks, but I tend to agree that it might have been much harder for FDR to get the Americans into it, if America herself wasn't directly attacked. Even if the Japanese took over all of the territory they attacked except Pearl Harbor and the P.I. would that have been enough to get the Americans into the war?
vanize
Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 09:45 PM UTC
regarding "nailing the carriers":
by all rights, at least one carrier should have been at Pearl, if not 2. And several of the battleships should not have been. Yet the vast majority of our pacific battleships had been in port for many days and in some cases weeks, with nary a carrier to be seen anywhere near Pearl. One could almost surmise from that, knowing that the japanese prised the battleship over the carrier and that the US valued the carrier more even then, that this was a bit of a setup - with a suspicion that the Japanese might attack, and needing an excuse to convince the american people they needed to go to war, why not lay out a sitting duck of an arguably obsolete fleet (while protecting the vital parts) and see what happens? Not saying this is actually the case, but it does seem like an HUGE coincidence. But then again, coincidence is the stuff stories are made of, and Pearl Harbor (and the rest of the pacific war) is quite a story. But baiting the Japanese fleet was a tactic used openly many times after Pearl Harbor - perhaps it was used just before too?
Had the states lost a carrier at Pearl, it would have been an even bigger setback than it already was, and perhaps the war in the pacific would have lasted as much as another 6 months, but in the end, Japan could have never stood against an industrial power capable of producing multiple massive fleets in significantly less time than they could make one. The only way to stop that industrial power would have been to bring large scale stategic bombing and land invasion to the majority of the mainland USA, something the Japanese could never have managed. No change in tactics could have done anything more than delay the inevitable once they brought the US into the war.
Of course, one could argue that Japan thought the US entry into the war against them was inevitable, and that Pearl was the best option in terms of buying them the upper hand for a while longer. In fact, both those things may be true. The USA had already stopped selling Japan oil and steel, and was clearly becoming hostile towards their imperialist expansions in the far east. I'm sure their spys were telling them the US was beginning to gear up for war too (maybe not in absolute numbers of planes, ships and other materials, but certainly in intensivelt developing new technology for war). Americans were already volunteering to fight against Japan in the AVG and clearly backed by the US military (if indirectly), which was a fact not lost on the Japanese command either.
Really I have to say the Japanese tactics in the Pacific were reasonably sound. It was just a case of a fierce and brave jaguar picking a fight with a sleeping tiger by biting it hard on the nose - good first move, but once the initial surprise wears off and the tiger is moving, the jaguar is simply outweighed and overpowered and will lose 99 times out of 100, even it it fights harder and better.
by all rights, at least one carrier should have been at Pearl, if not 2. And several of the battleships should not have been. Yet the vast majority of our pacific battleships had been in port for many days and in some cases weeks, with nary a carrier to be seen anywhere near Pearl. One could almost surmise from that, knowing that the japanese prised the battleship over the carrier and that the US valued the carrier more even then, that this was a bit of a setup - with a suspicion that the Japanese might attack, and needing an excuse to convince the american people they needed to go to war, why not lay out a sitting duck of an arguably obsolete fleet (while protecting the vital parts) and see what happens? Not saying this is actually the case, but it does seem like an HUGE coincidence. But then again, coincidence is the stuff stories are made of, and Pearl Harbor (and the rest of the pacific war) is quite a story. But baiting the Japanese fleet was a tactic used openly many times after Pearl Harbor - perhaps it was used just before too?
Had the states lost a carrier at Pearl, it would have been an even bigger setback than it already was, and perhaps the war in the pacific would have lasted as much as another 6 months, but in the end, Japan could have never stood against an industrial power capable of producing multiple massive fleets in significantly less time than they could make one. The only way to stop that industrial power would have been to bring large scale stategic bombing and land invasion to the majority of the mainland USA, something the Japanese could never have managed. No change in tactics could have done anything more than delay the inevitable once they brought the US into the war.
Of course, one could argue that Japan thought the US entry into the war against them was inevitable, and that Pearl was the best option in terms of buying them the upper hand for a while longer. In fact, both those things may be true. The USA had already stopped selling Japan oil and steel, and was clearly becoming hostile towards their imperialist expansions in the far east. I'm sure their spys were telling them the US was beginning to gear up for war too (maybe not in absolute numbers of planes, ships and other materials, but certainly in intensivelt developing new technology for war). Americans were already volunteering to fight against Japan in the AVG and clearly backed by the US military (if indirectly), which was a fact not lost on the Japanese command either.
Really I have to say the Japanese tactics in the Pacific were reasonably sound. It was just a case of a fierce and brave jaguar picking a fight with a sleeping tiger by biting it hard on the nose - good first move, but once the initial surprise wears off and the tiger is moving, the jaguar is simply outweighed and overpowered and will lose 99 times out of 100, even it it fights harder and better.
redneck
Member Since: June 06, 2005
entire network: 1,602 Posts
KitMaker Network: 447 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 09:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Slight correction dont try and build 5!!! Yamatos
I thought they only built 2 true Yamato class battle ships with the other 3 bodies being converted into massive carriers during construction?
I believe the Japanese should have developed better security for there codes and messages.
I consider the battle of midway as the turning point in the war and believe that if the Japanese would have taken midway they could have launched more attacks against Hawaii or perhaps even an invasion.
The reason the Japanese lost that battle is because we brock there code and knew they were going to attack.
vanize
Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I believe the Japanese should have developed better security for there codes and messages.
I consider the battle of midway as the turning point in the war and believe that if the Japanese would have taken midway they could have launched more attacks against Hawaii or perhaps even an invasion.
The reason the Japanese lost that battle is because we brock there code and knew they were going to attack.
Losing Midway would have forced the US into a worse position, and made them concentrate more on the pacific in the following year or two than africa and europe, and likely military aid to the allies would have needed to be reduced, but in the end, a loss at Midway would not have changed the eventual Japanese loss. It would have made things a lot more difficult for the States in the pacific war, and we may have even lost Hawaii for a while, but an invasion of the mainland US was simply impossible for the Japanses to manage - America was too far away and by far and away much too big. There was no hope in that route.
Their code was easy to break because of the nature of their language. Ironically, the complexity of the language makes it extremely difficult to encode with much complexity (or so I have heard - it's not like i am an expert at encryption or anything). and even so, exact orders or information are extremely difficult to give in written/coded japanese. without directly talking, it is hard to make things exactly clear. Coding that adds to the confusion even if you could effectively code Konji, which you really can't. But yes, having cracked the Japanese code was a huge benifit to the American tacticians, but again, I do not beleive not having cracked it would have changed the eventual result of the pacific war.
redneck
Member Since: June 06, 2005
entire network: 1,602 Posts
KitMaker Network: 447 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:18 PM UTC
Sorry I meant an invasion of Hawaii.
I admit the Japanese could have never pulled off an invasion of America but there goal was only the shipping lanes in the Pacific. Had the taken Hawaii and launched strikes at the mainland they could have tried to end the war using Hawaii as a bargaining chip and simply try to secure the pacific.
I admit the Japanese could have never pulled off an invasion of America but there goal was only the shipping lanes in the Pacific. Had the taken Hawaii and launched strikes at the mainland they could have tried to end the war using Hawaii as a bargaining chip and simply try to secure the pacific.
vanize
Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Sorry I meant an invasion of Hawaii.
I admit the Japanese could have never pulled off an invasion of America but there goal was only the shipping lanes in the Pacific. Had the taken Hawaii and launched strikes at the mainland they could have tried to end the war using Hawaii as a bargaining chip and simply try to secure the pacific.
yeah, an invasion of the Hawaiian islands could have been possible had the japanese won Midway. That certainly would have made things sticky for the USA, but fleets built and launched on the west coast and even the east coast and brought through the panama canal could have taken Hawaii back within a couple years at most. Hawaii in Japanese hands would have certainly delayed the Pacific war considerably for the Americans to be sure.
War_Machine
Member Since: February 11, 2003
entire network: 702 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:56 AM UTC
The only thing that MIGHT have helped the Japanese in WW2 was to enter it with a different mindset. In addition to needing natural resources, they felt obligated, even destined, to rule over the entire Pacific Ocean and all its nations and peoples. They also were hampered by rampant racism.
NERD ALERT!!!!! NERD ALERT!!!! GEEKY COMPARISON APPROACHING!!!!!
The Japanese mindset was similar to that of the Romulans in the Star Trek universe (for you non-nerds out there). They believed that they were superior to all races and that everyone else was more or less a waste of skin and could do nothing better than to serve them. I have a bit of special insight into this aspect of Japanese society because my mother grew up in wartime Japan and tells many stories of how racist many, if not most, people were. This mindset was especially strong among the army officers who made up the bulk of the government.
The main exceptions to this mindset were several naval officers, such as Yamamoto, who had served in the West a naval attaches. They understood Western society and its people far better than their sheltered army counterparts. They knew better than to underestimate the strength and spirit of Western societies, especially the US. Unfortunately for Japan, their opinions were nothing but a few tiny voices lost in a vast forest of ignorance and mostly ignored.
If the leadership and much of the populace of Japan had not been so racist and quick to dismiss the strength of other peoples and races, perhaps they would have never entered into what should have seemed to be a near suicidal war. Perhaps then countless millions would have been spared the tragedy of the war in the Pacific.
NERD ALERT!!!!! NERD ALERT!!!! GEEKY COMPARISON APPROACHING!!!!!
The Japanese mindset was similar to that of the Romulans in the Star Trek universe (for you non-nerds out there). They believed that they were superior to all races and that everyone else was more or less a waste of skin and could do nothing better than to serve them. I have a bit of special insight into this aspect of Japanese society because my mother grew up in wartime Japan and tells many stories of how racist many, if not most, people were. This mindset was especially strong among the army officers who made up the bulk of the government.
The main exceptions to this mindset were several naval officers, such as Yamamoto, who had served in the West a naval attaches. They understood Western society and its people far better than their sheltered army counterparts. They knew better than to underestimate the strength and spirit of Western societies, especially the US. Unfortunately for Japan, their opinions were nothing but a few tiny voices lost in a vast forest of ignorance and mostly ignored.
If the leadership and much of the populace of Japan had not been so racist and quick to dismiss the strength of other peoples and races, perhaps they would have never entered into what should have seemed to be a near suicidal war. Perhaps then countless millions would have been spared the tragedy of the war in the Pacific.
jRatz
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:56 AM UTC
IMHO ...
It's OK to conquer China, just don't rape your way thru it, or at least don't leave any survivors to report it ...
Leave the US & Pearl, etc, alone ... stay close to the Asian mainland. The sealanes most critical to Japan ran from Indonesia to Japan & not way eastward ...
Later, maybe sneak eastward a ways, but avoid the direct confrontation as long as possible ...
If Japan doesn't provoke the US then when does the US join the war, if ever ...
John
It's OK to conquer China, just don't rape your way thru it, or at least don't leave any survivors to report it ...
Leave the US & Pearl, etc, alone ... stay close to the Asian mainland. The sealanes most critical to Japan ran from Indonesia to Japan & not way eastward ...
Later, maybe sneak eastward a ways, but avoid the direct confrontation as long as possible ...
If Japan doesn't provoke the US then when does the US join the war, if ever ...
John
Silantra
Member Since: March 04, 2004
entire network: 2,511 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,296 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 08:24 AM UTC
the jap should build many submarines and guard their west coast againt the US.....
DutchBird
#068
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 09:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
IMHO ...
....
If Japan doesn't provoke the US then when does the US join the war, if ever ...
John
the point of view of a very partially informed outsider.
The US would have gone to war almsot regardless. Simply put, both Japanese aspirations and Germany posed too large a threat to the American way of life (both from a society/intellectual point of view and an economic one).
FDR and some of his men saw this, a whole bunch of isolationists did not. I suspect that these isolationists were part of the same group that turned Woodrow Wilson into a lame duck by ear;y 1919, making him impotent to do anything about the disastrous demands made in the Versailles treaties. Let alone the scandalous behaviour of France, Britian and the newly created Central European states vs Germany, Austria and Hungary (the remnants of Germany and the Habsburg Monarchy). With had (among other things) the result that through shrewd political manoevering Hitler could easily dominate Central Europe well before the Anschluss of Austria in 1938.
FDR was IMHO steering the US towards war. Certainly against Germany but possibly also against Japan. IMHO the US became at least de facto belligerant when they started escorting British ships and convoys almost all the way across the Atlantic. In fact, IIRC, the first American servicemen were killed well before Pearl Harbor when their vessel was sunk by a U-Boat while escorting a British convoy.
One could argue even the Japanese standpoint that the US was already a belligerent when they started supporting the UK with money and goods while ignoring Germany.
So it was just a matter of time before the US would have been in the war. I would guess certanily before Roosevelt died. On either side....
vanize
Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 09:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Their code was easy to break because of the nature of their language. Ironically, the complexity of the language makes it extremely difficult to encode with much complexity (or so I have heard - it's not like i am an expert at encryption or anything). and even so, exact orders or information are extremely difficult to give in written/coded japanese. without directly talking, it is hard to make things exactly clear. Coding that adds to the confusion even if you could effectively code Konji, which you really can't.
That's just wrong, yes Kanji is difficult but the Japanese language is actually quite simple. The thing about orders needing to be spoken to be clear is once again just plain wrong. Also given that the Kanji system contains around 15,000 characters (no one really knows anymore......) It is quit easy to replace any one character with another. Also note that Japanese has three character sets, with Katakana and Hiragana containing only 52 characters each, once again making coding quite easy, with a large variety of combinations possible.
Sorry Mate, but you're pretty much wrong here......
The most likely reason for Japanese code being broken is that they had had little experience with modern coding (they only had radios for about 15years)
fair enough - i was just repeating what i have heard others say (including a documentary) and it sounded reasonable to me. I'm no expert on japanese, and it certainly seems like you know more about it than me, so i can't really argue the point.
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 09:31 AM UTC
I'm excited to see this topic get so much response! I enjoy hearing other's perspectives and ideas, many that I've never considered. So here is mine
IMHO: The Japanese should have concentrated on mainland Asia for resources and held off open hostilities with the U.S. until it could build up a formidable carrier force. Also this stall tactic could have given them more time to see how the ETO played out and maybe strike some kinda peace deal with the Allies? Just wondering???
IMHO: The Japanese should have concentrated on mainland Asia for resources and held off open hostilities with the U.S. until it could build up a formidable carrier force. Also this stall tactic could have given them more time to see how the ETO played out and maybe strike some kinda peace deal with the Allies? Just wondering???
Zacman
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:55 AM UTC
If they had of used there alliance with German better, attacking Russia, consolidate China and force Russia, to fight a war on to fronts, (German, in this plan, must avoid war with England/ France, untill Russia is tacken) By that time with the resources from Russia and China they could have then been a threat to main land U.S.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextNailed the carriers at Pearl for a start. But also developed new and better fighter and bomber aircraft that were on a par with the Allied air forces.
That's a bit hard to do when they aren't there.
Exactly, but the attack should have also covered the carriers. That failiure cost them.
Quoted Text
I do wonder this what would have happened if the Japanese followed David, Drader's, plan. I understand the need to protect their sea lanes and flanks, but I tend to agree that it might have been much harder for FDR to get the Americans into it, if America herself wasn't directly attacked. Even if the Japanese took over all of the territory they attacked except Pearl Harbor and the P.I. would that have been enough to get the Americans into the war?
War was inevitable with the US and as Vance and Roderick pointed out, Japan saw the sanctions as an act of war. Similar to the line N Korea took recently.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
If they had of used there alliance with German better, attacking Russia, consolidate China and force Russia, to fight a war on to fronts, (German, in this plan, must avoid war with England/ France, untill Russia is tacken) By that time with the resources from Russia and China they could have then been a threat to main land U.S.
The problem is Germany and Japan (unlike say Germany and Italy) were allies in the broadest sense and had no real sympathy for each other. They were each probably what the other hated most in their enemies, so cooperation was unlikely.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.