Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by lwd »

First of all Midway isn't that much closer to Japan.
Second of all if a war started then they would be xpecting raids unlike Hawaii so the alet status would be higher.
You mention the invasion of hawaii on another forum if it's the axis history forum I'm pretty much convinced the proponents are dreaming if they think it has any chance at all.

However all that asside Japan probably has enough power to take Midway if they commit enough resources. However to determine the effect on the rest of the war we need to determine which resources so that we can determine what happens else where and also determine what the losses are at Midway.

Based on both US and Japanese invasions elsewhere in the Pacfic you are looking at the transports being in the vacinity of Midway for at least a week and probably longer. It's also going to take them longer to get to MIdway. That means the invasion has to be launched sooner or take place later than 7 Dec. Furthermore the transports will take longer to make their run into Midway so the airal atack has to begin before they get in range of Midway based aircraft thus you are probably looking at the Japanese CVs being in the vacinity of Midway for even longer.

As for the US fleet coming out. Indeed any vessels sunk will be unrecoverable however I wouldn't expecdt the Japanese CVs to be able to sink as many BBs as they did at PH and I would expect their losses to be higher. Also since the BBs were still considered the primary targets at the time there's a good chance the US CVs get in a a raid or two. So even if they suceed the Japanese may find themselves in a much worse situation than historical.

But to try and determine any of this we need more details.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by minoru genda »

lwd, I think you are expecting too much of the US response to a surprise attack on Midway.

I have done some reseach.

First of all, Midway invasion should be relatively easy. Remember, it is a surprise attack! The war starts with the first air raid on Midway so the alert status is minimal. How many US planes are in Midway on December 7th anyway? No more than 50 and most of them if not all would be destroyed before they can take off the ground during the first wave of attacks. Remember too that unlike Oahu, Midway is a VERY small flat island where there is nowhere to hide. Here is a photo of Midway atoll dated November 1941:

Image

Both, Sand Island and Eastern Island are only 620 hectares (compared with Wake 730 hectares). I wouldn't be surprised if half the garrison of Midway are casualties after the air raids of Nagumo's aircraft. Let's say 300 aircraft armed with bombs (torpedo bombers are not needed here) and 50 fighters for air cover just in case Lexington's planes appear (not sure if Lexington is close enough to Midway though). That should pretty much do it. But if it is not enough shore bombardment with 2 battleships would destroy anything left. OK, if as you say Japanese doctrine didn't consider BBs as fire support then let's have cruisers Tone and Chikuma plus 8 destroyers do the job. Landings should start inmediatelly afterwards on the same day but if that is not suitable for whatever reason then early on the next day after yet another series of air raids. The couple of hundred defenders still alive would soon surrender.

Japanese loses during the air raids on Midway should be minimal. They lost 9 planes during the first wave at Pearl so they should have even less at Midway.

I dont think the US would commit its fleet on a relief attempt to Midway knowing there were 6 Japanese aircraft carriers around. Remember the relief attempt on Wake Island? On December 22, after receiving information indicating the presence of two IJN carriers and two fast battleships near Wake Island Vice Admiral Pye, ordered TF-14 to return to Pearl for fear of losses. Would be different this time? There is also a good chance pre-positioned IJN subs off Pearl Harbor and around Midway get some US warships. But even if the US fleet comes out to fight by the time it arrives to Midway 4 days later the US garrison there has long surrendered. As for the US CVs getting in a raid or two, well first they have to find the Japanese fleet and it is much more likely the Japs find the US CVs first. It is 6 vs. 2 carriers, or maybe even 6 vs. 1 since Lexington might have already been found and sunk in the first day when the US fleet was still at Pearl.

A question: how long would it take for the 8 battleships at Pearl to get ready to sail? If they receive news of Japanese attack on Midway in the morning of December 7th, can they sail on the same day? the next day?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by Bgile »

I really think the Japanese considered the CVs to be the primary targets. They were hoping to get at least one at PH and it was a real disappointment when there weren't any there.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

The Japanese would have done Nimitz a great favour by invading and keeping Midway. They would have needed all their available resources in order to mainting the position against heavy atrittion. This particular scenario is considered in Parshall and Tully´s Shattered Sword and they convinced ME that it was not feaseable.

And if Midway can´t, then less for Hawai.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by minoru genda »

I haven't read Shattered Sword. Do the authors really consider the Japanese taking Midway in Dec. 1941?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Minoru:

Yes and no. Their first consideration is an invasion of Hawai and then the invasion of Midway as Yamamoto planned it. The combat to take the island from the hands of the marines is, well, hairy. Then, assuming they landed and the marines surrendered then they have to supply the island. And in that moment then they will become highly vulnerable from:
1. Subs and hit and run CVs along the supply route.
2. As some felows here point out (and I agree with them) B-17 would have given them hell by flying from Hawai.

Being that the case, sooner or later Yamamoto would have been in need to really seek the decisive battle he yearned to have. But this time because HE is in enemy territory and forced to act. Nimitz just have to wait and let him come...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by Bgile »

I wasn't intending to HOLD Midway indefinitely. Just capture it and make the US expend resources to take it back. If I can get them to sortie from PH immediately, fine ... I get to sink some battleships and maybe a carrier. If not, I leave a garrison to dig in and move on to other operations. The idea is to keep the US focused on Midway temporarily while I consolidate my position elsewhere.

If the US AAF wants to send me a few B-17D's to shoot down (no tail gunner) that would be fine too. Whatever happens I move my fleet away less than a week after the initial attack. I have pressing business elsewhere.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by minoru genda »

Yes Bgile, that's the idea. Take Midway and leave a garrison to dig in so the US has to focus there and not somewhere else.
Tora! Tora! Tora!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by lwd »

minoru genda wrote:... Remember, it is a surprise attack! The war starts with the first air raid on Midway so the alert status is minimal....
But Midway may be much closer to a war footing. I don't know if there was radar on Midway at the time so it's effect is in question. If the Japanese catch the US planes on the ground then for the initial attack on Midway you are probably right lower casualties than the first wave although the initial attack would be only about 200 planes. If the US gets it's planes up in time to intercept Japanese casulaties would likely be higher. Based on what happened at Wake the US got almost 1 Japanese plane shot down or badly damage for each of it's planes though all the intercepting fighters were lost.
A question: how long would it take for the 8 battleships at Pearl to get ready to sail? If they receive news of Japanese attack on Midway in the morning of December 7th, can they sail on the same day? the next day?
They practiced flushing Pearl as a drill before the war. Supposedly all warships could be at sea in an hour and a half. The time deciding what to do and how to do it would be greater than the time getting ready to sail.
Bgile wrote:I really think the Japanese considered the CVs to be the primary targets. They were hoping to get at least one at PH and it was a real disappointment when there weren't any there.
The BBs were listed as the primary targets on the target list. That doesn't mean that they didn't want to get the US CVs however. After the raid when it was clear just how important CVs would be in the Pacific the impact of missing them became a bit more obvious.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by lwd »

minoru genda wrote:Yes Bgile, that's the idea. Take Midway and leave a garrison to dig in so the US has to focus there and not somewhere else.
The problem for the Japanese is that they have to then keep it supplied and it may well become a bleading ulcer. All the US need do is keep a couple of subs in the area and the Japanese have a significant problem. If they try stationing enough escorts there to keep the subs down the US can raid with cruisers (it's after all only about 3 sail from PH). They also just don't have the oil to keep a large force there and even if they did it would be needed elsewhere. Even the invasion operation may use enough oil to put the Japanese on an even tighter tether than historical. It's also going to slow them down at least a little in the South Pacific where the oil is.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by Bgile »

lwd wrote:The problem for the Japanese is that they have to then keep it supplied and it may well become a bleading ulcer. All the US need do is keep a couple of subs in the area and the Japanese have a significant problem. If they try stationing enough escorts there to keep the subs down the US can raid with cruisers (it's after all only about 3 sail from PH). They also just don't have the oil to keep a large force there and even if they did it would be needed elsewhere. Even the invasion operation may use enough oil to put the Japanese on an even tighter tether than historical. It's also going to slow them down at least a little in the South Pacific where the oil is.
Supplied with what? Not much. You don't seem to be getting the point. It's a diversion. I'm using a lot less oil than the PH operation and then I'm leaving. You are completely wrong about distance. It's a thousand miles closer to Japan. My fleet will be back in Japan about the same time as it was historically.

I'm not planning to spend much effort to defend it. I consider it worth the risk to get the US to come after me so I can sink some of the heavies. It's the historical Midway operation a half year early. It might not work, but you seem inclined to come after me. The USN can ignore me and let it wither on the vine, but then they lose a valuable submarine and aircraft base until they retake it. It works best if they DO sortie from PH on short notice, but if they don't I'll have several days to unload supplies before I leave.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by lwd »

Bgile wrote: ...
Supplied with what? Not much.
food, fuel, ammo. That sort ofthing. equipment and supplies if you want to dig in.
You don't seem to be getting the point. It's a diversion.
But who is it diverting and how much? The US can use it as a warm up / training area if they want or just ignore it. Consider what do the BBs have to do in December or January? IN this scenario the US has a lot more freedom to act. It's not at all clear that they would use most of it up on Midway. In the mean time the Japanese have made a significant commitment there. 5,000 men I think you said (is there even water for them on Midway?
I'm using a lot less oil than the PH operation and then I'm leaving.
If you stay around while the transports unload it will be more. You've got to send more ships and the CVs will be operating in a combat zone and conducting air ops for at least a week or two which is very costly in terms of fuel.
You are completely wrong about distance.
How so?
It's a thousand miles closer to Japan. My fleet will be back in Japan about the same time as it was historically.
So it's a couple days closer to Japan. Is it on the way out? and that's only for the CVs. The transports have to leave earlier yet. You'll only get back to Japan around the same time if you abandon the transports.
I'm not planning to spend much effort to defend it.
Then the US won't have to spend much effort to retake it. Might even work out beter work out the bugs on Midway which is better known than Tarawa.
I consider it worth the risk to get the US to come after me so I can sink some of the heavies. It's the historical Midway operation a half year early.
This looks to be ahistorical reasoning and counter to a lof of what you've said above. The US could come charging out of PH but would take about 3 days to get there. Now if they plan for a few days now you're looking at the US response being a week or more off. Are you waiting around for it? Your transports will be if you have any significant amount of supplies to off load. Then it's not clear at the time just how effective CVs are vs BBs at sea. Also if the US has a scout advantage there's a chance that you end up with your CVs involved in a night action vs surface ships or hit by surprise by the US CVs and if they get slowed at all and the US fleet comes out you don't have the strength to save them.
It might not work, ...
I agree. It's a diversion that surrenders the initiative to the otherside and diverts Japan from it's critical efforts.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by minoru genda »

I think there is another option we didn't think about. It would be possible to supply Midway by air from Wake Island once it is taken. Midway is closer to Wake than to Oahu and it would be only a one way flight. How did the Japanese send supplies to Wake from 1941 to 1945?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by lwd »

Sending supplies by air is very costly since the constraining resource on the Japanese is fuel this seams rather a waste. Submarines would probably be more efficient but I'm no expert there.

Back to the original invasion. I suspect that the Japanese would have considered 5,000 troops adequate. However Midway had about 1,000 defenders at the time. Given the level of planning demostrated at Wake and Midway I'm not at all sure that 5,000 is enough to guarantee success. From what I've seen of the plan for landing at Midway in June it included the very real possibility of the troops having to wade ashore from the reef as their landing boats probably could not have crossed it. If they picked a well defended portion of the beach to attmept to land on they were in trouble.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Pacific War without Pearl Harbor

Post by minoru genda »

The difference is that Wake was first attacked by 36 Japanese medium level bombers with poor accuracy. In Midway the Kido Butai could use 300 tactical bombers and then a heavy naval barrage. How many of the 1,000 defenders would still be alive by the time the Japs being to land?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Post Reply