Japanese Victory at Midway

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Bgile » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:41 pm

Interesting ideas ... the risky one I think is problematic but I agree might have the potential to win a truce.

A few problems I see with option two:

Not sure why you would think US lacks experience after losing at Midway.

US would still probably attack Guadalcanal IMO or New Guinea.

Russians would crush Japanese attack. Imagine the Japanese trying to deal with T-34s on the steppes. Their army just isn't suited to fighting the Russians. The Russians just wouldn't crush the Germans as quickly. Also, the 500,000 troops the Japanese sent to Russia would completely strip their Pacific holdings, making US offensives relatively easy.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:37 pm

In addition both plans resulat in even greater fuel expenditures by the Japanese but don't do anything to increase (at least in the short term the fuel supplies).

winterfell
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby winterfell » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:39 pm

Bgile wrote:
Not sure why you would think US lacks experience after losing at Midway.

US would still probably attack Guadalcanal IMO or New Guinea.

Russians would crush Japanese attack. Imagine the Japanese trying to deal with T-34s on the steppes. Their army just isn't suited to fighting the Russians. The Russians just wouldn't crush the Germans as quickly. Also, the 500,000 troops the Japanese sent to Russia would completely strip their Pacific holdings, making US offensives relatively easy.


1. Experience.
Defeats mean loss of hundreds (thousands) of experienced sailors and aircrews. You have to survive to gain any experience.

2. Guadalcanal and New Guinea.
Americans invaded Guadalcanal in order to stop the Japanese drive to the south of the Solomons Islands. I don’t think however that Americans would try to capture the island situated in the middle of the Japanese-held archipelago.

You may be right with New Guinea. An awful place but located quite close to Australia. With Australian airbases at hand Americans would be able to go there on offensive against the Japanese maybe on the beginning of the 1943.

3. Russian capabilities
In 1942 almost all Russian resources were engaged on the German front and none of them (especially T-34s) could be spared on war with Japan. Just several days before Midway the Red Army suffered terrible defeat at Kharkov.

Please remember that many of Russian infantry divisions lacked any mechanized transport and they weren’t any better than Japanese ones. And even if Russians decided to throw tanks against the Japanese it should be taken into account that Asian part of Russia consist mainly of forests, not steppe. In some aspects environment of Siberia is similar to Malay Penisiula. Great strategic weakness of Soviet position in Siberia was Trans-Siberian Railroad. It was the only effective communication route connecting Siberia with European Russia and all what the Japanese needed was destruction of several of its numerous bridges.

To put it clear. I don’t expect the Japanese to reach Ural Mountains in few month time. I would rather expect them to conquer Soviet Far East. However, the psychological effect of that would be shattering. I believe that perspective of war on two fronts (with possibility of hardly any help from the UK and the US) would result in crumbling of the USSR.

4. Stripping of Japanese Pacific holdings.
There was such a possibility, but Japanese populations during Second World War counted over 70 million people and I think that they were able to mobilize another few hundred thousand soldiers (Japanese Army counted over 4 million soldiers in 1945).

lwd wrote:In addition both plans resulat in even greater fuel expenditures by the Japanese but don't do anything to increase (at least in the short term the fuel supplies).


That’s quite possible and that’s why (inter alia) I called it gamble.

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby minoru genda » Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:16 pm

I think that a Japanese invasion in depth of Russa from the East would be a big mistake. Just look at a map and see the incredible distances. The distance from Manchuria to the Urals is three times the distance from Berlin to Moscow, and the Japanese army is not a modern army like the German or Russian. That said I think the Japanese could've launched a limited attack against the Russians in the Far East. They could've taken the rest of Sakhalin Island with ts oil reserves, Vladivostok, and other coastal areas along the Russian coastline.
Tora! Tora! Tora!

winterfell
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby winterfell » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:17 am

minoru genda wrote:I think that a Japanese invasion in depth of Russa from the East would be a big mistake. Just look at a map and see the incredible distances. The distance from Manchuria to the Urals is three times the distance from Berlin to Moscow, and the Japanese army is not a modern army like the German or Russian. That said I think the Japanese could've launched a limited attack against the Russians in the Far East. They could've taken the rest of Sakhalin Island with ts oil reserves, Vladivostok, and other coastal areas along the Russian coastline.


Yes, but look what I have already written.

winterfell wrote:To put it clear. I don’t expect the Japanese to reach Ural Mountains in few month time. I would rather expect them to conquer Soviet Far East. However, the psychological effect of that would be shattering. I believe that perspective of war on two fronts (with possibility of hardly any help from the UK and the US) would result in crumbling of the USSR.



I never thought about Japan going alone on war with the Soviet Union. I am just believing that joint German-Japanese action in 1942/43 could result in defeat of the Soviet Union.

BTW I also believe that for Japan starting war with the USSR in 1941 would be a lesser gamble than starting war with USA as they done in reality.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:16 pm

winterfell wrote: .... I am just believing that joint German-Japanese action in 1942/43 could result in defeat of the Soviet Union.

BTW I also believe that for Japan starting war with the USSR in 1941 would be a lesser gamble than starting war with USA as they done in reality.

It's not at all clear that the Japanese army could have overcome the Soviet defences even after many had headed West.

As for attacking the Soviets rather than the US. The Japanese needed oil. The Siverian depostis were for the most part if not totally unknown and even if they were it's not clear that the Japanese could have put them into produciton in any reasonable length of time. Furthermore an attack on the Soviets might well end up meaning war with the US in any case but with their oil supplies already depeleted and there attention elsewhere. Think what would happen to Japanese commerce if the US could base it subs as well as planes in the Philipines.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Bgile » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:29 pm

I thought the Japanese DID attack the Russians and got their head handed to them.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:18 pm

That was prior to the usually accepted start date of WWII. Unless you are talking about the Soviet assault late in the war. In both cases the Japanese didn't handle armored assaults very well.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:58 pm

How about this.

Japan wins at Midway where the US loses Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet.

Japan captures New Caledonia, Samoa, Fiji, of course they can't risk invading Australia with US still behind, so they must attack Hawaii - there is a choice to either attack or wait for the US industry to just give all it has. I guess they would attack Hawaii.

Batterred US Fleet + Hawaii defences vs experienced and powerful Japanese Navy. Whoever wins this battle will win the war (for the Japs ''winning the war'' means signing a truce, and for the US of course total destruction of Japanese military power, the way it actually was). It can go either way, agree?

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:40 pm

Amare1 wrote:.... It can go either way, agree?

First of all Hawaii had been built up to the point that a Japanese attack would be unlikely to have any significant success against it. Remember it's fairly easy to sink a CV sinking an island is pretty difficult. In addition if we'd lost at Midway PH would have been reinforced even more.
Second if they "succeed" in attacking PH they are likely to take severe casualties in pilots and planes if nothing else. And this success is the success of a raid. They simply don't have the capacity at this point in the war to take PH.
Third even if they take PH within two years the US fleet is a lot stronger then the IJN which is suffering from severe fuel problems in any case.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:03 pm

Right. But look at a couple of factors: Japanese here have the finest aircrews ever. US is rather less experienced and their aircraft still aren't any match for the Japanese types.
Out of the US aircraft, which do you think can make serious damage to the Japanese fleet? SBDs of course, but B17s, P39s, TBDs and other types they had here... no way.

Of course the Japanese couldn't keep Pearl when in 1943 US industry comes to its best, but I'm not implying to what would happen later, I only want to talk about this situation - Battle of Hawaii.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:01 pm

Amare1 wrote:Right. But look at a couple of factors: Japanese here have the finest aircrews ever. US is rather less experienced and their aircraft still aren't any match for the Japanese types.
Out of the US aircraft, which do you think can make serious damage to the Japanese fleet? SBDs of course, but B17s, P39s, TBDs and other types they had here... no way.

Not quite right. While the IJN air crews at the beginning of the war were arguably the best the USN crews weren't far behind. In this situation the USN will have taken some pretty serious losses but so will the IJN air crews. Remember that one IJN CV was out of action after Coral Sea due to losses in taking out 1 US CV. Even if the US didn't hit the IJN CVs the aircrew losses at Midway would be substantial and Japan was not quick at generating replacements. Furthermore any bomber can hurt a CV. This is particularly true if they say follow a raid back and attack when the CVs are trying to recover planes. As for being a match. The P-40 and F4F were about on par with the zero. Other US types were in some cases superior to their Japanese equivalents and at others on a par and in still other cases inferior. Indeed if the Japanese are doing more than a one day raid the Catalina's can be a serious threat as they have at least a limited potential for attacking at night. Note the losses that the Japanese took from F2F's at Midway. Sure they didn't last long once engaged by the zeros but in the short time before they got shot down they did a pretty good job of shooting up a fair number of bombers.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:39 pm

Losses over Midway were few, if you're not taking USMC Reports seriously. The Japs lost, as I can recall, nine planes, and five more were damaged beyond repair, correct me if I'm wrong. This is according to the Japanese data. Out of this nine planes, three were lost due to AA fire. So it leaves what, six planes downed by F2Fs and F4Fs for the loss of 15 US planes, plus eight unable to fly again from damage. That aren't actually heavy casualties for the Japanese out of 108 aircraft used.

I'm counting on some 50-60 planes lost in this Japanese victory at Midway. The side which is victorious can recover its downed fliers better than the defeated side, so count fewer aircrew losses than aircraft actually shot down.

For F4F, it was a good plane but not a match for Japanese pilots from 1942 flying A6Ms. In 1943 the better US pilot school and more flight hours began to take over, but only F6Fs and F4Us started to really turn the tide to the US. And can I mention that Japanese victory would definetly affect the capture of a downed Zero at the Aleutians and its use to make F6F trully superb?

Come on, P-40 equal to Zero, are you serious?

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Legend » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:08 am

The P-40 could really take some hits, like the WWII equivelant of the A-10! It was slower yes, and not as maneuverable, but it didn't burst into flames in only a few hits, there are reports of the engine still running on four cylinders, now that's rugged! Now, I 'm sorry to be frank, but I personally don't think the Japanese had the hope of a chance to finish the war they started. If they had co-operated with Hitler and maybe taken over the rest of Asia and Europe first, then taken ten or so years to build a super-army and navy, than yes, they might have had a chance. I don't mean to make the US sound like a super-power, but we were. Japan just didn't have the industrial strength to churn out the number of CV's that we did. They did make good equiptment, but not enough of it, by far. And most of it had some flaw despite it's technological advancement, like all great things. The Yamato's were the biggest and maybe the best BB's ever created, but they couldn't defend against a cloud of dive bombers and torpedo planes. The Zero was fast and nimble, but not armored enough.

Amare1. If the Japanese defeated Pearl Harbor and somehow survived with enough forces to storm the lovely beaches of California, what would they do then. If the time ever came, I think we would have a turnout rather like the Russians, creating massive home-grown armies on the turn of a dime. We have been like that since the Revolutionary War! Now we have the rednecks that would defend our country (I would take arms too, but not near them, he he). A very large percentage of our country is armed, like more than the Japanese could probably cope with on a very good day. Oh, I forgot to mention the Iowas that would be rolling off the line by the time the Japs would finally get to Hollywood. Them, plus the South Dakotas. Plus the two Alaskas. Plus the dozens of small CV's churning out of the shipyards. At this point I think the US would have even maybe decided to carry out their planned Montana class, just to almost gaurantee the destruction of the Yamato and Musashi without major loss of life. How would the Japanese be able to get enough men, supplies, and ammo to siege the US? :stubborn:
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:42 pm

Amare1 wrote:Losses over Midway were few, if you're not taking USMC Reports seriously. The Japs lost, as I can recall, nine planes, and five more were damaged beyond repair, correct me if I'm wrong.

I meant to say Wake but even here we have the Japanese loosing 14 planes and the US having 15 shot down.

I'm counting on some 50-60 planes lost in this Japanese victory at Midway...

They lost 70 planes at Coral Sea. Why would they loose less vs 3 US CVs? At the time of Midway the Japanese had 6 CVs one is out due to damage and one is out due to lack of pilots. Neither of these two are likely to be ready for a while then you loose at least another CVs worth of planes and you only have 3 to Hit PH with. Vs an alert and prepared base this doesn't sound good to me. The US would likely have almost as many fighters as the Japanese have planes maybe more.
For F4F, it was a good plane but not a match for Japanese pilots from 1942 flying A6Ms...

That is simply not true. If you look at the exchange ration between F4Fs and Zeros it so close to one as to make no difference.
In 1943 the better US pilot school and more flight hours began to take over, but only F6Fs and F4Us started to really turn the tide to the US.

The tide was already turned by that point. You simply can't win with 1:1 exchange rations when you are being outproduced the way Japan was.
And can I mention that Japanese victory would definetly affect the capture of a downed Zero at the Aleutians and its use to make F6F trully superb?

You can but you'ld be wrong again. The F5F design was complete well before they could use any knowledge gained from the Aleutian Zero.
For instance look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6F
The first production aircraft off the line, designated F6F-3s, flew on 3 October 1942

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Zero
captured intact by the Americans in July 1942....On September 20, 1942, Lieutenant Commander Eddie R. Sanders took the Akutan Zero up for its first test flight

Come on, P-40 equal to Zero, are you serious?

Yes.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Thorsten Wahl and 2 guests