Pearl Harbour?

Share your best strategies and tactics with other players by posting them here.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

But what if they had hit that Tank Farm ... might connections to Australia have been severed and the Pacific War taken another year to complete? We will never know in this game at least.

While I do not doubt the tanks could have been penetrated (especially by an 800kg bomb), what was in them is probably the bigger issue: Bunker C oil, which is a lot like tar when 'cold'(less than 140F)...not even sure if it could ignite in that tar-like state. There were containment walls around the farms. If a tank were opened up by a bomb, the tar would probably have oozed out, and if not ignited somehow, been recoverable. Maybe that's why the Japanese didn't go after them as they probably knew this.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

This was the quote:
No one knew the Italians would be too low on oil to ever use their Battleships.....

There are two things here:

1. Those battles and operations I mentioned in post 19 happened. They all involved one or (usually) more Regia Marina (RM) battleships. How did those operations take place if the RM were never able to use their battleships?

2.
Fall of '42 to surrender '43?: "The fatal and final blow to the Italian Navy was a shortage of fuel, which forced its main units to remain at anchor for most of the last year of the Italian alliance with Germany."

No one, least of all me, is suggesting that RM operations were not hampered by a lack of fuel after the first year of war. That is an indisputable fact. The above quote is true (although note the italics) but not sure what it adds to the topic and does not contradict my earlier comment because the Italian war started in June 1940 - not the 'fall of 42'.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by brian brian »

So Taranto perhaps did encourage the Japanese into thinking reducing enemy Battleship strength could be worth it. I Wiki'd around a little and read that first their naval attache in Berlin visited Taranto and later a higher-level group of naval officers did, and discussed everything with their Italian counterparts.



Well talk of the Tank Farm just conjures up an image of a present day such commercial operation with big ole tanks that could probably be lit up by a good strafing run.

It is fascinating (a little) how the different grades of oil ultimately affected naval operations, allowing some forces to operate straight from the pumps (Borneo) in some places, but not others.

Another hypothetical I have heard of is ... what if the dry docks & shops part of the base had been hit hard enough to keep Yorktown from being repaired fast enough to participate at Midway ... ???

But the Japanese would probably have needed twin-engine level bombers (land-based) to accomplish much in that direction, I would think.
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

"So Taranto perhaps did encourage the Japanese into thinking reducing enemy Battleship strength could be worth it. I Wiki'd around a little and read that first their naval attache in Berlin visited Taranto and later a higher-level group of naval officers did, and discussed everything with their Italian counterparts."

Going into the attack on Pearl, the Japanese were still thinking Battleship as the main focus if you look at the target instructions to the attack waves. As for the dry docks, I think that was probably a missed opportunity...especially in hindsight concerning Yorktown. The shops...eh...I would think it would take a lucky direct hit to effectively destroy tools, etc...
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9012
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Centuur »

If one looks on the start of the Pacific war, I've always wondered, why the Japanese didn't send a two division invasion force to Pearl Harbor instead of invading the Phillipines. I don't think that US troops, after witnessing the attack on the fleet, would have been able to put up a good defense of the Island, especially against the battle hardened Japanese troops.

Strategically speaking: grab the perimeter first and everything in it later. In MWIF I always put in at least Nimitz, a corps and a division into Honolulu, to prevent this kind of Japanese gamble. However, historically, there were only two divisions on the Island, which seemed to be ill prepared for an invasion, if one looks at the deployment of those divisions (a lot of troops were put into places to guard against sabotage and not in place for a defense of the beaches).

Peter
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Klydon »

Good thread for discussion.

I agree with Peter about a landing on Pearl Harbor. In essence, while the Japanese plan was bold, it wasn't bold enough. Occupation of Pearl Harbor (or even ordering a ground raid) even for a short time would have set the US timetable very far back with the loss of Pearl as a logistics base. Things like Coral Sea and the Doolittle raid would have likely not happen simply because it would have been hard for the US to project power that far west and south west without Pearl as a base.

The thing we don't really know much about would be if the fast transport was available and the logistics situation of getting them there. The refueling capacity of the Japanese fleet was mostly committed to the raid force as it was and Nagumo's stay time was going to be somewhat short anyway before he was forced to withdraw or run out of fuel on his destroyers.

The other thing is not just the ground troops at Pearl in terms of defenses, but also a significant number of sailors that could have been pressed into service would not have been a small number.

The US "benefited" by having those battleships put out of commission. It released a reserve pool of trained sailors and simplified logistics at sea in the Pacific. The US had to rely on carrier groups simply because they could not supply battleships and carriers at the same time at the start of the Pacific war.

In game terms, it is hard to justify pulling a Pearl Harbor raid by itself. So you knock out some old US battleships. It won't be very decisive. A Pearl Harbor invasion however, is another matter, especially against a unwary US player who has not looked to make sure they defend Pearl against ground attacks.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

Can you imagine the size of the force required to transport that number of troops and their equipment across the North Pacific Ocean.

The chances of detection given a) the size of the armada and b) the amount of time at sea due to the slow speed means that detection becomes a major concern.

Make no mistake, regardless of what is said about Yamamoto and Pearl Harbor, the Admiral was just as wedded to the big gun battleship as anyone else at the time. If the Japanese were going to send a fleet of transports, tankers and god knows what over to Midway, they would need their battleships as part of the escort in case of detection. A force for Pearl Harbor just takes too much away from what is needed elsewhere.

Grabbing the perimeter is what the Japanese did. Phase one that is. Trying to occupy Hawaii before some of the other targets is a bit cart before the horse - especially if the distant landings go awry along with all that irreplaceable shipping.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27737
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Orm »

I think that a Japanese attempt to invade would have been doomed to fail. No realistic way to supply or reinforce the initial landing. And they would be without support soon, since the supporting fleet would have to turn back soon after the landing.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27737
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Orm »

I am more interested what would have happened if the Japanese battleships had followed up the air raid with a few bombardment missions.

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

I am more interested what would have happened if the Japanese battleships had followed up the air raid with a few bombardment missions.

Ah, now that is interesting to me and have often wondered at that as well! I always assumed the Japanese thought the risk too great to attempt something like that. How much more damage could have been done to the facilities/bottomed ships?


Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by AlbertN »

The Japanese air leaders (of the embarked squadrons) were instead pressing for a third wave to inflict more damage (especially on the infrastructures).
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

Well the Pearl Harbor attack is not something I have studied in detail but I must confess that - as an outsider looking in - I don't see how shore bombardment was a practical idea.

1. How far was the Kido Butai from Hawaii when it launched? A couple of hours flying time? I don't know, maybe a bit less.
2. However far it was, that's a lot of steaming time for ships.
3. The two battleships would have to either break off from the carriers (with strong destroyer escort) to close on Pearl before they know where the US carriers are and before they know if the attack is successful.
4. If they delay departing until the attack has happened, then they know by then that the US carriers are at large somewhere. Are they really going to risk the KB's battleship escort?
5. Either way this is a dangerous splitting of the task force considering the threat of submarines, of carrier based air and of land based air (depending on how hard they hit the island).
6. No idea if the fuel reserve of the KB allowed for this extra operation (as said this would need to be carried out by destroyers as well as the battleships.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by brian brian »

if I recall correctly, Nagumo had a couple of the Kongo class BattleCruisers with him? (these are good for SB missions in WiF, actually)

where were the older Japanese BBs in December, 1941? Java? Philippines?

I think any invasion of Hawaii would have had to come at the expense of somewhere else - somewhere else that had the economic goodies Japan wanted. Not that Japan couldn't have still got those later, but that was their focus - the natural resources of SE Asia.


In the game, to pull off a decent invasion of Hawaii the Japanese player probably needs to telegraph intentions possibly and trigger the US Entry for "Militarize the Marshalls" - did the real Japanese do that? I know they had at least a Seaplane base in the Marshalls by December, 1941, but I'm not sure that would be any more than a "notional" unit in the game that wouldn't trigger the entry roll.

The Japanese accomplished plenty on shoestring logistics (just as the Germans did) in a marked contrast to the logistical effort behind Western armies, particularly the USA of course. Bushido had it's pluses and minuses, a minus being a lack of focus on the necessity of logistics due to the idea that Japan's superior warriors would simply be victorious against their inferior opponents. But this does have a bit of a plus to it - aggressive, combat experienced Japanese troops could have probably accomplished a lot on Oahu in December, 1941, particularly if their transports had gone undetected (and the odds of that would decrease as the amount of transports increased). But the Hawaiian Islands are more than just Oahu...

I would also say that the idea of Shore Bombarding the Hawaiian islands could have been costly for the IJN. I'm not sure if the USN would have already had PT Boats? They would definitely have Submarines present, albeit still with junk torpedoes for the most part. But operating in-shore near such a major base - I'm sure the USN would have been able to get a few licks in somehow.

The idea reminds me of something I don't really like in World in Flames - the idea of the Axis shore bombarding Gibraltar. Not that they couldn't have done so, but the way the game mechanic works where they can do so and not suffer anything at all from light coastal forces and/or mines, etc.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

if I recall correctly, Nagumo had a couple of the Kongo class BattleCruisers with him? (these are good for SB missions in WiF, actually)

where were the older Japanese BBs in December, 1941? Java? Philippines?
warspite1

The Kongos were reclassified as battleships after their reconstruction between the wars.

Yes he had two. The two other battleships of the class were needed to cover the Malayan landings. Not sure what the other battleships were doing (story of the Japanese battlefleet in WWII really [8|]) although I suspect their speed would have precluded them from operating with the carriers.

I'll have a closer look later.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

My favorite Japanese military mind in WWII: Minoru Genda. A great leader post war as well. He did suggest invading Hawaii...but his superiors thought that impossible.

The two battleships were the WWI era Kongo class Hiei and its sister ship Karisima, although they were reconstructed and vastly improved. I couldn't find out if the main guns were upgraded, but they originally had 14 inchers. They were resilient and hard to sink (Hiei was scuttled). The Japs also had a ton of subs present as well (25?)...many of these could have escorted the BB's. The calculation for me is losing these two "old" BB's vs what ever damage their 14's could have done.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

My favorite Japanese military mind in WWII: Minoru Genda. A great leader post war as well. He did suggest invading Hawaii...but his superiors thought that impossible.

The two battleships were the WWI era Kongo class Hiei and its sister ship Karisima, although they were reconstructed and vastly improved. I couldn't find out if the main guns were upgraded, but they originally had 14 inchers. They were resilient and hard to sink (Hiei was scuttled). The Japs also had a ton of subs present as well (25?)...many of these could have escorted the BB's. The calculation for me is losing these two "old" BB's vs what ever damage their 14's could have done.
warspite1

I agree with Genda's superiors!

Kirishima - and no their 14-inch guns were not upgraded (although like many contemporaries they had their elevation increased during the pre-war period to increase range).

The other (non-Kongo) battleships were in Japanese waters in December 1941 - but as said - their speed would have hampered carrier operations.

Subs escorting the battleships? What speed are the battleships going to be travelling to Hawaii? Even if you put the subs to sea ahead of the task force, how many days is it going to take to get them to the take-off point? And then how long for the battleships to travel from there to Hawaii? Besides which subs are hardly a substitute for destroyers when it comes to escort duty.

You say they could afford to lose two "old" BB. These "old" BB were the fastest the Japanese had and as such vital for carrier operations. Given that the success of the Pearl Harbor operation was not assured (and we know with hindsight how poor it was) why would the Japanese be willing to throw away two of their fastest battleships on day 1 of the war? That kind of defeats the object of Pearl which was to destroy the Pacific Fleet. Not to mention the fact that the KB have now got only two cruisers for escort without any guarantee that the US fleet will be non-operational.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9012
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Centuur »

Out of the Marshalls, the distance to Pearl for transport ships, escorted with BB's and cruisers, would not be that far. Also: the massing of ships and equipment there would have alerted to US, I believe, on that something is being planned there.

But would it be enough for the US to send reinforcements to Oahu? I often wonder about the way the military and politicians act during "peace" time. Even with a war going on in neighbouring countries and visible threath there, they tend to think: "no, that will not happen to us". So I believe the US would not react to this at all. There was no battlereadiness at all.

So I believe it was feasable to do so, if the Japanese decided to not make any of the other attacks they made that same day. Postpone the invasion of the Phillipines and go for Honolulu, would be possible, I believe. Logistics for the transportation of f.e. the 14th. Army to Hawaii instead of to the Phillipines were quite possible for the Japanese, I believe.

The big question is, if a second fleet approaching the Hawaiian Islands would have been spotted by the Americans in time to warn them. They didn't spot the one with the carriers. Why is that? Were there not long range aircraft stationed on the islands, charged with regular patrols? Or were they simply, like the soldiers not flying on a sunday morning?

Personally, I believe when the Japanese would have put those men ashore on Ohau a couple of hours after the attack on the fleet, the US defenses would have collapsed, because of the confusion already in place after the initial attack on the fleet in port...




Peter
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

The calculation for me is losing these two "old" BB's vs what ever damage their 14's could have done. warspite1 Subs escorting the battleships? What speed are the battleships going to be travelling to Hawaii? Even if you put the subs to sea ahead of the task force, how many days is it going to take to get them to the take-off point? And then how long for the battleships to travel from there to Hawaii? Besides which subs are hardly a substitute for destroyers when it comes to escort duty. You say they could afford to lose two "old" BB.

No, I didn't say the Japanese could "afford to lose", I wrote that the calculation would be their loss vs additional damage done by them. The possible damage would have to be their 14 inchers and how long they would sit out there pounding away. The time element is critical to the damage vs risk, and of course what sort of damage can the 14's do, and is that damage even worth the risk?

Now if you take what Centuur writes and there is an invasion, then of course the BB's and other support ships would be close in for support.

Concerning the subs: I agree they are not as good as DD's and CA's (best benefit for surface ships probably = AA, anti-sub). The Japanese already had a bunch of subs around Hawaii (Hawaiian waters) prior to the arrival of the fleet:
Squadron 1: I-9, 15, 17, 25.
Squadron 2: I-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Squadron 3: I-8, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. (I-68 and I-69 were stationed off the entrance to Pearl to rescue midget sub crews)

The mother subs that launched the midgets: (I-16, 18, 20, 22, 24)...not sure if they were capable of doing anything more than launching the midgets.

But the Japanese were already paranoid about the missing US carriers. In prior planning they also expected to lose 1+carriers, and the fact they did not was seen as very lucky...that's why the third strike was called off and they headed for home.

Here is a snipet I found that I didn't know about: There actually was an invasion force, but it was intended for Midway. Two destroyers bombarded Midway, Marine shore batteries return fire claiming damage to both ships. Invasion force withdraws (I guess they thought Midway undefended?). Subsequent bad weather saves Midway from a pounding by planes from the Pearl Harbor Attack Force as it returns to Japan. And: 16 Dec. Japanese Pearl Harbor Attack Force detaches carriers Hiryu and Soryu, heavy cruisers Tone and Chikuma, and 2 destroyers to re-inforce the second attack on Wake Island.

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Out of the Marshalls, the distance to Pearl for transport ships, escorted with BB's and cruisers, would not be that far.
warspite1

Well just a few problems that I can think of – and all this is aside from the massive build up required in the Marshalls which isn't going to go unnoticed:

The KB were not spotted because they purposely used the Northern route (with all that means in terms of weather). It took them from the 26th November to 7th December (maybe some time added because of diplomatic timetables). The Japanese had tankers on the route to top up from.

Any force coming from the Marshalls is not going to take the Northern Route - just look at the map. But then where do the tankers go?

You say it’s not that far from the Marshalls to Hawaii? About 2,700 miles direct. Even if you could find merchant ships fast enough, at 10 knots constant that is about 10 days (assuming good weather). And what is required to safely escorts this flotilla? It takes just one lucky spot and how do the Japanese explain that one?

So you postpone the Philippines operation. What is MacArthur going to do with all those spare bombers?

I suspect another Wake if the Japanese tried to invade Hawaii on a shoestring (although that assumes they even get there), and if they try and do it properly, they are going to be found. And what happens then?

And suddenly the enemy units left unattacked due to operations that have been postponed because of the throw of the dice at Pearl, are suddenly free to cause trouble – or if not, they are at least fully alert when the Japanese can finally attend to them…..

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
The calculation for me is losing these two "old" BB's vs what ever damage their 14's could have done. warspite1 Subs escorting the battleships? What speed are the battleships going to be travelling to Hawaii? Even if you put the subs to sea ahead of the task force, how many days is it going to take to get them to the take-off point? And then how long for the battleships to travel from there to Hawaii? Besides which subs are hardly a substitute for destroyers when it comes to escort duty. You say they could afford to lose two "old" BB.

No, I didn't say the Japanese could "afford to lose", I wrote that the calculation would be their loss vs additional damage done by them. The possible damage would have to be their 14 inchers and how long they would sit out there pounding away. The time element is critical to the damage vs risk, and of course what sort of damage can the 14's do, and is that damage even worth the risk?

Now if you take what Centuur writes and there is an invasion, then of course the BB's and other support ships would be close in for support.
warspite1

There's a thin dividing line.

If the Kido Butai do their job there is no need for the battleships to send over a few shells (with all the dangers that entails).

If the Kido Butai don't do their job there is a need for the battleships - but under the very circumstances in which they are likely to be lost.

As for the idea that the bulk of the fleet is heading over undetected - sorry but in my opinion I just don't see that as being even remotely likely.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”