Hypothetical Dec 7th

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by Big B »

Assume the following situation:
IF - the Pacific Fleet Battle Force had been deployed back to (or never left) Los Angeles in 1941.... (as both commanders before Adm Kimmel demanded),
and ... the Joint Chiefs turned down Mac Arthur's request for a heavy Philippine Islands deployment of US resources and troops in 1941 (MacArthur only won them over in the summer of 1941), - but the USA still embargoed exports to Japan - with all the consequences entailed ....
It is likely the Pacific War would still have happened, due to the economic consequences of the embargo, which was the real tipping point.

SO, ....Japan still moves to war in Malaya, the Philippines, and the DEI (the prize) - but with no fleet at Pearl Harbor - what do you think the KB would have been assigned to do? (... this is my real question here)

Curious as to what you think.


B
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by Sardaukar »

Most likely Manila/Subic Bay to wipe out Asiatic Fleet to support Ph.I. landings.There just is no other viable strategic target at start.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Most likely Manila/Subic Bay to wipe out Asiatic Fleet to support Ph.I. landings.There just is no other viable strategic target at start.

The British BBs in Singapore?

Given the relative weakness of both targets, inmediately support the landings and be ready to intercept naval reinforcements sent to the Pacific?
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by rustysi »

With no real naval opposition there, maybe a full on invasion of the HI.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by wdolson »

The Japanese didn't have the troops to spare in Dec 1941 for a Hawaiian invasion. As it was they needed to get the troops out of Malaya/Singapore for further operations and that was one of the biggest motivations for wrapping up the Singapore thing ASAP. If the British had hung onto Singapore until the end, the city would have been pretty much destroyed and the death toll would have been staggering, but it would have made the DEI much more difficult to take. With troops tied down in Singapore, they aren't free for the Sumatra and Java invasions and the Dutch have more time to stabilize and dig in. If the Dutch had been able to hold out another 4 months like the Americans in the PI it probably would have badly impacted Japanese operations for the entire war.

The Japanese could afford to have a small portion of the PI in enemy hands for an extended period because the PI had little strategic value on its own. It was needed because of its geographic position. Aircraft from the PI could easily shut down sea routes from the DEI. The Japanese needed the DEI for the oil as well as other resources, but oil was #1.

The troops for a Hawaiian invasion weren't really available until June 1942 and by then the US would have been ready for them.

Keeping the Pacific Fleet in continental waters would have made the Pearl Harbor operation questionable, but there would have been some strategic value in taking out installations at Pearl. It would eliminate PH as a forward base for a while requiring the Pacific Fleet to be based on the West Coast and much further from the action for quite some time.

The Japanese may have attacked PH anyway to destroy the installations.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by Big B »

Well, my thoughts were this:
Japanese Intelligence up to Dec 7 was pretty accurate - they knew what and where everything was...except the three Pacific Fleet CV TFs.

IF - the Philippines were NOT reinforced as they ended up being - there's no great threat there on day one to worry about (No 100 P-40s, no 35 B-17's, no tank Battalions, no major supply and ground reinforcements, etc).

There is enough force committed to overrun what we need in Malaya, Hong Kong, and the Philippines (especially now that it's still 1939 weak).
We (Japanese) have a sizeable commitment in the Central Pacific to take Wake Island.
Guam is a cake-walk.

The US reaction must be to steam West at some point to take us on - this fits into our prewar scenario of Decisive Fleet Battle in the Pacific...so there's no unexpected risk there (reaction to War Plan Orange).
Looking over my options as Commander Combined Fleet - my only exposure is the commitment to Wake Island - Not knowing where the expected three USN CV Task Forces may be.

I would think a raid on Hawaii (as they did) to destroy facilities and aircraft would still benefit me greatly - with the added bonus that I will be in the Central Pacific on Dec 8th to fall back and cover the Wake Island expedition - should the USN CV TF's unexpectedly appear (allowing me to destroy them too - a great bonus).
I may consider detaching Carrier Division 3 to smash Singapore and Force Z on opening day, supported by the mini KB.

That's how I would read the situation from the Japanese side... but I'm not Adm. Yamamoto either.
Please keep the informed commentary going, it's very thought provoking.

B

User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by ny59giants »

Would a true "Mersings Gambit" have taken place on the 9th or 10th with the 5th and 18th Divisions happened? 4 of 6 CV from KB would be sufficient to cover. The other carriers would hit Manila, I would presume. My understanding is there were many in the IJN that opposed the attack on Pearl, so they would probably have carried the day and their plans go forth - secure the oil. The seas to the east of Hawaii would be thick with subs.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Keeping the Pacific Fleet in continental waters would have made the Pearl Harbor operation questionable, but there would have been some strategic value in taking out installations at Pearl.

The Japanese may have attacked PH anyway to destroy the installations.

Bill
Bill I would argue that the Pearl operation would not only be "questioned" it wouldn't be considered at all. Remember WHY Pearl was attacked, to wipe out the US Navy as an effective fighting force so as to make the Japanese eastern flank of their southern thrust secure. It was also a psychological blow to bestow on the Americans to either knock them out of a war quickly if the US chose to enter into one, or the limit their abilities during the first year (Yamamoto's statement). Nether would be accomplished if the "fleet" was not there. The plan was only really considered after the Pacific Fleet was moved into striking range, at Pearl.

I think the original thinking of hitting Manila would still command some consideration. Remember that the US DID have a huge submarine fleet there and, although we now know this asset was largely toothless for two years, it was deemed a "real and present danger." Taking it out would have been a very real advantage.

As for going after Singapore, that's unrealistic as the British would have seen them coming, as they did the transports... BUT with one major difference, the Brits would have reacted much more aggressively toward CVs and BBs approaching rather than destroyer escorted transports (which they argued MIGHT be headed north to Thailand). This may not have changed the outcome, but it might have made achieving that outcome more expensive which supports your argument that a delay in Singapore helps the DEI in their defense. Hal
User avatar
1EyedJacks
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Reno, NV

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by 1EyedJacks »

So no BB or carriers @ PH. And no buildup of the PI. So no real American presence. Where is the biggest allied fleet for KB to hit? Singapore - right? I don't think they'd engage American forces and instead Japan should take out Malaya/Singapore as fast as possible and then drive quickly into the DEI. In this proposed scenario Japan should try to grab what they can that's close to home and let America waffle over when to declare war against them.

TTFN,

Mike
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by Big B »

But remember - the reason Japan goes to war is because of the Embargo.. so America still has to be reckoned with one way or another - as America's actions are the cause of war..

So no BB or carriers @ PH. And no buildup of the PI. So no real American presence. Where is the biggest allied fleet for KB to hit? Singapore - right? I don't think they'd engage American forces and instead....

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

So no BB or carriers @ PH. And no buildup of the PI. So no real American presence. Where is the biggest allied fleet for KB to hit? Singapore - right? I don't think they'd engage American forces and instead Japan should take out Malaya/Singapore as fast as possible and then drive quickly into the DEI. In this proposed scenario Japan should try to grab what they can that's close to home and let America waffle over when to declare war against them.

spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by spence »

The whole premise is pretty much just a JFB wet dream if nothing is changed about the Allied/USAs abilities. As it is the IJ Player KNOWS that Allied bombers "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a bat", that Allied fighter pilots are not sure which end of the plane goes first, that the only thing that can hurt one of their BBs is a torpedo and that most of those don't explode, that nearly all existing Allied leaders are the dullest tools in the shed along with the exact deployment of everything. That is only a sample of what the IJ Player KNOWS.

Until the first shot was fired IJ didn't know any of those things...the whole premise of the war IJ fought was that it was a suicidal gamble that offered an "honorable" solution to Japan's elite.

There is supposedly a historical basis for this game...this sounds a lot like "Space Invaders in the Pacific".
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by warspite1 »

I don’t know why when someone on this forum tries to suggest some alternative scenarios they invariably have ‘JFB wet dream’ thrown at them. But anyways…..

When exploring counterfactuals, what is likely/possible/unlikely to have happened is always subjective and what for some is feasible in a historical context is not for others. But what you seek to explore is really interesting.

Re your assumptions Big B I would comment as follows:

1. The US actions in putting in place the embargo appears counter to their refusal to deploy the fleet to Pearl and reinforce the Philippines. The embargo was designed to get the Japanese out of China, and if they refused (which had to be considered high in the probability stakes) then there would almost certainly be war. Therefore embargoing the Japanese and not taking appropriate defensive action, appears to me to be counter-intuitive.

2. But it’s your scenario so fair enough. Let’s suppose the US administration did not marry up these two items. So where does this action leave Japan? Do they still attack the US or head straight for Malaya/Burma and the NEI? You said in a subsequent post that “But remember - the reason Japan goes to war is because of the Embargo..”. You used this as an argument for saying the US has to be attacked. But I don’t see that this follows. Whether Japan attacks the US or not, there is no difference in their economic position. The Japanese hope to use the resources of the British and Dutch colonies to get around the embargo.

3. I don’t see that there is a reason for the Japanese to bring the US into the war without being directly threatened and without being able to hurt them. Unless the Japanese consider sailing the KB past Hawaii and all the way to San Diego (I would have thought unlikely if not impossible – how do they possibly achieve surprise?) then they cannot hurt them militarily. Is the Philippines enough of a reason to involve the US who, apart from the embargo, have taken no militarily offensive action against Japan? Probably not imo.

4. If they decide not to attack the US, probably the best use of the KB would be to keep in reserve until they know more about US intentions. As we know, the KB were utilised for the attack on Darwin and with no Philippine operation, the attack on the NEI could be brought forward.

5. The reason why this scenario is so interesting to me is because of the following question. Let’s assume that the attack on Malaya/Singapore goes as per historically and the NEI falls even more quickly. The Japanese continue into Burma. Right. What does the US do now? No declaration of war by Hitler, no attack by Japan. How does the US and the US public, who have been told by their President that they will not be sent into foreign wars, react? This is the key question to my mind.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: Big B

But remember - the reason Japan goes to war is because of the Embargo.. so America still has to be reckoned with one way or another - as America's actions are the cause of war..

Yes the US has to be reckoned with, but how this would be done is easier than going to war with it, it is by capturing alternative sources of materials to keep the Japanese war machine going, the DEI and Southeast Asia. That's how Japan reckons with the US. At least in the scenario proposed.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by m10bob »

If frogs had curb feelers...they would not bump their butts jumping curbs.

O.K....If the USN had no strong presence at Pearl, I suspect they might have moved to capture those islands...and perhaps the Panama Canal as well.

My thoughts are based on Yamamotos' feelings that he needed at least six months to "do his thing"...and that after securing his strategic targets the people of the U.S. would not have wanted to war.
Yamamoto had lived in the U.S. and felt the isolationists would use those 6 months to keep America out.
The actual tragic events of the sneak attack on America however was NOT something America would ever forgive.
Image

User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Let’s assume that the attack on Malaya/Singapore goes as per historically and the NEI falls even more quickly. The Japanese continue into Burma. Right. What does the US do now? No declaration of war by Hitler, no attack by Japan. How does the US and the US public, who have been told by their President that they will not be sent into foreign wars, react? This is the key question to my mind.

I agree warspite, that's a very interesting scenario! I would propose that the US would remain isolationist with the caveat that it would continue to be the world's arms supplier. After all, money making is a huge incentive to stay neutral (despite FDR's desires to aid the UK). The thing that catapulted the US into the war was the way the Japanese hit Pearl. Up to that point, the sentiment in relation to war was to sit on the sidelines and cheer. And NOT necessarily for the "allied" side (remember Lindbergh and that following).
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by Big B »

Both interesting observations, but are we suggesting that the only real deciding factor between war and peace was because the US sent the Fleet to Pearl and a few planes to the Philippines?
Because nothing else is historically different in the proposition I put forth.

I'm not criticizing either of you, I'm just pondering the consequences of trivial actions if that is the case.

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
ORIGINAL: Big B

But remember - the reason Japan goes to war is because of the Embargo.. so America still has to be reckoned with one way or another - as America's actions are the cause of war..

Yes the US has to be reckoned with, but how this would be done is easier than going to war with it, it is by capturing alternative sources of materials to keep the Japanese war machine going, the DEI and Southeast Asia. That's how Japan reckons with the US. At least in the scenario proposed.
ORIGINAL: warspite1

When exploring counterfactuals, what is likely/possible/unlikely to have happened is always subjective and what for some is feasible in a historical context is not for others. But what you seek to explore is really interesting.

Re your assumptions Big B I would comment as follows:
...

3. I don’t see that there is a reason for the Japanese to bring the US into the war without being directly threatened and without being able to hurt them. Unless the Japanese consider sailing the KB past Hawaii and all the way to San Diego (I would have thought unlikely if not impossible – how do they possibly achieve surprise?) then they cannot hurt them militarily. Is the Philippines enough of a reason to involve the US who, apart from the embargo, have taken no militarily offensive action against Japan? Probably not imo.


5. The reason why this scenario is so interesting to me is because of the following question. Let’s assume that the attack on Malaya/Singapore goes as per historically and the NEI falls even more quickly. The Japanese continue into Burma. Right. What does the US do now? No declaration of war by Hitler, no attack by Japan. How does the US and the US public, who have been told by their President that they will not be sent into foreign wars, react? This is the key question to my mind.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: m10bob
yamamoto had lived in the U.S. and felt the isolationists would use those 6 months to keep America out.

Too true! Given polls of the day, Americans were overwhelmingly isolationists. I think it would have been very difficult indeed for FDR to go to Congress and get a declaration of war against Japan (after all, who cared about Asia?). And remember back then, we actually DID believe that only Congress could declare war (how quaint!!!!). I believe FDR might have been able to get the US to eventually declare war on Germany, however that too would have been difficult and would take lots of U-boat strikes against US shipping to bring that about.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: Big B

Both interesting observations, but are we suggesting that the only real deciding factor between war and peace was because the US sent the Fleet to Pearl and a few planes to the Philippines?
Because nothing else is historically different in the proposition I put forth.

The US sent the fleet to Pearl in order to send a clear message to the Japanese that it was serious about our desire to see Japan cease and desist in China. However, that move was a two edged sword, it clearly put Japan on notice that we wanted them to stop their aggression in China, BUT it also presented Japan with an opportunity to engage in what it saw as the "decisive battle." Here the Japanese would deal the Americans a decisive defeat in the opening days of the war thus securing their desire to rule in the western Pacific, allowing the US to retain its hegemonic position in the eastern half of the Pacific (which the Japanese didn't have any real interest in).
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by TulliusDetritus »

We can safely assume that leaving the Philipines untouched (and thus avoid war with the US) was foolish. It is true that some Japanese wanted to avoid them but we know who won (correctly IMO) the debate. In october 1944 the importance of the Archipelago was revealed after all. As has been already said, not her resources but geographic position.

No war, the US could have reinforced the islands at will. So instead of a powerful fleet on the other side of the Pacific, the enemy is literally at the gates!

Talk about a "dagger pointed at our throat"!
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Hypothetical Dec 7th

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

We can safely assume that leaving the Philipines untouched (and thus avoid war with the US) was foolish. It is true that some Japanese wanted to avoid them but we know who won (correctly IMO) the debate. In october 1944 the importance of the Archipelago was revealed after all. As has been already said, not her resources but geographic position.

No war, the US could have reinforced the islands at will. So instead of a powerful fleet on the other side of the Pacific, the enemy is literally at the gates!

Talk about a "dagger pointed at our throat"!
warspite1

But this is what I meant by watching how the US reacts. The fact that Japan starts war against Britain and Holland without attacking the USA does not mean they can then never do so.

So the Japanese take Malaya/Singapore and the NEI. Whilst doing so the KB and whatever they can spare, are keeping a watching brief.

As soon as the US decide that whoops, maybe they should have reinforced the PI at the same time or before the embargo, the Japanese could swoop - and with the double whammy of hitting the Americans closer to Japanese bases than in reality - attacking at Pearl and Midway thousands of miles away. Who knows, things could actually turn out better as a result.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

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

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”