Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OT question about Japan invading Hawaii

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT question about Japan invading Hawaii Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 9:58:26 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
It's pretty obvious that after June of 42 that Japan would never take Hawaii. But did they ever have a chance? Maybe in December 1941 they had a shot but even then. I do not know the speed of WW2 troop ships but I cannot imagine them keeping up with the KB.

What do you guys think? Did Japan ever have a shot at it?

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Post #: 1
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 10:11:57 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7579
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The islands were very well defended (lots of troops based there as well as lots of coastal guns) and a very long way from Japan. The KB was also a raiding force, the support infrastructure to keep the KB in the fight long enough didn't really exist. The USN had a thin support system for extended CV ops until mid-war, so it wasn't completely a failure on their part.

The KB would have had to stay in Hawaiian waters providing support until at least 1 or 2 island airfields were secure and operational. There would have been a big risk the KB would have had to retire before the job was done.

The Philippines were conquerable because Japan had land bases within air range of the landing beaches, and the defenses in the Philippines were very weak compared to Hawaii.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 2
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 10:55:29 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The islands were very well defended (lots of troops based there as well as lots of coastal guns)

Cannot agree with that. Like any siege - defender in bad situation, he must disperse forces for cover everything.
quote:

very long way from Japan

Same as from USA. Add japanese superiority in BB/CV and you will receive sucessful sea blockade.
quote:

The KB was also a raiding force, the support infrastructure to keep the KB in the fight long enough didn't really exist. The USN had a thin support system for extended CV ops until mid-war, so it wasn't completely a failure on their part.

Japan had mini-KB also so can rotate CVs. Allies got equal numbers only in 1943.
quote:

The KB would have had to stay in Hawaiian waters providing support until at least 1 or 2 island airfields were secure and operational. There would have been a big risk the KB would have had to retire before the job was done.

KB can do that job if invasion planned (and pre-invasion too or better parallel invasion). Allies can do nothing and in really counterfight USN against IJN for repeal invasion always was blue dream for Japan (it why Midway happen).
USA was slow in preparation to war (even when war started) and lose alot time. Lesson of Guadalcanal campaign - without months of digging and supply/reinforce USA cannot defeat 10 times lesser japanese troops.
Reason why PH attack not happen only one - IJA. Dividing political and war interests by two different ways (and theaters) completely refuse any ideas how conquer Pacific area for knock out USA from war here.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:16:35 AM   
fodder


Posts: 1720
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
Yamamoto's original plan to attack Pearl Harbor included an invasion of Oahu. It was estimated that it would take three divisions to capture the island. The navy high command and the army fought hard against this plan. Until the army bean counters did some counting. The army agreed to invade Oahu once the navy showed them the ships that would transport the three divisions and all the supplies and support they would need. With most of their shipping already commited to the southern advance the navy could not do this and the plan to invade Oahu was dropped.

After recieving the detailed damage reports on Dec 10th (Japanese date) of the Pearl Harbor raid. Yamamoto instantly regreted not invading Oahu. Yamamoto was not affaid of the US navy or the troops or coastal guns based in Hawiian islands. He was very much affraid of US land based airpower based in the islands. The damage reports on the 10th showed that US airpower was wiped out. Yamamoto again ordered plans be made to invade Hawaii that same day.

This time, with th US on alert, the plan was changed. First Midway, Johnson and Plamyra were to be taken. Then Kauai and the island of Hawaii. Airbases were to be set up on these islands to isolate Oahu. Oahu was to be starved out and rendered impotant.

If the battle of midway had gone the other way, who's to say this plan would not have worked. At least in the short term.

As far as the risk goes, the Japanese expected to lose half their carriers on the Pearl Harbor raid alone.

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 4
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:31:37 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7579
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The islands were very well defended (lots of troops based there as well as lots of coastal guns)

Cannot agree with that. Like any siege - defender in bad situation, he must disperse forces for cover everything.
quote:

very long way from Japan


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
Same as from USA. Add japanese superiority in BB/CV and you will receive sucessful sea blockade.
quote:



Japan was not superior in BBs. In 1941 they had 10. 4 were converted battle cruisers. The US had 12 before Pearl Harbor and Japan had no sure idea how many had been badly damaged or sunk in the attack. The Japanese knew several were not in Pearl Harbor during the attack. All three New Mexicos were in the Atlantic and Colorado was on the west coast undergoing modernization.

The Japanese did have superior pilot quality, but the US had 5 full fleet carrier between the Yorktowns and Lexingtons. Plus the Wasp and Ranger. And the US had many huge unsinkable aircraft carriers call the Hawaiian Islands. Even in 1941 the islands had many landing strips that could have been pressed into service as well as several fully developed military strips.

The US supply lines from the states to Hawaii are much shorter than from Japan to Hawaii. Plus the logistics are easier to supply a friendly island group than conduct an invasion unless the enemy can put up a formidable blockade, which would have taken ships away from covering the landings. In 1944 the US could do this because they had a large enough navy and the IJN was dramatically weaker than the USN in 1941.

quote:

The KB was also a raiding force, the support infrastructure to keep the KB in the fight long enough didn't really exist. The USN had a thin support system for extended CV ops until mid-war, so it wasn't completely a failure on their part.


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
Japan had mini-KB also so can rotate CVs. Allies got equal numbers only in 1943.


You are missing the advantage of lots of islands with lots of air strips. Ship lots of aircraft to the big island of Hawaii while the Japanese are tied down invading one of the northern islands, then fly the planes where needed. The more islands in an area with air strips, the more mutual support they can give one another.

Additionally the Japanese would be committing all their forces to taking the Hawaiian islands instead of capturing the targets they needed to capture for resources. While the Japanese are tied down in a Hawaiian venture, the British and Dutch would be reinforcing their possessions in the Far East.

quote:

The KB would have had to stay in Hawaiian waters providing support until at least 1 or 2 island airfields were secure and operational. There would have been a big risk the KB would have had to retire before the job was done.

quote:


KB can do that job if invasion planned (and pre-invasion too or better parallel invasion). Allies can do nothing and in really counterfight USN against IJN for repeal invasion always was blue dream for Japan (it why Midway happen).
USA was slow in preparation to war (even when war started) and lose alot time. Lesson of Guadalcanal campaign - without months of digging and supply/reinforce USA cannot defeat 10 times lesser japanese troops.
Reason why PH attack not happen only one - IJA. Dividing political and war interests by two different ways (and theaters) completely refuse any ideas how conquer Pacific area for knock out USA from war here.


Poor cooperation with the IJA was also an issue. Once Pearl Harbor had been attacked, there was no way to knock the US out of the war. Japan may have extended the war another year if they had been a bit luckier or a bit wiser, but the US would never have sued for peace.

There was a discussion here about a year ago on the logistics of invading Pearl Harbor. Even in 1941 it was a formidable target with lots of coastal guns and a fairly large US Army force based there and a complex of air fields. It was also within short air range of quite a few other well developed air fields.

US land based air probably couldn't have taken out the KB in 1941, but the constant threat of US land based air over invasion beaches would keep the KB tied down covering the beaches. Meanwhile there are 3 US CVs in the Pacific, 2 more that will be transferred soon, and the Wasp probably would have been transferred sooner if the Hawaiian Islands were seriously threatened.

The KB would be in constant perilous threat of a US CV attack from any flank while most of its fighters are tied down protecting the invasion force. With US land based air assets the US CVs would have a good fix on the KB long before they were within range. At the Battle of Midway the land based air didn't score against the KB, but they kept up contacts with the various IJN TFs throughout the day and they sent many harassing attacks that kept the KB off balance until the SBDs could find their targets. Invading further south would bring more island airstrips into play.

With the many air strips in the Hawaiian Islands the USN could put all their CV aircraft ashore if they wanted and save the CVs for another battle. The US decks that couldn't be replaced until 1943 would be safe while the irreplaceable decks of the KB would be in constant danger.

I'm sure some others who know more than I about these logistics will weigh in.

Bill



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 5
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:47:28 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7579
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I believe it was in Shattered Sword that the authors detailed how much effort it would take just to keep Midway supplied after the invasion. The effort for just that small atoll would have been huge.

Right after Pearl Harbor the Japanese may have been able to get a beachhead established in Hawaii, but as you point out, the extra lift for the troops didn't exist with all the other commitments in the first few months of the war. The only way it could have been done is by robbing Peter to pay Paul and there were much more important strategic targets that had to be taken.

An invasion of Hawaii would have definitely been a major fight. I think within 4-6 months the US would have been able to isolate the beachhead and eliminate the Japanese threat from the islands.

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 6
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 12:11:22 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
Situation desperate... Dont remember commander of how many troops against how much troops regulary sent it out?
You trying compare japanese troops and their logistic with american measuring tool.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 7
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 2:53:52 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Had they been able to get a two Division landing force close enough to invade on the 7th/8th of December they might have been able to land successfully. But an escorted force of transports that large and slow had virtually no chance of making it across the Pacific unseen and undetected. They would have had to travel a more southern route than KB to avoid the worst of the North Pacific winter weather, or the radio noise of trying to herd 50 transports together would have been heard in Berlin, let alone Oahu. And if they did, the landings would have had to be made into the teeth of Oahu's defenses on the South shore because the winter surf on the North shore would have drowned half the landing force. All in all, a most unlikely scenario IRL..., even if the game makes it seem feasible.

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 8
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 7:10:40 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4220
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

It's pretty obvious that after June of 42 that Japan would never take Hawaii. But did they ever have a chance? Maybe in December 1941 they had a shot but even then. I do not know the speed of WW2 troop ships but I cannot imagine them keeping up with the KB.

What do you guys think? Did Japan ever have a shot at it?


First of all, it would only have worked if they landed when they striked the base: 7 december that is. But of course there are some consequences... The Philipines, Dutch East Indies and Malaysia should have to wait. It's plan A or B, not both.

So even if the Hawaii operation was successful, you have to assault later the main Japanese objective: the oil, food, raw materials they need. Because they started this war to get all these items, not to overrun a big island far from their home.

I would assume (whilst the Japanese are busy near Hawaii) the allies would send troops to these weak spots and therefore the conquest of these vital objectives would be harder, if not (maybe) impossible.

So in the end the Americans might tell them by the end of 1942 "ok, you grabbed our big island, good for you. By the way, how's your oil situation? My spies told me you will soon run out of it..."

And finally, if the operation takes place later (circa Midway date) "three divisions" is plainly ridiculous no matter the Japanese "samurai spirit (aka prepare your bayonets, we're charging!)" and the "decadent westerner" things. Say 9 or 10

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 9
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:01:31 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
Oil, resources it close target. But what can stop Japan from conquer that if main USA base in Pacific gone? Even if PI or Sing captured 2 month later?
Removing enemy forces from map long enough for conquer anything what can (and oil/res too) it real strategy. Weak fleet always seek battle which can change situation, when strong enemy prefer wait.
Japanese economy was ready for fast war like blitzkrieg. When they started defend in bloody battles - they lost everything.
Detection of invading fleet very difficult. Even now whole fleet can disappear from map with even present of satellite and AWACS recon. Despite on popular opinion - invading fleet CAN go close (especially when war not started and patroling very rare) and avoid usual sea routes (which known and have huge space between them, just try find map of routes and you will see in open sea it 1-2 lines per hundred miles, covering ships camoed as AMC can effectively help avoid any not necessary contacts and float planes too). Without intel Allies rare can found enemy ships even in so narrow strait like Solomons (and with help of LBA/PB/CV scouts).
Limited strategic view (as result of difference between IJA and IJN, and narrow oldfag imagine about war and enemies) cancelled so lovely by japanese Main battle. When KB sunk Pacific Fleet's BB it was one part of it. When they dont found CVs in PH - it was big mistake, but real trouble was denied invasion in PH as real and main target of strike.
Despite on any losses from diversion raid Allies can escalate their forces with time. But they cannot gain force if no base near. Or they can lost BBs/CVs and everything.
Japan got Midway when they trying catch USN CVs in trap which based on same forces like can be used during PH invasions (except merchant fleet, but PH can be readying long enough) and USN cannot be prepared like after few month of war, brilliant intel, lessons from first carrier battles etc. And USN cannot avoid danger of lost PH like PI lost (or any others).

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 10
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:22:47 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Had they been able to get a two Division landing force close enough to invade on the 7th/8th of December they might have been able to land successfully. But an escorted force of transports that large and slow had virtually no chance of making it across the Pacific unseen and undetected. They would have had to travel a more southern route than KB to avoid the worst of the North Pacific winter weather, or the radio noise of trying to herd 50 transports together would have been heard in Berlin, let alone Oahu. And if they did, the landings would have had to be made into the teeth of Oahu's defenses on the South shore because the winter surf on the North shore would have drowned half the landing force. All in all, a most unlikely scenario IRL..., even if the game makes it seem feasible.


Both logistics and geography argue against a Japanese invasion.

Think of Oahu as a box. The south side has the main population centers and ports (Honolulu, Pearl Harbor), good beach gradients for an invasion and relatively calm water. But it was also defended by the strongest coastal defenses of any location in the United States. (Check out the "Oahu Coastal Defense" LCU in-game).

There are parallel ridges that stand between the East and West side beaches and the rest of the island. These ridges are several hundred feet high, range from steep to nearly sheer, especially on the east side, and make movement inland impossible for vehicles and artillery, and impractical for everyone else, except for light commando or ranger type forces. From the east side there was only one tunnel through the ridge, and the only other route was along the beach past Diamond Head. From the west, the ridge isn't quite as bad, with one or two, -but only one or two - locations where an invading force might move inland through steep, narrow defiles.

The north shore offers more inviting beaches, and from the shore it is a relatively gentle climb uphill to the center of the island. But as Mike notes, in the winter the Northern Pacific swells bring steady large waves crashing against Oahu's north coast; great for modern day world-class surfers; not so good for WWII landing craft. And there are no port facilities of any size to support a prolonged campaign, except on the south coast.

The US had two very understrength divisions on the island, and a mish-mash of other army, marine and navy troops. It is conceivable, that if the Japanese could have put a couple of divisions ashore under a competent, aggressive commander, at a point where they could maneuver inland, that the invaders might have routed the defending troops. (I'm not saying it would have happened; I just don't dismiss the possibility). But I don't see where they could have established an appropriate beachead.

And even if ashore, if the defenders put up any kind of effective resistance that delayed a quick conquest, I don't see how the Japanese navy could have supported a multi-division campaign and the necessary navy off-shore with a supply chain stretching back to Tokyo, and no major port to facilititate logistics on the island.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 11
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:24:04 PM   
slinkytwf


Posts: 35
Joined: 3/22/2011
Status: offline
Following a 1933 wargame wherein a faux "Japanese" invader won the battle, the DoW beefed up the defenses substantially. Personally, I think they could have landed troops which would then have been quickly cut off and starved to death by superior American forces. At best, it might have drawn an extra US infantry division away from North Africa, but the reserves were there. As the old saying goes, professionals discuss logistics. Japan could never have supported an invasion of the size necessary to subdue Hawaii's multiple islands at that distance without completely foregoing their blitz of the NEI, which was the whole point of their attack.

That being said, had they managed to land two marines armed with Ginsu knives, the US reaction might have been to carpet bomb Oahu "just in case."

< Message edited by slinkytwf -- 12/1/2012 11:30:26 PM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 12
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/1/2012 11:53:54 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
Dont know what happen to brave Allied forces in HK/Sing/PI? But that bases lost very fast despite on "problems with logistic" by allied opinion.
Brave theoreticals moving easy divisions from USA (and other places) despite on war doctrine which mean Europe before Pacific.
Also can you show me route for reinforce oil fields by brave allied forces if PH fall?
I clearly understand what happen after PH attack and especially if it gone - panic (as it was in real) and gathering force in SF/SD/LA area. And fight with any shadow like happen incidents (when Japs was busy in China/Burma and dont cross even Wake meridian).
I know causes when brave Allied forces was about to surrend (or even surrend) to much more lesser troops despite on fact they had everything when enemy had bayonets.
It why blitz so devastating - one side ready, another dont know where and when war happen and what to do.
Divisions in PH was fully unprepared during a year after PH raid and morale was very low.
Difference in morale shown in Guadalcanal campaign when 1000 japs can disorganise and fall back to airstrip 16000 marines so they wait 3 more divisions and a few months for start attack enemy which withdraw from island.
PH happen 2 years before Allies start assault operations and 1 year before brave USN can hold position during night too.

(in reply to slinkytwf)
Post #: 13
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 12:20:20 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4220
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
Also can you show me route for reinforce oil fields by brave allied forces if PH fall?
I clearly understand what happen after PH attack and especially if it gone - panic (as it was in real) and gathering force in SF/SD/LA area. And fight with any shadow like happen incidents (when Japs was busy in China/Burma and dont cross even Wake meridian).


Sure, see map

The point is you have to hurt your enemy. You hurt the Japanese if you know you can stop them from taking the vital area they need to simply breathe.

A Hawaii operation (yep, a disaster if captured) is not the end of the world. It buys you time to hurt the enemy (see the above aforementioned paragraph).

I've no crystall ball so I don't know if that might have worked. But I know you must hurt, punch your enemy if / when you can.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 12/2/2012 12:21:36 AM >


_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 14
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 12:32:44 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 16007
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Dont know what happen to brave Allied forces in HK/Sing/PI? But that bases lost very fast despite on "problems with logistic" by allied opinion.
Brave theoreticals moving easy divisions from USA (and other places) despite on war doctrine which mean Europe before Pacific.
Also can you show me route for reinforce oil fields by brave allied forces if PH fall?
I clearly understand what happen after PH attack and especially if it gone - panic (as it was in real) and gathering force in SF/SD/LA area. And fight with any shadow like happen incidents (when Japs was busy in China/Burma and dont cross even Wake meridian).
I know causes when brave Allied forces was about to surrend (or even surrend) to much more lesser troops despite on fact they had everything when enemy had bayonets.
It why blitz so devastating - one side ready, another dont know where and when war happen and what to do.
Divisions in PH was fully unprepared during a year after PH raid and morale was very low.
Difference in morale shown in Guadalcanal campaign when 1000 japs can disorganise and fall back to airstrip 16000 marines so they wait 3 more divisions and a few months for start attack enemy which withdraw from island.
PH happen 2 years before Allies start assault operations and 1 year before brave USN can hold position during night too.
warspite1

Why the "brave" before mentioning Allied troops - are you being sarcastic?

Apologies if I have read this wrong, but if I have you right on your reference to Guadalcanal and the point you are trying to make - I think you need to read about the campaign some more. Are you saying 1,000 Japanese held off 16,000 marines - the latter then waited a few months before beginning an attack? And then the Japanese just withdrew from the island? - like I said, if so, please read a book on the subject because what you just said is erm...complete nonsense.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 15
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 1:37:07 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sure, see map


Nice. Now explain why Allies dont use that wonderful way for reinforce forces in vital areas but start fight for Solomons/Guinea and numerous atolls?
Just wipe DEI oil/resources via your route and Japan surrend...

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 16
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 1:54:46 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
Wrong post............

< Message edited by btbw -- 12/2/2012 1:57:09 AM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 17
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 1:55:36 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
How look Jap war plan if PH gone



Where:
Red lines - area which autofall after PH lost. No any major base and no real forces for fight against. No way for reinforce or build new.
Pink area - zone which fall historically with a few changes (see below).
Green area - most fear can happen during Pacific War - Aussie cutted from USA help and can surrend or isolated. No help to European, Pacific, Burma etc. That mean easy mode for capture everyting before brown line (see below).
Brown border - zone which imagine new and only one perimeter of defense since all other directions closed via long range from any major base and lack of support.
P.S. Now if you add directions of historical assault strikes then you understand HOW HELP to Japan conquering main base of Pacific Fleet.



< Message edited by btbw -- 12/2/2012 2:00:01 AM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 18
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 1:59:50 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sure, see map


Nice. Now explain why Allies dont use that wonderful way for reinforce forces in vital areas but start fight for Solomons/Guinea and numerous atolls?
Just wipe DEI oil/resources via your route and Japan surrend...



Because we held Hawaii and put our resources there. We had a big nice base to launch assaults from. I'm curious too about your statements about Guadacanal. Are you saying that 1,000 Japs held off 16,000 marines? I do not understand what you're trying to say there.



_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 19
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:04:26 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
Because we held Hawaii and put our resources there. We had a big nice base to launch assaults from. I'm curious too about your statements about Guadacanal. Are you saying that 1,000 Japs held off 16,000 marines? I do not understand what you're trying to say there.



With helding major base between USA and Aussie, Allies make defense perimeter of Japan very weak and vulnerable instead of danger to own convoys and assaults.
Battle for Bloody Ridge.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 20
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:05:17 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

How look Jap war plan if PH gone



Where:
Red lines - area which autofall after PH lost. No any major base and no real forces for fight against. No way for reinforce or build new.
Pink area - zone which fall historically with a few changes (see below).
Green area - most fear can happen during Pacific War - Aussie cutted from USA help and can surrend or isolated. No help to European, Pacific, Burma etc. That mean easy mode for capture everyting before brown line (see below).
Brown border - zone which imagine new and only one perimeter of defense since all other directions closed via long range from any major base and lack of support.
P.S. Now if you add directions of historical assault strikes then you understand HOW HELP to Japan conquering main base of Pacific Fleet.





Japan did not have the resources to do all of that while trying to support an occupation of Hawaii. Japan would have to do more than take Hawaii. They would have to hold it and they knew the capabilities of the United States. Even without invading Hawaii the Japanese Army said no to invading Australia.


_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 21
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:22:22 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
Japan did not have the resources to do all of that while trying to support an occupation of Hawaii.


You think Japan cannot spent a month for secure PH then conquer Brown circle? What knowledge you based on? Historical advance? It not worked cuz no try - no prize.
quote:

Japan would have to do more than take Hawaii. They would have to hold it and they knew the capabilities of the United States.

What can do USA after PH lost?
Battleships? Sunk or busy in Europe. Even if moving need a time for reach what? No base for take care about them in closest 4000km. Any damage fatal, ammo only for one battle and probably against Netties and KB. Japs have BBs too.
Carriers? Probably sunk when defend PH from nvasion or take long trip to closest major base (again 4000km) for current repair, rearm, refill and way back again to nothing under enemy strikes.
How much carriers had USA till 1943?
USA had almost zero capabalities for retake PH or blokade that area. And that happen even in much better conditions for Allies during all 1942.
1943 - it year when USA outrun Japan and start dominate anyway. But Japan poisoned by RJW and partially by WW1-Sino wars build strategy on fast advance to area which become as trade thing.


(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 22
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:26:24 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4220
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sure, see map


Nice. Now explain why Allies dont use that wonderful way for reinforce forces in vital areas but start fight for Solomons/Guinea and numerous atolls?
Just wipe DEI oil/resources via your route and Japan surrend...


Er, the pre-war plan perhaps?

And you may well be aware that the Japanese quickly assaulted their vital objective. So in fact it was too late to reinforce this theater.

The question is IF Hawaii is out of the equation (and therefore the Pacific Ocean is a Japanese lake) you will have to do something else (if we assume a positive strategy will be chosen).

The Japanese still need the oil... You have bought time to reinforce this weak spot (the price is Hawaii, economically speaking: zero value for Japan)...

edit: anyway, I don't know why you're asking, as you apparently have all the answers. You asked what routes would they use. Well, the two first US divisions deployed in the Pacific followed that route really early (the Americal and 41st IIRC). I mean the sea lanes have been there during the last 4 centuries... You don't need to be an admiral to know all that.

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 12/2/2012 2:36:57 AM >


_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 23
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:35:01 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I am basing my knowledge on "The Fall of the Japanese Empire" by John Toland and "Shattered Sword" by Parshall. Both books stated that the IJN said no to invading Australia because they did not have the manpower. And this was without an invasion of Hawaii.

According to "Shattered Sword", Hawaii had 65,000 troops on Hawaii with tens of thousands of sailors by April with I think 116,000 troops by the summer of 42. I may be wrong on the 116,000 troops. I'm going by memory.

Japan could never hope to hold Hawaii. It just did not have the support fleet to supply it. It would have been a White Elephant.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 24
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:50:55 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4220
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I am basing my knowledge on "The Fall of the Japanese Empire" by John Toland and "Shattered Sword" by Parshall. Both books stated that the IJN said no to invading Australia because they did not have the manpower. And this was without an invasion of Hawaii.

According to "Shattered Sword", Hawaii had 65,000 troops on Hawaii with tens of thousands of sailors by April with I think 116,000 troops by the summer of 42. I may be wrong on the 116,000 troops. I'm going by memory.

Japan could never hope to hold Hawaii. It just did not have the support fleet to supply it. It would have been a White Elephant.


I am not following you here. If they capture the island I can't see a big threat coming from the sea

The US Navy must necessarily be sent to the West Coast. An invasion fleet needs air cover, local superiority. And this air power can only be provided by few and precious CVs. A really risky operation that might end in a big catastrophe.

Are you sure the cargo ships could not regularly transport rice, ammo, clothes to Hawaii to feed let's say 50.000 Japanese? I am ignoring the local population (we all know the Japanese "doctrine" ).

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 25
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 2:54:11 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
The Japanese still need the oil... You have bought time to reinforce this weak spot (the price is Hawaii, economically speaking: zero value for Japan)...

Oil dont have legs.
Sorry but reinforce by WHO?
Economy is only one part of war. Dominate in piece of ocean length 9000km is good strategy.
quote:

I don't know why you're asking

Directions on map targetted Noumea, Suva, Aussie, Guinea, Solomons etc. After that you will see 4 times more defense perimeter what must defend japanese troops. And they lost oil fields in 1945 so Allies did wrong?

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 26
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 3:12:03 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
The US Navy must necessarily be sent to the West Coast.

With danger to GB and cancelation North Africa operation (which mean danger of lost Mediterrain theater and oil here - great gift for Panzerwaffe/Luftwaffe/Nazis werke).
And what can do fleet operated from base on West Coast if one leg is 4000km? Come for one day with danger lost fuel or sunk from small hole?
quote:

An invasion fleet needs air cover, local superiority. And this air power can only be provided by few and precious CVs. A really risky operation that might end in a big catastrophe.

KB bring that superiority. With a few more days airstrikes to airfields USA will have no planes which can bring danger even to merchant.
And big catastrophe happen. In Midway battle. Still happen. Without valuable prize even.
quote:

Are you sure the cargo ships could not regularly transport rice, ammo, clothes to Hawaii to feed let's say 50.000 Japanese?

USA can transport it. Japan can transport it too and much easier cuz logistic of japanese troops contain MUCH lesser neccessary things.

< Message edited by btbw -- 12/2/2012 3:16:20 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 27
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 3:30:14 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4220
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
Oil dont have legs.


And the enemy might destroy you if you don't pay attention to a basic principle called "time" [and space] This in war is called "adventurism". Looks like after all the Japanese understood they had to quickly seize their vital objective and ignore an "easy" prey (Hawaii)...

quote:

And they lost oil fields in 1945 so Allies did wrong?


The allies had a plan. It worked, even without grabbing the oil fields so fair enough. A workaround was found though. Put the submarines to good use and sink the tankers...

And economy is everything with a poor island like Japan. They are not the USSR. No oil = no modern war. Basically what Hitler pretended to do during the summer 1942 in the Eastern Front. But of course that lead the 6th Army to er... Stalingrad

What amazes me is that you 100% think the allies would not do antyhing to prevent this (using the precious "time"), when the Japanese are wasting their time grabbing the Mauna Loa...

As I have said above, if you don't pay attention the enemy might destroy you. After all it's what he is supposed to do.

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 28
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/2/2012 8:01:55 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 16007
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Dont know what happen to brave Allied forces in HK/Sing/PI? But that bases lost very fast despite on "problems with logistic" by allied opinion.
Brave theoreticals moving easy divisions from USA (and other places) despite on war doctrine which mean Europe before Pacific.
Also can you show me route for reinforce oil fields by brave allied forces if PH fall?
I clearly understand what happen after PH attack and especially if it gone - panic (as it was in real) and gathering force in SF/SD/LA area. And fight with any shadow like happen incidents (when Japs was busy in China/Burma and dont cross even Wake meridian).
I know causes when brave Allied forces was about to surrend (or even surrend) to much more lesser troops despite on fact they had everything when enemy had bayonets.
It why blitz so devastating - one side ready, another dont know where and when war happen and what to do.
Divisions in PH was fully unprepared during a year after PH raid and morale was very low.
Difference in morale shown in Guadalcanal campaign when 1000 japs can disorganise and fall back to airstrip 16000 marines so they wait 3 more divisions and a few months for start attack enemy which withdraw from island.
PH happen 2 years before Allies start assault operations and 1 year before brave USN can hold position during night too.
warspite1

Why the "brave" before mentioning Allied troops - are you being sarcastic?

Apologies if I have read this wrong, but if I have you right on your reference to Guadalcanal and the point you are trying to make - I think you need to read about the campaign some more. Are you saying 1,000 Japanese held off 16,000 marines - the latter then waited a few months before beginning an attack? And then the Japanese just withdrew from the island? - like I said, if so, please read a book on the subject because what you just said is erm...complete nonsense.
warspite1

Any reason you have ignored this post - apart from the obvious?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 29
RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii - 12/3/2012 9:35:32 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 245
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
IIRC, the Japanese succeeded in exactly ONE assault beach landing in the entire war - at Wake. Everywhere else they landed on a nominally hostile but tactically undefended shore, or failed.

And the first assault on Wake was thrown back.

Oahu is going to be Wake x10 - the FIRST attack. Shattered Sword, as noted above, makes a good case that the Japanese would have been thrown back had their amphib force reached Midway, based mostly on the actual Japanese record of opposed assault water crossings and other factors.

If three divisions magically show up off the beaches of Oahu on the 8th (transports aren't going to be able to close on the 7th during daylight without being spotted), they're going to face proportionally heavier CD fire than at Wake, a higher ratio of defenders, and a defense in depth. The second Wake assault only barely succeeded - the communication and supply failings that led to the US surrender won't be present at Pearl (Wake was an outpost short on everything - Pearl was a major base and well provisioned on rations and water along with things like small arms ammo).

All that ignores how the Japanese hide three divisions moving across the Pacific, or find the ships to move them in, or the escorts for them, or the oilers to top off the escorts...

As for a blockade... based out of where? Ship's magazines only carry so much, then you need to sail back to a base (Truk, realistically) to rearm. UnRep of ammo simply isn't going to happen in 1941.

The US had four infantry regiments in fighting shape on Oahu, plus most of the combat support for two triangular divisions and a huge array of coastal defense artillery (up to and including 16" guns). The US historically erected barb wire obstacles and dug trenches to defend the beaches on the 7th even though no invasion force had been spotted. On the 8th the Japanese are going to meet troops in hasty entrenchments covered by powerful CD batteries who have gotten over their shock and switched to anger.

1st Wake assault writ large.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT question about Japan invading Hawaii Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121