Turning point of the War.

[Tac]

IMO,

Japan could never keep the US out of the Pacific even if they had captured Hawaii right off the start. The reasons are very simple & Yamamoto understood this. Consider what he told his superior:

'I can guarantee only 6 months of victory, no more'. (paraphrased)

1- Even if Hawaii was lost on day 1, the US would've recaptured it fairly quickly.

If you consider the kind of fury Pearl Harbor caused, imagine the effect the surprise attack plus losing Hawaii would've been. It would not have been defeatist.

2- If Hawaii & Pacific fleet had been lost on day 1, the carriers would have still been at sea and the USN wouldve diverted all its warships to the PTO. Hence, no real effect on the critical battles in the pacific which were fought by carriers.

3- Industrial might of the US wouldve swept the IJN off the sea as it did historically.

4- the US would not abandon the Pacific as it had too much to loose. Primarily the ANZAC regions, India and China which were allies.

If Hawaii had been captured on day 1 I believe that the USN would've won the war in the pacific much faster than it did because it would've pushed for a much bigger naval building program right from the start (and Id say a much more effective one as they wouldve likely focused on producing submarines and carriers rather than building battleships); it wouldve provided the Marines with a first blood experience vs. Japanese soldiers while liberating friendly territory (which would've likely been a campaign mounted with #1 priority by the US and would've happened within a month or two or so after Dec 7th)... while at the same time slowing the Japanese advance in the southern pacific as the IJN would not have dispersed their fleet from Hawaii to help capture the southern asia regions.

[Angus]

Ehemm.
It took almost 4 years to defeat the Japanese. And it was eventually done with a nuke.
The Japanese first blow failed, since the U.S. carriers had left Pearl Harbour. Had the Japs both sunk the US carriers AND then captured Pearl, it would have been a very long time until the USA would have been in condition to deal with the Japanese on Naval grounds, especially with the other scenario of operations, MTO, and later ETO.
This was the core of the Japanese idea, and as Yamamoto planned, the only way the Japanese could have made trouble with the USA and gotten away with it.
And yet, despite the failiure of Tora-Tora-Tora, the Japanese were not even clearly on a loosing side for quite some time.

[RufusLeaking]

It took almost 4 years to defeat the Japanese. And it was eventually done with a nuke.

The defeat of Germany was given priority. 

The loss of the three carriers at Pearl Harbor would probably not have added time to the war.  Loss of Hawaii might have extended it.  The Japanese warrior ethos carried them long after their defeat was a foregone conclusion.  This code may have actually casused them some harm in that it discouraged armor in the planes, made logisitcs unmanly, and the answer to any crisis on the battlefield was a full frontal charge. 

The resources that the Japanese went to war to acquire did not significantly help their war effort.

[killjoy1]

Saxman   "Cornwallis had NOTHING to do with Cowpens. Don't get your history from The Patriot."

What I said was, "Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton.  It lead directly to Yorktown."

The result of Cowpens was that the army of Cornwallis was crippled.  Cowpens displayed that the British could be beaten.  This was a big deal after Camden.   

Try not to be so combative.  Oh Sorry, this is a war simulation board.  Or is it?

[Skuzzy]

<snip>  Oh Sorry, this is a war simulation board.  Or is it?

This board is not a simulation of any war.  If it ever gets remotely close to that, I'll go Patton on all of you and be done with it. 

[Unit791]

They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.

Had Hawaii been captured, the U.S. would have had to launch offensive operations from mainland U.S.   You can assume if Hawaii was captured, then the aircraft carriers there defending would have been captured/destroyed.  The Japanese then would have been able to advance southward; capture New Guinea, Invade Australia, and invade other smaller islands like Fiji & Samoa.  To beat your enemy, you don't have to land 3 divisions south of one of their cities, you just need to take them out of the equation.  You defeat U.S. at sea/Hawaii, you take them out of the equation, and you win.  A crowd of dangerous, rake-armed, stupid, racist people (what you call Morale) are only dangerous in your home territory.

[Nemisis]

Had Hawaii been captured, the U.S. would have had to launch offensive operations from mainland U.S.   You can assume if Hawaii was captured, then the aircraft carriers there defending would have been captured/destroyed.  The Japanese then would have been able to advance southward; capture New Guinea, Invade Australia, and invade other smaller islands like Fiji & Samoa.  To beat your enemy, you don't have to land 3 divisions south of one of their cities, you just need to take them out of the equation.  You defeat U.S. at sea/Hawaii, you take them out of the equation, and you win.  A crowd of dangerous, rake-armed, stupid, racist people (what you call Morale) are only dangerous in your home territory.

The only way to take your enemy out of the equation is to defeat him militarily, or to provide no reason for him to intervine in your conflicts.

Japan would have the same problem in Australia as they would on the mainland U.S., they don't have the manpower to invade, capture, and occupy australia, and still continue with other campaigns.

And even had the Japanese forced peace upon us, would would have sat tight, built like hell, and then attack. The U.S. would never have gone away, they would have came back when they were strong enough. And there were no carriers in hawaii, so none would have been captured. And as soon as that "crowd of dangerous rake-armed, stupid, racist people" find a boat, there your problem again.

[Unit791]

The only way to take your enemy out of the equation is to defeat him militarily, or to provide no reason for him to intervine in your conflicts.

Japan would have the same problem in Australia as they would on the mainland U.S., they don't have the manpower to invade, capture, and occupy australia, and still continue with other campaigns.

And even had the Japanese forced peace upon us, would would have sat tight, built like hell, and then attack. The U.S. would never have gone away, they would have came back when they were strong enough. And there were no carriers in hawaii, so none would have been captured. And as soon as that "crowd of dangerous rake-armed, stupid, racist people" find a boat, there your problem again.

Lol, i see where you are coming from, but come on, they invaded China (which, mind you, had a HUGE ARMY) and decimated them.

[Nemisis]

Yes, but their equipment and training were much poorer. Think about how Germany got so far against russia: better training (untill they started skimping to get more troops faster) and better equipment (untill later in the war, though the tiger and tigerII remained formidible through out the war).

[Ack-Ack]

Lol, i see where you are coming from, but come on, they invaded China (which, mind you, had a HUGE ARMY) and decimated them.

Yes, but their equipment and training were much poorer. Think about how Germany got so far against russia: better training (untill they started skimping to get more troops faster) and better equipment (untill later in the war, though the tiger and tigerII remained formidible through out the war).

You guys really need to read more than Wiki on what happened in World War II.  It's a shame that our schools are doing such a piss poor job in teaching you kids.


ack-ack

[Angus]

This board is not a simulation of any war.  If it ever gets remotely close to that, I'll go Patton on all of you and be done with it. 

You mean you're going to drive over a mine?     

[Skuzzy]

You mean you're going to drive over a mine?     

You bet your sweet bippy.  Just think of cleaning up that mess.  Of course, I would get all my shots in before doing my impersonation of an egg in a microwave. 

[Angus]

LOL, Skuzzy, this one is then for you
(egg in microwave)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgy1Yhgk_BY

Then with champagne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzJoLVCskM&feature=related

(Oddly enough there is a documented case of loads of champagne being taken up to 30K, - unpressurized, without an incidense)

[321BAR]

Re El Alemain and Torch? Those are small victories compared to Normandy. Neither opened up Germany to an invasion route or so badly damaged her military that they could no longer fight. Normandy was the key campaign in the West in WW2. Its success absolutley sealed Germanys fate. I find it bemusing the attempts to somehow deflect its importance. You can argue the timelines all you want, but Normandy was the defining point at which any hope of Germany hanging on for an armistice was lost. Had her government cared at all for her people, they would have sued for peace in August 1944, and avoided the inevitable armageddon that was to follow.

Stalingrad was not the key defeat on the Eastern Front, it was Kursk. What slim chance the Germans had before Kursk was gone afterwards, and with it any hope of militarily defeating the USSR.

  Normandy was just another victory to finish the war faster, without the African and eastern fronts there would never had been a possibility of Normandy succeeding. Kursk came after Stalingrad when the German army was in retreat. it was not a turning point but it sealed Germany's fate faster just like the Battle of the Bulge did... (speaking of sealing German fate, what was that massive air assault Germany used to try and destroy the Allied air power late in the war? the huge noe raid that failed?)

[RufusLeaking]

(speaking of sealing German fate, what was that massive air assault Germany used to try and destroy the Allied air power late in the war? the huge noe raid that failed?)

I read the Luftwaffe War Diaries as a kid and vaguely recall what the last big push.  Wiki revealed it to be Bodenplatte or 'Base Plate.'  But, by January, 1945, it was very unlikely that Germany could come back regardless.