Pacific war question to ponder...

[Lance]

Did the Japanese effectively do us a favor by destroying our battleships at Pearl Harbor?  If these had been available to oppose Japan after the outbreak of the war, would Nimitz have adhered to more traditional naval doctrine?  

Essentially, I am wondering to what degree Nimitz' embracing of the new power of naval air was foresight on his part or due to necessity as most of his battleships were sunk or heavily damaged in Pearl Harbor.  

If anyone has any particular insights, toss 'em out.

[Fatty]

Big guns are loud.

[Pongo]

With the battle ships the US would likely have implemented Case orange and lost the battle ships and the carriers to long lances in early 42. So I would think that what you say is true. But its more true that the US was saved from its own doctrine by pearl harbour.

[keyapaha]

here's another one

   can't remember where i saw this but during the pearl harbour attack there was a very large fuel depot/refinery close by that was untouched by the attack had that been destroyed it would have set back us naval ops back 6-9 months.

   japanese  pilots flew over  or near this but was not on there target list so they ignored it


  so that means that midway would not have happened the way it did the japanese would have been basically unopposed. and with out the losses of ships they would have pretty much had free reign of the pacific.

[Lance]

Pongo, what the flip is case orange?  That is the first I have heard of it.

[Pongo]

Case Orange(might have gotten the name wrong ill look) was the US war plan for war in the pacific.   Involving a containment in the far east while the pac fleet rolled to a confrontation with the IJN.  The Japanese equivilent relied on a picket of fleet subs to patrol aircraft to locate the USN and force a night battle. The Japs hoped to counter the greater tonnage of the USN by effective use of Long lance at night and intensive training in night shooting.
Going by the results of the first few engagements at Guadicanal the Pac fleet would have got spanked quite badley befor they could learn the error in their ways and learn to trust thier Radars and avoid the Long lance.
Certainly the string of fierce and costly but non conclusive night engagements in Iron Bottom sound taught the USN how to effectivly counter the Japanes at night.
If you replace those string of battles with one Jutland size all or nothing battle then the War might have gotten very interesting.
As Case orange involved including the fleet CVs as an intregal part of the fleet. They would have been very much at risk.

[Tac]

Even if Nimitz had stuck to the old BB- backboned fleet , the US wouldve still produced a crapload more battleships than the IJN.

Engagements would also have been somewhat "balanced". US had incredible fire control systems and radar, but the IJN had monsters like the Yamato and the Musashi (and a 3rd, Shinano, being built). They made the Bismark look like a patrol boat. Plus with USN having cracked the IJN codes... well, i'd say things are stacked into the USN favor.

[Lance]

Thanks, Pongo.

[AlphaTwo]

This question can never truly be answered, maybe without pearl harbor, the U.S. would have remained a "neutral" support nation.
Imagine that hitler would have taken russia, europe and asia, imagine this; the u.s and the nazi empire as close friends, exchanging shnaps for whisky.

[Pongo]

Your right Alpha. But these things can be fun to theorize about.
It certainly could be mused that America might not have gone to such a major war footing without pearl. Maybe resolve might have wavered for such a long costly war.

[Charon]

Good point AlphaTwo. Roosevelt was leaning towards war but he didn't have a lot of support. I wonder if an invasion of Britain would have triggered a US response.

Charon

[Tac]

Unlikely Charon.

[spitfiremkv]

what if the US carriers had been at pearl? would the Japs had managed to capture Midway and Hawaii? Would we speak Japanese now, at least on the West Coast?
I think that even if the US battleships had been left intact after the attack, the naval war would have been the same. The fact that carriers are such a formidable weapon would have emerged eventually.

[Charon]

what if the US carriers had been at pearl? would the Japs had managed to capture Midway and Hawaii? Would we speak Japanese now, at least on the West Coast?

IMO, the end result of the war would have been the same, but the pacific conflict would have been longer by at least a year. Midway would have fallen, Hawaii might have fallen but I think they would have had to do it as part of the initial attack, and as a main thrust at the expense of other operations. However, by 1943, once we got cranking in the shipyards and other industries, the war was a foregone conclusion.

Charon

[Masherbrum]

Had the carriers been destroyed it would have been longer than a year, guaranteed.  The US didn't have all of the resources for the battleships let alone the CV's.  

Charon you are absolutely right, Roosevelt had too many investors in the German Reich.  Henry Ford's picture was behind hitler's desk.  Ford had given Hitler many trucks for military purposes.  My grandfather despised FDR for all that he was worth until his death in May 1998.   He was a Marine and fought at Guam, Okinawa and the cleaning up of China.  FDR had split the Marines in half 3 Marine Divisions per Theater and my grandfather never forgave him for that.

Germany would never have captured Russia, it would have been the worst battle on record, IMO.  The Intelligence Bureau headed by Sir William Stephenson was impressive.  The whole Barbarossa offensive was delayed three months because of Tito and he "supposed uprising in Romania and the Balkans".  This was all false info. that was being fed to the Reich's highest officials.   Read "A Man Called intrepid" by Sir William Stephenson.  He actually was prevented from writing this until 1973 so names would not be extruded from CIA operatives and in the British Spy Rings.  This is one of the best books I have ever read having ANYTHING to do with WWII.

As long as Hitler was in charge they could only bully around the smaller countries, not Russia.  this is my opinion.  This is a fun topic to discuss and I hope this may come to the top of the list again.

Jay