Turning point of the War.

[RufusLeaking]

AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific.  Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have  won the battle of the Phillipines.  Japan would still have large sources of crude oil.  It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific.  The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.

Nice troll.  OK, I'll bite.

Japan's plan was to grab as much as possible in terms of resources and territory and then dig in.  They were securing strategic resources with an eye on setting up a British style empire with them at the top.  They planned on fighting so hard in defense as to weaken the American will to fight.  They did not think decadent America would fight.  They and Germany perceived the American culture as weak and inferior.  They were wrong.  It turned out that the US was invincible.

It is amazing how many enemies think that the US is in decline, even to this day.

[AirFlyer]

AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific.  Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have  won the battle of the Phillipines.  Japan would still have large sources of crude oil.  It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific.  The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.

Sorry but the idea of the Japanese winning a prolonged campaign like what the PTO turned into is nearly impossible. I'm not saying the U.S. was invincible, but there are certain factors that just made it impossible for Japan to win any war that would last several years. There are so many variables that I don't have the time or patience to type out a lengthy reason so I'll focus on one matter. That being, the pure industrial power of the U.S. Even had the Battle of Midway been a complete disaster it would of only prolonged the war, not ended it. If you look at the production numbers of both sides, even splitting out what the U.S. sent to the ETO they were still capable of bringing overwhelming amounts of ships, airplanes, troops, supplies, etc to bear against Japan. The only way I could of seen Japan winning is by delivering a knock-out blow that they never managed at Pearl Harbor. They would of had to annihilate any idea of the U.S. fighting against them, or do it within several months of the war at best. And of course lastly although complete speculation, I do not believe the Japanese could of managed a hostile take-over of the U.S. mainland even using Hawaii as a staging point just do to it's vast size and various other reasons that aren't worth typing out.

[Angus]

I think it is no chance that the Japs could have defeated the USA on US soil, and they pretty much would have agreed on that.
However, they were close to succeeding in their plan. Grab the resources, stun the USN out of function for some period, and dig in like no-one else could do. That was the plan, and IMHO the only logical one.
Land-war on US soil would only serve as a tool to create chaos, but would never be won. It is, after all, a big country with lots of people and an enormous industrial capacity.

[Saxman]

Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton.  It lead directly to Yorktown.  

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

[Nemisis]

I think its entirely feasible for the Japanese to have landed 3 divisions on the west coast of the USA. In 1941 they certainly had the manpower, and the navy for such an operation considering even with the simultaneous operations in the Philippines and Malaya after pearl harbour, the Japanese still had large numbers of troops in Korea, and China.
The American military in 1941 was not the mirror image of the forces arrayed in 1944, the Japanese army certainly had the edge in morale and training, and their Navy/Airforce was still very much intact although the Japanese Army were poorly armed and lacked for adequate artillery, armoured vehicles.

The question would've been if they would've been able to have to get such a large force close enough to the continental US undetected in Dec 1941, and what would've become of them once landed. Certainly the Japanese had awful logistics and would struggle to support a landing force - but I would think initially it would've been quite an effort for the available forces in 1941 to quickly defeat that force considering the quality and numbers available to the defenders.

Exactly. Had the U.S. lost Hawaii (which would almost be REQUIRED for Japan to land troops on the mainland U.S.) The U.S. would likely want to defend as far forward as possible, with aggressive patrols, constant aircover, and maybe even carriers steaming up and down the coast.

And HAD japan landed troops, they would have been beaten back. It would be physical impossible for them to have held on against all the weight the U.S. could have thrown agings them. Roosevelt would surely postpone all operations till the invaders were driven from U.S. soil. And even if their airfoce could defeat ours, all our factories would have been on the same continent as the fighting, with japan needing to ship in everything but possibly food. And even if they did beat us in production, our Sheree weight of manpower would have been daunting.

[321BAR]

ok... i need to say Midway takes the PTO easily but for the ETO? theres two, Stalingrad was the best known for the soviets but they held the line at moscow and north of that also... stalingrad just took the popularity in my opinion... but for the western front? there really was none except el alamein and operation torch... by the time stalingrad took place, there was no need for us to "turn the war". we achieved air superiority slowly and gradually and africa is the only thing that had a turning point. yes, the BoB was probably the most necessary thing to have achieved and secured a western front in '44. but was it really truly a turning point? the axis still had the military superiority to be able to invade the country if they wished... hitler was just dumb once again. i mean, he did choose to attack cities halfway through instead of the airbases when he all but wiped them out and...well... i guess i just proved my point haha  . ok stalingrad, el alamein, BoB, and Midway... oh and btw, if Hawaii was invaded, we would have lost, they had their largest fleet at their disposal right off the coast, the enterprise would have been sunk and Hawaii would be japanese today... during the time of 1941, wasnt there only 300,000 or so men in the us army? they could have easily taken a foothold in california or washington and if they wanted to push the invasion, they had the manpower to divert probably more men to the west coast than we had in our army.

[Squire]

I don't know why the Japanese needed to invade the USA to drive it out of the Pacific? Japan came very close to achieving its war aims, which did not entail invading the USAs west coast. The defeat at Midway was all that stood between it and taking the Pacific area, all but Hawaii. Australia would have likely fallen with no lifeline, and you can't resupply it with no naval air power. Thats not to say that at some point the USA could not have come back, in all likelyhood it would have, but the Pacific would have fallen in 1942-3 to Japan 1st had they won at Midway and sunk the remaining US CVs.

There is a reasonable limit to what Japan could have done past that, and certainly I don't see invading the USA as a realistic option in the early 1940s. Thats not a Pacific War though, thats a North American war. Big difference. 

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.

[Ack-Ack]

Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have  won the battle of the Phillipines.  Japan would still have large sources of crude oil.  It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific.  The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.

After the Battle of Miday and Guadacanal, the offensive capabilities of the IJN was seriously curtailed, if not eliminated.  Just because Japan decided that it could go back on the offensive again in late '43 and plan Operation A to attack the US Pacific Fleet while it was conducting its next offensive campaign doesn't mean it had the strength to succeed and then go on a major offensive to recapture some of their lost territory.

Operation A was heavily dependent on land based fighters because most of the IJNs experienced and veteran pilots were killed in previous offensive operations (Coral Sea, Midway, Guadacanal).  In addition, the Japanese were out numbered in aspects with 9 total carriers (main and light) compared to the US Pacific Fleet's total of 15 carriers.  The Japanese only were able to field approximately 450 carrier based planes with an additional 300 land based planes compared to the US Pacific Fleet's 956 planes.  You also have to take into account that a majority of the IJN's most experienced pilots were already dead by this time.  The US Pacific Fleet also had the ability to use radar to direct its combat air patrols and its aircrews were far better trained and had more experience.  The IJN just did not of the offensive capabilities or forces to stop the US Pacific Fleet in the Philippine Sea or anywhere else for that matter.

The fact that the IJN failed to sink a single US ship during this battle and the loss to IJN aircraft and crews was horrendous.  Out of the 450 carrier bases planes, the IJN lost 400 and out of the 300 land based planes, they lost 200.  This isn't in addition to the aircrews that were lost but safe to say that least 80% of the aircrews were lost during this battle.  Only around 40 of the IJN's carrier based planes were fit to fly after the battle and the losses were so great that during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the IJN couldn't launch any planes from their carriers due to lack of crews to fly them.  The IJN also never recovered from the loss of their 3 carriers during this battle.

So while on paper it looked like the IJN was strong enough to go on the offensive, in reality it the IJN incapable of large offensive operations that could threaten and reverse the gains of the United States in the Pacific.



ack-ack

[Simba]

WW2? OK, in chronological order:

1. Battle of Britain: first major defeat for the Germans.
2. Moscow/Leningrad: second major defeat for the Germans, who thus found themselves left out in the cold.
3. Pearl Harbor: it induced Hitler to declare war on the USA, leading to ultimate defeat for the Germans when the Americans finally got fighting.
4. Overlord: the beginning of the campaign that ultimately defeated the German forces in Western Europe.
5. Berlin: it completed the defeat of the Germans on all fronts.

The single most important battle in history? Trafalgar, 21st October 1805. Thanks to Nelson and his 'Band of Brothers', the French and Spanish battlefleets never again gained any lasting dominance over British seapower, which subsequently opened the seas to peaceful trade under the umbrella of the 'Pax Britannica' maintained by the Royal Navy for the hundred years from 1814 to the outbreak of the First World War.

 

[Ack-Ack]

I don't know why the Japanese needed to invade the USA to drive it out of the Pacific?

Invading Hawaii or the US mainland was never on the minds of the Japanese, nor was invading Australia.  The main goal of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to force the United States to the negotiating table, not go to war.  Naive thinking on Japan's part for sure.  They knew that invading Hawaii would end all hope of a negotiated settlement.  The goal of Midway was the same as their goal with Pearl Harbor, destroy the US Pacific Fleet and force the US to the negotiating table.  The only reason they wanted to occupy Midway was to extend their defensive perimeter in response to the Doolittle Raid.

As for the invasion of Australia, it was a plan of a few staff officers but the majority of the high command, like Tojo were against it for logistical reasons and knew they'd never be able to capture and occupy Australia.  The best they could hope for was the capture of Port Moresby that would have endangered supply line to Australia and give the Japanese an air base in which to make harassing bombing raids on Australia.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

Yes, their main goal was to knock the U.S. out of the war by destroying their pacific fleet. But in retrospect they would have done better them to have followed up the pear harbor attacks with a landing, capturing the island, and using it as a shield while they strengthend their positions further west, since, as we all know, their attempts to force america to negotiate failed.

[Saxman]

Simba,

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that Trafalgar was the most important NAVAL battle of all-time. I'd say Salamis ranks WELL above in its impact on the world: The Greeks had a heavy influence on the development of Roman culture, and the Romans were ultimately one of the key influences on the development of Western Europe. What might have happened if the Greeks had been conquered and a Persian-style monarchy had been spread into the Greek City-states (particularly Athens)?

Hell, I'd place HASTINGS and its aftermath (which incidentally, the Saxons could, and probably SHOULD, have won that battle) as having a much more significant impact, particularly if you're looking at the evolution of Great Britain.

[Nemisis]

just noticed, but the title doesn't state which war it's talking about  .

[Ack-Ack]

Yes, their main goal was to knock the U.S. out of the war by destroying their pacific fleet. But in retrospect they would have done better them to have followed up the pear harbor attacks with a landing, capturing the island, and using it as a shield while they strengthend their positions further west, since, as we all know, their attempts to force america to negotiate failed.

No, capturing Hawaii would have required more logistics than Japan had available a the time and wouldn't have been the better choice in retrospect.  That would have guaranteed a war in Japan's mind that that was the last thing they wanted.  They wanted to destroy the US Pacific Fleet so we wouldn't interfere with their operations against the British, Dutch and French in SE Asia and thought that by destroying our fleet, we would sue for peace instead of going to war.  They had the strong belief that we would not go to war due to our isolationist policies and views at the time.

In hindsight, the Japanese should have launched the 3rd wave that targeting the fuel/torpedo storage, maintenance facilities and dry dock repair facilities.  That would have been a major blow to the US Pacific Fleet.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

Yes, but had they planed to invade hawaii and use it as a forward base, they would have been able to draw strength away from other campaigns and use those troops to invade and occupy hawaii. Assuming they allow the carriers to stay there to help defend agains the inevitable american counter attack, with they help of land based planes, they MAY have sunk all the carriers, but more likely they would have sunk around half, causing the americans to draw back at the risk of loosing their remaining carrier force. The Japs may have hung onto hawaii untill early '43, maybe mid '43 if thing go well. that gives them 1 1/2 years to consolidate, build, and dig in for the following american attacks. IDK what a reasonable amount of troops to garrison the islands would be, but in my limited knowledge, 3 divisions seems good for Ohau, with an extra 2-3 for the rest of the islands. It seems like 60-70,000 troops wouldn't SEVERLY limit the Japanese's capacity to defend other areas.
That means if it takes the same ammount of time -4 months for the troops lost on hawaii, japan would loose in 1947. If you could go down in '45 or '47, which would you pick?