Today - all those years ago (Pearl Harbour)

[Phil.]

It was a sleepy Sunday morning at Pearl Harbor when the Imperial Japanese Navy aeroplanes began their bombing and torpedoing.
All this before an actual declaration of war had been issued by the Japanese forces.

 

[SS4]

Luckily the American carriers were at sea that morning. But don't forget that Japan launched attacks on Shanghai, Malaya, Thailand, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies at the same time (although due to the International Date Line this was on December 8th)

Interestly it was the Royal Navy's victory at Taranto that showed the Japanese it was indeed possible to launch torpedoes in shallow waters

 

[TheEdge]

I often wonder what the Japanese thought they would actually achieve. Between 1941-1945 (not consecutive figures but cumulative totals) the USN had 23 battleships, the IJN had 12. Carriers, the IJN had 24, the USN 58. Thrown in the RN, 91 carriers and another 20 battleships. (I'll accept that many of the RN ships were tied up in Europe)

They never had the capacity to replace loses. I just don't understand how they thought they might win.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They never had the capacity to replace loses. I just don't understand how they thought they might win.

They made one miscalculation; the chief one being that apparently they were expecting some additional parts of the US Pacific Fleet to be in Pearl on the day; I forget which bit of the fleet but they weren't as they were out on exercise and were thus undamaged and were able to form the core part of a US response.

The second miscalculation was in assuming that every ship they sank was totally destroyed; if I recall correctly a small number of the vessels including one quite significant one were quickly recovered and given a hurried refit and joined the undamaged part of the fleet.

It took time, but simply having those ships available allowed the US to fight back enough to eventually turn the tide against Japan.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not really though. The aircraft carriers which were not present in Pearl Harbour were important in taking the fight to the Japanese in 1942 but by the end of the way represented a tiny fraction of the US Navy forces in the Pacific.

To take some examples between laying the keel of the first Essex class aircraft carrier in April 1941 and the end of 1943 the US Navy commissioned seven of the class. That's as many as they had aircraft carriers at the outbreak of hostilities. By the end of 1944 that had doubled to fourteen and by the middle of 1945 there were seventeen with more on the slips. Plus lets not forget the litterally dozens of escort carriers that were built during the same period. Or take the Fletcher class destroyers of which they completed 175 of the class between 1941 and 1945.

I'm not sure its possible to overstate just how many ships were built and delivered to the US Navy (and allies) during the war.

The survivors of Pearl Harbour were important but they are not why the US won the war in the Pacific (for one thing most of the aircraft carriers which did survive Pearl Harbour were sunk by the end of the war). The US Navy could have lost most of its aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour and they would still have won the war. It just would have taken a year or two longer.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Isn't that the key, though... "a year or two longer"...?

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't that the key, though... "a year or two longer"...?

The question was how the Japanese thought they could win. Lasting in the fight a bit longer isn't winning.

 

[TheEdge]

Isn't that the key, though... "a year or two longer"...?

Not really, they had other problems. The IJN cancelled alot of ship orders of all sizes. Of the 5 Yamato class ordered two were built (Yamato and Mushasi), one (Shinano) was built as a carrier and two were cancelled. They just didn't have the capacity to build like the USN.

Worse than that for them was manpower. They had some amazing carrier crews and pilots but many were lost at Midway and they were never able to replace them. Look up the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot for the tragic results.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The question was how the Japanese thought they could win. Lasting in the fight a bit longer isn't winning.

The cooperative aspect of Japanese culture is awesome. Think of how they recovered from WW2. I'm not sure when their GDP overtook that of the UK, but I would guess it was mid-60s. This from total ruin.

I can't pretend to be an expert, but from the history books I've read, the downside of this (generally positive) characteristic was a major factor in Japan going into the war against the USA, namely, the messenger with bad news was not only tortured and shot by the Emperor's orders, his family had to commit hare kare into the bargain.

Simply put, nobody dared question the Imperial Will. It was not only traitorous, it was shameful for all concerned. hence the collective blindness.

I think it was Admiral Yamamato (who had served in the USA) who said - immediately after Pearl Harbour - something like: "We have pinched the tale of a sleeping tiger."

 

[ainsworth74]

Worse than that for them was manpower.

Indeed and lets not forget that whilst the war in the Pacific was going on they were occupying Manchuria and China which tied up a huge chunk of their available manpower (several million men).

Plus there were other strategic problems Japan itself had restricted natural resources (particularly oil) which left it vulnerable to commerce raiding (everyone remembers the German U-Boat campaign but the US Navy campaign against Japan was, in many ways, even more effective). Japan's industrial base was also smaller than that of the United States and did not have the room to grow that the US had meaning that even with unlimited natural resources they were never going to be able to match US production.

It goes back to your original question. How did they ever think they could win or at least get to a position where they could negotiate a favourable settlement with the United States?

 

[NSEFAN]

It goes back to your original question. How did they ever think they could win or at least get to a position where they could negotiate a favourable settlement with the United States?

I suppose it's the same with Hitler. How the hell did he think that he could take on so many nations at once? He was just insane.

 

[TheEdge]

I suppose it's the same with Hitler. How the hell did he think that he could take on so many nations at once? He was just insane.

If he'd been cleverer than he was and didn't believe his own propaganda about his abilities he may not have taken all of Europe but could have negotiated a decent settlement for Germany.

While a total defeat of the USSR was probably impossible and a successful invasion of the UK would most likely have failed I reckon if he had stopped at the French coast and at the Russian border he could have negotiated a peace between the UK, Germany and the USSR before the USA entered the war in December 1941.

 

[Butts]

If he'd been cleverer than he was and didn't believe his own propaganda about his abilities he may not have taken all of Europe but could have negotiated a decent settlement for Germany.

While a total defeat of the USSR was probably impossible and a successful invasion of the UK would most likely have failed I reckon if he had stopped at the French coast and at the Russian border he could have negotiated a peace between the UK, Germany and the USSR before the USA entered the war in December 1941.

With regard to Britain Hitler made the error of switching the Luftwaffe from bombing Airfields to Cities. The RAF was on it's last legs through loss of Aircraft and Men.

In the USSR he got held up in the Balkans delaying the invasion by 6 weeks and getting hit by the Winter as a result. He also refused the assistance of Ukranians who wanted to fight the Russians.

Although there was an alliance between Germany and Japan I think it would have gone the same way as the German/Russian one eventually. The Japanese do not exactly fit into the typical Aryan profile.

For an authoritative account of WW2 consult Commando, War Picture Library and Battle Picture Library Publications. See also Valiant,Victor et al...
Warning for those of a sensitive nature these may offend

 

[TheEdge]

Butts, general consensus is that even with the destruction of the RAF Sea Lion and the occupation of Britain would have always failed. Even the Kriegsmarine thought it would fail. Their expectation was that in the event of an invasion the entire Home Fleet would have been sent into combat. It was something that never happened and the Kriegsmarine, even with total air superiority would not have been able to stop it.

Same with Russia, even had they carried on into Moscow the Russians had plans to retreat beyond the Urals and fight from there, something the Germans could not fight.

 

[Butts]

Butts, general consensus is that even with the destruction of the RAF Sea Lion and the occupation of Britain would have always failed. Even the Kriegsmarine thought it would fail. Their expectation was that in the event of an invasion the entire Home Fleet would have been sent into combat. It was something that never happened and the Kriegsmarine, even with total air superiority would not have been able to stop it.

Same with Russia, even had they carried on into Moscow the Russians had plans to retreat beyond the Urals and fight from there, something the Germans could not fight.

I suppose we will never know

Have you read SS- GB ?

 

[Trog]

There never was a proper plan for operation Sealion the German Navy were thinking that nipping across Calais to Dover was a very dodgy idea, while the German Army were thinking that landing all along the south coast from Kent to Portland would be a good idea.

Reading up on the naval component of the German Invasion of Crete suggests that even with air superiority trying to invade in fishing boats and barges, in the face of the RN's destroyers and cruisers would have involved a lot of swimming.

 

[ainsworth74]

Plus would they have had air superiority even? There was an entire Fighter Command Group held in reserve in the North of the UK beyond the reach of most German bombers.

 

[TheEdge]

They might have done had they not shifted the target from the RAF to cities.

But it was still irrelevant, the Kriegsmarine just had no way to protect any landing or stop the RN, even with total air superiority as the Luftwaffe didn't have much experience with anti-ship work, unlike the IJN which did.

 

[ainsworth74]

They might have done had they not shifted the target from the RAF to cities.

But it was still irrelevant, the Kriegsmarine just had no way to protect any landing or stop the RN, even with total air superiority as the Luftwaffe didn't have much experience with anti-ship work, unlike the IJN which did.

We'll indeed. Sealion would certainly have one of the most dramatic military disasters in history.

 

[TheEdge]

We'll indeed. Sealion would certainly have one of the most dramatic military disasters in history.

Not only that but I think you would have seen Germany loose the war within months. A decent portion of the army would either be captured or at the bottom of the channel, most if not all of the Kriegsmarine capital ships and probably a decent portion of their smaller ships and U-Boats would have been sunk. The Luftwaffe might have suffered less though.

Most of the armies sat in France waiting for Sea Lion were redeployed to Operation Barbarrosa a year later so had Sea Lion gone ahead that may never have happened.

 

[Phil.]

It's like Chinese whispers. The thread - which I started - was in thoughts of an attack without a declaration of war (no there wasn't). Somehow it's been transmogrified into operation sealion.

 

[TheEdge]

Because of the natural evolution of forum threads. Maybe next time you could create a schedule of allowed discussion.

Although maybe there was a deceleration of war, there is still some debate as to if the "14 Part Message" was translated too slowly and delivered after the attack rather before as intended. Or was it even a proper declaration of war?

 

[Trog]

I think by the time of operation Sealion the surface part of the Kriegsmarine was already a bit cowed by the Royal Navy, which was a much larger and world famous fighting force. Which had already by mid 1940 sunk half the Kriegsmarine's fleet of destroyers the ships that would have been needed for close escort of the invasion barges in the fighting around Norway. Hence their reluctance to take part in operation Sealion.

There had also been the Battle of the River Plate where a larger German Warship had been driven to destruction by aggressive smaller and older RN ships. The RN had also acted very aggressively off Norway taking a 15" gun battleship into the fiord at Narvick to hunt down the German destroyers, the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper had been rammed by the destroyer HMS Glowworm and the battleship Scharnhorst badly damaged when one of the two destroyers (HMS Acasta) escorting the carrier HMS Glorious attacked the two German battleships which had just sunk the Glorious with her torpedoes.

You can see the Kriegsmarine officers/men thinking if they behave this aggressively normally what are they going to be like if we try to invade their homeland, and imagining being in command of a Rhine barge full of sea sick soldiers at night in mid channel as RN destroyers charge out of the darkness at 35 knots. Firing guns, depth charges and the kitchen sink at anything that moved.

 

[TheEdge]

The Royal Navy wouldn't have even needed to be all that aggressive, the size of the RN alone cannot be underestimated. The Home Fleet would have annihilated anything in the Channel with minimal effort, neither the Home Fleet (WWII) or the Grand Fleet (its WWI predecessor) were ever deployed all at once, no doubt in the event of an invasion it would have been.

Done some investigating, in 1939 the Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships (Bismarck, Tirpitz, Gneisanau, Scharnhorst) plus 3 WWI era pre-dreadnoughts, 6 heavy cruisers and 6 light cruisers. That is the full extent of every capital ship the Kriegsmarine ever had and then 22 destroyers. Excluding smaller boats and subs that was all the warships of the KM.

The Royal Navy Home Fleet in 1939 had 5 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 1 heavy and 5 light cruisers, 3 aircraft carriers and 16 destroyers. And that was only one of 5 fleets.

It would only have ever ended one way

 

[Phil.]

Because of the natural evolution of forum threads. Maybe next time you could create a schedule of allowed discussion.

Although maybe there was a deceleration of war, there is still some debate as to if the "14 Part Message" was translated too slowly and delivered after the attack rather before as intended. Or was it even a proper declaration of war?

I wasn't complaining, just remarking.

 

[Trog]

Yes but as above by the time operation Sealion was planned half those destroyers, Graf Spee and two of the light cruisers had already been sunk by the RN, and Hipper and Sharnhorst would have probably still been under repair following their adventures in Norway. Another Heavy cruiser the Blutcher had been sunk by the Norwegians and Tirpitz not being commissioned until 1941 would also not have been available.

 

[Phil.]

Mind you, the Germans managed to zip through the channel with Prinz Eugen, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst plus assorted Destroyers and S-boats. That rather caught the R.N. and R.A.F. napping.

 

[Butts]

Program on C4 Tonight claiming to give a new insight on Pearl Harbour.

 

[Phil.]

As it's channel four the conclusion is bound to be that it was all the American's fault.

 

[SS4]

As it's channel four the conclusion is bound to be that it was all the American's fault.

Either that or it'll be inconclusive.