IJN Musashi discovered.

The whole reason for Japan to start a was with the US & GB was over oil, coal, & steel. Japan had very little and we had a lot. Due to the war in Europe Japan couldn't buy oil from the Dutch supplies in Indonesia so we were selling them oil but then cut them off due to their actions in China.

They knew that they were better prepared for war then the US at the time of Pearl Harbor but also knew they could only dominate for the first 6-12 months! After that we would have the ships, planes, and men ready and trained to start attacking them instead of just defending.

Why would a country do that? Go into to a fight knowing that they could not win. They had convinced them selves that we, the US, would be so demoralized by the early losses that we would agree to a peace treaty on their terms rather then continue fighting. Really? The Japanese sure didn't read US history. All they had to do was go back about 50 years and they would find a war that we started with Spain after one of our ships blew up. No proof was ever found that the explosion was caused by an outside source but never the less we went to war.

There are a couple of novels written about the Pearl Harbor attack with an alternate ending but based on known facts and capabilities of both sides at the time. There are also flash backs to the years leading up to the attack which lays out why Japan decided to start the war.

The titles are: "Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th" "Days of Infamy" By Newt Gingrich & Thomas Donne

There were some in the Japanese high command (Admiral Yamamoto, for instance) who knew that Japan had no chance in an extended war with the US because of our industrial power. That's part of the reason for Pearl, and the almost simultaneous attacks on the rest of our (and British) possessions in the Pacific, like the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Singapore, etc. They were hoping to seize control of the Pacific quickly and decisively.

But, IMO, the two biggest blunders of the war both fall squarely on Hitler. First, attacking Russia, and second, declaring war on the US after Pearl.

Will wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Knurled: They were both beaten by dumb luck and a combination of sheer numerical advantage or industrial advantage.

Only if dumb luck is your name for "E36 M3ty planning."

The dumb luck that turned the tide in the pacific was Midway.....even in historical context, that is still considered the luckiest outcome imaginable.

As far as the post prior to the one I quoted, the problem they had was skilled pilots. We rotated ours out of combat to help train new recruits with battle proven tactics.....the Japanese failed to do this and their inexperienced pilots essentially became cannon fodder. Once the weakness of the Zero was discovered, it could be exploited. IIRC, it was turning while in a dive. There was some seat of the pants learning strengths and weaknesses taking place in the early years and the subsequent lack of manufacturing development that also hampered them.

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

And the third was Japan not having their ambassador deliver the declaration of war before the attack occurred like how it was planned.

jimbbski wrote: The Japanese sure didn't read US history.

A lot of countries/organizations (and even we ourselves at times) forget US history. They look at our media and see a "fat, dumb and happy" people and seem to ignore the fact that bubbling under the surface is a fairly violent culture living in a country that was founded on violence and given an even moderately just-cause will fight at the drop of a hat. Leave us alone and our geographic isolation will make us divided and bicker amongst ourselves. Attack us and we band together and all hell breaks loose.

Knurled wrote: In reply to SnowMongoose: Want spoilers? Hell it's the same thing over and over again. Hell look at the Japanese autpo industry. "HA we made something awesome that everyone wants. Waaait, what is going on with American and German companies catching up? We'll just keep working hard. Oh wait they have surpassed us. And now Koreans are beating up on us WTF?? We must not be conservative and beige enough!" Apt analogy: Riding a sinking ship. (Name an awesome Japanese car from the last three years. Go on, try.)

BRZ / FRS, LFA

and back to big boat talk......

threadjack....

Tom_Spangler wrote: But, IMO, the two biggest blunders of the war both fall squarely on Hitler. First, attacking Russia, and second, declaring war on the US after Pearl.

Delaying the ME-262s deployment as a fighter, so it could be further developed as a fighter/bomber

and now back to big boats....

Just watched the live action Space Battleship Yamato on YouTube. Not bad. Ending was similar to actual history.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: And the third was Japan not having their ambassador deliver the declaration of war before the attack occurred like how it was planned.

I don't think it'd have made a difference. The attack was planned long in advance. If it went according to plan, it still would have been the equivalent of saying "BTW I'm going to punch you" halfway through your swing.

They kinda considered cutting off our shipments of oil to be an act of belligerence. Just like Germany probably did/should have considered Lend-Lease to be one.

yamaha wrote:

Will wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Knurled: They were both beaten by dumb luck and a combination of sheer numerical advantage or industrial advantage.

Only if dumb luck is your name for "E36 M3ty planning."

The dumb luck that turned the tide in the pacific was Midway.....even in historical context, that is still considered the luckiest outcome imaginable.

Sort of depends on how you define luck, I suppose. Is a series of poor decisions on the enemy's part (switching ordnance multiple times, assuming Yorktown was sunk at the Coral Sea) lucky for us? Sure, but to me, luck makes it sound as if there was no element of human error involved.

As far as the Battle of Midway, read the book titled "Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of Midway" In it there is a very good case argued that no matter what Japan did they would lose at Midway. Their total dis-regard of logistics and how it effects the outcomes of battle is covered. Also the fact that their plans were only to invade the island and to get the US fleet to come to it's rescue.

They wanted us to rush north to defend it with our fleet which they would then attack and destroy. Why should we rush out when Midway would already be lost by the time we got there! Better to just wait for their fleet to leave, and it would have to in a very short time, then we could attack the island ourselves from a much closer base! Pearl Harbor!

The island was to small to defend it's self! There was not enough space for enough planes to protect it from a attacking force of say 250 planes. That's about what we could put in the air with our 3 carriers, and only a bit less then what the Japanese had on their 4 carriers.

This of course is all based on the US not knowing the Japanese were coming! The fact that we did allowed the US Navy to lie in ambush where an inferior force can be very effective. It was still a series of mistakes, bad decisions, and lucky ones that decided the battle in our favor!

In reply to jimbbski:

If we had lost the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet at Midway though.....the base there would have fallen and we might have lost Hawaii if they knew how badly hurt the naval force was. That would have left us with only the Saratoga for roughly 7 months before the first Essex class was combat ready.

yamaha wrote: In reply to jimbbski: If we had lost the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet at Midway though.....the base there would have fallen and we might have lost Hawaii if they knew how badly hurt the naval force was. That would have left us with only the Saratoga for roughly 7 months before the first Essex class was combat ready.

There's no doubt Nimitz was taking a chance by sending the carriers up to defend Midway. But, it wasn't as big a chance as it could have been because by that time we had broken the Japanese code and had a pretty good idea of what they were up to.

This is becoming quite a hijack. Perhaps we need a WW2 history thread?

yamaha wrote: In reply to jimbbski: If we had lost the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet at Midway though.....the base there would have fallen and we might have lost Hawaii if they knew how badly hurt the naval force was. That would have left us with only the Saratoga for roughly 7 months before the first Essex class was combat ready.

I don't think Hawaii was a target for acquisiton, with Pearl Harbor being more of a smack on the back of the head. "Mind your own business."

from the very beginning the Japanese messed up. Admiral Yamamoto knew they could not defeat us in a long war.. so he drew up what should have been a quick and decisive victory. If the ambassadors had gotten the declaration to DC in time and the people in charge of the attack carried it out precisely as Yamamoto had planned, we would have lost the pacific fleet.

instead they never finished the battle. There should have been a third wave that knocked out the fuel and ammo depots, but they never touched them. Just imagine the US trying to keep the remains of the fleet up and running with no ammo or fuel?

Hitler's biggest blunder was not Russia.. (thought it is a very very close second) but Dunkirk. If the German forces had followed the British across the channel, there would have been nothing left of the great British military.

He also stopped bombing the factories and air bases and started attacking the cities... He had the UK almost on it's knees.. and did not follow through

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

Perhaps, but then we'd have to deal with defending the actions of our greatest generation to the few illustrious shiny happy people on here who go out of their way to find fault with everything....

In reply to mad_machine:

Hawaii would have been on the docket if they had been completely successful on either the initial attack or the destruction of the US fleet at Midway. I have no doubt about it, because that would have forced us to fight from the west coast and pretty much hand the Japanese the entire southeast pacific.

In reply to yamaha:

Love that movie.

Related note, you sons of bitches have got me watching KanColle now.

One thing I mention earlier was the "logistics" thing. The Japanese just didn't understand how to supply their scattered bases. If they had taken Midway they wouldn't have been able to supply it. Our submarine fleet was intact and while our torpedoes were not reliable until late in '43 they still did work often enough that the Japanese would have had a hard time sending the men, planes, fuel, and bombs needed to defend it. And the same goes if the Japanese had been able to take Hawaii or really Oahu as that is the only island they needed. Try to supply that base from 3-4000 miles away! And remember the only supply of oil for the Japanese was in the Java area. I would also guess that anything usable military wise by the Japanese on Oahu would have been destroyed by the time the island was secured. A couple of ships sunk in the channel would have prevented the Japanese from using the harbor for anything larger then a sub or destroyer, if that.

It would be the same as what happened to the Germans in Russia. The closer they got to Moscow they further they got from their supply bases. And the Germans didn't control all the land behind their lines. There were large groups of Russian soldiers that the Germans had by passed that attacked German supply units to the point that the Germans used tens of thousands of they soldiers protecting and escorting supply convoys instead of fighting at the front.

mad_machine wrote: ...Hitler's biggest blunder was not Russia.. (thought it is a very very close second) but Dunkirk. If the German forces had followed the British across the channel, there would have been nothing left of the great British military. He also stopped bombing the factories and air bases and started attacking the cities... He had the UK almost on it's knees.. and did not follow through

Ehhhh, I am pretty sure Germany did not have the ships / landing craft to do that at that time.

Regarding the bombing (battle of Britian): that was really a no win for Germany. The range of German bombers (which where really tactical bombers) meant they could never had affected the factories in the west. Not to mention that almost any target not on the east side had to be attacked without fighter escort (German fighters where definitely not built as long range escorts). The Germans also had serious issues with finding fighter bases, so best case it was a battle of attrition, and Germany was loosing that.

I see one of Germany's biggest falures was the focus on "super weapons". These required HUGE amount of resources that could have been used far more effectively elsewhere (e.g. Tiger tank vs T34, that giant V2 base, the V weapons in general ).

In reply to aircooled:

Germany should have waited another 5 years development wise before starting the war....operational me262's in numbers, actual bombers, panthers and tigers from the outset, a full lineup of Bismarck class boats, perhaps carriers, and an even larger fleet of more advanced u-boats would have made a massive difference and quite possibly, a massively different outcome.

In reply to yamaha:

The problem there is you're thinking logically and Germany for all of their technical expertise, was saddled with a most illogical leader. Logical people generally don't start wars in the first place.

Clive Cussler has found over 60+ shipwrecks, including the Carpathia, the Mary Celeste, the Manassas.

jimbbski wrote: One thing I mention earlier was the "logistics" thing. The Japanese just didn't understand how to supply their scattered bases. If they had taken Midway they wouldn't have been able to supply it.

True, but Midway Island was supposed to just be bait, something the Americans couldn't afford to lose rather than something the Japanese had future plans to use.

Tom_Spangler wrote: Sounds like you gentlemen have read "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors", too. Loved that book.

Yep. That book is a real testament to the courage of the American sailors. "We are going into a battle against overwhelming odds where survival cannot be expected. We will try to inflict as many casualties as we can." That line sums up their mentality very well.

Tom_Spangler wrote: But, IMO, the two biggest blunders of the war both fall squarely on Hitler. First, attacking Russia, and second, declaring war on the US after Pearl.

That may have been a mistake, but I see it as one if the main goals of Hitler. While the Nazi movement started out as a socialist thing, which is very close to the Soviet communism, they very quickly diverted to being absolute mortal enemies of each other. Far more than the west vs. Nazis.

That started to play out in Spain during it's very nasty civil war.

I've not read too many overall histories of the war, but I saw that agreement to split Poland at the beginning as a way to deal with France and England- with the anticipation that they had to jump in once Poland was invaded.

But this hatred was reflected in the number of dead- the Soviets lost around 30M people between civilians and military. Then again, the Soviets took it back out on the Germans, too- they lost virtually the same.

It was interesting to see how poorly the Germans dealt with the invasion. Especially where they could have pulled back to recover, Hitler instead sacrificed his army for pride. The supply issues and the weather could have been dealt with- but neither were.

As for Japan- conflict was inevitable. One interesting note about the Mushari- it's German equivalent was mostly taken out of action with minor air power. So how the Mushari would be taken down had been played out already. Fascinating that the Japanese basically let history repeat itself.

alfadriver wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: But, IMO, the two biggest blunders of the war both fall squarely on Hitler. First, attacking Russia, and second, declaring war on the US after Pearl.

That may have been a mistake, but I see it as one if the main goals of Hitler. While the Nazi movement started out as a socialist thing, which is very close to the Soviet communism, they very quickly diverted to being absolute mortal enemies of each other. Far more than the west vs. Nazis. That started to play out in Spain during it's very nasty civil war. I've not read too many overall histories of the war, but I saw that agreement to split Poland at the beginning as a way to deal with France and England- with the anticipation that they had to jump in once Poland was invaded. But this hatred was reflected in the number of dead- the Soviets lost around 30M people between civilians and military. Then again, the Soviets took it back out on the Germans, too- they lost virtually the same. It was interesting to see how poorly the Germans dealt with the invasion. Especially where they could have pulled back to recover, Hitler instead sacrificed his army for pride. The supply issues and the weather could have been dealt with- but neither were. As for Japan- conflict was inevitable. One interesting note about the Mushari- it's German equivalent was mostly taken out of action with minor air power. So how the Mushari would be taken down had been played out already. Fascinating that the Japanese basically let history repeat itself.

Eric, you are right that Hitler wanted to take out Russia from the start. I should refine my statement by saying that his timing for attacking them was poor. He should have knocked England out of the war first. Maybe the equipment wasn't there to do it in 1940, but at the rate they (the Germans) were developing weapons, he could have just kept bombing them until it was. Given that the English were just barely hanging on, and that he had a treaty with Russia that was buying him time, giving up on Sea Lion and starting a voluntary two-front war was what really doomed the Third Reich, IMO.