Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Author Topic: Could Japan have won the pacific war?  (Read 14914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 22, 2017, 12:01:03 PM

Offline DarthRevansRevenge

  • Admiral
  • *******
  • Posts: 765
  • Approval: +14/-3
  • Your empire is doomed. Revan has returned
    • View Profile
Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« on: August 22, 2017, 12:01:03 PM »
mostly just wanted to see your opinions. warning: PLEASE don't make this political, just discuss Facts+opinions, and keep it polite.

we know in Our timeline, Japan bombed pearl harbor an hour before the Declare war note got to Rossevelt(sorry if i butchered it), and declared war on all the allies at once, which meant the biggest industrial power was at war. unsurprisingly, they lost. could it have gone differently?
do you know what really makes me mad? that the NR didn't make as many different SSDs as the empire. they would have won much faster had they done so. it's just not fair. but, if their were more NR SSDs, they would be absolute SUPER-CARRIERS.

but, i'm a member of the PA at heart, and my wish here is to join the ranks of grand admirals... sorry, the elite imperial alignment

August 22, 2017, 12:27:05 PMReply #1

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2017, 12:27:05 PM »
mostly just wanted to see your opinions. warning: PLEASE don't make this political, just discuss Facts+opinions, and keep it polite.

we know in Our timeline, Japan bombed pearl harbor an hour before the Declare war note got to Rossevelt(sorry if i butchered it), and declared war on all the allies at once, which meant the biggest industrial power was at war. unsurprisingly, they lost. could it have gone differently?

In short no.
Japan didn't have the manpower, merchant shipping capacity or industrial capability to win a war that lasted longer than a year against the combined powers of the Allies and China. It's main military leaders even admitted privately that the only hope Japan had was if the US agreed to terms after their quick advances. If the US decided to continue the war there was no hope. Japan couldn't damage the US industry or it's infrastructure. Nearly every one of it's shipyards, aircraft manufactures and armament factories were all outside Japan's striking range whereas Japan's would be within US range within a year of base construction and technological increases in the war years. Add in Radar, the cracked codes and Japan's commitment to occupying and oppressing the locals in it's conquered territory tying down massive amounts of troops and material in China, Manchuria, Burma, New Guinea, Taiwan and French Indochina all of which had active resistance cells and hostile guerilla forces. Japan would have to continuously win perfect battles against the US for years without losses to maintain their veterans and ships that they couldn't replace, while the US could replace it's material and personnel losses with relative ease. Even if Japan had won a perfect battle at Midway and sunk all US carriers without any losses, then sucessfully captured hawaii and Port Arthur, it couldn't successfully invade Australia, finish off Burma or India, could not garrison China and could not hope to successfully invade the US mainland, all of which it would need to do to win.

To put it in perspective this site( http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm ) has the production output of the US vs Japan. It's absolutely staggering. Japan basically committed suicide when they went to war against the US, UK, and Dutch forces in the Pacific. Ironically Japan could not only have avoided this utterly futile and doomed war with the Allies but profited enormously had they instead gone North and attacked the USSR right after Germany did in 1941. The USSR had suffered terrible losses and was literally on the verge of collapse by October 1941, if japan had invaded through Manchuria the elite Siberian Divisions could not have been sent West and saved Moscow. Japan could very well have been the final straw that broke the Soviet Back in WWII. The Imperial Army was interested in this "Go North" plan, but the Imperial Navy wanted to 'Go South" instead to seize resources in southeast Asia instead seizing the oil and resources they needed from Siberia as this would put nearly all the glory and political power in the Army's hands.

Once they awoke the sleeping giant so to speak japan's only prayer was a negotiated peace, and the US and UK would not negotiate a peace other than unconditional surrender. They were all doomed before their planes even took off from the Fast Strike Force of those six Japanese Carriers that fateful morning in December.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 12:35:41 PM by Lord Xizer »
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 22, 2017, 01:59:41 PMReply #2

Offline kucsidave

  • Mod Team Member
  • Grand Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,018
  • Approval: +44/-4
  • Don't fear your Demons. Make them fear YOU.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2017, 01:59:41 PM »
And even if they would have gone north, that would have syphoned the manpower from the chineese front which could have led to it collapsing, leading to the chinese pushing right back up to korea, since even though the chineese industry and army was basicly a joke, the had millions of people to move into the fight. Not to mention that china was in a postponded civil war at the moment between the Communist People's Republic of China and the Koumintang led Republic of China. The key word was the communits. If japan would have declared war to the Soviets they would have got their hands on the chineese manpower. China was already fairing better and better in the war(both the army and the industry) and was already made serious progress against the japanese by 41. It is not out of the realm of impossibility that they could have helped out the soviets to hold out just a bit longer until they finish of japan on the mainland, then most of the combined soviet and chineese troopers could move on the german front with a now competent and veteran Soviet-Chinese force.
All in all, the second world war was lost for the Axis when the USA joined in, but that doesn't mean they(or as a hungarian should I say we?) wouldn't have lost either way.
Not to mention the german way of holding the Asxis together as it was.
Vichy france was a puppet government, They held Hungary and Romania by promising the return of the other half of Transylvania to both if they do what they say(and when hungary tried to get out of the war with Horthy's swing politics they just kidnapped his son and blackmailed us, and set up a puppet government...), Bulgaria was promissed a part of greece and was about the only real ally they had, and italy... well...
They had conflicting interests in the balkans, Italy was struggling in North Afrika and needed german aid, and when it was almost won the declared war on greece, then getting utterly beaten, syphoning away further german forces which delayed operation Barbarossa, which in turn led to the utter failture in the eastern frontlines as soon as the russian winter set in.
Let's face it. Xizer said it me the best in one of our private conversation about HOI.
Hitler must have thought that: "That Mussolini guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south." while Mussolini thought: "That Hitler guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south."
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.
And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche

August 22, 2017, 09:57:14 PMReply #3

Offline DarthRevansRevenge

  • Admiral
  • *******
  • Posts: 765
  • Approval: +14/-3
  • Your empire is doomed. Revan has returned
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2017, 09:57:14 PM »
yup. the axis, if they had defeated the allies, they would then have collapsed and fought each other

In short no.
Japan didn't have the manpower, merchant shipping capacity or industrial capability to win a war that lasted longer than a year against the combined powers of the Allies and China. It's main military leaders even admitted privately that the only hope Japan had was if the US agreed to terms after their quick advances. If the US decided to continue the war there was no hope. Japan couldn't damage the US industry or it's infrastructure. Nearly every one of it's shipyards, aircraft manufactures and armament factories were all outside Japan's striking range whereas Japan's would be within US range within a year of base construction and technological increases in the war years. Add in Radar, the cracked codes and Japan's commitment to occupying and oppressing the locals in it's conquered territory tying down massive amounts of troops and material in China, Manchuria, Burma, New Guinea, Taiwan and French Indochina all of which had active resistance cells and hostile guerilla forces. Japan would have to continuously win perfect battles against the US for years without losses to maintain their veterans and ships that they couldn't replace, while the US could replace it's material and personnel losses with relative ease. Even if Japan had won a perfect battle at Midway and sunk all US carriers without any losses, then sucessfully captured hawaii and Port Arthur, it couldn't successfully invade Australia, finish off Burma or India, could not garrison China and could not hope to successfully invade the US mainland, all of which it would need to do to win.

To put it in perspective this site( http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm ) has the production output of the US vs Japan. It's absolutely staggering. Japan basically committed suicide when they went to war against the US, UK, and Dutch forces in the Pacific. Ironically Japan could not only have avoided this utterly futile and doomed war with the Allies but profited enormously had they instead gone North and attacked the USSR right after Germany did in 1941. The USSR had suffered terrible losses and was literally on the verge of collapse by October 1941, if japan had invaded through Manchuria the elite Siberian Divisions could not have been sent West and saved Moscow. Japan could very well have been the final straw that broke the Soviet Back in WWII. The Imperial Army was interested in this "Go North" plan, but the Imperial Navy wanted to 'Go South" instead to seize resources in southeast Asia instead seizing the oil and resources they needed from Siberia as this would put nearly all the glory and political power in the Army's hands.

Once they awoke the sleeping giant so to speak japan's only prayer was a negotiated peace, and the US and UK would not negotiate a peace other than unconditional surrender. They were all doomed before their planes even took off from the Fast Strike Force of those six Japanese Carriers that fateful morning in December.
And even if they would have gone north, that would have syphoned the manpower from the chineese front which could have led to it collapsing, leading to the chinese pushing right back up to korea, since even though the chineese industry and army was basicly a joke, the had millions of people to move into the fight. Not to mention that china was in a postponded civil war at the moment between the Communist People's Republic of China and the Koumintang led Republic of China. The key word was the communits. If japan would have declared war to the Soviets they would have got their hands on the chineese manpower. China was already fairing better and better in the war(both the army and the industry) and was already made serious progress against the japanese by 41. It is not out of the realm of impossibility that they could have helped out the soviets to hold out just a bit longer until they finish of japan on the mainland, then most of the combined soviet and chineese troopers could move on the german front with a now competent and veteran Soviet-Chinese force.
All in all, the second world war was lost for the Axis when the USA joined in, but that doesn't mean they(or as a hungarian should I say we?) wouldn't have lost either way.
Not to mention the german way of holding the Asxis together as it was.
Vichy france was a puppet government, They held Hungary and Romania by promising the return of the other half of Transylvania to both if they do what they say(and when hungary tried to get out of the war with Horthy's swing politics they just kidnapped his son and blackmailed us, and set up a puppet government...), Bulgaria was promissed a part of greece and was about the only real ally they had, and italy... well...
They had conflicting interests in the balkans, Italy was struggling in North Afrika and needed german aid, and when it was almost won the declared war on greece, then getting utterly beaten, syphoning away further german forces which delayed operation Barbarossa, which in turn led to the utter failture in the eastern frontlines as soon as the russian winter set in.
Let's face it. Xizer said it me the best in one of our private conversation about HOI.
Hitler must have thought that: "That Mussolini guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south." while Mussolini thought: "That Hitler guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south."

in answer to yours, it is a yes and no. however, some things could have changed the empire Drastically from what you said.

1. Dave, you mentioned Manpower, however, before all the shenanigans went down, the Japanese had at least 13 divisions plus Manchuko's army sitting on the border or accessable to the soviet front. so they could have seized all the territory they cared about and crushed Soviet response from and Aid.

2. China: the second sino-japanese started because the KMT leader(Chiang-Kai-Ceck(probably butchered that too) decided he was done with Japan nimbling away at his country. So he post-poned/paused the civil war to counter Japan. Had he not done that, it is likely china would have stayed embroiled in internal conflicts with more limited exchanges between Chiang-Kai-Ceck and Hirohito. Japan would have just slowly aligned warlords and nimbled away territory for years if the KMT devoted themselves to beating the CCP

3. truly allying with Germany. If they had allied with Germany earlier and gotten germany and Japanese engineers and Designers together, they would have stould a slightly better chance as the Japanses planes and later ships would be actually worth something, rather than Cardboard targets.

4. less brutality. If the japanese military was actually Competent, the conquered terriotries would have rather enjoyed freedom under a Japanese protector super-state, and, rather than resist, they would have raised more forces and built up resources and industry to fight the allies.

5. more pilots and better pilot rotation. By having Veteran pilots train the later generations and not only be with the one assignment, they would have stood better later on.

6. more centralized military: a big problem of Japan's was that the Navy and army were major rivals. Remove that, and you have a Japn who can make a singular goal, and stay unified with it and execute it

7. more industrialized Homeland and Territories: very important if Japan tries to go to war with anyone. If Japan joins the axis in 1936, then with Germany support they could better industrialize the japanese territories and puppet territories, then they can build more equipment and better use their limited resources

8. use the ethnic Japanese populations in American nations to rise up and create minor axis to divert allied attention temporarily. If you can create uprisings in Peru/Ecuador, a region that had a sizable Japanese population already, and suplied weapons and elite troops and officers, a sizable puppet diversion state could keep the allies pre-occupied for a few months. If established, then it can supply itself with Food, supplies, and even weapons, pilots, ships, and warplanes. Taking advantage of the the 1939 chaos to establish a government in a quick campaign that, once the government was established, wouldn't need to be supplied across the sea.

9. More build-up first: Because the Japanese would need to be able to hold on to their territory if they go after the Allied holdings, more carriers, cruisers, Battleships, destroyers, and transports. A timetable for expansion could look like war on the communists in august 1941, allies late 1942, when the navy is stronger, would benefit the Japanese more.


So, japan takes this plan, and Best Case scenario, it looks like this. For Pre-war events, I only outline what changes:

Japan and Germany sign an Alliance in 1935, and start standardizing designs to have all the strenghts of both nations philosophies. Larger population migration to Peru, Ecuador, the Phillipines, China, and the East Indes.

1936. Shanxi is defeated and incorporated into the Mengkukuo puppet state. Japan grabs a small amount more land in China.

1937. Chiang-Kai-Ceck doen't declare war on Japan, instead throwing more resources into reunifing China

1938. Thailand joins Japan, Japan plans for an eventual war

In Europe 1939, the situation is the same. But, on September 8th, Japan launches a limited official war in Peru and Ecuador, which also go through civil wars as Japanese populations revolt against the neutral governent. With the japanese Carriers taking out startegic targets, and rebels and Japs taking over, the governemnts would have to pulbicly bow to demands. The two nations are combined into Japanses America, a buffer stateish, which is the majorly industralized and turned into Japanese culture

1940. more excersions into China. However, as  Chiang-Kai-Ceck warns Japan not to advance and Joins the allies, which are proven to be serious about Honoring defense pacts, japan halts their advance. Mao joins into the Comintern, which consisits of the USSR, Mongolia, Sinkaing(joins Mao 2 months after), Tannu Tuva, and the CCP.

1941

Japan signs non-agression pact with the Soviet Union in February 1941, and builds up with 20 divisions(no major war in china), plus 10 more from Manchukuo and Mengkukuo, plus 3 raised from Korea, and they have the German patent/design equipment, so better than Japanese equipment in our timeline.

Germany Declares war on the Soviet Union June 22nd, followed by Finland(June 23rd), Slovakia(June 23rd), Hungary(June 24th), Romania(June 27th), Bulgaria(July 1st), and Italy(July 1st). Eastern front follows the same pattern as before

Japan has 5 more divisions on the soviet front by August 15th, when they declare war. 38 Divisions attack the CCP, Mongolia, and the Soviet Union, easily taking the Soviet Far East, Eastern CCP, and eastern Mongolia.  Chiang-Kai-Ceck gains against the communist as they have more pressure put on them.

By November 1941, the Germans are in the same place as our Timeline, but Russia has also lost the Far east, Eastern china, and 35% of Mongolia territory and 75% of Mongolia's army. The Tannu Tuvan army is 90% gone, as the Soviets, with only 4 remaining divisions and no airforce in the east, have had to rely on it's puppets forces to resist the Japanese, and the Chinese warlords(aside from Mao hiding in Far western China) have been defeated, or almost defeated.

1942 goes similar in Europe, but not in Asia. With no ocean spanning major war, the Japanese continue to build up forces and industrialize their territory. But japan stirs up the Hornet's nest on December 6th

apposing forces in the Pacific in Late 1942
Current Number(under construction/training)USA build figures are for united fleet. For Aircraft, it's production per month

                   Japan            USA      UK             China      Other allies   Total allied
Battleships            12(+5)   10(+8)   3(+1)      0(+1)            2(+1)      15(+11)
CVs                    6(+8)           4(+10)   0(+2)      0(0)       0(0)              4(+12)
CVLs                    6(+2)      0(0)      1(+1)      0(+1)            0(0)              1(+2)
CVEs                    5(+5)      3(+4)   1(+1)      1(+1)            0(0)              5(+6)
H. Cruisers        24(+4)   9(+15)   4(+2)      1(+1)            6(+1)      20(+18)
L.Cruisers                27(+8)   10(+9)   5(+6)      2(+6)            8(+2)      25(+23)
Destroyers        160(+17)   84(+125)   25(+10)      21(+8)            25(+9)      155(+154)
Submarines        85(+65)   65(+58)   12(+9)      12(+10)    8(+3)      97(+80)

Aircraft                4.5K(500)   1.5k(440)   300(250)    600(190)   200(75)           2.6k(935)
Divisions                30(+35 vs.C)   7      6        90      8                   111

so, at the Start, Japan is out-matched, but the initial tide is in their Favor. At Pearl Harbor, the allied Naval capital of the Pacific, the Carrier fleet takes out USS Lexington, 8 Battleships, 2 Escort Carriers, 7 cruisers, 17 destroyers/Submarines/support ships, 450 aircraft, and destroyer the American Fuel dumps and Sub pens. Even with the Pacific fleet Mauled, it is only a small number of Japanese starting victories like in out timeline, which take out the British capital ships, 60 additional allied ships, 585 planes, and 9 divisions in 3 months after pearl harbor, and that doesn't include China, which the japanese push back a large distance in the sneak attack.


By March 1943, The Axis are at a High point. The Germans have seized Stalingrad and the caucasus oil fields(in this timeline, the soviets never have the troops to retak Stalingrad as their also fighting the japanese), the allies have been hamstringed in the Pacific, the minor Comintern powers are on the verge of Collapse, with UlaanBaater under seige, North africa, because of later america support, is firmly in Italy's control. And the allies want vengeance on Japan, as the america war machine ramps up.

With more German Success, allied Pacific strategy at the beginning in Containment, not annihilation of Japan, while they attack the Germans. The Americans larger carrier fleet clashs with Japan 3 time in May, June, and August, which destroyes 3 American CVs and damages 3 more, forcing them to the west coast, as Pearl Harbor is out of commission until october, when the installations are fixed. Japan, on the other hand, loses 2 CVLs and 2 CVs, with 2 more damaged. By August, however, the Chinese fleet has been completely destroyed as japn's superior ships destroyed them in the south china sea in late March. However, because of the Americans, the Japanese failed to take Guadacanal fully by 1944, but do take New Guinea in addition to every american holdong west of midway, and all of the Indes, Burma, China coast, Mongolia, Malaysia, and are digging in.

while this is a very optimistic scenario for Japan, as I can't think anymore, what, with this situation would have happened eventaully; Peru and the Pacific in Japan's Hands, a weaker USSR, a stronger, more powerful European axis, a Divided China, and a Japan that is Better organized, equiped, Trained, and Industrialized then in our timeline?
do you know what really makes me mad? that the NR didn't make as many different SSDs as the empire. they would have won much faster had they done so. it's just not fair. but, if their were more NR SSDs, they would be absolute SUPER-CARRIERS.

but, i'm a member of the PA at heart, and my wish here is to join the ranks of grand admirals... sorry, the elite imperial alignment

August 23, 2017, 01:17:33 AMReply #4

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2017, 01:17:33 AM »
DarthRevansRevenge, and Kucsidave I'm afraid i will have to disagree with you on some of your points while agreeing with a few.

 The Kwangtung army in Manchuria had enough manpower to threaten the Soviet Far East and it could be quickly reinforced with divisions from the chinese coast and home islands that could quadruple it's size and offensive potential.
A Chinese/Soviet alliance was not impossible but also very difficult as Chinese Communism and Soviet Communism(basically Stalinism at this point in time) were not compatible as their end objectives were very different, with the USSR wanting China as a communist puppet state and the Chinese communist army wanting sole control of its lands. Also your analysis of Chang is only partially correct, he did collaborate with Japan at first by ceding territory and not sending his professional troops to fight the Japanese so that he could focus his fight against his rival warlords in China and the Communists. He even offered to ally with Japan and recognize both their puppet government and territory in China if they would recognize his government and cease advancing. However this created a popular backlash against him and in order to win back support he denounced Japan and after being more or less forced to, entered into a very tense alliance with the communists. So a united Chinese/Soviet counter offensive against Japan followed by an advance on Germany is very unlikely. China while making gains in the interior could not achieve any sizeable victories near the coast where japanese air and sea power effectively ruled. The Nationalists were more invested in the south and central China and so would not commit troops to the far North and possibly even Russia as it would weaken their grip on their power base in china. The same with the Communists though they held more interest in the North mainly in hopes of Soviet backing to defeat the nationalists, not the Japanese. The USSR was also in no state to offer the material to equip the Chinese en masse against the Japanese at this stage of the war. After Stalin's purges, the corruption of the NKVD and the massive losses in men and material against the German/Finnish/Italian/Hungarian/Romanian/Albanian invasion in the West Stalin would not send officers, men and badly needed material to China when he was literally funneling everything to fight Hitler. Had Japan gone North the Soviet Union very likely would have collapsed in the winter of 1941 if not early spring of 42. In addition this leaves the US still neutral and secures Japan oil to replace US trade thus drastically lowering their dependence on the US and weakening the Embargo. It's likely with the fall of the Soviet Union to the combined Germany/Japan invasion on two fronts that it would encourage further aggressive expansion that would ultimately destroy the Axis as they couldn't digest all the territory they had taken so quickly. At best we see Germany, Hungary, Romania, Albania and Italy shift troops back to the Mediterranean front and possibly secure it thus leaving Germany master of mainland Europe, Italy the dominant land power in north africa(until something goes wrong with it in the British fleet, native populations and the basic lack of equipment quality in the Italian army) and Japan holding sway over the Northern pacific with Manchuria, Taiwan, coastal china and the Russian far east.I don't see the military situation in China changing drastically from this invasion of Russia, likely the Chinese would have made some gains inland but again not had any success near their coast.

As to your argument Revan about German and Japanese scientists cooperating, they did the bare minimum of this as both saw the other as a future rival and possible threat. As such they only shared a very few technological secrets with one another and seldom cooperated militarily in a mutually beneficial way.
Your statement about a "Japanese super state' being beneficial to the populace of it's components is not only far fetched it's the exact OPPOSITE of how Japan's conquests were treated. Chinese were raped, butchered and used in mass slave labor, Filipinos were oppressed and treated as subhuman, Vietnamese were  hunted for sport, Koreans were forced into suicide units for the army, comfort girls for the military and slave labor. Japan RUTHLESSLY dominated and exploited their conquered territories and brutally crushed any protest. There is a reason so many of their conquered subjects rebelled and fought as commandos.

Japan's pilot rotation was not like US policy of sending vets back to teach, they had instructors and left vets on the front until they were killed. That's part of why their flying program deteriorated so fast after 1942.

Japan had zero interest in using Japanese americans for insurgency or intel, they actually excommunicated or mocked any Japanese that had US roots and considered them suspicious and likely traitors. As such they would not have used them for your suggested purposes.

centralizing the army and navy would likely have been just as troublesome as their rivalry, for good examples of this look at the italian Navy and German Navy of WWII being centrally controlled from on high rather than commanders on the scene. Japan's faults were in it's archaic thinking of the decisive battle and not seizing initiatives earlier on with risking their main fleet elements when they had the advantage and relying too heavily on carriers of offensive combat instead of protecting their surface elements in combined operations.

Even if japan won the territory and resources it would take years to build up the infrastructure and industry to profit from it.

What you suggest is a what if scenario, but one inherently flawed because it discards the basic ideology of the Japanese leadership, basic cultural xenophobia and their "Warrior mentality' at this time in their history.  Japan couldn't have held it's conquered territories for long as it couldn't even really defeat the Chinese.
Ultimately even if Japan went North at some point they'd have to retreat from most of inland china, they could hold coasts but little more.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 01:22:43 AM by Lord Xizer »
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 23, 2017, 05:34:42 AMReply #5

Offline Pali

  • Tester
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 790
  • Approval: +39/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2017, 05:34:42 AM »
I have to agree with the position that Japan, in the long term, never really stood a chance against the Allied Powers overall or the US specifically.  Their only hope was that the attack on Pearl Harbor would cripple the US in the Pacific to the point that the US would withdraw its influence and territorial claims and not enter a full-scale war, and I don't think this was ever a realistic possibility.  Even had the US Pacific carriers been caught and destroyed at Pearl Harbor, I do not think the US would have backed down from war, but instead the Pacific War would just have taken longer for the US to win - it would still be entering the war at the same time, and it would still have completed the Manhattan Project at the same time, at which point all Japanese naval dominance stops meaning anything because their carriers can just be nuked into oblivion.  Only a successful invasion of the US mainland could have prevented this outcome, and that was never in the cards.

Regarding technology, I think that treating Japanese planes during WWII as "cardboard" is unfair - the Japanese planes were competently designed and effective, but they required highly trained and skilled hands to make use of that effectiveness in dogfighting.  Think of a Zero like you would a TIE Interceptor: it's fast, maneuverable, and has enough firepower for taking down enemy fighters or bombers, but its fragility means it has to rely on the speed and maneuverability to survive, and only skilled pilots can make full use of those traits.  The US went the X-wing route: we designed fighters that could take one hell of a beating and keep flying (in many cases with over 100 bullet holes in them), and combat tactics that depended less on pilot skill than on proper positioning and teamwork.  Unlike the Empire, Japan didn't have the resource or numbers advantage, so its strategy was doomed to failure.

The Axis nation that could have pulled off a win, at least for a time?  Germany.  I don't think long-term peace beyond a decade would have been possible with Hitler controlling most of central Europe, but he screwed up both the Battle of Britain and the invasion of the USSR: both could have gone in Germany's favor and both the UK and USSR largely defeated before Japan pulled the US in.  Had that happened - Germany controls France, the UK, and the USSR, and Japan destroys the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor - then I could possibly see the US deciding it wasn't worth trying to fight fascism on its own, despite the bloody nose.

Edit: then again, had the German invasions of the USSR and UK gone in Germany's favor, with the capture of Moscow in the fall of '41 causing a collapse of the entire nation and a de facto German victory after a successful invasion of Britain, Japan may well not have felt the need to attack the US at all.  With Germany now at peace and controlling Soviet oil reserves, it could probably have taken the US's place as Japan's main supplier of oil through trade.  Japan would have been able to feed its military machine without seizing US or US allied territories and focus on defeating China, as well as potentially gobbling up the eastern bits of the USSR as it collapsed.  The US in this situation would have likely continued sitting on the sidelines.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 06:07:00 AM by Pali »

August 23, 2017, 11:09:21 AMReply #6

Offline DarthRevansRevenge

  • Admiral
  • *******
  • Posts: 765
  • Approval: +14/-3
  • Your empire is doomed. Revan has returned
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2017, 11:09:21 AM »
which is why i brought it up. these things you are contradicting me on are things I BROUGHT UP as additional reasons why the allies advanced faster. Had the Japanese not been brutal, and kept their plan of Ethnic cleanse secret till after the war, and shown up as Liberaters and given these people some sense of independence, but in alliance with Japan, they could also have slowed the "oppressers"(allied colonial empires) from regaining ground.

as for Pilot rotation, that is why the Marianas Turkey Shoot happened, because by June 1943 in OTL, they were all dead. half of them at least were dead by June 10th 1942, and while more gained experience, the grind of New Guinea/the Solomons killed the rest of them. Had Japan rotated the pilots, making sure that new pilots got experience outside of the Carrier theater, and that the Vets weren't always on the front, but training new troops as well, then the late war would have gone differently

as for the Fighters, the Zero/TIE/LN is a good analogy, but by September 1943, the "X-Wing"(P-40, F4F) had been replaced with "A-Wings"(P-51, F4U) and "XJ X-Wing"(P-47, F6F). Japan's plans were very easy to kill with just a few shots by 1944

the What If? is really Japan's only chance, and they would have to change that to keep from WW2 going south from June onward like in our timeline. not truly being at war with China, a mostly crushed soviet/communist front, and a Massive Navy of Elites that can wip at entire fleets from the Get-go and secure enough territory and time to dig in and Create the secret weapons to hopefully demoralize or even defeat the allies

LordXizer, my scenario was specifically a "if this Changed, would Japan be in a better position?" scenario, and it required a lot. but for the most part, yes, Japan never had a prayer
do you know what really makes me mad? that the NR didn't make as many different SSDs as the empire. they would have won much faster had they done so. it's just not fair. but, if their were more NR SSDs, they would be absolute SUPER-CARRIERS.

but, i'm a member of the PA at heart, and my wish here is to join the ranks of grand admirals... sorry, the elite imperial alignment

August 23, 2017, 04:58:33 PMReply #7

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2017, 04:58:33 PM »
Apologies, when I first read I thought you were saying Japan could have and would have done those alternatives you listed.
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 23, 2017, 06:05:12 PMReply #8

Offline DarthRevansRevenge

  • Admiral
  • *******
  • Posts: 765
  • Approval: +14/-3
  • Your empire is doomed. Revan has returned
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2017, 06:05:12 PM »
sorry if i sounded harsh, it was right after i got up, and i really didn't want to start school yet. But yes, i got your points, and i was saying if Japan had made these changes, they might have had a better chance
do you know what really makes me mad? that the NR didn't make as many different SSDs as the empire. they would have won much faster had they done so. it's just not fair. but, if their were more NR SSDs, they would be absolute SUPER-CARRIERS.

but, i'm a member of the PA at heart, and my wish here is to join the ranks of grand admirals... sorry, the elite imperial alignment

August 24, 2017, 12:21:31 PMReply #9

Offline Shermos

  • Stormtrooper Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
  • Approval: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2017, 12:21:31 PM »
Japan bit off way more than it could chew for reasons already discussed. Had it followed a different strategy and not been bogged down in a very costly war with the Chinese, I still think the US would have defeated it in the end. Japan could not keep up in manpower and industrial capacity. Admiral Yamamoto is often considered defeatist for arguing Japan had no chance, but he was being realistic.   

August 24, 2017, 12:51:36 PMReply #10

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2017, 12:51:36 PM »
Yes, while publically supporting the drive to war with the US in pvt all senior leadership in both the government and the military admitted to grave fears about it. I recommend the book Japan 1941 as it has many of the memos, private journals and memoirs of those involved. It's staggering how nearly everyone knew the war would be a disaster but felt it would be preferable to peaceful loss of face.

They rationalized they could possibly force the US to come to terms because they had done the same with Russian in the Russo Japanese War and to a degree with China in the Sino Japanese war. However they ignored that both of these instances involved countries with massive internal dissent and weariness from local conflict, neither of which were the case with the US.
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 25, 2017, 05:42:44 AMReply #11

Offline taupin121

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 171
  • Approval: +6/-4
  • Solo Command
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2017, 05:42:44 AM »

I'm reading a lot about WWII aviation and doing few researches on the subject so that way I know a little grand strategy and other component of WWII armed forces. I am therefor surprised that you guys here know more than the average members of dedicated forums !

half of them at least were dead by June 10th 1942, and while more gained experience, the grind of New Guinea/the Solomons killed the rest of them.

You made a point here that is often overlooked so I had to complete it :
The IJN suffered a loss of 110 aircrew (not just pilots, in fact less than the Americans that lost 188 aircrew), most of them (72) from the Hiryu. So despite the losses of most (2/3 if not counting the escort aircraft carriers) of its carriers, the IJN still had a pool of 2000+ qualified carrier pilots available. More important was the loss of 721 mechanics (40% of the total of the Kido Butai), a less glamorous work for the young wannabe samuraï and therefor far more difficult to replace. But in fact these valuable skilled pilots were wasted in the long land based campaigns of attrition of New Guinea and the Solomons. It was an enormous mistake to accept such a campaign of attrition with (specialised) pilots that would be utterly needed in the forthcoming decisive battles (particulary knowing the importance of such decisive battles in the japanese doctrine/way of thinking). Probably of little importance of your big overview of the events but still worth mentioning.

August 25, 2017, 07:58:04 AMReply #12

Offline Shermos

  • Stormtrooper Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
  • Approval: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2017, 07:58:04 AM »
It's staggering how nearly everyone knew the war would be a disaster but felt it would be preferable to peaceful loss of face.

I hadn't read about this before, but it doesn't surprise me too much. Face is really important in Asian cultures, especially Confucian ones. I think it's fair to say the Japanese took it a step further with their samurai inspired sense of honour.

August 25, 2017, 05:29:18 PMReply #13

Offline Revanchist

  • Mod Team Member
  • Grand Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,473
  • Approval: +42/-5
  • I am Revan reborn. And before me you are nothing.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2017, 05:29:18 PM »
Yeah, Japan had no way to win the Pacific. Having family who served in the Japanese Army during both World Wars, I can corroborate what Xizer said in that most knew there was no way to win the war. A lot of good points have been made as to why this was, but another one that was missed was the ruthlessness of the Japanese army internally. For example, when an officer would become sick or wounded, the soldiers under his command would often kill him. Thus not only was the Japanese military throwing their vets to the front line to be killed by the enemy, but they were killing off their own vets.
"History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all."
Grand Admiral Thrawn

"But...it was so artistically done."
Grand Admiral Thrawn

Member of the Imperial Alignment


August 25, 2017, 10:16:11 PMReply #14

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2017, 10:16:11 PM »
Yeah, Japan had no way to win the Pacific. Having family who served in the Japanese Army during both World Wars, I can corroborate what Xizer said in that most knew there was no way to win the war. A lot of good points have been made as to why this was, but another one that was missed was the ruthlessness of the Japanese army internally. For example, when an officer would become sick or wounded, the soldiers under his command would often kill him. Thus not only was the Japanese military throwing their vets to the front line to be killed by the enemy, but they were killing off their own vets.

Often this was due to the extremely poor treatment at the hands of most mid level officers due to class and rank being viciously enforced, coupled with the often appalling living conditions on their island garrisons suicide and banzai charges were considered preferable to a slow agonizing death from malnutrition and dysentery.
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 25, 2017, 10:28:07 PMReply #15

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2017, 10:28:07 PM »
I'm reading a lot about WWII aviation and doing few researches on the subject so that way I know a little grand strategy and other component of WWII armed forces. I am therefor surprised that you guys here know more than the average members of dedicated forums !

You made a point here that is often overlooked so I had to complete it :
The IJN suffered a loss of 110 aircrew (not just pilots, in fact less than the Americans that lost 188 aircrew), most of them (72) from the Hiryu. So despite the losses of most (2/3 if not counting the escort aircraft carriers) of its carriers, the IJN still had a pool of 2000+ qualified carrier pilots available. More important was the loss of 721 mechanics (40% of the total of the Kido Butai), a less glamorous work for the young wannabe samuraï and therefor far more difficult to replace. But in fact these valuable skilled pilots were wasted in the long land based campaigns of attrition of New Guinea and the Solomons. It was an enormous mistake to accept such a campaign of attrition with (specialised) pilots that would be utterly needed in the forthcoming decisive battles (particulary knowing the importance of such decisive battles in the japanese doctrine/way of thinking). Probably of little importance of your big overview of the events but still worth mentioning.

Am both a history major and a military history enthusiast with a particular love of the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Digging up any and all info on it was more or less my obsessive hobby for over a decade.

You are absolutely right, the IJN could not readily replace the support staff that ran the CV groups, in many ways this was even more devastating than the loss of the pilots. In general Japan's greatest weakness wasn't it's combat arm, but it's logistical one. Japanese merchant shipping couldn't keep up with peacetime demand, much less wartime even BEFORE losses. Japan often couldn't afford to send out it's heaviest vessels regularly due to the need for fuelers and transport ships to conduct offensive operations over an extended period of time. Japanese troops often rode on the decks of the IJN's warships simply because there was not enough shipping to both ferry resources back to the home Islands and garrisons AND carry troops. Compare this to the allied ratio which usually had a 50 or 60 to one ratio of merchant ships to warships Japan had barely a 3 to 1 ratio before the outbreak of war with the US, UK, Aus, and Dutch.
Finally Japanese focus was on obtaining honor, glory, rank and prestige in it's command staff and recruitment, as such vital jobs that were less 'glorious' and 'honorable' than front line fighting forces were often badly neglected, like it's Submarine arm. Japan had the best subs and torpedoes of WWII yet never employed Wolfpack or raiding tactics like Germany did to great success. Instead they mostly used their subs to try and target warships in single ambushes and for supplying distant posts. Anti submarine warfare with their Destroyer fleet was badly neglected with DDs reserved for surface engagement and troop running. The fact that US subs routinely penetrated IJN DD escorts, torpedoes CAs, BBs, or even CVs and then escaped with ease highlights the failings of the IJN DD employment.
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 26, 2017, 03:32:45 AMReply #16

Offline taupin121

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 171
  • Approval: +6/-4
  • Solo Command
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2017, 03:32:45 AM »
Finally Japanese focus was on obtaining honor, glory, rank and prestige in it's command staff and recruitment, as such vital jobs that were less 'glorious' and 'honorable' than front line fighting forces were often badly neglected, like it's Submarine arm. Japan had the best subs and torpedoes of WWII yet never employed Wolfpack or raiding tactics like Germany did to great success.

I totally agree and there's also the fact that Japanese sub crew did not consider glorious to sunk merchant ships and were only seeking for warships !

August 26, 2017, 08:46:12 AMReply #17

Offline Revanchist

  • Mod Team Member
  • Grand Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,473
  • Approval: +42/-5
  • I am Revan reborn. And before me you are nothing.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2017, 08:46:12 AM »
Often this was due to the extremely poor treatment at the hands of most mid level officers due to class and rank being viciously enforced, coupled with the often appalling living conditions on their island garrisons suicide and banzai charges were considered preferable to a slow agonizing death from malnutrition and dysentery.

Precisely
"History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all."
Grand Admiral Thrawn

"But...it was so artistically done."
Grand Admiral Thrawn

Member of the Imperial Alignment


August 27, 2017, 09:39:20 PMReply #18

Offline Lord Xizer

  • Tester
  • Grand Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 3,222
  • Approval: +134/-14
  • Nothing shall withstand my ambition.
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2017, 09:39:20 PM »
For goo reading material i recommend

The Imperial Japanese navy in the Pacific War
The Reluctant Admiral
Yamato Class Battleships vs USN Carrier Planes
A Glorious Way to Die
Battleship Musashi
IJN Battleships of WWII
IJN Heavy Cruisers of WWII
IJN Destroyers vs USN Destroyers
Japan 1941
Rising Sun Victorious(an alternate history of WWII)

And the site, http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 09:41:31 PM by Lord Xizer »
"I do not intend to be the Emperor's servant forever..."-High Inquisitor Jerec

"The New Order has never fallen. Only the Emperor."-Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

August 29, 2017, 04:54:26 AMReply #19

Offline taupin121

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 171
  • Approval: +6/-4
  • Solo Command
    • View Profile
Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2017, 04:54:26 AM »

I've read a few of these Duel on aviation topics, can't say I was impressed (I now avoid them but maybe I was unlucky on those I read or maybe only the ones on aviation topics were dispensable), but I enjoyed much of the Aircraft of the Aces, Aviation Elite Units or Combat Aircraft series.

If I can advice book on the air war over the Pacific :

John Lundstrom's The First Team serie
Shattered Sword : The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Jon Parshall & Anthony Tully

As I said, I read most at tactical level :
Genda's Blade : Japan's Squadron of Aces : 343 Kokutai by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki (they lately produced a more general on a more wider subject Aircraft of the Aces on the subject)
Eagles of the Southern Sky - The Tainan Air Group in WWII by Luca Ruffato & Michael Claringbould (the book
For USAAF bomber unit histories in the Pacific, have a look here : http://irandpcorp.com/current-projects-2/

I have also : Bruce Gamble's serie about Rabaul and William Wolf's serie about V Fighter Command, but not sure how good it is.

Thanks for the link BTW


 

Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!