Author Topic: pacific blunder  (Read 11915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

panzers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
pacific blunder
« on: July 06, 2006, 06:52:36 AM »
Guys, this is my first log in. I love discussing ww11, But let me know what you think about the biggest pacific blunder there was.
My vote is a vote that was the single biggest blunder in the whole war, and that was a combination of american brilliance along with japanese lack of american know how in the overall happennings at Midway. Also never let it be underestimated, the major importance of German bombers going after London instead of devastating the british radars and airfields in 1940. At the very least that should be part of the equasion. I guess, maybe, you could add that in with the Dunkirk scenario, but I wouldn't think so. Two separate blunders.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2006, 06:32:49 AM by Mark »

bushido

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2006, 09:32:11 AM »
The biggest pacific blunder was not launching a third attack at Pearl to cripple Hawaii as a base for the U.S.  Without a real knock-out blow, japan didn't have much of a chance.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2006, 06:33:03 AM by Mark »

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2006, 06:48:41 AM »
It probably would have been benefiial for the Japanese to go after the shipyards and oil infrastrucutre in a third wave have to agree.

I mean, I guess one could argue Pearl Harbor itself was the biggest Japanese blunder in the Pacific - but, for arguments sake - lets assume Pearl Harbor is a done deal  - what were the biggest mistakes after that?

I gotta think not protecting and exploiting the resources they were able to obtain in 41 had to contribute - Japan did not get much of the oil out of the East Indies - one of the drivers for them to go to war in the first place.

Horrible inter-service cooperation between the army and navy - no single leadership and war direction.

What else?

bushido

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2006, 02:07:46 PM »
Their whole attitude led to a strategy of defeat. The Banzai principles, not portecting  the merchant fleet from submarines, never going after the logistical systems--Pearl, and using subs to attack warships instead of merchant ships, to name 2.

Japan just did not how to fight a mid-twentieth century war.

Uncle Joe

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2006, 06:13:26 AM »
Interesting. . .

If Japan would have done a few (albeit major) things differently like protect their merchant fleet, establish army-navy cooperation, organize their war economy and equip their soldiers with modern weapons, realized their intelligence communications were compromised - could the Pacific War have ended differently?  Could the Japanese have fought the US to accepting some sort of negotiated peace?

I think it is possible - I mean after two atom bombs Japan still did not agree to an unconditional surrender (they kept the emperor). . .

bushido

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2006, 07:08:14 AM »
Very possible, but that's a lot of changes to postulate. The best what-if I've seen has Yamamoto bombarding the west coast with the Yamato right after Pearl Harbor so the U.S. sues for peace.

panzers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2006, 10:55:28 PM »
I want to clarify a bit on why I think Midway was the single biggest disaster for the the axis.
Japan had it all right . They had everything they needed and forged a brilliant plan to dupe the Americans into sending their only 3 carriers into a sinister trap. It was brilliant. They set up all kinds of diversionary forces and thought up a brilliant plan, and despite the lack of leadership communication, they had it set up perfectly to anahlate the American Navy once and for all. Under the plan they had masterminded, 99 out of 100 times it would have worked and we would have complete and totally different history books for a lot of the talk about wwII would have been fighting off thousands of Japanese troops in San Francisco thereby diverting everything in the war including all lend lease to the defense of the homeland.
Unfortunately for them is that we had the biggest weapon of the entire war , and no it was not the atomic bomb, it was 24 hour round the clock code breaking research. They had about 6 or 7 people frantically working on breaking the Japanese Naval code. and even with that, although they new of an upcoming major attack, they didn't know where until there was less than a week to go before the actual attack. Our code breakers had been working almost nonstop for almost 10 days frantically doing whatever it takes to break this code. Finally 3 days before the attack they knew and forged a makeshift counterattack with what meager forces we had, and we used it to the absolute maximum ability that we could have ever dreamed of and we were able to beat them to the punch at every turn. That was the only possible way to destroy thse Jap carriers, because they had everything protecting them but they didn't have the most important thing of all, and that was the American ability to actually outsmart and beat the Japs at their own game,. Remember they thought of us as very inferior in our ability to fight even though they knew we were the arsenal of democracy, it didn't matter because they knew that almost their entire fleet was at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, in fact what we had out the there was literal hulks of wrecked and patched up battlships out there to defend something that was 10 times what they had as a healthy fleet.
The other thing that need to be mentioned is what I had stated before about the San Francicso landings. Had Japan did exactly what they did at Pearl, the unthinkable would have very much been a terrible reality. They thought we were so stupid at Pearl( and we were) that they thought that this time they would be a little more cocky and turn on the radio to communicate with each fleet as they coordinate this very complicated action. That therin lies the biggest blunder of the war because we had our people crack the Japanese naval code, and the rest, as they say is history.
I also want to say as far as blunders go, what about a blunder the americans made. I think,by far, the most brilliant american general of the war was not Mccarther(he was a cry baby and used the american people as pawns to get what he wanted), not Eisenhower( the preverbial product of the system, although he was a master at keeping morale among the troops) it was a lowly 3 star general in Patton. He had it all right. He was the one that was using Rommel like tactics blowing hole after hole through the German lines so much so that the very name put fears into all German generals and forces( they had a name for him but I don't remember what it was, but it was a name that was flattering to Patton and not to the Germans) Finally if he would have been a higher ranked general( he did get his 4th star late) we might never have to deal with any Soviet Union for he himself would have smashed them to pieces while everyone else was sitting on his hands he was still playing the general. It was very much like the same kind of thing that happenned 46 years later when we had Sadaam cornered and we had the ability to kill him, where Scwartzkoff wanted to finish him off, Bush threw the "we shall not assassanate foreign leaders" card. We all saw what happenned after that.
same thing with Patton. If only he would have gotten that 5th star he so deserved.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2006, 10:58:14 PM by panzers »

Uncle Joe

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2006, 05:30:51 AM »
If Midway would have happenned differently, maybe the Japanese could have had a shot at invading Hawaii - but I don't think they had a snowballs chance of invading California and it really was not one of their strategic objectives to invade the US - they just wanted to establish a position that was unassailable by the US.

I think the most under-rated US general is not Patton (he may be over-rated) - I think Bradley, rather, was one of the best US generals of the war

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2006, 05:54:43 AM »
Actually,
    I tried this manuver with the Japanese in the last game we played on Sept 9th, 2006. I was able to occupy Hawaii, Midway and Wake, and actually most of the south Pacific Islands in an attempt  to delay the US from any early forward momentum. It seemed to work pretty well...

John

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2006, 06:17:25 PM »
The biggest blunder for the Japanese was timing. The Pearl Harbor attack was scheduled to occur very shortly after their declaration of war was delivered to the US government. I believe that timing was an hour or less. Just like the signal, TORA! TORA! TORA! was used to let the Japanese fleet know that total surprise had been obtained. There should have been a message from the Japanese ambassador's office to show the declaration of war had been completely decoded and ready to be delivered. The ambassador's office could have had the declaration much, much earlier. Alas, secrets are so hard to keep secret.

herostratus

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2006, 02:47:34 AM »
The only completely fatal mistake was to bomb Pearl Harbor in a suprise attack. The American response to the attack was outrage and determination to fight until Japan was destroyed.

If they had made a conventional declaration of war, and not made any surprise attacks, it is just barely possible (although still very unlikely) that the Americans would have made peace on terms other than unconditional surrender.

Also, the attacks were not that useful. It would have been better to let the American battleships come out and sink them in deep water. And judging by slow American response in the Phillipines to news of Pearl Harbor, Clark Field would have been unprepared even if a declaration was made the day before attacks began. And even if not, so what, it wouldn't have made much difference.

thenorthman

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2006, 05:30:26 PM »
Well and I am sure folks well see it when they see "Flags of our Fathers" that America was real close to running out of money.

The dollar bill was worthless.  Funding just wasn't there.

I had heard of this before but watching the movie brought it back to memory.  Now if its true that is another story.  I just had heard of it before.

If this is really true it could of possibly went another way if things kept getting costly in terms of people.

We take it for granted that we were going to win and Germany and Japan was stupid for attacking the US.  It really wasn't like that at all.  I know there was the unconditional surrender and all but it was real close. 

Heck Britian took all of its Gold stock to Canada in case the Island fell.  It was much closer than what current history tells us in terms of the poplulation wanting to sue for peace.

Yada, yada!

Well that is my two cents.

Sean

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2006, 10:25:51 AM »
Fighting a war is ALWAYS expensive as materials are consumed exponentially & people get worn out at home, as well as on the battlefields. The leaders of any entity at war are always looking for any means possible to fund their war machine until victory is achieved. WWII took a heavy toll on finances, materials, and people. A lot of items were lost,  destroyed, maimed, and killed. Even today, the war on terrorism requires huge sums of funding, people, & materials on both sides. The bad guys need food, clothing,  shelter, & war materials while planning their next action. The good guys need the same items to counter what the bad guys plan to do & when possible be pro-active. Nothing is cheap here.

Uncle Joe

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2006, 02:43:42 AM »
We take it for granted that we were going to win and Germany and Japan was stupid for attacking the US. ....
Sean

I agree, the history written since 1945 paints Allied victory as a sure thing.  I believe something short of unconditional surrender - peace with terms with the Axis was a real possibility had certain things turned out differently

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: pacific blunder
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2007, 04:57:21 PM »
I'll check with some retired Army War College folks and see if they would like to provide some facts to some of these topics. Facts are always so nice to make a discussion more lively.