Most historically significant naval battles???

searat12 wrote:

Also, I find it strange to think that the Japanese 'never made an an amphibious assault of any size against serious opposition!'  The whole point of amphibious assaults (if you do it correctly) is to land someplace where there won't be serious opposition, and to use whatever assets you may to ensure serious opposition doesn't appear.  On that basis, the Japanese were very good at it indeed, with Singapore taken, the Phillipines seized, and many other examples too (and the Phillpines had a very significant US Army presence, with lots of aircraft of all types available to resist the Japanese, and artillery, and warships too, and plenty of warning that the Japanese were coming, and the US still had its butt handed to it on a plate because we weren't ready, were too slow, and had never seriously planned for anything like what actually happened......

The type of amphibious landing I am referring to is one that never happened: Japanese forces attempting to land on a beach near Los Angeles, or even Wikiki at Honolulu...That was my point, they COULDN'T have pulled an opposed landing off like that after Pearl---or, IMO, even one on the scale of Iwo or Okinawa...they just couldn't have...even the motley collection of defenders at Wake nearly turned away their landing attempt and lost some good-sized ships in the process...go back and look at what was defending Wake, and imagine what would have happened if we had the 1st or 2nd Marine Division there, with significant air support... 

The one thing the Japanese (and Germans) had in their favor, and primarily why they were successful through '42, was that the US and most other nations lacked a willingness to fight or take the threats that existed seriosuly...as soon as the US "geared up", the Axis had their butts handed to them, time and again...

Also, I find it strange to think that the Japanese 'never made an an amphibious assault of any size against serious opposition!'  The whole point of amphibious assaults (if you do it correctly) is to land someplace where there won't be serious opposition, and to use whatever assets you may to ensure serious opposition doesn't appear.  On that basis, the Japanese were very good at it indeed, with Singapore taken, the Phillipines seized, and many other examples too (and the Phillpines had a very significant US Army presence, with lots of aircraft of all types available to resist the Japanese, and artillery, and warships too, and plenty of warning that the Japanese were coming, and the US still had its butt handed to it on a plate because we weren't ready, were too slow, and had never seriously planned for anything like what actually happened......

Some great points of debate here.  But I still stick with the opinion that the US would have not sued for peace regardless of the outcomes of Pearl or Midway...just wouldn't have happened, IMO. Japan had no realistic way of strategically defeating the US. The one thing that they admitted they needed to win was "a lack of willingness of the US to fight a long and costly war", and they guessed wrongly. That statement (that the Japanese made) make my argument.  

Mansteins revenge wrote:

bbrowniii wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote:  Tracy White wrote: I'm going to limit my comments to one time period because I'm only familiar enough with the 20th  century to make it worthwhile. I see Pearl Harbor as the true turning point of the second World War, in both theaters, and  disagree with the comment that if we had lost the battle of Midway it would have been all over. The axis in effect lost the war the moment they allowed the full weight of the United States' industrial capacity and population to enter the fray with a fire in the belly. Even if we had lost Midway, it would have at best delayed the outcome by a year or two. The new carriers were reaching the pacific by summer of 1943, by summer of 1945 even if we had lost midway we would have been pushing the japanese back pretty hard. The outrage it  lit in the U.S. population in general gave us the motivation to not only defeat the axis, but changed the course of US Policy forever. Pearl Harbor merely officially legitimized a struggle that had started after the first world war and really entrenched itself with the Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China. It is one of those interesting "won the battle but lost the war" battles for the Japanese.  I agree that if the tables had been turned and we lost our three carriers to maybe one of theirs that we would have still prevailed in the end, but it does offer up some chilling scenerios that would have probably tested American resolve and confidence to a far greater degree than it actually did...Winning Midway, IMO, gave the US the immeadiate confidence that we could, and would, win...A loss would maybe have said: we can win, but when are we gonna start? I'm no naval historian, but I think I disagree with that sentiment.  I think that, had the US lost at Midway, and lost big - like you say three carriers to one of theirs, at the very least the US would have seriously considered a peace with Japan in an effort to focus on the 'main theatre' of the war in Europe.  Also consider that, without those carriers, for all intents and purposes the whole west coast of the US would have been wide open to Japanese attack, Australia would have been completely isolated, and may have fallen as well... Interesting thesis, but I respectfully disagree...now Newt Gingrich has a "what if?" novel out that asks the question: "What if the japanese had humg around Pearl harbor and continued to launch strikes at Pearl harbor, and possibly found the American carriers and dealt with them?" I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback, but in the event, I think had America lost Midway there would be no way in Hell that the US Congress or its citizens would have accepted peace after Pearl Harbor... I feel as though your thesis is flawed because as the Japanese got further from their original lines of communications they became much less effective, and they never made an ampibious assault of any size against serious oposition...when they made limited ones, such as at Wake, they got their lunch handed to them...Other assets would have come into play had we lost Midway...eg: US subs would have wreaked havoc on any fleet that sailed for Pearl or the West coast, as well as the other many naval and air assets the US possessed...Wasp, Saratoga, BB's, bombers, etc...In fact, the US decided very early on that the MAIN threat came from the Germans and that the European theatre would take priority, and it did...IMO, a Japanese victory at Midway would have been a serious blow, but only a temporary one...to think that he US would be sitting at a surrender table 6 months after Pearl borders on the incredible...

there actually is a book out called "What If?", and it's written by people that are well known historians and members of the War College. One of the "what if's" was Pearl Harbor, and they take the basic attack as well know it and put it in each side's hands with several hypothetical sceneros. One was why didn't they go ahead and make the so called third and maybe even a fourth strike. Well the very first thing to remember was that even with the second strike they had lost the element of surprise. Didn't have enough fuel and equipment for the fourth strike to be sure. Didn't have any idea where the American aircraft carriers were at, at the time. The strike was actually somewhat of a failure in several ways besides not hitting a single aircraft carrier. The failed to knock out the fuel farm that was vastly needed (this alone maybe the single most important thing they didn't do). Also much has been said about failing to destroy the dry docks, but almost nothing has been said about the heavy lifting devices (dock side cranes for one). By hitting the cranes alone you couldn't resupply or rebuild any equipment. Also by hitting the drydocks they would have rendered the port almost usless when it came to refloating and rebuilding the sunken ships as everything would then have been moved to the west coast. Otherwise it wouldn't have ment all that much. So in otherwords the stone was cast, and it was only a matter of time when one looks at the industrial mite that Japan and Germany faced.

    In the Atlantic things were much different, but yet similar in many ways. Untill the Allies figured out a way to safely guard the supply convoys the Germans pretty much had their own way. Sure the capture of the Enigma Machine was a great blow, but nothing that couldn't have been overcome. What got things moving was an umbrella of aircraft flying overhead. Yet there was still a vast open area that the convoys had to run thru to make it to England. Then along came the little escort carrier launching Avengers on anti submarine duty on a near constant basis. It's not so much a fact that they were sinking subs all the time as it was a fact that they prevented submarines from attacking the floatilla. And then we must come to the fact that the Germans just could effectively put submarines out there as fast as we could build Liberty Ships (one every three days I think). So once again we can chalk another victory up to Rosie The Riviter.

gary

Well, it is true that the UK would have lost and been comprehensively defeated if the US did not come in on their side.  They couldn't even feed themselves without US cargo ships coming in, and without the 'lend-lease' destroyers and aircraft, there would have been no way to protect the convoys either, and that would have been the end of the UK as far as Adolf was concerned, whether they officially 'surrendered' or not.  This is what I meant by 'neutralisation,' and if the US didn't make all their efforts on the behalf of the UK, even well before the US got officially into the war, I don't think you would have heard Churchill making quite so many speeches about 'fighting them on the beaches' as he did....... And certainly, for all intents and purposes, the UK was comprehensively kicked out of the Far East and  SE Asia in quite short order......

Same is true for the US vs Japan.  If Japan could knock the US out of the Pacific, then they would have achieved their objective, and it would have been extremely difficult for the US to have come back in, especially with the war in Europe still raging.  As for submarines, the Japanese had just about the best submarines in the world at the begining of the war, and one point in particular made them imminently suitable for West Coast patrolling, and that was the incredible range these boats could go without refueling or resupply.  It is important to remember that just before Pearl Harbor, there was something like a dozen IJN subs quietly patrolling around the Hawaian islands, and they had been there for almost a month!  Japanese fleet submarines were specifically designed to operate off the US West Coast for extended periods (and in fact did so on a few occasions!), and the only reason they did not in fact do so as a primary mission was because of the Japanese Admiralty, not because there was any limitations on the boats (and a lot of them carried their own airplanes too!).  Think in terms of the U-boats off the East Coast, and the damage they caused.  They never numbered more than about a dozen boats at any given time 'on station,' and usually a lot less.  When you figure that the Japanese had the largest fleet of submarines in the world in 1941, then the idea of fairly constant submarine patrols on the West Coast becomes a very grim reality, and even worse if it is backed up by a periodic surface task force coming out of a captured Pearl Harbor....

But the facts are, the Japanese appear to have gone completely stupid as far as the submarines were concerned, and never adapted their tactics for anything besides fleet actions.  Not because they couldn't, they just didn't!  The US Navy however, learned a LOT from the Germans in WW1, and scattered their subs across the Pacific to seek out and destroy merchantmen in coordinated attacks, and if a warship happened along, they would sink that too, but primarily attacking the merchant fleet.  And the Japanese casualties from this campaign were staggering!  It got so bad, that by the tail end of 1942, the Japanese were already forced to use submarines to bring in supplies to Guadalcanal, submarines that could have been sockin' it to the US merchant fleet instead.

It really is a bizarre scenario with no rational explanation, as the initial Japanese sub designs after WW1 were the result of German engineering, with a whole bunch of German engineers and former German U-boat officers specifically brought to Japan to teach them about submarines for almost ten years.  Apparently, the class on strategy, tactics and objectives never made it into the syllabus!

searat12 wrote:

bbrowniii wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote: The bottom-line in my debate w/ both you and bbrowni is that the Japanese simply did not possess enough of an army to invade the West coast of the US or, IMO, Central America...I also strongly dismiss the notion that the US would have sued for peace...it was decided fairly early that nothing less than unconditional surrender was to be had from both the Germans and the Japanese by the Allies...While it makes good novels and "what ifs", simply put, it was never a real possibility of the Japanese setting foot in California or Panama, regardless of the outcome of Midway...our ground army and air force would have slaughtered any sea-borne invasion force... Uh, thats bbrowniii, Manny... OK, since the debate rages on - so I'll chime in despite my previous promise to shut up... Keep in mind, as I have said before, that the Japanese had no intention or desire to invade California (or probably Panama either).  Their military strategy was focued on Asia, but to accomplish what they wanted to do IN ASIA, they had to geet the Americans out of the way.  Remember, the whole goal of Pearl was to give the US such a knock on the head that we could not counter-punch.  While that failed, Midway was expected to finish the job...  Part of the Japanese strategy was to lure the US carriers out into the 'open' so they could be dealt with.  I do think, however, that at that point the Japanese thought the US only had two carriers left in the Pacific (didn't they think Yorktown was sunk at Coral Sea...?) Gotta go teach now.... And of course, if you REALLY want to play 'what ifs,' then Nagumo's decision at Pearl Harbor not to send in one more strike to destroy the fuel tank farms, dry docks and machine shops in many ways can be considered the point at which the Japanese 'lost' the war.  If Nagumo had, then there would never have been a Midway, or a Coral Sea battle either, and the Japanese would have stormed along to a quick victory almost unopposed, because the US Navy at that point would have been forced to retreat to the West Coast through lack of logistics.......

I used the lack of a prolonged bombing of Pearl to argue my points earlier: that Japanese Admirals were for the most part VERY conservative and timid: Pearl, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf, etc...

Okay, here goes: assuming worst case scenerio: Pearl Harbor is blown to bits---nothing left; Panama Canal is disabled; all US carriers sunk...I argue that the US STILL would not have sued for peace, period...the Japanese simply did not have the ability to land a force on the West coast and/or sustain it, period...And the ONLY way, IMO, that the US would have sued for peace is if the Japanese had marched through Washington DC...

And this talk of Japanese subs and carriers patrolling of the coast of California w/ impunity is ridiculous---we couldn't even do that until LATE in the war against Japan (Look at how quick Doolittle's raid was launched when he ran into fishing boats---hundreds of miles off of the Japanese coast). Land based a/c and our own submarines (who knew what they were doing) would have sunk any who got close...

Final and best argument: Look at Great Britain after the fall of Norway and France in 1940. Isolated, under bomber and U-boat attack; they were in a very similar situation as you propose the US could have been in had Midway, the Panama Canal and Pearl fell, AND DID face a REAL possibility of invasion....Did they sue for peace? On the contrary; their resolve stiffened...And I don't even want to hear the counter-arguement that they had the US on their side so they could remain defiant...lol...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

I mean, the US lost OVER 12,000 DEAD on Okinawa alone, 79 ships SUNK/scrapped, and 762 airplanes lost---clearly the US was willing to take casualties---and lots of them...I hardly think the loss of 3 carriers and several thousand casualties in '42 would have caused the US to sue for peace...

There is compelling evidence to suggest that the casualties at the Battle of Okinawa were actually a significant factor in deciding to drop the atomic bombs, specifically because the US was NOT willing to continue to take such catastrophic casualties any more - and Truman et al knew that the casualties involved in an invasion of Japan proper would have been much, MUCH worse...  So rather than demonstrating a willingness to take casualties, Okinawa could be seen as a bit of a breaking point, an 'enough is enough' moment.  And, also keep in mind that, you are comparing 1945 to 1942 - the worst of the war in the Pacific, for all intents and purposes was still ahead of the Americans, but by '45 they could see that victory was imminent.  Had the US fleet been decimated at Midway, with the resulting threat to (and perhaps imminent loss of Hawaii) and the US Navy shoved all the way back to California, maybe that 'enough is enough' moment would have come earlier.  If we kept getting our lunch handed to us, maybe Roosevelt and the Congress decide to say 'uncle' (even if only temporarily) in the Pacific, give the Japanese what they 'wanted' and instead the US focuses solely on Europe, which by your own admission Manny, was seen to be a far greater threat and the most important theater in the war.

As to Japan's designs on invading the mainland US, as I said before, that was never in the cards.  Here's a bit from Wiki that touches on their real goals at Midway and beyond:

"The Japanese plan was to lure America's few remaining carriers into a trap and sink them.^[6] The Japanese also intended to occupy Midway Atoll to extend their defensive perimeter. This operation was considered preparatory for further attacks against Fiji and Samoa, as well as an invasion of Hawaii.^[7]

The Midway operation, like the attack on Pearl Harbor, was not part of a campaign for the conquest of the United States, but was aimed at its elimination as a strategic Pacific power, thereby giving Japan a free hand in establishing its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It was also hoped another defeat would force the U.S. to negotiate an end to the Pacific War with conditions favorable for Japan.^"

Mikeym_us wrote:

It was sunk after sinking a Union frigate with a "Torpedo". The circumstances of the sinking are unclear but what is known is that the crew did not sink their own ship but it was accidentally run over by another Union ship that came to the rescue of the crew of the first Union ship.

That doesn't sound unclear to me...  It's pretty interesting, actually.  I knew the Hunley seemed to sink as more a result of an accident than anything else, but this is the first I ever heard of a Union ship running it down (by mistake no less...)

It was sunk after sinking a Union frigate with a "Torpedo". The circumstances of the sinking are unclear but what is known is that the crew did not sink their own ship but it was accidentally run over by another Union ship that came to the rescue of the crew of the first Union ship.

Mikeym_us wrote:

Can't believe everyone forgot the Battle of Charelston Harbor where the first functional submarine was tested during the Civil War the Hunley.

Interesting, but forgive me if I ask, didn't the CSS Hunley sink during this episode?  Hardly a successful demonstration of anything significant (the same thing happened with the 'Turtle' during the Revolutionary War).........

bbrowniii wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote: The bottom-line in my debate w/ both you and bbrowni is that the Japanese simply did not possess enough of an army to invade the West coast of the US or, IMO, Central America...I also strongly dismiss the notion that the US would have sued for peace...it was decided fairly early that nothing less than unconditional surrender was to be had from both the Germans and the Japanese by the Allies...While it makes good novels and "what ifs", simply put, it was never a real possibility of the Japanese setting foot in California or Panama, regardless of the outcome of Midway...our ground army and air force would have slaughtered any sea-borne invasion force... Uh, thats bbrowniii, Manny... OK, since the debate rages on - so I'll chime in despite my previous promise to shut up... Keep in mind, as I have said before, that the Japanese had no intention or desire to invade California (or probably Panama either).  Their military strategy was focued on Asia, but to accomplish what they wanted to do IN ASIA, they had to geet the Americans out of the way.  Remember, the whole goal of Pearl was to give the US such a knock on the head that we could not counter-punch.  While that failed, Midway was expected to finish the job...  Part of the Japanese strategy was to lure the US carriers out into the 'open' so they could be dealt with.  I do think, however, that at that point the Japanese thought the US only had two carriers left in the Pacific (didn't they think Yorktown was sunk at Coral Sea...?) Gotta go teach now....

And of course, if you REALLY want to play 'what ifs,' then Nagumo's decision at Pearl Harbor not to send in one more strike to destroy the fuel tank farms, dry docks and machine shops in many ways can be considered the point at which the Japanese 'lost' the war.  If Nagumo had, then there would never have been a Midway, or a Coral Sea battle either, and the Japanese would have stormed along to a quick victory almost unopposed, because the US Navy at that point would have been forced to retreat to the West Coast through lack of logistics.......

Can't believe everyone forgot the Battle of Charelston Harbor where the first functional submarine was tested during the Civil War the Hunley.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

The bottom-line in my debate w/ both you and bbrowni is that the Japanese simply did not possess enough of an army to invade the West coast of the US or, IMO, Central America...I also strongly dismiss the notion that the US would have sued for peace...it was decided fairly early that nothing less than unconditional surrender was to be had from both the Germans and the Japanese by the Allies...While it makes good novels and "what ifs", simply put, it was never a real possibility of the Japanese setting foot in California or Panama, regardless of the outcome of Midway...our ground army and air force would have slaughtered any sea-borne invasion force...

Uh, thats bbrowniii, Manny...

OK, since the debate rages on - so I'll chime in despite my previous promise to shut up...

Keep in mind, as I have said before, that the Japanese had no intention or desire to invade California (or probably Panama either).  Their military strategy was focued on Asia, but to accomplish what they wanted to do IN ASIA, they had to geet the Americans out of the way.  Remember, the whole goal of Pearl was to give the US such a knock on the head that we could not counter-punch.  While that failed, Midway was expected to finish the job...  Part of the Japanese strategy was to lure the US carriers out into the 'open' so they could be dealt with.  I do think, however, that at that point the Japanese thought the US only had two carriers left in the Pacific (didn't they think Yorktown was sunk at Coral Sea...?)

Gotta go teach now....

I also recall a lot of big claims of 'invulnerability' for Singapore and the Phillipines too, before the Japanese Army clobbered both of them in short order, and in both cases it was air-superiority that really did the job.... As far as size goes, MOST of the Japanese Army was in China and Manchuria for most of the war (and not doing much, either!).  The biggest problem for the Japanese is that the Army never understood or accepted the limitations of the Navy, no matter what losses had been incurred.  The second biggest problem for the Japanese was that they never understood what to do with their submarines, even though they had plenty of contacts with the Germans who could could have shown them how.  The third biggest problem for the Japanese was a large collection of pretty crappy Admirals, who just kept doing the same operation in the same manner in the same place again and again until the US got wise and blew them to Hell and back........

Well, it is surprising what politicians will say at any given time, even if it is all just a bunch of nonsense, and political 'decisions' can be surprisingly flexible in the 'right' conditions!  Note, I never said the Japanese had any intention or need to invade the West Coast, or Panama.  They just needed to neutralise them.  A few well-placed bombs in the Panama canal locks puts them out of action for years.  A few well-placed submarines outside Bremerton, San Francisco and Long Beach keeps any ships from coming out, and an air raid or two on the building slips keeps any new ships from being built there too. 

The Japanese Guadalcanal and New Guinea operations were planned before the losses at Midway, and could have been successful if significant carrier-based cover was available to allow the completed construction of the ground-based airfields necesssary for further expansion, and to cut off the allied supply route to Australia (Henderson airfield was the whole objective of Guadalcanal after all, and the airfields at Port Moresby was the objective of the New Guinea operation!).  The Japanese Army assumed that this cover would be available, but of course it was not, and both operations failed miserably and at huge cost.  And all this could have been prevented if the Japanese had taken out the US carriers at Midway......

searat12 wrote:

Well, I think it is important not to look at these things in isolation.  While the US was certainly cranking out new ships in '42, it is important to remember that by this time they were also engaged with the Battle of the Atlantic, and a lot of those assets were needed on the 'wrong' side of the world and thus not really available to deal with the Japanese.  It is also important to remember that if the Japanese had taken out the US carriers at Midway, that there was a massive Japanese surface fleet to back up the Japanese carriers that was on its way for the 'decisive battle,' and finish the job at Pearl Harbor (destroy the fuel depots, dry docks and machine shops). With the loss of the US carriers, it would have been entirely possible for the Japanese not only to take over Midway Island (which would have meant a constant aerial menace to Hawaii), but to move on Hawaii itself and either destroy or seize its use as a naval base.  At that point, the entire West Coast of the US would have been under threat, to include Panama, and if Panama could be neutrailized, then there wouldn't be any new fleet of US ships comin' to the rescue, as there would not have been the logistical elements available for them to do so (bases, refueling, repairs, etc).  Lotsa 'what ifs!' I also agree that the Japanese grand strategy from the first was to inflict enough damage on the US that a negotiated peace or at least a ceasefire would be possible, and this had to happen with a year or so.  Whether this was a realistic goal is another story, but in my view, it might well have been possible if the damage inflicted was severe enough and fast enough (and never forget that most of Europe had, or was falling to the Germans at that time!).  And I don't think the Japanese thought that the US would sue for peace, but rather at a certain point the Japanese would present the US with an opportunity to back down without 'losing face,' or the ability of the US to conduct significant operations in the Pacific might have been so degraded that the US could simply have been either ignored, or at least contained. Finally, while the Japanese were quite 'timid' in their fleet actions after Midway, the reason for that timidity was the lack of airpower caused by the lack of carriers and/or land-based aircover, which of course was caused by the losses at Midway.  I have given a lot of thought to this whole issue of Japanese fleet operations, particularly those conducted by, or influenced by Admiral Yamamoto, which leads me to some pretty peculiar conclusions/speculations, one of which is that Yamamoto actually intended for the Japanese to lose, and may in fact have been something of a spy and/or traitor on behalf of the US!!!

"Finally, while the Japanese were quite 'timid' in their fleet actions after Midway, the reason for that timidity was the lack of airpower caused by the lack of carriers and/or land-based aircover, which of course was caused by the losses at Midway." 

The Japanese did not lose any air land-based air assets at Midway...if you study OOB's for the Japanese vs. Americans/British/Australians, the Japanese war machine was woefully inadequate for anything short of the 6 month "surprise" campaign that they did, in the event, execute...

The bottom-line in my debate w/ both you and bbrowni is that the Japanese simply did not possess enough of an army to invade the West coast of the US or, IMO, Central America...I also strongly dismiss the notion that the US would have sued for peace...it was decided fairly early that nothing less than unconditional surrender was to be had from both the Germans and the Japanese by the Allies...While it makes good novels and "what ifs", simply put, it was never a real possibility of the Japanese setting foot in California or Panama, regardless of the outcome of Midway...our ground army and air force would have slaughtered any sea-borne invasion force...

Well, I think it is important not to look at these things in isolation.  While the US was certainly cranking out new ships in '42, it is important to remember that by this time they were also engaged with the Battle of the Atlantic, and a lot of those assets were needed on the 'wrong' side of the world and thus not really available to deal with the Japanese.  It is also important to remember that if the Japanese had taken out the US carriers at Midway, that there was a massive Japanese surface fleet to back up the Japanese carriers that was on its way for the 'decisive battle,' and finish the job at Pearl Harbor (destroy the fuel depots, dry docks and machine shops). With the loss of the US carriers, it would have been entirely possible for the Japanese not only to take over Midway Island (which would have meant a constant aerial menace to Hawaii), but to move on Hawaii itself and either destroy or seize its use as a naval base.  At that point, the entire West Coast of the US would have been under threat, to include Panama, and if Panama could be neutrailized, then there wouldn't be any new fleet of US ships comin' to the rescue, as there would not have been the logistical elements available for them to do so (bases, refueling, repairs, etc).  Lotsa 'what ifs!'

I also agree that the Japanese grand strategy from the first was to inflict enough damage on the US that a negotiated peace or at least a ceasefire would be possible, and this had to happen with a year or so.  Whether this was a realistic goal is another story, but in my view, it might well have been possible if the damage inflicted was severe enough and fast enough (and never forget that most of Europe had, or was falling to the Germans at that time!).  And I don't think the Japanese thought that the US would sue for peace, but rather at a certain point the Japanese would present the US with an opportunity to back down without 'losing face,' or the ability of the US to conduct significant operations in the Pacific might have been so degraded that the US could simply have been either ignored, or at least contained.

Finally, while the Japanese were quite 'timid' in their fleet actions after Midway, the reason for that timidity was the lack of airpower caused by the lack of carriers and/or land-based aircover, which of course was caused by the losses at Midway.  I have given a lot of thought to this whole issue of Japanese fleet operations, particularly those conducted by, or influenced by Admiral Yamamoto, which leads me to some pretty peculiar conclusions/speculations, one of which is that Yamamoto actually intended for the Japanese to lose, and may in fact have been something of a spy and/or traitor on behalf of the US!!!

Mansteins revenge wrote:

I mean, the US lost OVER 12,000 DEAD on Okinawa alone, 79 ships SUNK/scrapped, and 762 airplanes lost---clearly the US was willing to take casualties---and lots of them...I hardly think the loss of 3 carriers and several thousand casualties in '42 would have caused the US to sue for peace...

I think you might be missing my point, but that's OK.  I don't really have a dog in this fight... we'll agree to disagree...

Ancient (BC to 999 AD)

Battle of Salamis

Medieval (1,000 AD to 1659 AD)

Battle of Lepanto 1571 - last big battle between galleys

Spanish Armada

Age of Revolution (18th Century)

Battle of the Saintes 1782 (The end of France's American ambitions

Battle of the Nile (Nelson's first major fleet action as sole fleet commander)

Battle of Camperdown (RN destroy's Dutch fleet)

Battle of Trafalgar (Nelson's finest but last victory and the cementation of the dominance of the Royal Navy)

Early Industrial (19th Century)

Battle of Hampton Roads (USS Monitor and CSS Virginia, ironclad vs ironclad)

Modern (20th Century)

Battle of Tsushima Strait (The arrival of the modern Japanese imperial navy)

Battle of the Falklands 1914 (RN battlecruisers in the role they were designed for)

Battle of Jutland (RN battlecruisers in the wrong role,the RN lost more ships but the German navy never challenged the RN again)

Battle of Matapan (RN battleships obliterate Italian cruisers and ward of their battleships

Battle of Sunda Strait (USS Houston and HMAS Perth fight valiantly and hopelessly)

The Battle of the Atlantic and the Arctic Convoys

Battle of Midway

Battle of Leyte

 

Battle of the Falklands

 

 

I know one thing after reading through this thread, and others I've posted in here: there's some really educated and well-read folks in here on naval and ship history !!!

The Battle of Tsushima- which showed that Colonial Victorian era power could only extend so far.

The Battle of the Atlantic, WW2. A multinational effort, with combined resources, strategic goals and determination on both sides. Almost a war in itself.

The Battle of Jutland, a massive engagement of fleets that disproved the notion of capital ships in battle.

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The USS San Francisco fought valiantly.

 

Sorry to have hijacked the thread apparently.

Let's look at US Carrier losses.. I agree that the US emphasis on damage control tended to put us in a better position than the japanese, albeit the case of CV-13 Franklin's bombing is an exception with horrendus loss of life even though the ship was saved. If you look at the carriers the US lost in 1942 they pretty much survived long enough for an orderly abandon ship, although not without loss in the initial action that caused their losses.

CV-2 Lexington - 2,122 total, 216 killed

CV-7 Wasp - 2,247 total, 173 lost when torpedoed.

In all cases a significant portion of the crew and air wing were saved.

We nuked Japan; a loss at midway wouldn't have done anything more than made us madder and more determined.

bbrowniii wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote: We just have to agree to disagree on this one...Remember, that the US would still have had the Saratoga, Wasp and the Essex, and the Essex class carriers were begining to come on-line in 1942... I don't think the US would have folded just because Australia was threathened...Look at how timid the Japanese were at Coral Sea...they actually won the tactical engagement but called off the invasion!!! The Japanese (contrary to popular belief) tended to be VERY catious when engaging w/ naval forces...this is seen throughout the war (eg: look at Leyte Gulf)...even at Pearl, a more daring commander would have continued to hammer Pearl Harbor and hunt the carriers down... As far as all of the air crews being lost, that is pure speculation...when a Japanese ship went down there tended to be excessive of casualties, partly because of cultural beliefs and partly because of poor damage control and life-saving equipment...the US was much better at recovering downed aircrew and sailors... I'd like to get other viewpoints on this interesting "what-if"... Agreed.  And I'll shut up now... well after this final point - remember that the goal of the Japanese was simply to inflict enough damage on the US to get us to get out of the war in the Pacific and concede dominance in eastern Asia to Japan.  They intended to do this by pushing out their defensive perimeter to various islands that were then intended to be heavily fortified.  That way, their 'backdoor' was covered so they could turn their attention to mainland and Southeast Asia.  Midway would have gone a long way to accomplishing that for them. I'll also concede that you are probably correct, it is likely that even if the US carriers were lost, many of the aircrews would have survived to form the backbone of whatever force the US mustered to continue to fight on...  Or perhaps, because Europe was seen as the vital front, we would have said, 'aw the heck with it for now' and poured all our resources into the European war, not diverting too many of these valuable resources to the Pacific, and largely giving the Japanese what they wanted...

"They intended to do this by pushing out their defensive perimeter to various islands that were then intended to be heavily fortified."

To a large degree they accomplished this anyway, BUT the US was not shy at all in taking HEAVY casualties in ejecting them, eg: Tarawa, Sapain, Guam, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Phillipines, Okinawa...

I mean, the US lost OVER 12,000 DEAD on Okinawa alone, 79 ships SUNK/scrapped, and 762 airplanes lost---clearly the US was willing to take casualties---and lots of them...I hardly think the loss of 3 carriers and several thousand casualties in '42 would have caused the US to sue for peace...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

We just have to agree to disagree on this one...Remember, that the US would still have had the Saratoga, Wasp and the Essex, and the Essex class carriers were begining to come on-line in 1942... I don't think the US would have folded just because Australia was threathened...Look at how timid the Japanese were at Coral Sea...they actually won the tactical engagement but called off the invasion!!! The Japanese (contrary to popular belief) tended to be VERY catious when engaging w/ naval forces...this is seen throughout the war (eg: look at Leyte Gulf)...even at Pearl, a more daring commander would have continued to hammer Pearl Harbor and hunt the carriers down... As far as all of the air crews being lost, that is pure speculation...when a Japanese ship went down there tended to be excessive of casualties, partly because of cultural beliefs and partly because of poor damage control and life-saving equipment...the US was much better at recovering downed aircrew and sailors... I'd like to get other viewpoints on this interesting "what-if"...

Agreed.  And I'll shut up now... well after this final point - remember that the goal of the Japanese was simply to inflict enough damage on the US to get us to get out of the war in the Pacific and concede dominance in eastern Asia to Japan.  They intended to do this by pushing out their defensive perimeter to various islands that were then intended to be heavily fortified.  That way, their 'backdoor' was covered so they could turn their attention to mainland and Southeast Asia.  Midway would have gone a long way to accomplishing that for them.

I'll also concede that you are probably correct, it is likely that even if the US carriers were lost, many of the aircrews would have survived to form the backbone of whatever force the US mustered to continue to fight on...  Or perhaps, because Europe was seen as the vital front, we would have said, 'aw the heck with it for now' and poured all our resources into the European war, not diverting too many of these valuable resources to the Pacific, and largely giving the Japanese what they wanted...

bbrowniii wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  bbrowniii wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote:  Tracy White wrote: I'm going to limit my comments to one time period because I'm only familiar enough with the 20th  century to make it worthwhile. I see Pearl Harbor as the true turning point of the second World War, in both theaters, and  disagree with the comment that if we had lost the battle of Midway it would have been all over. The axis in effect lost the war the moment they allowed the full weight of the United States' industrial capacity and population to enter the fray with a fire in the belly. Even if we had lost Midway, it would have at best delayed the outcome by a year or two. The new carriers were reaching the pacific by summer of 1943, by summer of 1945 even if we had lost midway we would have been pushing the japanese back pretty hard. The outrage it  lit in the U.S. population in general gave us the motivation to not only defeat the axis, but changed the course of US Policy forever. Pearl Harbor merely officially legitimized a struggle that had started after the first world war and really entrenched itself with the Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China. It is one of those interesting "won the battle but lost the war" battles for the Japanese.  I agree that if the tables had been turned and we lost our three carriers to maybe one of theirs that we would have still prevailed in the end, but it does offer up some chilling scenerios that would have probably tested American resolve and confidence to a far greater degree than it actually did...Winning Midway, IMO, gave the US the immeadiate confidence that we could, and would, win...A loss would maybe have said: we can win, but when are we gonna start? I'm no naval historian, but I think I disagree with that sentiment.  I think that, had the US lost at Midway, and lost big - like you say three carriers to one of theirs, at the very least the US would have seriously considered a peace with Japan in an effort to focus on the 'main theatre' of the war in Europe.  Also consider that, without those carriers, for all intents and purposes the whole west coast of the US would have been wide open to Japanese attack, Australia would have been completely isolated, and may have fallen as well... Interesting thesis, but I respectfully disagree...now Newt Gingrich has a "what if?" novel out that asks the question: "What if the japanese had humg around Pearl harbor and continued to launch strikes at Pearl harbor, and possibly found the American carriers and dealt with them?" I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback, but in the event, I think had America lost Midway there would be no way in Hell that the US Congress or its citizens would have accepted peace after Pearl Harbor... I feel as though your thesis is flawed because as the Japanese got further from their original lines of communications they became much less effective, and they never made an ampibious assault of any size against serious oposition...when they made limited ones, such as at Wake, they got their lunch handed to them...Other assets would have come into play had we lost Midway...eg: US subs would have wreaked havoc on any fleet that sailed for Pearl or the West coast, as well as the other many naval and air assets the US possessed...Wasp, Saratoga, BB's, bombers, etc...In fact, the US decided very early on that the MAIN threat came from the Germans and that the European theatre would take priority, and it did...IMO, a Japanese victory at Midway would have been a serious blow, but only a temporary one...to think that he US would be sitting at a surrender table 6 months after Pearl borders on the incredible...  I'm not suggesting that the US would have surrendered.  Far from it.  Instead I think the US might have sought (or been forced to seek) a peace with the Japanese if our carriers were wiped out at Midway.  Remember, one of the primary goals for the Japanese in taking Midway was to cut the supply lines to Australia.  This accomplished, and with the Aussie withering on the vine, the US would have found itself pretty much penned up in its own backyard, so to speak.  Sure, maybe, MAYBE, we could have held on long enough to rebuild a few carriers and rush them, with their attendant airwings (remember, if all the carriers were lost, so to were their birds and pilots) to Pearl.  By then who knows what else the Japanese may have been able to do.  You'd basically have Japanese carrier task forces roaming the central and eastern Pacific largely unopposed. Hey, I know we can 'what if' this to death, but one of the reasons Midway is considered to be such a major victory is because of the potential consequences had it been a defeat...

We just have to agree to disagree on this one...Remember, that the US would still have had the Saratoga, Wasp and the Essex, and the Essex class carriers were begining to come on-line in 1942...

I don't think the US would have folded just because Australia was threathened...Look at how timid the Japanese were at Coral Sea...they actually won the tactical engagement but called off the invasion!!! The Japanese (contrary to popular belief) tended to be VERY catious when engaging w/ naval forces...this is seen throughout the war (eg: look at Leyte Gulf)...even at Pearl, a more daring commander would have continued to hammer Pearl Harbor and hunt the carriers down...

As far as all of the air crews being lost, that is pure speculation...when a Japanese ship went down there tended to be excessive of casualties, partly because of cultural beliefs and partly because of poor damage control and life-saving equipment...the US was much better at recovering downed aircrew and sailors...

I'd like to get other viewpoints on this interesting "what-if"...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

bbrowniii wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote:  Tracy White wrote: I'm going to limit my comments to one time period because I'm only familiar enough with the 20th  century to make it worthwhile. I see Pearl Harbor as the true turning point of the second World War, in both theaters, and  disagree with the comment that if we had lost the battle of Midway it would have been all over. The axis in effect lost the war the moment they allowed the full weight of the United States' industrial capacity and population to enter the fray with a fire in the belly. Even if we had lost Midway, it would have at best delayed the outcome by a year or two. The new carriers were reaching the pacific by summer of 1943, by summer of 1945 even if we had lost midway we would have been pushing the japanese back pretty hard. The outrage it  lit in the U.S. population in general gave us the motivation to not only defeat the axis, but changed the course of US Policy forever. Pearl Harbor merely officially legitimized a struggle that had started after the first world war and really entrenched itself with the Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China. It is one of those interesting "won the battle but lost the war" battles for the Japanese.  I agree that if the tables had been turned and we lost our three carriers to maybe one of theirs that we would have still prevailed in the end, but it does offer up some chilling scenerios that would have probably tested American resolve and confidence to a far greater degree than it actually did...Winning Midway, IMO, gave the US the immeadiate confidence that we could, and would, win...A loss would maybe have said: we can win, but when are we gonna start? I'm no naval historian, but I think I disagree with that sentiment.  I think that, had the US lost at Midway, and lost big - like you say three carriers to one of theirs, at the very least the US would have seriously considered a peace with Japan in an effort to focus on the 'main theatre' of the war in Europe.  Also consider that, without those carriers, for all intents and purposes the whole west coast of the US would have been wide open to Japanese attack, Australia would have been completely isolated, and may have fallen as well... Interesting thesis, but I respectfully disagree...now Newt Gingrich has a "what if?" novel out that asks the question: "What if the japanese had humg around Pearl harbor and continued to launch strikes at Pearl harbor, and possibly found the American carriers and dealt with them?" I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback, but in the event, I think had America lost Midway there would be no way in Hell that the US Congress or its citizens would have accepted peace after Pearl Harbor... I feel as though your thesis is flawed because as the Japanese got further from their original lines of communications they became much less effective, and they never made an ampibious assault of any size against serious oposition...when they made limited ones, such as at Wake, they got their lunch handed to them...Other assets would have come into play had we lost Midway...eg: US subs would have wreaked havoc on any fleet that sailed for Pearl or the West coast, as well as the other many naval and air assets the US possessed...Wasp, Saratoga, BB's, bombers, etc...In fact, the US decided very early on that the MAIN threat came from the Germans and that the European theatre would take priority, and it did...IMO, a Japanese victory at Midway would have been a serious blow, but only a temporary one...to think that he US would be sitting at a surrender table 6 months after Pearl borders on the incredible...

I'm not suggesting that the US would have surrendered.  Far from it.  Instead I think the US might have sought (or been forced to seek) a peace with the Japanese if our carriers were wiped out at Midway.  Remember, one of the primary goals for the Japanese in taking Midway was to cut the supply lines to Australia.  This accomplished, and with the Aussie withering on the vine, the US would have found itself pretty much penned up in its own backyard, so to speak.  Sure, maybe, MAYBE, we could have held on long enough to rebuild a few carriers and rush them, with their attendant airwings (remember, if all the carriers were lost, so to were their birds and pilots) to Pearl.  By then who knows what else the Japanese may have been able to do.  You'd basically have Japanese carrier task forces roaming the central and eastern Pacific largely unopposed.

Hey, I know we can 'what if' this to death, but one of the reasons Midway is considered to be such a major victory is because of the potential consequences had it been a defeat...

bbrowniii wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  Tracy White wrote: I'm going to limit my comments to one time period because I'm only familiar enough with the 20th  century to make it worthwhile. I see Pearl Harbor as the true turning point of the second World War, in both theaters, and  disagree with the comment that if we had lost the battle of Midway it would have been all over. The axis in effect lost the war the moment they allowed the full weight of the United States' industrial capacity and population to enter the fray with a fire in the belly. Even if we had lost Midway, it would have at best delayed the outcome by a year or two. The new carriers were reaching the pacific by summer of 1943, by summer of 1945 even if we had lost midway we would have been pushing the japanese back pretty hard. The outrage it  lit in the U.S. population in general gave us the motivation to not only defeat the axis, but changed the course of US Policy forever. Pearl Harbor merely officially legitimized a struggle that had started after the first world war and really entrenched itself with the Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China. It is one of those interesting "won the battle but lost the war" battles for the Japanese.  I agree that if the tables had been turned and we lost our three carriers to maybe one of theirs that we would have still prevailed in the end, but it does offer up some chilling scenerios that would have probably tested American resolve and confidence to a far greater degree than it actually did...Winning Midway, IMO, gave the US the immeadiate confidence that we could, and would, win...A loss would maybe have said: we can win, but when are we gonna start? I'm no naval historian, but I think I disagree with that sentiment.  I think that, had the US lost at Midway, and lost big - like you say three carriers to one of theirs, at the very least the US would have seriously considered a peace with Japan in an effort to focus on the 'main theatre' of the war in Europe.  Also consider that, without those carriers, for all intents and purposes the whole west coast of the US would have been wide open to Japanese attack, Australia would have been completely isolated, and may have fallen as well...

Interesting thesis, but I respectfully disagree...now Newt Gingrich has a "what if?" novel out that asks the question: "What if the japanese had humg around Pearl harbor and continued to launch strikes at Pearl harbor, and possibly found the American carriers and dealt with them?" I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback, but in the event, I think had America lost Midway there would be no way in Hell that the US Congress or its citizens would have accepted peace after Pearl Harbor...

I feel as though your thesis is flawed because as the Japanese got further from their original lines of communications they became much less effective, and they never made an ampibious assault of any size against serious oposition...when they made limited ones, such as at Wake, they got their lunch handed to them...Other assets would have come into play had we lost Midway...eg: US subs would have wreaked havoc on any fleet that sailed for Pearl or the West coast, as well as the other many naval and air assets the US possessed...Wasp, Saratoga, BB's, bombers, etc...In fact, the US decided very early on that the MAIN threat came from the Germans and that the European theatre would take priority, and it did...IMO, a Japanese victory at Midway would have been a serious blow, but only a temporary one...to think that he US would be sitting at a surrender table 6 months after Pearl borders on the incredible... 

OK, this conversation has gotten me thinkin' (DANGER! DANGER!!)...

So, I see that, for the modern era, many have selected the Battle of Midway.  I on the other hand selected the Battle of the Atlantic.  My question is (and, so I don't hijack the thread, maybe I'll also post it in a seperate thread): which would have been more catastrophic: a Japanese victory in the Pacific/Asia or a German victory in the Atlantic/Europe?  Obviously this expands the topic to way beyond the naval theater, but since it started here I guess it should continue here...

PS Manny, if you want me to post this as a seperate thread, no problemo.  Like I said, I am not trying to hijack your thread (although, technically it is your fault that I got to thinkin'...  if you hadn't started this whole thing in the first place...)

 

EDIT: In an effort not to divert the original topic, I think I will go ahead and re-post this question over in the Odds and Ends forum.  If it sparks your curiosity, come on over!!!

 

bbrowniii wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  bbrowniii wrote:  Mansteins revenge wrote: ...in each of the following eras: 5) Modern (20th Century) Don't have time (or the knowledge) to address the others right now, but as for modern, I'd divide it into 'Early (WWI)', 'Middle (WWII)' and 'Late (Post-WWII)'  and my candidates would be: Early: Battle of Jutland for reasons already stated... Middle: Battle of the Atlantic - yes it was a series of battles, but if that battle was lost, so to was England (and probably Russia) Late: not specifically a 'battle' but in my most recent edition of Naval History was the story of how two Egyptian patrol boats became the first warships to sink an enemy combatant (Israeli destroyer - I forget the name) using cruise missles ('Styx' cruise missles, acquired from the USSR) following the Six Day War (again - I think... ) Nice answer...as a matter of fact, the "Battle of the Atlantic" is generally recognized as the longest lasting campaign of WW2... Yup, that it is.  When I get home, I'll also pull out that copy of Naval History to get some of the specifics regarding that cruise missle attack by the Egyptians....

The event to which I refer occurred on 21 October 1967, when the Israeli destroyer Eilat was attacked by two Egyptian patrol boats off the port of Said, on the Sinai coast.  The ship was hit by at least three Styx cruise missles and capsized and sank, killing 47 and wounding 91.

I consider this a very historically significant naval battle because, prior to this event, the US had largely abandoned development of cruise missles.  Following the attack, the Americans re-evaluated that decision and the US cruise missle program was reborn - with the result that today we have such marvels of modern technology as the Harpoon and the Tomahawk (and the Exocet for you French fans...)

PS The Styx is still in service in many developing nations, and its progeny, particularly the Chinese Silkworm, can be found in the hands of many nations, such as Iran and North Korea.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

Tracy White wrote: I'm going to limit my comments to one time period because I'm only familiar enough with the 20th  century to make it worthwhile. I see Pearl Harbor as the true turning point of the second World War, in both theaters, and  disagree with the comment that if we had lost the battle of Midway it would have been all over. The axis in effect lost the war the moment they allowed the full weight of the United States' industrial capacity and population to enter the fray with a fire in the belly. Even if we had lost Midway, it would have at best delayed the outcome by a year or two. The new carriers were reaching the pacific by summer of 1943, by summer of 1945 even if we had lost midway we would have been pushing the japanese back pretty hard. The outrage it  lit in the U.S. population in general gave us the motivation to not only defeat the axis, but changed the course of US Policy forever. Pearl Harbor merely officially legitimized a struggle that had started after the first world war and really entrenched itself with the Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China. It is one of those interesting "won the battle but lost the war" battles for the Japanese.  I agree that if the tables had been turned and we lost our three carriers to maybe one of theirs that we would have still prevailed in the end, but it does offer up some chilling scenerios that would have probably tested American resolve and confidence to a far greater degree than it actually did...Winning Midway, IMO, gave the US the immeadiate confidence that we could, and would, win...A loss would maybe have said: we can win, but when are we gonna start?

I'm no naval historian, but I think I disagree with that sentiment.  I think that, had the US lost at Midway, and lost big - like you say three carriers to one of theirs, at the very least the US would have seriously considered a peace with Japan in an effort to focus on the 'main theatre' of the war in Europe.  Also consider that, without those carriers, for all intents and purposes the whole west coast of the US would have been wide open to Japanese attack, Australia would have been completely isolated, and may have fallen as well...