Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jopax]

They would've been cut off though and probably couldn't last that long, and if they did dig in the Japs could just ignore them since they're on an island and can't really do much without risking total destruction. And controling Hawaii would give the Japs a nice base of operation which could monitor most of the sealanes in the Pacific, denying any resupply attempts from the US.

And yeah, spare parts wouldn't be that useful, but ammo can always be used with looted weapons and there would've been plenty of those lying around. Planes too I think, tho I'm not entirely sure what the US had stationed there at the start of the war and how useful it would've been to the Japs.

[MonkeyHead]

I might be at risk of voicing a dissenting opinion here, but what the hell.

If Japan had landed at Pearl Harbour, and attempted some sort of occupation, it would have ended in disaster. A huge force would have been needed to take control of it from the US, and as already mentioned, it would have been at the extreme end of their supply capabilities, and you could bet that the US would throw whatever it took to take it back, as soon as possible. The loss of a lot of Japanese men and materiel in such a fiasco would probably serve to shorten the war in the Pacific.

As for Japan not attacking Pearl Harbour... that too serves to shorten the war despite delaying its onset, by leaving the US with much greater strength in the area to strike with when Japan finally went one step too far.

[10ebbor10]

You're not voicing a dissenting opinion. Jopax is the only one who's slightly positive about the chances of invading Hawai.

As for Japan not attacking Pearl Harbour... that too serves to shorten the war despite delaying its onset, by leaving the US with much greater strength in the area to strike with when Japan finally went one step too far.

Not really. Pearl Harbour was more of a moral victory. The Battleships, which constituted the majority of the losses, where mostly useless at this point in history.

The Pearl Harbour infrastructure and the assets that went on to damage the Japanese forces, the US carriers and submarines, were completely undamaged by the Pacific Harbor raid.

[mainiac]

Battleships aren't useless in WWII.  Yes in a straight up naval engagement you would rather have another carrier then another two battleships but a battleship is still very useful.

-The pacific is full of islands that need to be invaded in bloody engagements.  Battleships greatly reduce the casualties involved taking those.
-The battleships sunk at Midway were good for bringing another 70 AA guns to the fight each.  That's a good chunk of flak.  And US naval AA got very potent in the later war.  You wouldn't want to operate without carriers but you'd much rather your task force be packed with battleships and cruisers when enemy planes around.
-Battleships serve as a very powerful deterrent for enemy cruisers and battleships and give your carriers more freedom of movement then without them.

With perfect hindsight it would be ideal to have fewer battleships and rely more on cruisers to support the carriers.  But that wasn't the situation in Pearl Harbor.

Why would the US declare war? Couldn't Japan makes an agreement with the Dutch for DEI oil?

Not with what Japan was doing in China.

It's possible that the US would have settled for just supplying more and more to the Chinese.  The Japanese were less likely to win in China than the Germans were to win in Russia.  So the US could have just supplied more to the Chinese by the southern route (or opened up a northern route through the Soviet Union).  And that would have helped in Europe quite a bit.  Directly that's 22 divisions that go to Europe instead of the Pacific.  Indirectly the Lend Lease to Russia can take a Pacific route instead of the dangerous Atlantic route or the very long Persian route.  But that's accepting a very, very large number of Chinese deaths to save a relatively small number of Americans.  I just dont think FDR was cold enough to do that.

New question:
What if the US hadn't been isolationist in the 1930s and had declared war on Germany at the same time as Canada did?  Lets suppose that the US army was as small as it was historically.

[Sergarr]

Presumably the same thing that happened when UK declared war on Germany: nothing really happens, at least for the first three months.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Yes, but 1940 would be rather different.

I think the first change would  be Operation_Weserübung. IRL Germany lost three cruisers and ten destroyers, with American Navy around, that could be even more painful. 

[Sheb]

Maybe too soon, but what if Ukrainian troops had shot the little green men in Crimea?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Russia would claim that Ukraine attacked Crimean self-defense units and\or Russian Black Sea Fleet and started a full scale invasion with Kiev falling in a week...

 

[WealthyRadish]

Yeah, Russia would probably invade the rest of Ukraine, and I don't think the international response would be that different. I'm surprised they didn't take more/all of Ukraine when it became so obvious that NATO was going to do everything short of doing anything.

I don't think FDR would've declared war on Japan (before entering the war in Europe anyway) given any amount of atrocities. It's not like the US entered the war in Europe for ethical reasons while the Nazi atrocities were well known, or has ever entered a war just to stop a genocide (except for some UN interventions). Nobody batted an eye later at killing/wounding ~1 million German and Japanese civilians for negligible gains, so it's not like the US actually had any kind of a fundamental objection (outside of rhetoric) to what was being done serious enough to lead to war.

[Guardian G.I.]

Maybe too soon, but what if Ukrainian troops had shot the little green men in Crimea?

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs would issue a press release expressing Russia's concerns over the escalating conflict in Ukraine and once again stating Russia's commitment to maintaining friendly relations with its Western partners.

[Loud Whispers]

Back to a US invasion of Europe, what would be the US's answer to fighting in European cities? Windy, labyrinthine cities whose only guides travel in the black cabs of mysterious path sages?

[smjjames]

Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII? I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.

[Sergarr]

Back to a US invasion of Europe, what would be the US's answer to fighting in European cities? Windy, labyrinthine cities whose only guides travel in the black cabs of mysterious path sages?

Depends on what do US want from European cities.

If US wants to leave the city somewhat intact then US should besiege it, cut off electricity/water/food supplies and wait. That should guarantee that the city surrenders in a few weeks.

[ggamer]

Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII? I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.

Don't really know what's being talked about here, but I just popped in an I might as well respond to this.

So, the thing is, Iraq/Afghanistan and a hypothetical invasion of Europe are two different things.

In the Middle East, we are fighting insurgents inside a nation, with that nation's consent. Urban warfare becomes much more tricky when the people you are trying to fight are also hiding as citizens that you are (most of the time) trying to protect.

A conventional war in Europe, however, is another affair entirely. Things become much easier when your enemy actually has non-combatants and an industrial base that they need to protect. In a conventional war, fighting would be brutal and drawn-out. However, there would be little to no risk of civilian casualties, because your enemy would have evacuated most-if-not-all non-combatants. At the very least, they would be in uniform (assuming we're following the constraints of the Geneva Convention, IIRC)

E: What I mean by that last sentence, is that if there is a large pool of non-combatants in the city (more likely than I think now that I think about it), they will at least be uniformed enemy personnel, rather than plainclothes normal-looking citizens.

So no, urban warfare isn't urban warfare.

[Loud Whispers]

Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII?

Bomb everything with air strikes and artillery? Possible I guess, but not a full solution.

I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Bagdhad's not as neat of a grid as many American cities are, but they're still rather neat.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then you get cities like Paris where you should basically just kill yourself already.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A look at London that's all over the fucking place.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Berlin ruins the combo by having a neat city. Casuals.

The vast series of underground tunnels, metros, sewers and WWII bunkers are also not to be forgotten.