NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/military/11095

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 5.4 KB | 109 lines

Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
From: "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: AT&T
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:46 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 96


From "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>From [e-mail] (David H. Thornley)
>
>In article <[e-mail]> "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>From "david.r.wells" <[e-mail]>
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>
>>>From [e-mail] (Frank Crary)
>>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>
>>>
>
>The battleships attacked at Pearl might have made 22 knots on a good day,
>whereas all the Japanese carriers actually used in combat could make 24 easy,
>and most of them were a lot faster than that.  The U.S. Pacific Fleet actually
>had a force of six battleships with an escort carrier (presumably to provide
>fighter cover) available for the Battle of Midway; Admiral Nimitz kept them
>on the West Coast so as not to get into trouble.
>
>>[German battlecruiser Gneisenau sunk the British carrier Glorious;
>> battleship guns were perfectly useful against anything in range.
>> The British used their battleships effectively, partly because they
>> had a sizable force of battleships, unlike the U.S. after Pearl Harbor]
>
>Going into WWII, the U.S. had fifteen battleships, of which three were
>considered obsolete due to insufficient protection, although they had
>better protection than some battleships in other navies (including the
>Japanese).  At the end of March 1942, five of these battleships were
>out of commission still due to Pearl Harbor, and therefore the U.S.N.
>had seven old and three older battleships.  In June, the newer battleships
>started to arrive in the Pacific.  The U.S.N. had a strong battleship force
>for some time, and found no way to use it effectively.
>
>>[and partly because their carrier planes weren't very good.]
>
>True enough.  Also, the weather in the North Atlantic was typically nastier
>than the weather in the Pacific, and neither the Germans nor Italians ever
>had carriers, and the Royal Navy was not seriously into sea battles in that
>war, basically because the Axis was going to lose any such battles and they
>knew it.  It was a different theater of war.
>
We have many points of agreement here. But both the Germans and Italians sent
BBs out to fight the RN, with little success. (except for the Hood, the
Glorious, etc) While neither had completed carriers (I'll bet they could have
completed the Aquilla and the Graf Zeppelein if they'd tried) they did often
have land based air available. (especially in the Mediterranean) Yet the
land based air had little effect on allied BBs (nailed the Roma though! Chewed
up the Warspite, but she survived). Still, I must agree, it was a different
situation.

>>My conclusion:
>>If battleships were available, and used well, they were still a
>>major force in World War II, and could, to a certain extent, cope
>>with air attacks. If the American battleships had survived Pearl
>>Harbor, it would have been a different war. I'm sure we would
>>have lost some, (Japanese carrier planes were good!) but I think
>>there would have been some more traditional style battleship
>>actions.
>>
>IMHO, if the Japanese had inflicted minimal damage at Pearl Harbor,
>the war would have proceeded in much the same way.  There would have
>been no more traditional battleship actions, since the U.S.N. would not
>have risked the slower battleships against Japanese air attack, and the
>Japanese would not have tried to engage with their battleships.  The
>only battles the U.S. could not have fielded a powerful battle line for
>were the earliest ones (Java Sea, the invasion of Wake, etc.), and the
>Navy never tried to get these battleships involved in sea battles.
>
Again, some agreement. They never tried. I would argue that this was
the problem. They tended to keep BBs close to the carriers, (because
we learned our lesson well, and gave BBs really great AA guns, the
carriers liked to hide behind them) and the BBs were rarely allowed to
go out and stir up trouble on their own. How long did Lee have to beg
Halsey to let him go chase the Yamato? (and by the time Halsey let him
go, it was too late) (leyte gulf, by the way.) Similar situations were
frequent. If the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had failed, we might
not have learned our lesson quite so well. The black-shoes would have
retained their influence, (instead of being humiliated) the battleships
would have been used more aggressively (possibly with bad results).
Unfortunately, we're getting into the dangerous area of speculative
alternate history here. We'll never know what might have happened.
(although it's fun to think about!). I simply maintain it would have
been different. (<== cop-out opinion! :-) )

            David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article, even the cop-out one,
are not necessarily those of AT&T.