GrogHeads Forum

History, Reference, Research, and GrogTalk => Military (and other) History => Topic started by: besilarius on March 11, 2012, 03:40:05 PM

Title: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: besilarius on March 11, 2012, 03:40:05 PM
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Here is a study by the author's of Shattered Sword. 
They look at the industrial output fo American and Japan.  Just a straight comparison of the two nations' industrial base, and their production, leads the author's to the conclusion that Japan never had a chance in a long war.
The only way for a victory, was to break America's will, early in the struggle.  This complete misreading of the situation, and of their enemy, doomed them from the moment they initiated the combat.
What do you think?  Are they misinterpreting their facts?  Are they ignoring important factors?
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 11, 2012, 03:47:03 PM
I think they're spot on.

Yamamoto knew he had six months to run free in the Pacific once he attacked. After that he knew they were doomed.

I suppose if we had lost all of our carriers at Pearl it would have been a greater struggle - especially if the fuel depots at Pearl had been hit as was planned in the third wave. But even then the industrial might of America was going to overcome the Japanese, though it might have taken longer.

The only other major item that might have changed the strategic situation was the dropping of the bomb. If we had undertaken Operation Olympic and suffered half a million more casualties, even our resolution during World War II may have started to flag. America was thrilled to have finished fighting in Europe. We probably would have seen things through another two years in Japan, but on one would have been too happy about it.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
The ultimate outcome was predictable.  The time frame was not.  Why a small country like Japan with limited resources would take on a country the size of the United States, still eludes me.

WWII was the last war in my opinion where our government had the will to win.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on March 12, 2012, 04:42:50 AM
why do you always think that the invasion of the japanese main island would be such a bloody mess?
with an even larger superiority in air and artillery assets than in europe Japan might have lost a lot of its fighting capability.
the german did not surrender on any mentionable scale but outnumbered as they were the fighting power was reduced a lot.
wouldn't the same happen in japan? wouldn't they be cut off from oil, steel and whatever?
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Martok on March 12, 2012, 06:27:48 AM
Quote from: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
The ultimate outcome was predictable.  The time frame was not. 
Agreed.  It's possible Japan may have been able to run rampant around the Pacific for a year or two longer than they did (had certain events happened a bit differently), but they were never going to win in the long term. 



Quote from: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 12:25:19 AMWhy a small country like Japan with limited resources would take on a country the size of the United States, still eludes me.
At the risk of oversimplifying the issues, I'd say it was a combination of greed/ambition, hubris, and wishful thinking. 


Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 12, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: Keunert on March 12, 2012, 04:42:50 AM
why do you always think that the invasion of the japanese main island would be such a bloody mess?
with an even larger superiority in air and artillery assets than in europe Japan might have lost a lot of its fighting capability.
the german did not surrender on any mentionable scale but outnumbered as they were the fighting power was reduced a lot.
wouldn't the same happen in japan? wouldn't they be cut off from oil, steel and whatever?

One need only look to the islands - especially Saipan - where the Japanese fought to get a preview of what was in store.

The Japanese during WWII were fanatical to the last man. Germans, when outnumbered and defeated sometimes (maybe often) surrendered. The Japanese never did. Or never did to an extent that mattered.

I remember a news piece from when I was a kid. Nixon was still President IIRC. It was the 1970s and on one of the Pacific Islands (I want to say Philippines) this old guy wandered out of the jungle and finally decided it might be time to accept that the war was over. He'd been hiding for 40 years.

In the Japanese home islands they were teaching women and children to fight with sharpened sticks.

Fighting the Japanese would have been a nightmare. The projected casualties were 500,000 US. I suspect that number is underestimated.

At the WWII museum in New Orleans there is a picture on display showing the amount of destruction on Japan's major cities. These vary, but it is fair to say that roughly 45% of every major city had been bombed to rubble. And the Japanese were just getting started to fight.

"Nightmare" is not a strong enough word to describe the scenario of invading the Japanese home islands.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: mirth on March 12, 2012, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
Why a small country like Japan with limited resources would take on a country the size of the United States, still eludes me.

They had done it before, against Russia, and won.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: W8taminute on March 12, 2012, 02:02:00 PM
Quote from: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
WWII was the last war in my opinion where our government had the will to win.


Amen to that brother.  Let me add one more thing to that however.  WWII was the last war in my opinion where our government and our people had the will to win.  WW2 was the last war where we were not afraid to win no matter the cost, to us or to the enemy.  There was no concern about collateral damage.  Today, we spend more time, it seems to me anyway, worrying about not offending our enemies with respect to race, religion, or creed, when we should be going through them like crap through a goose. 
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 12, 2012, 02:54:35 PM
I have read estimates that an invasion of Japan in fall of 1945 would have cost 1 million plus casualties. I've also read that Allied GIs by far preferred fighting the Germans (and definitely the Italians) to the Japanese, who were not even seen as human. I know that's how my Grandfather felt, even though most of his friends were killed fighting the Germans.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 12, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
Quote from: Gusington on March 12, 2012, 02:54:35 PM
I have read estimates that an invasion of Japan in fall of 1945 would have cost 1 million plus casualties. I've also read that Allied GIs by far preferred fighting the Germans (and definitely the Italians) to the Japanese, who were not even seen as human. I know that's how my Grandfather felt, even though most of his friends were killed fighting the Germans.

That's pretty much as I understand it, Gus.

One need spend a little time reading up on the PTO to understand how tenacious the Japanese were. The million figure casualty is probably closer to the truth, but the half-mil is the number put forth at the WWII museum and is, at the very least, a conservative number.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on March 12, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
ww2 was compared to all the following wars also one with more than enough reasons to fight. there was no general, no defence minister needed to explain in long sentences what this fight was about. the us was attacked on it's own ground by a easily identifiable ennemy. there was no preemptive bla bla, no sending troops to places you have never heard before to fight for a regime that was more than questionable and what not.

not saying that other wars were not justified. Korea and Vietnam? those were gambles between the two superpowers in proxy states. not quite the same as attacking the us fleet and sinking half of it. Iraq? Afghanistan? i guess a lot uf the us citizens gave a shit about those countries. i guess every war post ww2 was harder to sell then ww2 after Pearl Harbour.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: besilarius on March 12, 2012, 06:00:50 PM
One point that was seemingly swept under the rug, was that there really was no military obligation to invade the Japanese home islands.
At least one study ended up suggesting that a total blockade would force the government to surrender or face mass starvation.
The idea of not invading seems to have been something that the army fought tooth and nail.  Having assembled such a force, the idea of not using it seems to have not been acceptible.
MacArthur in particular seems to have been intotal denial about the scale of casualties.  He did not project a walk over, but estimated that american losses would be very few.  (Have to look this up.)
I think that Harry Truman realised he had to end the war soon.  The american people were weary and wanted it over.  A blockade would take months to have the desired effect, while seemingly nothing was being done.
Also, having spent a fortune on the Manhattan Project, he felt it should be tried.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 10:08:34 PM
Weren't the Russians close to getting involved also?
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 13, 2012, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Epee1 on March 12, 2012, 10:08:34 PM
Weren't the Russians close to getting involved also?

Not sure. IIRC they were more than happy to let the US do the heavy lifting - especially after the beating they took on the Eastern Front.

Remember, they only got involved in the very last few days of the war and only then to snatch a few of Japan's northern Kuril Islands.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 13, 2012, 08:09:53 AM
Quote from: besilarius on March 12, 2012, 06:00:50 PM
One point that was seemingly swept under the rug, was that there really was no military obligation to invade the Japanese home islands.
At least one study ended up suggesting that a total blockade would force the government to surrender or face mass starvation.
The idea of not invading seems to have been something that the army fought tooth and nail.  Having assembled such a force, the idea of not using it seems to have not been acceptible.
MacArthur in particular seems to have been intotal denial about the scale of casualties.  He did not project a walk over, but estimated that american losses would be very few.  (Have to look this up.)
I think that Harry Truman realised he had to end the war soon.  The american people were weary and wanted it over.  A blockade would take months to have the desired effect, while seemingly nothing was being done.
Also, having spent a fortune on the Manhattan Project, he felt it should be tried.

Interesting point. Something in the very back of my mind says you may be right, but maybe it was a remark in high school because I can't remember reading or watching a show about this.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 13, 2012, 10:10:59 AM
The Russians did get involved, they invaded and took Japanese territory at the Sakhalin Islands. Unless you meant something else, Epee? That move by the Russians also prompted the US to use the bomb instead of a blockade to show the Russians where we stood.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Epee1 on March 13, 2012, 11:10:25 PM
Yep Gus that was what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 09:13:59 AM
Sakhalin Islands are still a touchy subject between Russia and Japan today. IIRC they are resource rich with oil, etc.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Martok on March 14, 2012, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 09:13:59 AM
IIRC they are resource rich with oil, etc.
I heard something to that effect as well.  Of course, Japan was already keen to get Sakhalin back even before this was the case... 

Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on March 14, 2012, 03:50:27 PM
yeah heard that too
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 08:22:59 PM
Periodically, 1-2 times a year, negotiations between Russia and Japan over the Sakhalin Islands make it into the press too.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 14, 2012, 09:11:44 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 12, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: Keunert on March 12, 2012, 04:42:50 AM
why do you always think that the invasion of the japanese main island would be such a bloody mess?
with an even larger superiority in air and artillery assets than in europe Japan might have lost a lot of its fighting capability.
the german did not surrender on any mentionable scale but outnumbered as they were the fighting power was reduced a lot.
wouldn't the same happen in japan? wouldn't they be cut off from oil, steel and whatever?

One need only look to the islands - especially Saipan - where the Japanese fought to get a preview of what was in store.

The Japanese during WWII were fanatical to the last man. Germans, when outnumbered and defeated sometimes (maybe often) surrendered. The Japanese never did. Or never did to an extent that mattered.

I remember a news piece from when I was a kid. Nixon was still President IIRC. It was the 1970s and on one of the Pacific Islands (I want to say Philippines) this old guy wandered out of the jungle and finally decided it might be time to accept that the war was over. He'd been hiding for 40 years.

In the Japanese home islands they were teaching women and children to fight with sharpened sticks.

Fighting the Japanese would have been a nightmare. The projected casualties were 500,000 US. I suspect that number is underestimated.

At the WWII museum in New Orleans there is a picture on display showing the amount of destruction on Japan's major cities. These vary, but it is fair to say that roughly 45% of every major city had been bombed to rubble. And the Japanese were just getting started to fight.

"Nightmare" is not a strong enough word to describe the scenario of invading the Japanese home islands.


My grandfather fought the Japs over Asia, mostly in India. He was in both great wars. I can vouch for the sharpened sticks line for both sides in that theatre from his account. They had all run out of ammo. Sticks were lighter than empty rifles for all day use of bayonets. He was sticking their soldiers in hand to hand combat. Fortunately they did not have the deep martial arts training of their feudal era. He said he was sticking waves of them that were charging his position. They had no choice but to hold.


I remember a scene in a Chinese restaurant when my grandfather was visiting. He was really angry about being there. My dad was arguing with him he has to let it go the war was many years ago. And they are Chinese not Japanese, they were on our side! I remember my dad turning to me saying "Blood hell, he's thinking he's using a bayonet!" I looked to see Grandad arguing with a waiter for fish and chips with his arms making repeated shovelling motions. I didn't understand it, I was 7 or 8 at the time. He took that hatred with him to the grave. War really screws over the soldiers.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 14, 2012, 09:16:08 PM
Hell of a story, Kev. I can't imagine what those guys went through. Nobody understood PTSD.

I guess the best you could do was head down to the VFW, get plowed with your buds, and hope you didn't dream about it.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on March 15, 2012, 02:30:09 AM
i've got one PTSD syndrom story to tell:

in the austrian neighbourhood of my grandfathers house there was one strange home i felt really uneasy about (i was a kid then). the garden was completely empty, only grass no walls, no plants nothing. all the windows of the home were shut with metal plates (you could call it Zombie proof).

an old man was living there but was seldomly seen and called crazy. he was a ww2 war veteran. when he finally died they found a bunker in the basement of his home and this was where he lived and probably felt save.

very scary. at least he did nothing Fritzl like down there.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 15, 2012, 09:46:09 AM
My Grandfather was totally changed by WWII. My father in law, in the Army Reserves, didn't fight overseas in Vietnam but lost almost all of his friends to the war. I was changed by 9/11 in ways that remain to be seen. And on and on.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on March 22, 2012, 06:07:41 PM
and i believe some have even been changed by their struggle with HoI 3 and PoN .
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Martok on March 23, 2012, 04:43:47 AM
^  I can't decide if I should facepalm or laugh at that one. 

Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 23, 2012, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Martok on March 23, 2012, 04:43:47 AM
^  I can't decide if I should facepalm or laugh at that one.

I did both - because it was both funny and true.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: besilarius on March 29, 2012, 08:08:48 PM
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html

Here is a link to a site with great videos.  They change the free ones every month, so the list will change in two days.
Right now, they have the WWII Defence News movie of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.  It is clearly not a comprehensive, or critical, treatment of the battle.  However, there are some really good shots of the ships and planes involved in the battle.
Around eight minutes in, there is a segment covering the Surigao Strait fighting.  Some good sequences of ships firing their main guns.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: DoctorQuest on March 29, 2012, 09:40:38 PM
If you've never read "Flyboys: A True Story of Courage" by James Bradley, I would recommend it. A lot of background on why each side fought as they did.

I would say as with most wars it all comes down to supply. Both the USSR and the US had almost inexhaustable supplies of both men and material and the supplies were well protected.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Con on March 29, 2012, 10:05:01 PM
Ian Toll who wrote six frigates just recently finished the first of trilogy of books on the PTO.  The first one is Crucible and in it he gives a good breakdown of the Japanese attitudes and what lead to what they called Victory Disease.  Any Japanese ministers and citizens who advocated for peace were either forcibly removed or assassinated by more martial minded underlings.  It was a very different cultural push that lead to Japan initiating hostilities than what occurred with Germany.

Very good read and worth a spot on any good grognards bookshelf

Con
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Gusington on March 30, 2012, 09:49:07 AM
^Thanks for that. I have become totally fascinated with Japan's history lately and haven't read a good book on the Pacific War in 20+ years.
Title: .
Post by: eyebiter on March 30, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on March 30, 2012, 10:37:45 PM
Quote from: eyebiter on March 30, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
What if the Japanese attacked the British and Dutch without declaring war on the US?  If the Japanese captured Hong Kong, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, and Rabaul...would the isolationist USA been willing to declare war?

No.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: MengJiao on May 21, 2012, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 30, 2012, 10:37:45 PM
Quote from: eyebiter on March 30, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
What if the Japanese attacked the British and Dutch without declaring war on the US?  If the Japanese captured Hong Kong, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, and Rabaul...would the isolationist USA been willing to declare war?

No.

I suspect the USA would have gone after the Japanese at that point.  After all War Plan Orange and Rainbow 5 (actually all of the Rainbow plans) took that as the most likely way the war would start.  With no Pearl Harbor and a US buildup in the Phillipines and the US Navy already building up (remember the USA started full mobilization and the Draft and a huge naval build up more than a year before Pearl Harbor).  However, that might have given the Japanese just the opening they needed since they could inflict a really bit defeat in their home waters and the US might have been willing to negotiate at that point.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Joseph on May 23, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
  It is conceivable that Japan could have won, but by that logic, it is also conceivable that the Roman Empire might have survived to the present day. Japan simply lacked the indusrial and scientific base to win a protracted conflict. Japan best shot might have been to "turn north" to grab Vladivostock, Mongolia, etc.
Still, their first blunder was to try to conquer China. That straine d their resources enough that they thought they had to seize the Southern Resources Area, and they couldn't realstically hope to do that without first crippling the Pacific Fleet.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on May 23, 2012, 11:05:05 AM
Quote from: Joseph on May 23, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
  It is conceivable that Japan could have won, but by that logic, it is also conceivable that the Roman Empire might have survived to the present day. Japan simply lacked the indusrial and scientific base to win a protracted conflict. Japan best shot might have been to "turn north" to grab Vladivostock, Mongolia, etc.
Still, their first blunder was to try to conquer China. That straine d their resources enough that they thought they had to seize the Southern Resources Area, and they couldn't realstically hope to do that without first crippling the Pacific Fleet.

Welcome! Good point.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Electric_Strawberry on May 23, 2012, 05:01:41 PM
The US followed a "Europe First" strategy during WWii which relegated the Pacific Theater to a very subsidiary status.  80% of US resources were devoted to defeating Hitler.  It can almost be said that the US defeated Japan with one hand tied behind its back.  Did Japan have a realistic chance of winning?  No.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: LongBlade on May 23, 2012, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Electric_Strawberry on May 23, 2012, 05:01:41 PM
The US followed a "Europe First" strategy during WWii which relegated the Pacific Theater to a very subsidiary status.  80% of US resources were devoted to defeating Hitler.  It can almost be said that the US defeated Japan with one hand tied behind its back.  Did Japan have a realistic chance of winning?  No.

I chimed in immediately with a "no" and the above is a good reason.

The only possible chance Japan might have had would have been the US following a Europe-First strategy followed by no atomic bomb.

Operation Olympic was conservatively estimated at half a million casualties. The US, after the euphoria of defeating Europe, might not have had the patience for another two years of chasing the Japanese into the mountains of Honshu.

It is unlikely that the US would have quit altogether, but it *might* have settled for something short of unconditional surrender. Japan still would have paid a severe price, though.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: pawelj on May 24, 2012, 05:34:26 PM
Anyway you slice it and dice it, with US industrial strength, geographic location and a vastly superior combined arms military by 1943 ( particularly air power and artillery capable of overcoming any defences or offensive action of the enemy), not just Japan but no country, had any chance, without nuclear weapons and capabilities to deliver them, to win against the US.
The number of half a million on invasion of mainland Japan was repeated so often people stated to believe it, but I don't think it is realistic. US did not loose that many up to that point fighting on many fronts. By then Japanese army would be a in a very sorry state with no air support and outclassed equipment what was left of it. It would have been a slaughter, but of the Japanese. Of course there would be casualties, but 50 - 100 thousend is probably more realistic estimate and only if the Japanese were fighting to the last man for the last of their islands. And of course it would have taken more time and treasure to finish something that was already a done deal.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: besilarius on May 24, 2012, 05:40:38 PM
Another point to chew on is the lack of development in both German and Japanese air forces.
Except for a few designs, FW190, Me262, and such, both air forces by about 1943, were overtaken by allied development.  In effect, by  deciding to recycle older aircraft designs, they made themselves into second rate forces.
By trying to fight the war on the cheap, you could argue it ended up a false economy.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: W8taminute on May 24, 2012, 07:25:51 PM
^Never really thought of the air war like that but I see your point.  I agree that by 1943 the allied production output definitely was starting to be felt by the axis.  By 1944 all of the allies pretty much had excellent front line aircraft in great quantities.  That is of course until the jet made it's debut, but with a leadership that didn't appreciate it's potential early on and an economy that was in shambles it was too little, too late.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Keunert on June 03, 2012, 07:08:06 AM
i always read this the other way round: the us and russia relied on 'cheap' mass producable weapons (Sherman, T-34), including aircraft compared to overly complex german weapons.
and i also believed that the different FW 190 versions were on par with most allied planes. it sure wasn't second rate? and the Me262 surely was one of the most modern
ww2 aircraft designs.

wouldn't you rather have to argue that the limited german production capacity made it impossible to introduce the newer weapons in the numbers to effectively replace the pre/early war designs like the Bf109 or the Panzer III ?
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 03, 2012, 08:40:23 AM
To throw a curve into the discussion, imagine that the Germans bypassed Stalingrad and eventually captured the Caucasus oilfields and been able to refuel their war effort. The war on the Eastern front could have stalemated (due to the Soviets' losing the aforementioned oil supply) and the Anglo-American effort in the West might have become a bit more desperate, requiring an even greater refocus away from the Pacific. Stalingrad was, after all, fought starting only 8 months after Pearl Harbor. Also, on an unrelated note, Japanese submarine doctrine was to only attack warships when possible which meant that Allied supplies shipped with little hassle to where they were needed. US sub doctrine was almost the opposite, allowing the virtual strangulation of the Japanese war effort which was almost entirely dependent on outside resources and one of the primary reasons for their expansionism to start with. BTW, the use of unrestricted submarine warfare by the US was used by the defense team of Adm. Karl Donitz during his Nuremberg trial to try and keep him out of the gallows. It worked.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: besilarius on June 03, 2012, 12:31:21 PM
In regards to the air forces, I think a lot of the problem stemmed from Hitler and Goering in Germany.
A number of high ranking luftwaffe leaders, like Field Marschal Milch, argued for a strategic bomber.  Putting the relocated Soviet factories under the threat of air attack would have disrupted the Soviet production effort.  It could have greatly complicated the distribution of new equipment, by attacking the rail lines, and would have, at first, been hard for the Soviet Union to oppose, because all of their fighters were designed for medium and low altitude.
The resources would have been a significant drain on the Geman war effort, but the potential effect on the Soviet Union was obvious to the air planners.
Their probelm was the stonewalling of Goering.
He always came back by saying that the Fuehrer would ask what was being done with all the resources.  What Adolf meant was how many planes are you building.
A long range, four engine bomber took the resources of approximately 2.2 medium bombers, like the JU88.
So Georing could say they were building twice as many medium bombers than if the effort was put into long range bombers.
With this attitude, and the general unwillingness to develop most new plane designs, by 1944, the Luftwaffe, no matter how numerous, was fighting with designs that were five years old, or more.  Remeber Kurt Tank's initial design  that became the FW190 dated from 1937.
This lack of forward thinking also kept engine technology from rapid development, and greater production.
Since the war proved longer than Hitler or Goering anticipated, they ended up way behind the devlopment curve.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 03, 2012, 12:47:24 PM
As Nimitz and others have pointed out - we learned pretty late in the war that we could've just blockaded Japan with subs and starved them out.  By the time we figured that out, we were knee-deep in island-hopping.  Plus, it wouldn't've been nearly psychically satisfying enough.
You still would've had the land war in the C-B-I theater, but really, they wouldn't've lasted with the home islands starving to death.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 03, 2012, 12:50:55 PM
Quote from: Joseph on May 23, 2012, 10:42:31 AMStill, their first blunder was to try to conquer China.


Quote from: The Princess BrideYou fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: FarAway Sooner on June 19, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
No, the Japanese were never a serious threat to win the War in the Pacific.  They didn't have the population center, the industrial base, the unity of purpose, or the practical attitudes towards war to win it.

The more I read about the Japanese conduct of WW II, the more it seems that it was primarily viewed as an arena to maximize personal honor, with the added benefit of serving national interests.  Viewed in that way, their decision making processes were badly flawed, impractical, and more intent on "going out in a blaze of glory" than in destroying enemy forces.

Shattered Sword gives a good analysis of how lacking and inflexible the Japanese were in developing a well-rounded war-fighting attitude.  You get a similar understanding from Bergerud's Fire in the Sky, which looks at the air war in the South Pacific. 

They knew how to create great warriors, but they had no idea how to mass-produce good warriors, and they had no systems in place to keep their swords sharp on the scale that modern industrial warfare called for.
Title: Re: Could Japan have won in the Pacific?
Post by: AmericanPride on June 24, 2012, 01:19:27 PM
The Japanese had no intention of waging a total war against the United States, so even if they had the economic and military capacity to do so, they would not have been prepared for it. The Japanese were focused on building their empire in China and Indochina, and attacked the US on the assumption that America would intervene to defend British, French, and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. Consequently, the Japanese assumed that a decisive strike to destroy America's Pacific fleet would bring the US to peace quickly, and give them freedom of maneuver in Asia. Obviously, this was based on many false assumptions.