What if?

[carpenoctem1689]

Lets say there was no Pearl Harbor, because japan wanted to capture china and utilize it before fighting the united states, which Yamamoto said would crush them after the "sleeping giant was awoken". Lets say the japanese and the germans/italians all went for russia and china. Without america officially "in the war" the germans would have a much easier time holding out in North Africa along with the italians, and the japanese navy could be brought to bare on the british eastern forces of the royal navy. The carriers could launch long range fighters "zeros" and dive bombers and horizontal bombers "Vals and Kates" against coastal and inland targets against the soviet union. The Land based fighters and bombers would hit farther in from bases in Manchuria, and all the men gaurding islands in the pacific would be freed up for renewed offensives against the chinese and some against the russians. With barbarossa kicking off, the russians would move production facilities back, haha in the range of the japanese bombers like the Betty, which could pound them into rubble. With russia taking hits from both sides i think it would have fallen. How about your thoughts?

[hellmaker]

I don't know. Russia had an advantage. It's teritory was vast, It's resources were plentyfull. It could have sustained a longlasting war. It could bing troups from all over the teritory. And might have stood a chance...

[syscom3]

Japan had already gotten its butt kicked in the Manchurian incident in the late 30's. I dont think they would have wanted to attack Russia unless it was apparent that they were going to collapse.

As for attacking the European colonies in Asia, I think they could have done that without drawing in the US. Up untill Dec 7th 1941, large numbers of Americans did not want the US dragged into any war in which those colonies were being protected.

As events bore out, the allied forces in the far east were shown to be paper tigers.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

Lets say there was no Pearl Harbor, because japan wanted to capture china and utilize it before fighting the united states, which Yamamoto said would crush them after the "sleeping giant was awoken". Lets say the japanese and the germans/italians all went for russia and china. Without america officially "in the war" the germans would have a much easier time holding out in North Africa along with the italians, and the japanese navy could be brought to bare on the british eastern forces of the royal navy. The carriers could launch long range fighters "zeros" and dive bombers and horizontal bombers "Vals and Kates" against coastal and inland targets against the soviet union. The Land based fighters and bombers would hit farther in from bases in Manchuria, and all the men gaurding islands in the pacific would be freed up for renewed offensives against the chinese and some against the russians. With barbarossa kicking off, the russians would move production facilities back, haha in the range of the japanese bombers like the Betty, which could pound them into rubble. With russia taking hits from both sides i think it would have fallen. How about your thoughts?

lol This sounds alot like the strategy to use and win at Allies and Axis board game. This works very well for the Axis powers to do. It would be interesting to have seen what would of happened. I think USA still would of come into the war, just when ? mmmm At the time USA was against joining the war, but its stance was softing as Britain was starting to do very well vs Germany, had Britain rolled over quickly I think USA would really not wanted to join the war. But Britain was doing well as could be expected. Russia wanted no part of war with Japan either b/c of Germany on her eastern front. Japan did not want any part of Russia either until Germany had almost defeated her, then Japan would of came in and grabbed whatever she could of. But keep in mind as far as Japan was concerned they had to go to war, they felt they had no choice. They needed to aquire oil rich lands and that was in the South Pacific. USA (and Britain, Aust, New Zeland) was not going to let that happen. They thought well the big threat is USA so lets try and cripple her fast and go from there and hope USA would come to terms with Japan, letting her have the oil rich lands. They knew they could not win a long war with USA, everyone knew that. But they hoped after suffering big time early USA would not have the stomach for a long war, they were wrong. Now what would of been interesting would of been what you are asking. mmmmm I think USA would of joined the war and the result would of been the same. I think they would of joined maybe late 42 or early 43. But whos to say thats just a guess really, but interesting never the less.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Without Pearl Harbor the US would have still eventually joined. It is a known fact that Roosevelt wanted to end the isolationism and get into the war as quickly as possible. Pearl Harbor just spead up the process.

[P38 Pilot]

In my opinion, if Hitler had kept to what he had planned, he would have captured Russia, and utimately have invaded British soil. Germany would've never have been able to dominate America, but could've gone close to our borders.

[carpenoctem1689]

I have played axis and allies and have "changed" the rules, for truces and alliances, transfer of funds and forces, and the game became so much more fun. My partner was defeated as germany (i was japan) and america wasnt in the war, but russia and britain were, russias western front (against my japanese) was on its knee's, while the germans on the east and western fronts was on its knees. My partner and i conferred and i told hime to build battleships and U-boats and get them to me, under africa, and transfer them to me at wars end for him, so i could boost my already large navy. He got me two battleships, and three U-boats and a carrier, not to mention some other smaller vessels, non-combat. With that and my massive navy, i launched an attack on america and crippled theyre navy, somehow survived theyre aerial assault and landed on theyre east coast, beating them to a stalemate in the middle of the US. Finally i succame to the odds, but i held out for a five day struggle after germany fell. Thats where i got the idea, though i dont believe an american invasion was near impossible.

[P38 Pilot]

Im actually going to disagree with you.

In my opinion, the Japanese may have had a powerful navy, but when it came to their army, they had outdated weapons, most relied on banzai charging techniques, and they would've been out-numbered because the US would've kicked them off our shore.

The US had a regular infantry rifle: The M1 Garand, which was far supieor than the Japanese Bolt action rifle. We would've driven off our land with simply our better technology, and increasing number of soldiers on the east coast that would've came here to beat the mess out of the Japanese.

[evangilder]

Originally Posted by P38 Pilot

The US had a regular infantry rifle: The M1 Garand, which was far supieor than the Japanese Bolt action rifle. We would've driven off our land with simply our better technology, and increasing number of soldiers on the east coast that would've came here to beat the mess out of the Japanese.

While I believe that an invasion of the US would have been impossible to sustain. I think if the Japanese were to invade, it would have been on the west coast.

[carpenoctem1689]

I had meant to post that it was impossible, not possible for an invasion. They had horrible weaponry when compared to ours. Osaka rifles and those machine guns with the Solid feeder belts, just not good enough. There artillery was mostly outdated, and there tanks too small, too lightly armed, and not enough armor, range, or speed. I meant to post that if they had ever reached the coast (simply impossible, they only held the aleutians from a mix of weather and distance from american airfields) they would have been crushed, and beaten right back into the sea.

[P38 Pilot]

I think if the Japanese were to invade, it would have been on the west coast.

I know, but reinforcements from the East would've have come to help out. Army, Marines, whatever.

They had horrible weaponry when compared to ours. Osaka rifles and those machine guns with the Solid feeder belts, just not good enough. There artillery was mostly outdated, and there tanks too small, too lightly armed, and not enough armor, range, or speed. I meant to post that if they had ever reached the coast (simply impossible, they only held the aleutians from a mix of weather and distance from american airfields) they would have been crushed, and beaten right back into the sea.

Exactly! Their weapons are really bad. Hell, some of their rifles were single shots!

[plan_D]

While the Japanese weapons were not on par with U.S weapons by 1942 standards, they certainly were enough to wage effective jungle warfare. The Japanese troops did not rely on Banzai charges, this was an alternative and scare tactic used by the Japanese in the early years with devestating effect. It was not until Allied troops became seasoned to the battle conditions in South-East Asia that a Banzai charge became less of a threat, and more of some target practice.

The Japanese equipment was light for a reason, they fought in jungles. And while some may look small, they were also good. The Japanese mortars and infantry-cannon were extremely effective because they were small and easy to move around in such confined spaces. The Japanese soldiers had an extremely excellent ability to bring all various kinds of weaponary to bare at once, this would often give the impression of a larger force, it also had the advantage of variety. A variety of weaponary is much more destructive than one kind.

The Japanese rifles being bolt-action is not a problem. All Allied armies main combat rifles were bolt-action, and they had no problem. Many people would have rather carried a Lee Enfield Mk.IV than a M1 Garand. A well trained soldier can have a bolt action rifle firing so quickly you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, especially since a trained soldier is told; "Single aimed shots,". Suppressing fire is a job for the LMG, although anymore weaponary is always good if you want fire supremacy. The main problem with the Japanese rifle was it's length, Japanese people are naturally of a smaller structure than Europeans. The length made it hard to carry, aim and fire which made the Japanese soldier clumsy.

Japan would have never been able to sustain an invasion of the U.S.A - nor would it have even been able to get to the beaches. Japan wasn't capable of destroying the USN and USAAF, and it's troops were specialised to jungle warfare.

[syscom3]

There was no possibility of Japan to ever invade the US. Their existing logistics wouldnt have even been able to support an invasion of Hawaii, let alone the west coast.

Plan D is correct about the IJA and its weapons. Nowhere as good as the allies, but they were just as deadly. If the IJA excelled in one thing, it was light infantry tactics at night. If they thought they could maneuver around allied positions, they did so with gusto, cunning and professionalism.

They were not supermen, but they were not pushovers either.

Anyone read about the campaign for New Georgia in July/August 1943? Here was a case where the started the fight with well trained and supplied soldiers who knew what they were doing. And they did a darn good job at holding up two US infantry divisions for nearly a month, while inflicting casualties that far exceeded what occured on Guadalcanal.

[carpenoctem1689]

The japanese learned theyre tactics for jungle fighting on the asian mainland. In china, manchuria and so forth. They became adept at fighting, and the americans, at first, didnt have tactics for clearing a jungle island which spelled alot of trouble. The Japanese did have good mortars, ill give them that, small mortars, operated by two people, one carrying the fully assembled tube and some ammo, and the other carrying a rifle and some ammo, they made good teams and certainly made the men duck and cover. Theyre cannons and rifles werent as good, and right, they were very long, which was meant, with the bayonet, to give them an advantage in close quarters fighting, because they were trained alot in it. Hell the officers carried some damn nice Katana, that wouldnt do much else besides be a good piece of show, unless you can get within three feet of an enemy, and that was rare, but when it happend....lop there goes a limb. The japanese had rigid tactics based on intimidation and surprise. They used banzai charges as a scare tactic to overwhelm the enemy, a visiual "force multiplyer" relying on screams and human waves. They worked.....at first. As the war waged on, the troops understood the tactics, and the inflexibility at times of tactics. Supplies on a besieged island the japanese held were hard to come by, so tactics were either to wait until theyre on the beach and then open up inland, or hit them when theyre on the shore. Either way they would get platsered from the air or naval guns, and howitzers when they came ashore. The machine guns the japanese were issued looked like they were from world war one armies. They used solid belt ammo, theyre firing rate wasnt the highest either, in part because of the need to constantly get a new belt of ammo. Theyre pouches they carried theyre ammunition in were inferior, in that they held little ammo, and they absorbed water, ruining and expanding the ammunition within, and i dont think they ever really solved that problem. They became good jungle fighters, but the bushido code, and theyre never ending need for honor and fight to the last men made them not the most effective enemy, in that they could have caused many more casualties to the assaulting force had they operated differently.

[plan_D]

"Theyre cannons and rifles werent as good, and right, they were very long, which was meant, with the bayonet, to give them an advantage in close quarters fighting, because they were trained alot in it."

The length of the rifle being a hinderance was before the bayonet was even attached. It wasn't designed for close quarters combat, it was just that Japan didn't have a shorter design. The Japanese soldiers would have found a God send in a M1 Carbine.

The infantry cannon of the IJA were, in fact, extremely effective and deadly. It was small and adaptable which proved a shocking success against the Allied troops, who did not like it one bit.

The IJA artillery on the other hand left a lot to be desired. Compared to the OQF 25pdrs mostly used by the British in the CBI all Japanese artillery was clearly inferior for the combat conditions.

"Hell the officers carried some damn nice Katana, that wouldnt do much else besides be a good piece of show, unless you can get within three feet of an enemy, and that was rare, but when it happend....lop there goes a limb."

No offense but I don't think you know very much about the jungle warfare in WWII. On the contrary getting into hand-to-hand combat in the jungles was a common occurance in comparison to normal pitched warfare. In some jungles you can barely see three feet in front of your face and be stood on the enemy before you even know he's there.

More than once tens and hundreds of soldiers would come into contact and fight with cold steel rather than rifle in the jungles of South-East Asia. It was a distinct advantage for the Japanese officers to be armed with such a weapon when so often hand-to-hand combat took place.

My grandfather was once jumped in the jungle and had a knife to his throat, luckily the man who had jumped him was a Ghurka who soon realised his mistake.

"The japanese had rigid tactics based on intimidation and surprise. They used banzai charges as a scare tactic to overwhelm the enemy, a visiual "force multiplyer" relying on screams and human waves. They worked.....at first. As the war waged on, the troops understood the tactics, and the inflexibility at times of tactics."

While there is a good argument for the IJA being rigid in their approach, the opposite could be argued for in just the same manner. When the IJA caught on to an idea then they would often stick at it. Time and time again I've read of the Japanese charging the same spot over and over and over again, providing the Allied gunners good practice.

However, the IJA were able to change and when they did, it was drastic. They would use combinations of many different tactical approaches and more often than not their approach would be the best. The divisional tactics of the IJA were extremely good.

The basic principals of the soldier tactics in the IJA were to use fear and intimidation to crack the enemy before even attacking, the final charge was just the final nail in the coffin for the Allied soldiers. In the jungles it still managed to be effective in some circumstances even into 1945. But it was, on a whole, out-dated and the Allies knew what to expect. And, in fact, it was a hinderance to the Japanese effort.

So, I suppose in the personal combat point of view they were rigid (and clumsy at times), but above that they were flexible.

"Supplies on a besieged island the japanese held were hard to come by, so tactics were either to wait until theyre on the beach and then open up inland, or hit them when theyre on the shore. Either way they would get platsered from the air or naval guns, and howitzers when they came ashore."

This is hardly a fault of the IJA. When any nations armies are besieged there's little for them to do but wait for a rescue or attempt a breakout. A breakout off an island is impossible, the forces on those islands were at the mercy of the Allies.

" The machine guns the japanese were issued looked like they were from world war one armies. They used solid belt ammo, theyre firing rate wasnt the highest either, in part because of the need to constantly get a new belt of ammo. Theyre pouches they carried theyre ammunition in were inferior, in that they held little ammo, and they absorbed water, ruining and expanding the ammunition within, and i dont think they ever really solved that problem."

I don't see this as a problem in general. The Japanese support weapons were adequete for the job, and the ammo carried was always enough for combat. So, I don't think the problem would have been solved as it was not much of a problem.

"They became good jungle fighters, but the bushido code, and theyre never ending need for honor and fight to the last men made them not the most effective enemy, in that they could have caused many more casualties to the assaulting force had they operated differently."

The IJA was an excellent army, it was fast, flexible and lived off the land. Their movement skill was excellent, and as syscom mentioned, at night they were barely matched. In their movment and logistical ability the IJA cannot be faulted. They were also the masters of stealth, and combined arms. But in combat itself the IJA was clumsy and at points predictable.

By 1943 the Allied forces in the CBI were about equal of the Japanese in jungle warfare. At the time of the second Chindit operation, they had surpassed them. From the start, the commander of the 'Forgotten 14th' knew that the only way to win was beat the Japanese at their own game and that they did.

The IJA needed to learn to retreat, regroup and form effective defence but they never did. It was always an offensive attitude which did not serve them well during 1943, right up until the end.