6 ms·

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

ansible 5y ago
Yes. By the end of the war, the USA had more carriers than then entire IJN surface fleet. Never mind all the cruisers, destroyers and such. And the fuel to run them. The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I don’t think it was ever their goal to straight up fight the US. They just wanted the US standing navy ruined so that they could go about their business in the Pacific. I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Their naval plans specifically aimed for effectively a second Battle of Tsushima. Basically, harass the American strike force from afar to whittle them down as they steam towards the Home Islands in a decisive, epic showdown, and once the Americans lose that engagement and see their entire fleet sunk, they give up and go home. (The Kantai Kessen plan). The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decisive battle, no matter if they were winning or losing the various engagements, but they never got the big battle they wanted. Eventually, they did try to force it at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, although that attempt did not turn out well for them.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      I sometimes get the impression that the last time "decisive" battles worked was during the Napoleonic Wars. And even then the Russian campaign played as much a role as did Waterloo. After that everybody trying to force decisive battles got wars of attrition wich were ultimately lost.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        The person you're replying to literally gave you an example of a decisive battle, the Battle of Tsushima. And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean. The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion. The battles of Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in WWI were decisive and stopped Russia for up to years, and they never recovered in the north, their only successes coming against the Austria-Hungarians. In WWII, the Bagration and Manchurian strategic operations were pretty decisive on land. Midway was on water. The invasions of the low countries and France, Denmark and Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, (present day) Malaysia and Indonesia were decisive and swift as well ( even if they indeed resulted in a war of attrition ultimately lost to allies of the decisively defeated countries in question).
        hef19898 5y ago
        Except Sedan, none of these battles were as decisive, or at least not in tye same sense, as the battles won and lost by Napoleon. The Pacific war just really started after Midway, After Bangration the Nazis didn't surrender. The Low Lands and Denmark fell early in the war. And as you said, despite being turning points, these battles were part of modern industrial wars. They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table. Aiming for that, as part of a strategy, against a peer adversary stopped working in the mid 19th century. One could even argue that the British defeated Napoleon by forcing him into a decisive battle, Waterloo, they could afford to loose but he couldn't. It does work so against adversaries that cannot hope to win, or afford to loose. E.g. Denmark. If Denmark would have been the only country to be conquered that is.
        sofixa 5y ago
        > They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    the Japanese leaders who were US-educated (including Konoe and Yamamoto) absolutely knew that attacking the US would steel the Americans' resolve against Japan: > In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  I wonder why the US doesn’t produce a bunch of WW2 style carriers with light aircraft or helicopters. I’m aware the US has several helicopter carriers, but I would imagine we could build dozens of the things for the price of a nuclear carrier. Obviously they wouldn’t stand up to a near peer competitor but they could be useful for small scale conflicts with far less advanced militaries, which seems to be the pattern lately. Update: It looks like there are such things, called “amphibious assault ships”. Apparently there are 7 of this type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assaul... and 2 of a more recent type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_ass.... It seems they’re about the same length and overall size as a WW2 carrier. So that’s interesting. So there are 11 large nuclear powered carriers and 9 of these smaller type. That’s already kind of a lot.
  - BombNullIsland 5y ago
    The USAF is the "light carrier" fleet. One B-52H can carry 20 air launched cruise missiles.
    - Aloha 5y ago
      I think this is likely the most underappreciated comment on this thread.
  - ckozlowski 5y ago
    It's an idea that gets resurrected every so often too, and I want to say that it's been revisited lately as some articles on DefenceOne and TheWarZone have suggested. There was the idea of the "Sea Control" ship in the 70s that would have built on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship For small-scale conflicts however, it's somewhat paradoxical that a large carrier is what you need. Putting airpower over land from a carrier requires throwing a lot of weight into the air to put an aircraft with both an effective warload and a useful loiter time. This is coupled with a large sortie rate, as the time it takes to get a warplane on station is long and needs to be replaced often. That adds up to a lot of launches. All of that is to say then that you need a larger carrier, ideally with a catapult and the powerplant to fire it often. Skijumps and STOVL don't get you that kind of range except to the beach. So for any kind of land strike mission, you really need a big fleet carrier. But for sea operations, smaller carriers are looking more feasable, so the idea is coming around again. The America class as you mentioned is likely going down this path, and Japan's Izumo-class is likely going to go down this route as well.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
The story is like with USSR, the side thats outproducing is going to win sooner or later.
tosbalok2 5y ago
What's missing from this analysis is that the US industrial base wasn't under attack while it was producing those ships. If you play "what if" and imagine the Japanese had won Midway, and the US had no carriers at all, that gives the Japanese total control of the Pacific. The Japanese can take Hawaii if they want to, because how could the US possibly reinforce and resupply it? The Japanese can attack shipyards and ports on the West Coast at their leisure - and those would be defended obviously, but the attacks would greatly slow the progress of shipbuilding. Fortunately for the US, they have other ports in the Atlantic. So okay, the US builds carriers there. Now the problem is, you can't just build one carrier and send it to the Pacific. If you have just the one carrier, the Japanese will be very eager to sink it. They'll have spies and recon subs so they'll know when it sorties. If you try to take it through the Panama Canal they'll ambush it. The bottom line is, you have to build several carriers before you even think about challenging the Japanese again. That means you're looking at years - YEARS - during which, the Japanese do whatever they like. And when you finally put a carrier task force together, at best it's a fair fight ...you might lose again. And don't forget, while all this is going on you're also fighting Germany.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  I don't understand how you could question American ability to resupply Hawaii but not Japan's, given the fact that the core point is that the IJN could not afford the losses which they were suffering throughout Pacific War while the US could. The supply lines that the IJN would need to reach out so far would have given American forces the overwhelming home field advantage while greatly diminishing the capabilities of the IJN. Conversely it was no accident that the US still endured terrible losses in spite of it's overwhelming numeric advantages. The amount of manpower and material required for such long distant campaigns is enormous, and it's no accident that Super Powers are defined by their ability to wage war far away from home.
  - tosbalok2 5y ago
    > I don't understand how you could question American ability to resupply Hawaii but not Japan's I'm claiming that if one side has a carrier and the other side doesn't, that will determine who can reliably move convoys across the pacific. The carriers have such an enormous capacity for reconnaissance, it's hard for me to imagine a convoy sneaking past them. So if Japan has a carrier dedicated to the blockade of Hawaii, it seems to me that Hawaii is effectively cut off. By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.
aidenn0 5y ago
INJ didn't have a chance to e.g. invade California, but they had a plausible chance to redraw some of the map of the South Pacific, if the US had proved to not have the appetite for prolonged war.
jabl 5y ago
Japan was certainly aware that in a long drawn-out war they had no chance against the industrial might of the USA. The attack on Pearl Harbor was essentially a gamble that by crippling the US Pacific fleet they could sue for peace on terms favorable to them. That is, the USA would leave them alone to continue their imperial ambitions in the Pacific region, and crucially, stop the trade embargo that had quite effectively stopped their oil supply. Well, as it turns out that gamble didn't work out in their favor.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  I’ve heard that USA appeared quite weak in 1940, and Axis strategists laughed with disbelief when they heard the accurate industrial capacity reported. I’m not disagreeing with you —- Japanese military strategists were immense gamblers. I wonder if only a minority of their analysts judged it this way.

ansible 5y ago

Yes. By the end of the war, the USA had more carriers than then entire IJN surface fleet. Never mind all the cruisers, destroyers and such. And the fuel to run them. The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.

Aeolun 5y ago
I don’t think it was ever their goal to straight up fight the US. They just wanted the US standing navy ruined so that they could go about their business in the Pacific. I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Their naval plans specifically aimed for effectively a second Battle of Tsushima. Basically, harass the American strike force from afar to whittle them down as they steam towards the Home Islands in a decisive, epic showdown, and once the Americans lose that engagement and see their entire fleet sunk, they give up and go home. (The Kantai Kessen plan). The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decisive battle, no matter if they were winning or losing the various engagements, but they never got the big battle they wanted. Eventually, they did try to force it at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, although that attempt did not turn out well for them.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I sometimes get the impression that the last time "decisive" battles worked was during the Napoleonic Wars. And even then the Russian campaign played as much a role as did Waterloo. After that everybody trying to force decisive battles got wars of attrition wich were ultimately lost.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      The person you're replying to literally gave you an example of a decisive battle, the Battle of Tsushima. And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean. The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion. The battles of Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in WWI were decisive and stopped Russia for up to years, and they never recovered in the north, their only successes coming against the Austria-Hungarians. In WWII, the Bagration and Manchurian strategic operations were pretty decisive on land. Midway was on water. The invasions of the low countries and France, Denmark and Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, (present day) Malaysia and Indonesia were decisive and swift as well ( even if they indeed resulted in a war of attrition ultimately lost to allies of the decisively defeated countries in question).
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Except Sedan, none of these battles were as decisive, or at least not in tye same sense, as the battles won and lost by Napoleon. The Pacific war just really started after Midway, After Bangration the Nazis didn't surrender. The Low Lands and Denmark fell early in the war. And as you said, despite being turning points, these battles were part of modern industrial wars. They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table. Aiming for that, as part of a strategy, against a peer adversary stopped working in the mid 19th century. One could even argue that the British defeated Napoleon by forcing him into a decisive battle, Waterloo, they could afford to loose but he couldn't. It does work so against adversaries that cannot hope to win, or afford to loose. E.g. Denmark. If Denmark would have been the only country to be conquered that is.
        sofixa 5y ago
        > They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.
- skhr0680 5y ago
  the Japanese leaders who were US-educated (including Konoe and Yamamoto) absolutely knew that attacking the US would steel the Americans' resolve against Japan: > In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
epicureanideal 5y ago
I wonder why the US doesn’t produce a bunch of WW2 style carriers with light aircraft or helicopters. I’m aware the US has several helicopter carriers, but I would imagine we could build dozens of the things for the price of a nuclear carrier. Obviously they wouldn’t stand up to a near peer competitor but they could be useful for small scale conflicts with far less advanced militaries, which seems to be the pattern lately. Update: It looks like there are such things, called “amphibious assault ships”. Apparently there are 7 of this type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assaul... and 2 of a more recent type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_ass.... It seems they’re about the same length and overall size as a WW2 carrier. So that’s interesting. So there are 11 large nuclear powered carriers and 9 of these smaller type. That’s already kind of a lot.
- BombNullIsland 5y ago
  The USAF is the "light carrier" fleet. One B-52H can carry 20 air launched cruise missiles.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    I think this is likely the most underappreciated comment on this thread.
- ckozlowski 5y ago
  It's an idea that gets resurrected every so often too, and I want to say that it's been revisited lately as some articles on DefenceOne and TheWarZone have suggested. There was the idea of the "Sea Control" ship in the 70s that would have built on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship For small-scale conflicts however, it's somewhat paradoxical that a large carrier is what you need. Putting airpower over land from a carrier requires throwing a lot of weight into the air to put an aircraft with both an effective warload and a useful loiter time. This is coupled with a large sortie rate, as the time it takes to get a warplane on station is long and needs to be replaced often. That adds up to a lot of launches. All of that is to say then that you need a larger carrier, ideally with a catapult and the powerplant to fire it often. Skijumps and STOVL don't get you that kind of range except to the beach. So for any kind of land strike mission, you really need a big fleet carrier. But for sea operations, smaller carriers are looking more feasable, so the idea is coming around again. The America class as you mentioned is likely going down this path, and Japan's Izumo-class is likely going to go down this route as well.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

The story is like with USSR, the side thats outproducing is going to win sooner or later.

tosbalok2 5y ago

What's missing from this analysis is that the US industrial base wasn't under attack while it was producing those ships. If you play "what if" and imagine the Japanese had won Midway, and the US had no carriers at all, that gives the Japanese total control of the Pacific. The Japanese can take Hawaii if they want to, because how could the US possibly reinforce and resupply it? The Japanese can attack shipyards and ports on the West Coast at their leisure - and those would be defended obviously, but the attacks would greatly slow the progress of shipbuilding. Fortunately for the US, they have other ports in the Atlantic. So okay, the US builds carriers there. Now the problem is, you can't just build one carrier and send it to the Pacific. If you have just the one carrier, the Japanese will be very eager to sink it. They'll have spies and recon subs so they'll know when it sorties. If you try to take it through the Panama Canal they'll ambush it. The bottom line is, you have to build several carriers before you even think about challenging the Japanese again. That means you're looking at years - YEARS - during which, the Japanese do whatever they like. And when you finally put a carrier task force together, at best it's a fair fight ...you might lose again. And don't forget, while all this is going on you're also fighting Germany.

onepointsixC 5y ago
I don't understand how you could question American ability to resupply Hawaii but not Japan's, given the fact that the core point is that the IJN could not afford the losses which they were suffering throughout Pacific War while the US could. The supply lines that the IJN would need to reach out so far would have given American forces the overwhelming home field advantage while greatly diminishing the capabilities of the IJN. Conversely it was no accident that the US still endured terrible losses in spite of it's overwhelming numeric advantages. The amount of manpower and material required for such long distant campaigns is enormous, and it's no accident that Super Powers are defined by their ability to wage war far away from home.
- tosbalok2 5y ago
  > I don't understand how you could question American ability to resupply Hawaii but not Japan's I'm claiming that if one side has a carrier and the other side doesn't, that will determine who can reliably move convoys across the pacific. The carriers have such an enormous capacity for reconnaissance, it's hard for me to imagine a convoy sneaking past them. So if Japan has a carrier dedicated to the blockade of Hawaii, it seems to me that Hawaii is effectively cut off. By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.

aidenn0 5y ago

INJ didn't have a chance to e.g. invade California, but they had a plausible chance to redraw some of the map of the South Pacific, if the US had proved to not have the appetite for prolonged war.

jabl 5y ago

Japan was certainly aware that in a long drawn-out war they had no chance against the industrial might of the USA. The attack on Pearl Harbor was essentially a gamble that by crippling the US Pacific fleet they could sue for peace on terms favorable to them. That is, the USA would leave them alone to continue their imperial ambitions in the Pacific region, and crucially, stop the trade embargo that had quite effectively stopped their oil supply. Well, as it turns out that gamble didn't work out in their favor.

ttyprintk 5y ago
I’ve heard that USA appeared quite weak in 1940, and Axis strategists laughed with disbelief when they heard the accurate industrial capacity reported. I’m not disagreeing with you —- Japanese military strategists were immense gamblers. I wonder if only a minority of their analysts judged it this way.