U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998) • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#31

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #23

DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

The Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war. That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

> Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

Japan and the Soviet Union did not go to war with each other until August 1945.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#32

Post by leftyted » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #15

rocketpastsix wrote: post #2

They talk about it in the movie "Midway" (2019). It's definitely one of those things a lot of people thought was embellished to make the incoming battle of Midway look more drastic. However it was absolutely true. Without the dive bombers and code breaking they were able to do in the lead up Midway would have been a disaster for the Americans.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

> There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logistical issues, and within B-17 range of bases in Hawaii) and even the carriers weren't absolutely critical must-not-lose assets for the US like they were for Japan.

The Japanese were well aware of this.

The Battle of Midway was not an attempt by the Japanese to capture Midway but rather to lure the American Pacific Fleet into a trap and to destroy its carriers. Ironically the direct reverse of that happened.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#33

Post by mynameishere » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #20

DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

6-12 months of Japanese free reign in the Pacific might've led to conditions in which the US would've pursued a negotiated peace, though.

6-12 years of Japanese total domination in the Pacific would have led to their eventual defeat. Their probability of victory was zero from day one of the war.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#34

Post by DuskStar » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #32

DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

> There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logistic…

Oh, of course - that's why the Pacific fleet not taking the battle would have left Midway as a minor loss for Japan.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#35

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #31

Spooky23 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war. That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

> Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union. Japan and the Soviet Union did not go to war with each other until August 1945.

Sure, because "Success in 1942" didn't happen.

It might've happened if Midway had gone differently.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#36

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #26

Evil_Saint wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bombed Pearl Harbor knowing that no carriers were docked there at the time. American carriers were not the main objective of the attack. You have to realize carriers were relatively new and not a known commodity like they are today.

And at the same time, carriers were counted as powerful enough to make the opening moves of the war. I don't think Japan was happy to discover that they'd missed all of the US's carriers. I think I've read that Yamato was furious, in fact.

The strike Pearl Harbor did achieve all of Japan's objectives: it prevented the US Navy from rushing to the Philippines' defense or otherwise thwarting their 1941-1942 conquests in Australasia. The IJN was still planning on having their decisive battle strategy, in which the US Navy would be decisively defeated in a pitched battleship battle, where carriers would not matter because carriers are not effective ships of the line, instead being good for scouting missions or harassing of incoming forces.

Ironically, they still held to this strategy in 1944, and attacked the US Navy in the Battle of Leyte Gulf to force their missing decisive battle, using their carrier fleet entirely as a decoy force. Even after there had been only one battleship action in the entirety of the Pacific war to this point, with all other major naval battles involving only the carriers on one or both sides.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#37

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #30

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategically crucial in a Pacific that had seen most everything the Japan side of Midway fall. If Midway had fallen, New Guinea, Coral Sea and Fiji were next in line, putting Australia and New Zealand at risk. What you call minimal gain would, had Yamamoto's plan come off, have put over 60% of the Pacific under Imperial Japanese control. US would have been fighting their way across the Pacific, island to island at a…

You're assuming that Japan could have kept Midway resupplied, let alone defended it. From what I understand, that's very questionable. Midway wasn't keeping Japan contained in the South Pacific - the two were as militarily separated as Midway and the Aleutians. Japan probably could have taken the South Pacific in early 1942, in fact - but instead divided her fleet carriers up piecemeal, available to be defeated in de…

No it wasn't keeping them contained, but it was an attempt to draw out the US carriers. Had the US lost Midway and Japan not got bogged down in the endless, unwinnable campaign in the Solomons that absorbed endless Japanese resources, Yamamoto's plan may have worked as his stepping stone to Hawaii. Only Midway and they probably couldn't have kept it... Had they got to Hawaii, I'm not sure Japan would have cared much about the atoll.

As it was, with help in the Solomons, Midway turned the war in the Pacific. Least that's how I understand it, though I've certainly read more of the war in Europe. :)

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#38

Post by 0az » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #28

DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

Strategically crucial in a Pacific that had seen most everything the Japan side of Midway fall. If Midway had fallen, New Guinea, Coral Sea and Fiji were next in line, putting Australia and New Zealand at risk. What you call minimal gain would, had Yamamoto's plan come off, have put over 60% of the Pacific under Imperial Japanese control. US would have been fighting their way across the Pacific, island to island at a…

You're also assuming that Midway would have fallen. Japanese amphibious doctrine frankly wasn't up to the task of taking a properly fortified Midway.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#39

Post by DuskStar » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #37

DuskStar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that Japan could have kept Midway resupplied, let alone defended it. From what I understand, that's very questionable. Midway wasn't keeping Japan contained in the South Pacific - the two were as militarily separated as Midway and the Aleutians. Japan probably could have taken the South Pacific in early 1942, in fact - but instead divided her fleet carriers up piecemeal, available to be defeated in de…

No it wasn't keeping them contained, but it was an attempt to draw out the US carriers. Had the US lost Midway and Japan not got bogged down in the endless, unwinnable campaign in the Solomons that absorbed endless Japanese resources, Yamamoto's plan may have worked as his stepping stone to Hawaii. Only Midway and they probably couldn't have kept it... Had they got to Hawaii, I'm not sure Japan would have cared much…

My understanding is that while the US losing her carriers at Midway would have allowed Japan free reign in the South Pacific for a few months, that was already the case for anywhere that all 6 fleet carriers showed up. Nothing the US had - combined, worldwide - could match those 6. Killing the US carriers at Midway was just to turn it from a 6v3 to a 6v0 - instead it ended up 2v2, but so goes war.

Japan invading Hawaii would have caused a famine if they succeeded - it'd be even harder to keep supplied than Midway, but with dozens of times the population.

In my opinion Midway marked the turning point of the war in the Pacific, but that turning point was inevitable as long as the US could credibly say "we're going to commission 6 fleet carriers with a full suite of aircraft over a 12 month period". There's a great video here [0] that illustrates the differences in production over the course of the war. For instance, the US commissioned 17 fleet carriers and 9 light carriers from 1941 on - Japan commissioned 7 and 1, respectively.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#40

Post by MS90 » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #31

Spooky23 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war. That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

> Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union. Japan and the Soviet Union did not go to war with each other until August 1945.

They'd had some border skirmishes before WWII even started, with tens of thousands of casualties on each side. The 1941 neutrality pact was a result of a combined Soviet/Mongolian force defeating and removing the Japanese from Mongolia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border...