We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor • Hacker News Board

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#161

Post by skhr0680 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 4:29 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #129

ansible wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#162

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 4:52 AM UTC

graycat wrote: post #92

SkyMarshal wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of luck involved in the US victory at Midway is astonishing. About the only part of it not due to luck was the codebreaking that tipped off the US about the coming Midway attack, the heroic efforts of the dock workers in getting the damaged Yorktown fixed and back to sea in 72hrs, and persistence of the aviators who finally broke through the Japanese defenses and hit the carriers. This video series from th…

As I studied Midway, the conclusion I came to was that the Japanese made a big mistake: They had two attacks for two quite different goals going at once, and the two conflicted and were one too many. The two attacks were (1) attacking the ground installations on Midway island and (2) defending against the US aircraft carriers. For (1), the main goal of the whole operation was to take Midway island, but early in that…

Great post. And one of the things that sometimes is overlooked and might be a bit overshadowed in your post was the adherence to doctrine that Japanese commanders had - that’s why the planes were sitting on the carriers in the first place.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#163

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

willhslade wrote: post #107

snakke wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.- The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the m…

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces.

It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#164

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

magicsmoke wrote: post #125

JackFr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.

The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.

Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#165

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:30 AM UTC

lucas_membrane wrote: post #137

CamperBob2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One complication is that sinking a US carrier would likely trigger nuclear retaliation. Even if the enemy is in a good position to do so, that will make them think twice.

The new paradigm of China, the current naval rival of the US in the Pacific, is more akin to imitating ants than to imitating sharks. The Chinese are expanding their spheres of influence, power, and control (e.g. in the South China Sea) gradually by a plethora of means that each irritate, annoy and distress the Americans. There is no reason for China to want to sink an American carrier. Extrapolating ahead 20 or 30 y…

> I believe that the majority in the US would prefer naval disarmament to having Chinese ships and planes patrolling 13 miles off US shores the way US Navy ships have operated near China.

If they are in international waters than nobody will care. But China doesn’t have the resources to build ships to routinely project power off the US coast. Ask yourself - why are they building empty skyscrapers? Couldn’t they build ships instead?

Chyna fear is very overrated.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#166

Post by aidenn0 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

onepointsixC wrote: post #87

jabl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the Americans were very lucky at Midway indeed, with the dive bombers avoiding running into fighters, and the hangar decks filled with loaded and fuelled bombers waiting to be spotted once the attacks were over. Which made them extremely vulnerable to anything hitting the hangar decks, and even a few hits were enough to doom the ships. Not entirely unsurprising that upon entering the jet age the USN dem…

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

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.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#167

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:32 AM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #111

CamperBob2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Sinking an aircraft carrier would likely kill several thousand personnel at once. If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will.

Bringing down the Twin Towers in NYC killed several thousand people at once. US did not use nukes against Taliban/Al-Qaeda in response.

There wasn’t a single country to really nuke. If it was a conventional military power then the U.S. would have went to war and began attacking actual things like ships or air bases. Taliban didn’t really have those. What are you going to do, nuke random places in Afghanistan for no reason?

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#168

Post by jabl » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

onepointsixC wrote: post #87

jabl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the Americans were very lucky at Midway indeed, with the dive bombers avoiding running into fighters, and the hangar decks filled with loaded and fuelled bombers waiting to be spotted once the attacks were over. Which made them extremely vulnerable to anything hitting the hangar decks, and even a few hits were enough to doom the ships. Not entirely unsurprising that upon entering the jet age the USN dem…

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

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.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#169

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #67

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his regime. Saved our asses in the European theater, in WWII. Hitler was an insecure micromanager. His generals represented generations of military expertise. They were really good. There's a number of places where Germany could have won the war, but were short-circuited by der dumkopf fuhrer

I'm not sure about that. His generals really screwed up the Eastern theatre in the late 1940s. Hitler knew they needed to secure the oil in the Caucasus but the generals were myopically focused on an Eastern advance and on securing useless symbolic military wins that contributed nothing towards the oil effort. It's because they weren't capable of understanding the dire economic need for oil and were too zoned in on t…

> His generals really screwed up the Eastern theatre in the late 1940s. Hitler knew they needed to secure the oil in the Caucasus but the generals were myopically focused on an Eastern advance and on securing useless symbolic military wins that contributed nothing towards the oil effort.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the attack on Stalingrad was a diversion for a symbolic victory ordered by Hitler. And when German forces were getting beat he ordered them to fight to the last man, and the general in charge was a rule follower and did not disobey orders.

In other words, I think you’re blaming the wrong person here. Germany’s generals were on the way to the Caucasus to do exactly what was needed (from Germany’s perspective) but Hitler stopped them because he was going crazy and wasn’t a good military commander.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#170

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #131

I'm surprised to see no mention of the interesting recent book, 2034 by a recently retired us admiral, about how in about 10 years China, through tech superiority, could beat the us, and badly. "A Novel of the Next World War, 2034", by Elliot Ackerman and James G. Stavridis. It has a lot of things that resonate with these war games thoughts. I loved it.

If you like reading about this stuff, Rand Corporation has a fascinating analysis that I recommend reading. Long story short is the US wins in almost all cases except a short violent war with severe losses up-front, but that is very unlikely and it may actually result in the US engaging in a long-term violent war. China knows this too. The longer it takes for this war to happen the better China will do, but the U.S. geographic situation is too good. The U.S. east coast is permanently protected which means supplies come in, planes can be built, etc. and the U.S. can indefinitely attack and harass Chinese forces.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html