Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 decis…
We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
171–180 of 245 posts
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 l…
The USAF is the "light carrier" fleet. One B-52H can carry 20 air launched cruise missiles.
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.
And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk.
Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.
Now what do you do?
Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology.
I'm not sure what the current level of coverage these things have, but it seems that today the technology exists to track surface naval assets day and night, and through clouds, at a somewhat affordable cost (for a superpower wannabe). So the trick of hiding a carrier battle group in the vast ocean might no longer work.
> the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles.
Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles. I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.
> 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.
Of course, but that goes the other way as well; if those carriers launch strikes against a big modern opponent you're also in for a big time war. I just hope neither side commits such a folly.
> 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.
Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.
Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 effectiv…
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#177Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Most people think the Eastern front was an act of lunacy. In reality it was an act of utter necessity. Hitler's only chance of potentially winning WW2 (if there ever was a real chance) was to capture more oil in Eastern Europe. They were running on the fumes of synthetic oil created from coal at that point. Stalin knew Hitler's objectives well because of how hard Hitler was pushing for oil in negotiations be…
I think many people fail to understand that during WW2 the Wehrmacht was often forced to rely on horse carts for transporting supplies to the front. They didn't have fuel for trucks.
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#179In other wargames: You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2]. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste... [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a1...
Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"