If the US had only gone to war with Japan in WW2?

[RandomPoster]

How long would a Japan vs. USA war have lasted after Pearl Harbor if America had sent everything they had at Japan?

 

[rightwinger]

2 years

 

[shockedcanadian]

2 years

Thereabouts.

The truth is, the Zeroes were a better plane and their pilots better trained on average at the beginning of the war. Longer range and much better maneuverability, and, if I remember correctly, they had a larger navy (airforce?) at that point. At the top end though, U.S pilots were superior. The Battle of Midway was a prime example of this, and the turning point.

Sadly, less experienced U.S pilots were sent out early, fodder and scouting and they suffered great losses during the battle. Their sacrifices made it possible for the U.S to successfully take out the Japanese there. By the end of Midway, the U.S had employed the Thach Weave, which minimized the successes of the Japanese in Dogfights and better skilled pilots dive bombed at will with great success. This was repeated in multiple battles with increasing ease.

Also, even if the Japanese finished the job at Pearl Harbor, they were doomed. U.S war time manufacturing crushed them in rapid fashion. There are some great time line videos out there showing how fast the U.S navy ramped up their fleet after Japan had an early lead.

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. However, in my opinion, it ensured submission. To think it took two of them shows just how the Japanese were unwilling to accept defeat.

 

[harmonica]

How long would a Japan vs. USA war have lasted after Pearl Harbor if America had sent everything they had at Japan?

..another ''what if'' thread
''what if'' threads are not realistic
....remember the Pacific was not a built up area....and modern, built up ports can handle only so many ships/material at a time anyway....you could've sent more ships and material, but it would've been backlogged big time
..they had trouble loading/unloading the ships they had in some areas

..there were only so many landing beaches that were suitable for landing craft
...there were only so many airfields to hold so many aircraft --you could build more--but the manufacturing, loading, then shipping, then unloading, then moving that material was just as much a time table problem as the actual battles were--if not MORE so

....most of the Pacific battles were minuscule compared to the European/N African theaters ....the islands/etc were taken fairly quickly ...

..the US was just gearing up for war in 1941..it took a long time to build all those bombers/ships/fighters/...produce the weapons.....etc
..it took a lot of time to:
assemble civilians to the military training areas
train these troops
move these trained troops to the coast
ship these troops to the battle area
etc

 

[shockedcanadian]

How long would a Japan vs. USA war have lasted after Pearl Harbor if America had sent everything they had at Japan?

..another ''what if'' thread
''what if'' threads are not realistic
....remember the Pacific was not a built up area....and modern, built up ports can handle only so many ships/material at a time anyway....you could've sent more ships and material, but it would've been backlogged big time
..they had trouble loading/unloading the ships they had in some areas

..there were only so many landing beaches that were suitable for landing craft
...there were only so many airfields to hold so many aircraft --you could build more--but the manufacturing, loading, then shipping, then unloading, then moving that material was just as much a time table problem as the actual battles were--if not MORE so

....most of the Pacific battles were minuscule compared to the European/N African theaters ....the islands/etc were taken fairly quickly ...

..the US was just gearing up for war in 1941..it took a long time to build all those bombers/ships/fighters/...produce the weapons.....etc
..it took a lot of time to:
assemble civilians to the military training areas
train these troops
move these trained troops to the coast
ship these troops to the battle area
etc

It certainly could have lasted longer, it depends on what one means by "defeat".

Without nukes but with all resources pointed at Japan alone though, and the rapid expansion by the U.S at an unheralded clip with a sole focus on crushing Japan in a much more straight forward strategic objective than helping save Europe, 2-3 years is possible.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

 

[shockedcanadian]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

You underestimate the legendary mentality of the Japanese, from the days of the samurai. Their Imperial Military Code was to never surrender. I suppose you could argue it was illegal to surrender.

Many are convinced they surrendered due to Russia entering the war and were looking to avoid their pillaging. I'm not so sure. I do know, there is a great distinction between starving citizens and the Imperial Military.

If the nukes were unnecessary, why didn't the first unthinkable bomb force their surrender?

 

[Camp]

How long would a Japan vs. USA war have lasted after Pearl Harbor if America had sent everything they had at Japan?

..another ''what if'' thread
''what if'' threads are not realistic
....remember the Pacific was not a built up area....and modern, built up ports can handle only so many ships/material at a time anyway....you could've sent more ships and material, but it would've been backlogged big time
..they had trouble loading/unloading the ships they had in some areas

..there were only so many landing beaches that were suitable for landing craft
...there were only so many airfields to hold so many aircraft --you could build more--but the manufacturing, loading, then shipping, then unloading, then moving that material was just as much a time table problem as the actual battles were--if not MORE so

....most of the Pacific battles were minuscule compared to the European/N African theaters ....the islands/etc were taken fairly quickly ...

..the US was just gearing up for war in 1941..it took a long time to build all those bombers/ships/fighters/...produce the weapons.....etc
..it took a lot of time to:
assemble civilians to the military training areas
train these troops
move these trained troops to the coast
ship these troops to the battle area
etc

It certainly could have lasted longer, it depends on what one means by "defeat".

Without nukes but with all resources pointed at Japan alone though, and the rapid expansion by the U.S at an unheralded clip with a sole focus on crushing Japan in a much more straight forward strategic objective than helping save Europe, 2-3 years is possible.

The main aircraft used for bombing Japan was the B-29 and did not become operational until 1944.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

You underestimate the legendary mentality of the Japanese, from the days of the samurai. Their Imperial Military Code was to never surrender. I suppose you could argue it was illegal to surrender......

The Samurai were long gone by 1945, and you don't support an army without resources no matter what "mentality" people imagine from comic books. Anyone who studies actual Japanese history instead of just watching cartoons knows that there were wars and surrenders all the time when there still was a samurai class. Anyone who studies the history of WWII and the years leading up to it knows that there were divisions and conflicting factions within the government to say the least. There are several rather long threads about all this, but the fact is Japan had lost the war before hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly were incinerated (or worse) in order to carry our fdr's bloodthirsty desire from beyond the grave.

 

[shockedcanadian]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

You underestimate the legendary mentality of the Japanese, from the days of the samurai. Their Imperial Military Code was to never surrender. I suppose you could argue it was illegal to surrender......

The Samurai were long gone by 1945, and you don't support an army without resources no matter what "mentality" people imagine from comic books. Anyone who studies actual Japanese history instead of just watching cartoons knows that there were wars and surrenders all the time when there still was a samurai class. Anyone who studies the history of WWII and the years leading up to it knows that there were divisions and conflicting factions within the government to say the least. There are several rather long threads about all this, but the fact is Japan had lost the war before hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly were incinerated (or worse) in order to carry our fdr's bloodthirsty desire from beyond the grave.

I may not have read a great deal of specific history on Japan, but I've read a great deal of history in general, in particular, WW2 and other global combat situations.

Kamikaze Pilots were not cartoons, they were real. Many Japanese soldiers referred to the Seppuku Code before battle. Even when the Japanese government surrendered there were holdouts who didn't believe the surrender (as it was so unthinkable), or, simply refused to.

Again, I have to ask, if Japan was so close to crumbling as you suggest, "why not surrender after Hiroshima?"

 

[Unkotare]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

You underestimate the legendary mentality of the Japanese, from the days of the samurai. Their Imperial Military Code was to never surrender. I suppose you could argue it was illegal to surrender......

The Samurai were long gone by 1945, and you don't support an army without resources no matter what "mentality" people imagine from comic books. Anyone who studies actual Japanese history instead of just watching cartoons knows that there were wars and surrenders all the time when there still was a samurai class. Anyone who studies the history of WWII and the years leading up to it knows that there were divisions and conflicting factions within the government to say the least. There are several rather long threads about all this, but the fact is Japan had lost the war before hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly were incinerated (or worse) in order to carry our fdr's bloodthirsty desire from beyond the grave.

I may not have read a great deal of specific history on Japan, but I've read a great deal of history in general, in particular, WW2 and other global combat situations.

Kamikaze Pilots were not cartoons, they were real. ...."

The institution of the use of tokkotai was in fact an unambiguous sign that the Japanese Air Force was finished.

 

[whitehall]

It's not hard to find evidence that the FDR administration criminally misjudged Japan's military strength. The administration considered the Japanese to be little yellow nearsighted people with a balance problem that prevented them from building a ship that would float or a plane that would fly. FDR considered Japan to be a pushover and invited attack so that we could get into the "real war" in Europe.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't think it would have ended any sooner. The Japanese were prepared to fight to their death, and an invasion of their home islands would have resulted in catastrophic casualties.

As previously stated, it was the threat of a Russian invasion that triggered the decision to surrender. Without our entry into the European war, Germany would have defeated the USSR and that threat to Japan would have been eliminated. Then what would we have done after using up our only two nukes?

 

[rightwinger]

It's not hard to find evidence that the FDR administration criminally misjudged Japan's military strength. The administration considered the Japanese to be little yellow nearsighted people with a balance problem that prevented them from building a ship that would float or a plane that would fly. FDR considered Japan to be a pushover and invited attack so that we could get into the "real war" in Europe.

Link that isn’t a conspiracy theory site

 

[harmonica]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

..go to the bombing thread

 

[harmonica]

...

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. .....

Absolutely not. Japan was already all but defeated before Truman carried out fdr's ghoulish wish. The populace was literally starving to death and deeply demoralized. The use of the atomic bomb on civilians was unnecessary.

..after the ABombs they voted to surrender or not--the vote was TIED 3- 3
they were NOT surrendering /not giving up

 

[whitehall]

It's not hard to find evidence that the FDR administration criminally misjudged Japan's military strength. The administration considered the Japanese to be little yellow nearsighted people with a balance problem that prevented them from building a ship that would float or a plane that would fly. FDR considered Japan to be a pushover and invited attack so that we could get into the "real war" in Europe.

Link that isn’t a conspiracy theory site

There is no internet site. You have to look in ....shudder....books.

 

[harmonica]

2 years

.... they didn't have MANY of the warships until mid 1943 to late 1943!!!!!!!!
how are they going to win the war by Dec 1943 [ faster ] without the warships??
is this MAGIC????!!!!! read my first post
US Navy Aircraft Carriers, 1940-1945
HyperWar: US Navy Ships, 1940-1945
look at these COMMISSIONING dates in the link-

here's one example

On 16 August 1943, she was commissionedwith Captain Thomas L. Sprague in command before heading to the Caribbean for shakedown and training. She thereafter returned to Norfolk, before departing on 3 December, bound for San Francisco. She proceeded on to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, arriving there on 10 January

1944
5 months after commissioning to get to PH--NOT the war zone
as I stated in my first post--it takes time--then more time to put everything in place

USS Intrepid (CV-11) - Wikipedia

ww2dbaseThe first action that saw LSTs in service was the Solomon Islands Campaign in Jun 1943,

LST-class Landing Ship

for D-Day the US had a whopping 3 BBs and and 2 CAs--
....there was not a significant amount of warships in the European Theater to make the Pacific War that much shorter--especially in 1943

F4U Corsair did not get into major large scale operations until mid 1943

.....as Camp stated we did not have the B29 until after 1943-so Japan is not getting bombed much, at all

especially after the Solomons campaign, the invasions used carriers for support/defense--and we did not have that many carriers even BUILT before mid 1943
etc etc

 

[harmonica]

2 years

Thereabouts.

The truth is, the Zeroes were a better plane and their pilots better trained on average at the beginning of the war. Longer range and much better maneuverability, and, if I remember correctly, they had a larger navy (airforce?) at that point. At the top end though, U.S pilots were superior. The Battle of Midway was a prime example of this, and the turning point.

Sadly, less experienced U.S pilots were sent out early, fodder and scouting and they suffered great losses during the battle. Their sacrifices made it possible for the U.S to successfully take out the Japanese there. By the end of Midway, the U.S had employed the Thach Weave, which minimized the successes of the Japanese in Dogfights and better skilled pilots dive bombed at will with great success. This was repeated in multiple battles with increasing ease.

Also, even if the Japanese finished the job at Pearl Harbor, they were doomed. U.S war time manufacturing crushed them in rapid fashion. There are some great time line videos out there showing how fast the U.S navy ramped up their fleet after Japan had an early lead.

Ultimately, without the nuke, it could have gone on for many years. However, in my opinion, it ensured submission. To think it took two of them shows just how the Japanese were unwilling to accept defeat.

see post # 18

 

[harmonica]

again-- a lot of you people are in TV land/movie land
you do not think realistically
it's not a BOARD GAME