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

[Dan Stubbs]

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

We had no reason to make war on Japan. They were at war with China. They would have won, but hooked up with Germany that put us on a possible war footing. American does not just go to war over political reasons. Or would you like us to enter in to a war with China over Hong Kong now. Not going to happen.

 

[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.

see post # 18

Well, it's obviously all speculation. Let's consider that Japan surrendered in Sept 1945, less than 4 years after the official war declaration, that, with the U.S dividing all it's attention, resources, spying efforts, communication intercepts etc. on multiple targets. So a full assault, ramp up and focus on Japan could theoretically have decreased it by a year or more.

Unfortunately, one wrench in this thinking is that I do believe the nuke forced them to surrender. The Manhattan Project probably doesn't work any faster with just one enemy. I just can't see logistically, how a complete, full scale National operation against Japan doesn't speed up their surrender. Even moreso if we are to accept Unkotares belief that the nuclear bomb wasn't needed (I don't).

 

[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

Well, it's obviously all speculation. Let's consider that Japan surrendered in Sept 1945, less than 4 years after the official war declaration, that, with the U.S dividing all it's attention, resources, spying efforts, communication intercepts etc. on multiple targets. So a full assault, ramp up and focus on Japan could theoretically have decreased it by a year or more.

Unfortunately, one wrench in this thinking is that I do believe the nuke forced them to surrender. The Manhattan Project probably doesn't work any faster with just one enemy. I just can't see logistically, how a complete, full scale National operation against Japan doesn't speed up their surrender. Even moreso if we are to accept Unkotares belief that the nuclear bomb wasn't needed (I don't).

it's not speculation--they don't have the carriers/BBs/CA yet!!!!
we didn't have the MASSIVE fleets 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.

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

The inhuman scum fdr knew there were pathways to a negotiated peace open and he found them to be politically inconvenient. He wanted his ocean of blood and he would have it no matter what. That's why puppet Truman was given the job of carrying out his last wishes when the scumbag finally went to hell.

 

[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

The inhuman scum fdr knew there were pathways to a negotiated peace open and he found them to be politically inconvenient. He wanted his ocean of blood and he would have it no matter what. That's why puppet Truman was given the job of carrying out his last wishes when the scumbag finally went to hell.

have you been drinking?

 

[harmonica]

2 years

not enough warships to cover that many troops with so many invasions
plain and simple
.....even if you have more units and the supporting logistics/cargo ships/etc, there were not enough warships to speed up the process

 

[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.

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

The inhuman scum fdr knew there were pathways to a negotiated peace open and he found them to be politically inconvenient. He wanted his ocean of blood and he would have it no matter what. That's why puppet Truman was given the job of carrying out his last wishes when the scumbag finally went to hell.

have you been drinking?

Not yet.

 

[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

Well, it's obviously all speculation. Let's consider that Japan surrendered in Sept 1945, less than 4 years after the official war declaration, that, with the U.S dividing all it's attention, resources, spying efforts, communication intercepts etc. on multiple targets. So a full assault, ramp up and focus on Japan could theoretically have decreased it by a year or more.

Unfortunately, one wrench in this thinking is that I do believe the nuke forced them to surrender. The Manhattan Project probably doesn't work any faster with just one enemy. I just can't see logistically, how a complete, full scale National operation against Japan doesn't speed up their surrender. Even moreso if we are to accept Unkotares belief that the nuclear bomb wasn't needed (I don't).

by late spring 1943, the Allies sought to reinvigorate the LST program.

The problem was there were simply not enough of them. Despite America’s astonishing industrial productivity, circumstances conspired to create a shortage of these essential vessels at a critical moment in the war.

Retooling a shipyard, however, is not a matter of simply throwing a switch. More than 30,000 parts went into the construction of one LST, and recreating such a lengthy supply chain took time. On top of that, the LST construction program competed with other accession programs

etc
The unloved, unlovely, yet indispensable LST
2 years is ridiculous

 

[Camp]

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

Well, it's obviously all speculation. Let's consider that Japan surrendered in Sept 1945, less than 4 years after the official war declaration, that, with the U.S dividing all it's attention, resources, spying efforts, communication intercepts etc. on multiple targets. So a full assault, ramp up and focus on Japan could theoretically have decreased it by a year or more.

Unfortunately, one wrench in this thinking is that I do believe the nuke forced them to surrender. The Manhattan Project probably doesn't work any faster with just one enemy. I just can't see logistically, how a complete, full scale National operation against Japan doesn't speed up their surrender. Even moreso if we are to accept Unkotares belief that the nuclear bomb wasn't needed (I don't).

by late spring 1943, the Allies sought to reinvigorate the LST program.

The problem was there were simply not enough of them. Despite America’s astonishing industrial productivity, circumstances conspired to create a shortage of these essential vessels at a critical moment in the war.

Retooling a shipyard, however, is not a matter of simply throwing a switch. More than 30,000 parts went into the construction of one LST, and recreating such a lengthy supply chain took time. On top of that, the LST construction program competed with other accession programs

etc
The unloved, unlovely, yet indispensable LST
2 years is ridiculous

Like virtually all the modern weapons used by the USA to defeat both Germany and Japan, the Higgin's boats were developed during the '30s under guidance from the former assistant secretary of the Navy FDR. He could not build up the American military, but he was able to push through the development of new and modern weapons.

 

[harmonica]

..also the Subs were sinking a lot more in 1943 and 1944.
we had less subs in 1941 and 1942...a lot of the torpedos were defective
no victory before Dec 1943

 

[RandomPoster]

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

We had no reason to make war on Japan. They were at war with China. They would have won, but hooked up with Germany that put us on a possible war footing. American does not just go to war over political reasons. Or would you like us to enter in to a war with China over Hong Kong now. Not going to happen.

We had no reason to go to war against Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor? Perhaps we should have let them off with an apology.