|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Feb 24, 2018 13:53:54 GMT
The topic for my first theoretical debate.
Our main event here is the Guadalcanal Campaign.
The thing we're debating is if Japan never took naval losses in 1942, could it have trapped the Guadalcanal strike force & win in the end?
BG: The year is 1942, the war is in full swing in the Pacific. Large parts, if not all, of modern day Southeast Asia had fallen to the advancing Japs. However, in May, they lost at Coral Sea, in June at Midway, then Guadalcanal began in September.
In the first few days, the USA captured nearby islands in a surprise amphibious assault.
One noticeable info is the Battle of Savo Island where the Japs surprised the Allies at sea but retired their navy afterwards without destroying Allied transport. Here, Allied Marines were ashore without much heavy equipment.
We are not rejecting the actions & things that happened at Guadalcanal, but deciding if the Japs still had its original 1942 naval power (meaning not take naval losses at Midway & Coral Sea), could it close off the region, trapped the defenders & recaptured everything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Feb 24, 2018 19:53:05 GMT
My question is, is the navy unharmed over the course over the battles or did it not just get harmed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colonel James E. Ross on Feb 25, 2018 23:46:35 GMT
Theoretically or not, the japanese navy being unharmed is basically implausible. The only way to not be harmed by this invasion was a full evacuation. The US navy may have lost a few ships at pearl harbor, but not enough to stunt their commander's skills. The japanese had Yamamoto, but the US had Nimitz. The japanese not to mention were losing oil at an alarming rate, every US carrier the japanese destroyed, 3 more would take it's place. Every japanese carrier the US took out, nothing would take it's place. Not to mention the japanese were fighting a losing front in china. So the only way they could've gotten out unharmed is if a miracle happened or US commanders became incompetent for the remainder of the battle. Even if the japanese pulled off a miraculous victory, the japanese would have to deal with reinforcements. The US had millions at their disposal and a thriving economy. Japan had half of the manpower and a quarter of the economy the US had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Feb 26, 2018 8:13:59 GMT
My question is, is the navy unharmed over the course over the battles or did it not just get harmed? Assume that they do not get harmed at all until Guadalcanal. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Feb 26, 2018 8:18:34 GMT
So even if the Japs had won against the first landings (by a miracle), they'd still lose in subsequent battles is what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Feb 26, 2018 8:39:44 GMT
The outcome of few battles is "inevitable", but reliance on "decisive" battles without taking into account all other factors, in my opinion, is already a dubious satrategy. Very, very seldom "short-war thinking" pays off. But it is interesting that peaple in general and millitary historians in particular are always fascinated by great loosers like Hannibal or Napoleon, or with "Blitzkrieg" strategy and so on... Carefull analysis here, for example: The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost - Cathal J. Nolan audiobookbay.nl/audio-books/the-allure-of-battle-a-history-of-how-wars-have-been-won-and-lost-cathal-j-nolan/ |
|
|
|
Post by Tamon Yamaguchi on Mar 1, 2018 6:06:22 GMT
No. In Guadalcanal, it was basically the Japs vs USA and UK, the biggest naval powers at that time. Tbh, attacking USA was Japan's worst, and I mean the WORST mistake in WW2. It justified USA's involvement in the war, eventually causing Hitler to declare war, the Germans and the Italians crashing down, and getting the Japs to face the world.
USA, at the time, was DEVOTED at the Eastern front(Referring to East Asia) and the naval combat. Their sheer power of navy... Plus the British too... I don't think the Japs could have handled all that.
But maybe it wouldn't be THAT bad of a defeat, if her navy was unharmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colonel James E. Ross on Mar 1, 2018 12:01:36 GMT
No. In Guadalcanal, it was basically the Japs vs USA and UK, the biggest naval powers at that time. Tbh, attacking USA was Japan's worst, and I mean the WORST mistake in WW2. It justified USA's involvement in the war, eventually causing Hitler to declare war, the Germans and the Italians crashing down, and getting the Japs to face the world. USA, at the time, was DEVOTED at the Eastern front(Referring to East Asia) and the naval combat. Their sheer power of navy... Plus the British too... I don't think the Japs could have handled all that. But maybe it wouldn't be THAT bad of a defeat, if her navy was unharmed. The british may have been a part of the campaign, but were barely involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Mar 1, 2018 14:11:43 GMT
I was thinking, what if this theoretical unharmed Japanese navy could've been mobilised to combat the Allied naval forces.
After some time, they engaged the Allies, with a bigger hand, in a deceisive naval combat.
Even if this can't swing the battle in their favour, I am curious if the Japs could "win" by instead inflicting a minor pyrricc victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamon Yamaguchi on Mar 2, 2018 4:53:27 GMT
No. In Guadalcanal, it was basically the Japs vs USA and UK, the biggest naval powers at that time. Tbh, attacking USA was Japan's worst, and I mean the WORST mistake in WW2. It justified USA's involvement in the war, eventually causing Hitler to declare war, the Germans and the Italians crashing down, and getting the Japs to face the world. USA, at the time, was DEVOTED at the Eastern front(Referring to East Asia) and the naval combat. Their sheer power of navy... Plus the British too... I don't think the Japs could have handled all that. But maybe it wouldn't be THAT bad of a defeat, if her navy was unharmed. The british may have been a part of the campaign, but were barely involved. True, but there's also the Australians and others involved. But anyways, that doesn't change the fact of the sheer power of the U.S. industry being unbeatable by the Japs, who were now involved in a two-front war(The Chinese and the Pacific). |
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Mar 2, 2018 21:26:04 GMT
So the question is how could japan keep thier navy strong as it was pre midway.
Japan could of kept thier navy intact,if they didn't attack pearl harbour.
They did and was a bad decision.
They needed oil badly and was pissed at US for the oil embargo,and against Yamamoto opinions decided to pull it off.
US was vemently neutral at the time,did support allies,but did not want boots on the ground.
Japan,started it by a sneak attack,which succeeded to piss off and to wake a sleeping bear.
Then it was just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamon Yamaguchi on Mar 2, 2018 23:51:18 GMT
So the question is how could japan keep thier navy strong as it was pre midway. Japan could of kept thier navy intact,if they didn't attack pearl harbour. They did and was a bad decision. They needed oil badly and was pissed at US for the oil embargo,and against Yamamoto opinions decided to pull it off. US was vemently neutral at the time,did support allies,but did not want boots on the ground. Japan,started it by a sneak attack,which succeeded to piss off and to wake a sleeping bear. Then it was just a matter of time. Yeah, attacking the States... As if China wasn't enough... But the above question^^^ is more like an assumption to this debate, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Mar 3, 2018 2:04:00 GMT
So the question is how could japan keep thier navy strong as it was pre midway. Japan could of kept thier navy intact,if they didn't attack pearl harbour. They did and was a bad decision. They needed oil badly and was pissed at US for the oil embargo,and against Yamamoto opinions decided to pull it off. US was vemently neutral at the time,did support allies,but did not want boots on the ground. Japan,started it by a sneak attack,which succeeded to piss off and to wake a sleeping bear. Then it was just a matter of time. Yeah, attacking the States... As if China wasn't enough... But the above question^^^ is more like an assumption to this debate, I believe. The question is more of: If by some magic the IJN was completely unharmed in the year 1942 up to Guadalcanal, can they win at Guadalcanal. I believe everyone would agree that bringing in the USA, especially a VERY angry USA was their worst error in the war. |
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Mar 3, 2018 23:34:00 GMT
Yeah, attacking the States... As if China wasn't enough... But the above question^^^ is more like an assumption to this debate, I believe. The question is more of: If by some magic the IJN was completely unharmed in the year 1942 up to Guadalcanal, can they win at Guadalcanal. I believe everyone would agree that bringing in the USA, especially a VERY angry USA was their worst error in the war. They could not win at Guadalcanal,since they attacked PH and the Philippines and then lost 4 Carriers at Midway. This they could not afford. The debate on whether they could have. kept the Navy intact is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Mar 4, 2018 13:03:44 GMT
My question is, is the navy unharmed over the course over the battles or did it not just get harmed? Assume that they do not get harmed at all until Guadalcanal. I meant as in "did not get harmed in the conflict of the coral sea" |
|
