- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Midway: if we lose our carriers and the Japs lose just one,
Posted on 10/22/19 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 6:59 pm
in the short run the Japs take Midway, get in the shipping lanes to Australia and threaten the West coast.
What happens next?
How soon can we bounce back?
What happens next?
How soon can we bounce back?
This post was edited on 10/24/19 at 9:16 am
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:01 pm to doubleb
We just would have dropped the bomb a year later than we did.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:04 pm to bamarep
quote:
We just would have dropped the bomb a year later than we did.
From where?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:05 pm to doubleb
quote:the Astros play in the World Series
What happens next?
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:06 pm to doubleb
Parodixically it may have the greater long term effect on Europe, derailing the Germany First policy. More resources for the Pacific means fewer Atlantic convoys, fewer landing craft for Europe, a shift in political will to take care of Japan that FDR couldnt ignore
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:07 pm to doubleb
Definitely changes the whole landscape of the war. We basically go on the defensive if we lose Midway.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:08 pm to Rouge
First pitch, ball one
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:09 pm to doubleb
There would be Sakebucks on every corner rather than Starbucks.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:10 pm to Tiny Rick
quote:
Definitely changes the whole landscape of the war. We basically go on the defensive if we lose Midway.
I’ve seen a lot of good history threads here, but mostly about Europe in WW2 or the civil war. Little regarding Midway and how big our dominating victory was.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:11 pm to doubleb
We were never going to lose to Japan.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:13 pm to biglego
quote:
We were never going to lose to Japan.
I agree, they had no chance in the long run.
But how fast can we build back, put more carriers at sea, and how can we protect our interests until then?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:15 pm to doubleb
Why deal in hypotheticals?
We already know what happened
We already know what happened
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:18 pm to doubleb
Japans goal was to win enough battles to get the USA to sign a treaty to stay out of the far east.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
From where
China via Burma
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:24 pm to Strannix
quote:
China via Burma
That’s what I was thinking but it might be tricky, what about Alaska if we still controlled it?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:30 pm to doubleb
Would have delayed the inevitable. Japan couldnt beat us, and they knew it.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:37 pm to doubleb
This is my opinion only....
Had we lost all our carriers at Midway, it would have altered the Pacific War dramatically. Australia would have been isolated and perhaps lost. It’s also possible we’d have eventually lost Hawaii. As for the west coast, other than perhaps limited bombardment raids on West Coast cities, there would not be any chance of a Japan actually landing troops on the American mainland.
More than likely, we’d have gone on a purely defensive stance in the Pacific until Germany could be defeated and our full focus then be turned on defeating Japan in the Pacific. Thus, instead of fighting two separate wars on two sides of the globe simultaneously, we’d have a “one then the other” approach.
This opens up the question of how this approach would work. For starters, it would mean the invasion of mainland Europe would have come probably at least a year earlier, probably in the summer of 1943. This opens up the possibles of perhaps Berlin falling to US troops instead of Russians. It also opens up the possibility that nobody would take Berlin and instead it would be obliterated in nuclear hellfire. For arguments sake, let’s say the war in Europe would have probably ended at least by late 1944.
Supposing the war in Europe ended in late 1944, this would mean US shipyards would have been churning out capital ship, namely carriers for a little over two years. Along with the carriers would be escort ships and most importantly submarines. Submarines would be key in cutting Japan off from her new empire and its precious raw materials. Along with the rebuilt navy, more modern fighter and bomber aircraft. And there would also be the millions of battle-hardened veteran ground troops now freed up from fighting in Europe.
Thus, by early to mid 1945, the campaign to destroy Japan could begin in earnest. Would we have to do the “island hopping” campaign similar to what happened in real life? I don’t think so. For starters, island hopping was used to maximize limited resources available in the Pacific because the main focus was on Roosevelt’s “Germany First” policy and limited range of aircraft that needed those islands to reach the next island. In this war Germany would already be defeated So all resources would be available and I’m 1945, aircraft ranges and payloads were much advanced. Instead, I believe the US Navy would seek out the Japanese fleet in a massive and decisive battle to determine the master of the Pacific Ocean. This battle would almost assuredly result in the complete inhalation of the Japanese fleet. Once Japan’s fleet was gutted their island bases would be bombed into oblivion while the shell shocked survivors were starved of supplies or reenforcement thanks to American subs. There would be no need to take most islands thanks to the newer, long range bombers available em mass in 1945 as opposed to how we had to fight the war from 1942 through 1944. Within a year the entire Pacific should be cleared other than the Philippines and Japan itself. At this point the US could reduce either via conventional means, which we’d probably do in the Philippines, or via atomic bombs which we’d probably do with Japan. Thus, the conventional fighting in the Pacific would rage from mid-1945 until mid to late 1946. It would most likely end with several atomic bombs being used on Japan to end the war around spring to summer 1947.
Again, this is all an educated guess.
Had we lost all our carriers at Midway, it would have altered the Pacific War dramatically. Australia would have been isolated and perhaps lost. It’s also possible we’d have eventually lost Hawaii. As for the west coast, other than perhaps limited bombardment raids on West Coast cities, there would not be any chance of a Japan actually landing troops on the American mainland.
More than likely, we’d have gone on a purely defensive stance in the Pacific until Germany could be defeated and our full focus then be turned on defeating Japan in the Pacific. Thus, instead of fighting two separate wars on two sides of the globe simultaneously, we’d have a “one then the other” approach.
This opens up the question of how this approach would work. For starters, it would mean the invasion of mainland Europe would have come probably at least a year earlier, probably in the summer of 1943. This opens up the possibles of perhaps Berlin falling to US troops instead of Russians. It also opens up the possibility that nobody would take Berlin and instead it would be obliterated in nuclear hellfire. For arguments sake, let’s say the war in Europe would have probably ended at least by late 1944.
Supposing the war in Europe ended in late 1944, this would mean US shipyards would have been churning out capital ship, namely carriers for a little over two years. Along with the carriers would be escort ships and most importantly submarines. Submarines would be key in cutting Japan off from her new empire and its precious raw materials. Along with the rebuilt navy, more modern fighter and bomber aircraft. And there would also be the millions of battle-hardened veteran ground troops now freed up from fighting in Europe.
Thus, by early to mid 1945, the campaign to destroy Japan could begin in earnest. Would we have to do the “island hopping” campaign similar to what happened in real life? I don’t think so. For starters, island hopping was used to maximize limited resources available in the Pacific because the main focus was on Roosevelt’s “Germany First” policy and limited range of aircraft that needed those islands to reach the next island. In this war Germany would already be defeated So all resources would be available and I’m 1945, aircraft ranges and payloads were much advanced. Instead, I believe the US Navy would seek out the Japanese fleet in a massive and decisive battle to determine the master of the Pacific Ocean. This battle would almost assuredly result in the complete inhalation of the Japanese fleet. Once Japan’s fleet was gutted their island bases would be bombed into oblivion while the shell shocked survivors were starved of supplies or reenforcement thanks to American subs. There would be no need to take most islands thanks to the newer, long range bombers available em mass in 1945 as opposed to how we had to fight the war from 1942 through 1944. Within a year the entire Pacific should be cleared other than the Philippines and Japan itself. At this point the US could reduce either via conventional means, which we’d probably do in the Philippines, or via atomic bombs which we’d probably do with Japan. Thus, the conventional fighting in the Pacific would rage from mid-1945 until mid to late 1946. It would most likely end with several atomic bombs being used on Japan to end the war around spring to summer 1947.
Again, this is all an educated guess.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:46 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
This is my opinion only....
There is no right answer, good stuff.
Do you believe FDR could have slow played Japan as we did to a certain extent if Japan had done as you surmised and took Hawaii and was raiding up and down the West Ciast?
I’ve thinking we give them more attention than we did. We would have to beef up West Ciast defenses, I’m thinking more so to stop plane raids and not a real invasion. Then as you stated we’d have to rebuild our carrier fleet.
But the overall impact in Europe and elsewhere could be huge as you stated. Say what if there is no European invasion and Russia pushed to the French border?
It would all depend on politics and if FDR could keep his original Germany first plan.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:48 pm to doubleb
Repeating: We were never going to lose to Japan.
Possibly the delay might have pushed the ability to use of the Atomic weapons back a bit but mid ‘46 at worst.
We were muy fricking serious.
Possibly the delay might have pushed the ability to use of the Atomic weapons back a bit but mid ‘46 at worst.
We were muy fricking serious.
Popular
Back to top

20







