Draft Dodgers: Traitors?

[David Floyd]

Chris, a few points...

First, on WW1, sorry I can't give you an exact citation, I'd have to go look it up in one of my books, but a British Admiral was quoted as telling a US naval officer that if the U-Boats weren't checked then Britain could very well lose the war. The American officer had commented that, looking at the losses incurred by U-Boats, that it appeared Britain was losing. And 887,000 tons of shipping lost in one month is significant, considering that the necessary cushion for British merchant shipping was, IIRC, 15 million tons, and they only started the war out with around 20 million.

A Panama Canal campaign still wouldn't have been feasible without holding Hawaii first, for logistical reasons - I mean Panama is what, 7000 miles from the Home Islands?

As to Japanese tanks being superior, you might indeed be correct, my understanding though was that at least early on in the war (1942 as opposed to 1944 when Saipan took place) Japanese tanks were terrible, they even would have had trouble with US Lees and Soviet T-26s.

Besides, a Panama campaign would have looked probably similar to a Hawaii campaign - except of course Panama is closer to the US than Hawaii is, on the same landmass, even, and the same problems to Japanese air superiority would have existed in Panama too.

Remember, Chris, that the US could make war plans to invade Mars, but that doesn't mean it can or will ever happen.

Finally, I find it very improbable that the IJA would have opted for the US over China - and if they ever REALLY wanted Australia, at least early on, they could have taken it if they had just concentrated all six heavy carriers and significant Army assets, but the Army was too tied up in China, with over a million men in that theater. It would have been a big blow to Japanese pride to withdraw from China, and it was NOT likely - especially as the war went on, that was the only place they were making big advances.

[Chris 62]

This is gonna piss off AH, but...good!

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, a few points...

First, on WW1, sorry I can't give you an exact citation, I'd have to go look it up in one of my books, but a British Admiral was quoted as telling a US naval officer that if the U-Boats weren't checked then Britain could very well lose the war. The American officer had commented that, looking at the losses incurred by U-Boats, that it appeared Britain was losing. And 887,000 tons of shipping lost in one month is significant, considering that the necessary cushion for British merchant shipping was, IIRC, 15 million tons, and they only started the war out with around 20 million.

David, they themselves were producing almost 2 million tons of shipping by 1918, and had long since turned the corner in loss/gain ratio.

A Panama Canal campaign still wouldn't have been feasible without holding Hawaii first, for logistical reasons - I mean Panama is what, 7000 miles from the Home Islands?

You misunderstand, not a campagin to take the place, an attack to destroy the locks on the canal itself, it would take years to repair this, and the USA greatly feared it.
Taking Hawaii wouldn't be needed for this.

As to Japanese tanks being superior, you might indeed be correct, my understanding though was that at least early on in the war (1942 as opposed to 1944 when Saipan took place) Japanese tanks were terrible, they even would have had trouble with US Lees and Soviet T-26s.

Not superior, capable of getting a gun kill on a Sherman.
All Japanese armor suffered from low armor plate, unreliable engines and slow speed. Lees and Shermans were far superior, but my point is they wern't invulerable to the Japanese weapons systems.

Besides, a Panama campaign would have looked probably similar to a Hawaii campaign - except of course Panama is closer to the US than Hawaii is, on the same landmass, even, and the same problems to Japanese air superiority would have existed in Panama too.

Again, I said, raid, not an opperation to take the place, with the canal damaged, the pacific is isolated, there is no need to phyiscally take the place.

Remember, Chris, that the US could make war plans to invade Mars, but that doesn't mean it can or will ever happen.

Your assertion (long since proven wrong) was that the USA mainland was never threatened, you now see it was, so leave this were it belongs.

Finally, I find it very improbable that the IJA would have opted for the US over China - and if they ever REALLY wanted Australia, at least early on, they could have taken it if they had just concentrated all six heavy carriers and significant Army assets, but the Army was too tied up in China, with over a million men in that theater. It would have been a big blow to Japanese pride to withdraw from China, and it was NOT likely - especially as the war went on, that was the only place they were making big advances.

You have a poor understanging here, if Coral sea was a victory, Japan would have continued it's invasion of Port Moresby (The reason Coral sea was fought was to stop this invasion, the Japanese turned back, which is why it's considered a US victory even though the IJN only lost a light carrier as comparred to the USN lossing a heavy CV), this invasion was phase one of, you guessed it, an opperation to seize Australia.
Your thinking of the IJA pre Peral harbor, when it was China obbsessed, not post Pearl, when they saw new opprotunities.
Also, I believe your unaware, that Japan's Kwangtung Army (supposedly guarding the Soviet border with China) was systematically stripped of forces first for New Guinea, than to reinforce the Phillipennes in 44, so japan had no problem while lossing moving forces from China, and therefore, would certainly have ZERO porblems with moving said forces in Victory.
By 1945, this so called "mighty" army was a shell, that the Soviets shattered in less than a week.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
This is gonna piss off AH, but...good!

Not really - its after 3pm and I'm starting to sober up now.

[David Floyd]

Chris, I think we are misunderstanding each other on a few points, but anyway...

David, they themselves were producing almost 2 million tons of shipping by 1918, and had long since turned the corner in loss/gain ratio.

Sure, after US naval assistance started coming into being - but not in early 1917, when the U-Boat menace was at its greatest.

You misunderstand, not a campagin to take the place, an attack to destroy the locks on the canal itself, it would take years to repair this, and the USA greatly feared it.
Taking Hawaii wouldn't be needed for this.

Then I concede you the point, I understand what you are saying now...although the IJN would probably take serious losses in and out in such an operation, and the US could still go around South America if they had to.

Not superior, capable of getting a gun kill on a Sherman.
All Japanese armor suffered from low armor plate, unreliable engines and slow speed. Lees and Shermans were far superior, but my point is they wern't invulerable to the Japanese weapons systems.

OK, that's my fault, I misstated what I meant - the Japanese would not have transported armor over in large quantities, at least not in the initial waves, more than likely, and the US would have been far superior in armor forces. That was my real point.

Your assertion (long since proven wrong) was that the USA mainland was never threatened, you now see it was, so leave this were it belongs.

My point was, plan all you like but until it becomes a credible plan - and everyone but you so far agrees with me that there were no credible plans to invade the US - then it doesn't really matter.

Also, I believe your unaware, that Japan's Kwangtung Army (supposedly guarding the Soviet border with China) was systematically stripped of forces first for New Guinea, than to reinforce the Phillipennes in 44, so japan had no problem while lossing moving forces from China, and therefore, would certainly have ZERO porblems with moving said forces in Victory.
By 1945, this so called "mighty" army was a shell, that the Soviets shattered in less than a week.

I'm not talking about the Kwangtung Army - that was indeed stripped and easily overrun by the Soviets...I'm talking about the Japanese Army in China, not Manchukuko/Manchuria, which would have to be drawn on for operations against Hawaii or the Continental US.

[Chris 62]

Damn! (In reference to AH's post!)

David, I think you missed out again, I said it was possible, and had all along, and well within Japan's ability to pull off, not that it was seriously comtemplated.

If you go back, you will see that you said this was an immpossibility, and I have shown you, it certainly was possible, if highly improbale.
Are we clear on this?

[Alexander's Horse]

[Chris 62]

[David Floyd]

Chris, we are not clear because I don't feel you have demonsrated that a Japanese invasion of the continental US was anything more than a pipe dream, nor have you shown that an invasion fo Hawaii - while possible to attempt - would even have been successful.

[Alexander's Horse]

See Chris? Floyd can do short posts.

Well done David

[Chris 62]

Because you are simply REFUSING to accept it.

I showed you how and why, with the forces availible, and you just won't believe it.

As I said from the start, with victories at Coral sea and Midway, they could have done it.

You just don't want to believe it.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
See Chris? Floyd can do short posts.

Well done David

Ok Horsey, go do you bureaucratic stuff.

Short enough for you?

[Alexander's Horse]

My in tray is empty, my action tray is empty, my out tray is full

I think I'll go home early for the weekend soon

[David Floyd]

Chris, no, and it isn't just me - Sikander agreed to. Just because Japan had 500,000 troops they COULD have committed, all things being equal, doesn't mean the REALLY could have invaded the US. To do so would have required an invasion of Hawaii, which I've already demonstrated is not likely to succeed. And the timetable against the Continental US would logically HAVE to be mid 1943 - when Essex class carriers are already rolling off the production lines, along with superior battleships, Hellcat fighters, etc.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, no, and it isn't just me - Sikander agreed to. Just because Japan had 500,000 troops they COULD have committed, all things being equal, doesn't mean the REALLY could have invaded the US. To do so would have required an invasion of Hawaii, which I've already demonstrated is not likely to succeed. And the timetable against the Continental US would logically HAVE to be mid 1943 - when Essex class carriers are already rolling off the production lines, along with superior battleships, Hellcat fighters, etc.

First, he didn't agree it was impossible, and your timetable is off.

It would have been possible in mid 1942, not 1943.

Second, Hawaii is not needed, if the Canal locks are broken, Hawaii becomes untenable as a base if US west coast came under attack.

Third, Japan could certainly project the power to do it, the forces described (7 divisions) were availible in this time frame, Japan would have air superiority over the target area (I pointed this out earlier, and you yourself just confirmed it, US airpower will not be a factor untill late 43, not mid 42), the big what if is wins at Coral sea and Midway, not Japan's ability to pull it off.

This has nothing to do with pipe dreams and fantasys, it's serious anyalisis of force capabilities based on knowledge of both combatants in mid 1942.

Quite frankly, the USA was wide open, and pulled a massive bluff with "watchtower" the invasion of Guadalcanal in august of 1942.

The Japanese became gunshy after they lost at midway, and never attempted another seaborne offensive.

Ah, but if they had won, Midway would have fallen, and Japan could air interdict Hawaii, and an invasion USA was certainly feasible, possible, and within their capability, despite your protestations to the contrary.

One foot note, the trip from east to west coast around South america is Enormus, and the ships would need reprovisioning badly, as they would be at the extremes of their range to try it, add to it, some countries in SA were pro axis, and US forces could not replenish there due to neutarlity laws.
The USN would be hard pressed to stop Japan ANYWHERE if they lost the twin battles, which continue to be the graet what if.

[Alexander's Horse]

You consider 7 divisions adequate to invade California?