Draft Dodgers: Traitors?

[Garth Vader]

Chris, do you think Japan had the logistical and supply capability to support 7 divisions in the western US?

Japan wasn't able to suppress US subs menacing shipping around the home islands, wouldn't US subs be able to mess up resupply for a west coast operation?

Although a failed invasion of continental US would likely provoke a Japan first response like you mentioned anyway.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Chris, do you think Japan had the logistical and supply capability to support 7 divisions in the western US?

Yes, it is certainly possible. Resupply was stopped by sub and air interdiction, see following paragrapgh for more on that.

Japan wasn't able to suppress US subs menacing shipping around the home islands, wouldn't US subs be able to mess up resupply for a west coast operation?

US Submarines only became effective after their torpedoes were fixed, an event that doesn't occur untill mid 1943, so US subs would be pinricks in 42. In 43 they might be a factor, provided you had a base for them. Hawaii and australia would be difficult, because resupply of both is tenuous if Japan has cut off US west coast.

Although a failed invasion of continental US would likely provoke a Japan first response like you mentioned anyway.

Exactly. All of this is based on winning two sea fights early, which Japan could have won, even with the USA's "Magic" edge, both battles hinged on luck (Say McClusky turns back 5 minutes before he spots IJN, a real possibility due to fuel constraints, and Japan's airstrike finds Enterprise and Hornet, not just Yorktown, US losses Midway in that event).

It could have happened, and we are damned lucky it didn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It could have happened, and we are damned lucky it didn't.

Yes and no. We might not be so aggressive a nation if we had seen war first hand up close. But I agree. Japanese Imperial occupation is not something you wish on even your worst enemy.

[David Floyd]

Chris,

First off the Junyo was not a heavy carrier in the sense that the Akagi, Kaga, etc., were, IIRC. Irrelevant to the discussion though.

Land based air, Non existant, maybe 50+ combat AC of various types

Of course, that could be changed by simply bringing aircraft back from England. 460 Japanese aircraft - probably about half of those fighters, and probably another third torpedo aircraft useless against land targets - are just not a significant threat to the US, even if the US only started with 50 aircraft or so.
Also take into account the fact that if Japan DOES INDEED win major victories at the Coral Sea and Midway, the US probably stops sending planes to Russia, at least for the time being - that would make logical sense.

West coast defense, 2 army division equivelent, approx 30,000 men

Sure, at first - again, this would probably change if Midway and Coral Sea were lost. You also say that there were only 9 trained divisions in the US. This is true, BUT you have to take into account the many other divisions that were at various stages of training, as well as National Guard formations. Not the best troops - but then again 7 Japanese divisions would not have been that tough to throw back into the sea to begin with, especially considering the heavy superiority of US armor and preponderance of heavy artillery.
A quick listing of US Army Divisions trained or in training by - and I'll use your timetable here, which I still disagree with - July 1942 would produce the following:
1st-9th Infantry Divisions
24th and 25th Inf. Divisions.
National Guard 26th-41st Divisions
National Guard 43rd-45th Divisions
76th and 77th Infantry Divisions
79th-81st Infantry Divisions
85th Infantry Division
88th-90th Infantry Divisions
93rd and 95th Infantry Divisions
The Americal Division
82nd Airborne Division
1st-10th Armored Divisions
1st Cavalry Division

Granted, many of those units were overseas at the time, or preparing for Torch, and many others were undertrained. But still, against only 7 Japanese divisions - units without that great of equipment (the Japanese infantry rifle, for example, was a piece of ****), little heavy artillery, and only a few, far inferior tanks - there is no way the Japanese could hold any territory for any significant period of time, EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO LAUNCH THE INVASION IN THE FIRST PLACE, which I still do not concede.

You can add to the American forces any available Canadian forces, of which there would have been some fully trained formations. I'm not gonna dig through my sources and look up exactly which ones though.

Another relevant fact is that during 1942, the US produced almost 48,000 aircraft - I don't have the statistics for production up to July of 1942, but even assuming it was only around 20,000 or so by July, that is still a huge amount of aircraft. So yes, maybe there were only 50 combat aircraft ON THE WEST COAST in July of 1942, but that doesn't mean more aircraft couldn't be found elsewhere.

6 CV (Akagi, Kaga, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Junyo, Hiyo)
3 CVL (Ryujo, Hosho, Zuiho
Approx 460 Aircraft with fully trained aircrews
2 Yamato class BBs
2 Mutsu class BBs
4 Fuso class BBs
4 Haruna class BBs
18 CAs various classes
20+ CLs various clsses
100+ DDs Various classes
40+ Subs Various classes
100+ transports
150,000 Imperial army troops

Good luck keeping this massive force supplied - this is a bigger force than was used at the Battle of Midway, going into actions a couple thousand miles further east of Midway. Granted, Midway would be available as a base, but Midway isn't exactly my idea of an ideal base to support a large naval force, ya know? Pearl Harbor could have, but the Japanese couldn't have taken Hawaii, and even if they had the whole base would have been wrecked, so if you want to give them Pearl Harbor you probably have to give the Americans another 6 months or so - taking us up into 1943. I'm not gonna post the available US forces in early 1943 unless your really want me to, but consider the implications of that, including, especially, the improved US torpedos.

Possible USN Forces
2 CV (Hornet, Wasp) Both untrained and inexperinced
6 BBs (Pennsylvannia, New Mexico, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, North Carolina)
12 CA
10 CL
40+ DDs
30+ Subs

First of all, the escort carrier Long Island was on the West Coast during Midway. That certainly could have been used. You are wrong about the Hornet, which would have been likely destroyed in a major Japanese victory at Midway.
Secondly, I'm fairly certain that the US had 7, not 6 battleships available, because they started the war with 15, and lost 8 at Pearl Harbor.

You keep insisting Hawaii is needed, I'm telling you, IT ISN'T. With Midway, Japan has it's advanced base to strike at US West Coast, Hawaii can be bypassed. Even if not, and Japan uses forces listed above to take Hawaii, propects for USA victory are almost nil, Japan can augment it strike force with Land based airpower flying from Midway.

Midway isn't exactly an advanced base in relation to the US - look at a map. And it isn't large enough to support such a large force - using Midway to invade the Continental US would have been like using a couple of Channel Islands as the base to invade France. Regarding taking Hawaii, I still say that it isn't possible, or at least very very very very unlikely for the same reasons I went through earlier. And again, even if the Japanese DID take Hawaii, it would be useless to them as a base for months, as the Americans would undoubtedly wreck the place if they went down in defeat.

Would the USA send assests to Hawaii if San Francisco was in Japanese hands?

Of course they couldn't - but I don't think Japan could have seized and held San Francisco. And regarding logistics, apparently you aren't understanding, either. If the US can't supply Hawaii, then Japan sure as hell can't supply such a massive fleet and land force so far away. And before you try to use the argument that the US did it in reverse, we both know that's not a usable argument, and we both know why, so let's not even bring it up, ok?

And your also not seeing the full implications of this. If the US mainland is attacked and occupied, you can forget "Europe first", there will be no Torch landings, and no "Huskey", and no Italian campaign. Britain would have to carry the load alone in this area, and events showed, Britain may not have won in North Africa without "Torch" (The Germans sent 200,000+ men to Tunisia, such a force could certainly give the British 8th army pause). Also, the Strategic bombing campagin in Europe would have been delayed by years, so that means the German Luftwaffe is not eaten away (as it was historically), which means it could have been deployed to Russia, affecting that campaign...See?

Eh? I don't see the relevance of that - we aren't talking about implications on Europe, we're talking about whether or not Japan could invade California.

chegitz,

Dave, I think you're wrong in overestimating Japan's ability to conquer the Hawaiian Islands. Japan ran right through the West's troops for six months, and put up a ferocious defense all the way to the end. They would have conquered Hawaii as easily as they did the Philippines.

If you think that US troops in particular were easy fodder for Japan, I suggest you read up on Wake, Bataan, and especially MacArthur's campaign in New Guinea, all of which took place early on in the war.
They were able to conquer Singapore because the British didn't anticipate an attack over land; they got Hong Kong because, let's face it, Hong Kong was surrounded by Japanese possessions in China; the Dutch East Indies were conquered because there were too few Dutch regulars who were not well liked by the inhabitants of the islands, nor were they well supported by the Dutch colonial militia forces. But it's a fallacy to say that Japan simply cut through Allied troops like a knife through butter - when American units, in particular, fought against the Japanese, in places such as Wake and the Philippines, they only lost because they were heavily outnumbered and, in the Philippines, were out of supplies.

Sikander,
Regarding your comments on Battleships, you are of course correct in some regard. However, the early American battleships were not really useful in carrier operations, because they were not fast enough to keep up with the carriers, and would have slowed the fleet down - why else were 7 battleships kept on the West Coast during the Battle of Midway? You are confusing US battleships in early 1942 with US battleships in 1944, I believe.

Chris (again),

Yes, it is certainly possible. Resupply was stopped by sub and air interdiction, see following paragrapgh for more on that.

Resupply would also have been greatly hindered by the fact that the Japanese main supply bases were 7000 miles away, and Japan had troops spread all over Asia and the Pacific that needed resupply. The campaigns in India/Burma and China, for example, ate up hundreds of thousands - over a million, really - of troops, as well as vast quantities of supplies.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Chris 62

6 BBs (Pennsylvannia, New Mexico, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, North Carolina)

Plus the USS Texas.

[David Floyd]

Thanks, can't believe I forgot the Texas, considering Texas is my home state

As a matter of interest, the USS Texas was the flagship of the naval forces during the Normandy invasion.

[sachmo71]

Well, it's almost a battlecruiser anyway...but it shelled the French in North Africa. That might jazz some people.

[David Floyd]

Indeed. It was also in service in World War 1, IIRC...

[Dr Spin]

CG,

I also think it unlikely that someone would steal a car (own a slave) as part of some scheme to redistribute wealth (justify social position). More likely it would be a rationalization for the theft (enslavement) than an actual motivation.

Thing is, people have an amazing tendancy to convince themselves of a viewpoint that goes along with their pursestrings, or pre-concieved notions, even in the face of logic and iron-clad reason. How do you distinguish between someone who 'truly' believes something, and someone who is in it for convienience? And more importantly, is there really a difference?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris,
First off the Junyo was not a heavy carrier in the sense that the Akagi, Kaga, etc., were, IIRC. Irrelevant to the discussion though.

Junyo and Hiyo were sisters, both carring 60+ plus a/c, the same compliment as Akagi, Kaga, Shokaku, and Zuikaku.
In theroy the last four could carry 80 planes, but operationally, they never did.

Of course, that could be changed by simply bringing aircraft back from England. 460 Japanese aircraft - probably about half of those fighters, and probably another third torpedo aircraft useless against land targets - are just not a significant threat to the US, even if the US only started with 50 aircraft or so.
Also take into account the fact that if Japan DOES INDEED win major victories at the Coral Sea and Midway, the US probably stops sending planes to Russia, at least for the time being - that would make logical sense.

David, your doing it again...
Japan's Torpedo bomber was the Kate, an aircraft that also carried bombs just as easily as torpedoes. Remember Midway? The Japanese kept switching back and forth between bombs and torpedoes? Helped them lose the battle. In 1942, shipments to Russia (at least in mid 42) were quite light.
Plus your missing a point here, planes need pilots, which the USA simply didn't have till 43, no matter what the production number.
Plus, as I said earlier, Lockheed and Boeing would be lost to USA production.

Sure, at first - again, this would probably change if Midway and Coral Sea were lost. You also say that there were only 9 trained divisions in the US. This is true, BUT you have to take into account the many other divisions that were at various stages of training, as well as National Guard formations. Not the best troops - but then again 7 Japanese divisions would not have been that tough to throw back into the sea to begin with, especially considering the heavy superiority of US armor and preponderance of heavy artillery.

Half assed green troops against experienced troops means heavy losses, and you keep speaking of US production of 1945 levels.
The USA didn'r have lots of artillery and tanks in mid 1942. In fact, we had to strip the first armored division of it's Shermans to supply the British eight army with them for Alamein. We simply didn't have the hardware yet, so such a statement by you is incorrect.

A quick listing of US Army Divisions trained or in training by - and I'll use your timetable here, which I still disagree with - July 1942 would produce the following:
1st-9th Infantry Divisions
24th and 25th Inf. Divisions.
National Guard 26th-41st Divisions
National Guard 43rd-45th Divisions
76th and 77th Infantry Divisions
79th-81st Infantry Divisions
85th Infantry Division
88th-90th Infantry Divisions
93rd and 95th Infantry Divisions
The Americal Division
82nd Airborne Division
1st-10th Armored Divisions
1st Cavalry Division

None of which were yet trained or equiped.

Granted, many of those units were overseas at the time, or preparing for Torch, and many others were undertrained. But still, against only 7 Japanese divisions - units without that great of equipment (the Japanese infantry rifle, for example, was a piece of ****), little heavy artillery, and only a few, far inferior tanks - there is no way the Japanese could hold any territory for any significant period of time, EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO LAUNCH THE INVASION IN THE FIRST PLACE, which I still do not concede.

They would be opposed by national guard formations, and units without heavy weapons (Machine guns, artillery) or airpower. They would lose for sure, it would have been a major US embarrisment.

You can add to the American forces any available Canadian forces, of which there would have been some fully trained formations. I'm not gonna dig through my sources and look up exactly which ones though.

Canada had no large formations to send, and in fact contributed only a Corp to the war in Europe.

Another relevant fact is that during 1942, the US produced almost 48,000 aircraft - I don't have the statistics for production up to July of 1942, but even assuming it was only around 20,000 or so by July, that is still a huge amount of aircraft. So yes, maybe there were only 50 combat aircraft ON THE WEST COAST in July of 1942, but that doesn't mean more aircraft couldn't be found elsewhere.

You could find plenty, but were are the trained pilots to fly them? Were are the trained ground crews to service them? The AA defenses to protect them? The logistical organization to make it work? The USA had none of this in 1942, if you look carefully at Torch, this becomes quickly evident.

Good luck keeping this massive force supplied - this is a bigger force than was used at the Battle of Midway, going into actions a couple thousand miles further east of Midway. Granted, Midway would be available as a base, but Midway isn't exactly my idea of an ideal base to support a large naval force, ya know? Pearl Harbor could have, but the Japanese couldn't have taken Hawaii, and even if they had the whole base would have been wrecked, so if you want to give them Pearl Harbor you probably have to give the Americans another 6 months or so - taking us up into 1943. I'm not gonna post the available US forces in early 1943 unless your really want me to, but consider the implications of that, including, especially, the improved US torpedos.

Supply is a matter of transport, with no USA forces to stop them, IJN can easily supply itself. This isn't even an issue if Midway is lost, because loss of PC and WC make Hawaii useless as a base. And again, Hawaii isn't needed for this plan.

First of all, the escort carrier Long Island was on the West Coast during Midway. That certainly could have been used. You are wrong about the Hornet, which would have been likely destroyed in a major Japanese victory at Midway.
Secondly, I'm fairly certain that the US had 7, not 6 battleships available, because they started the war with 15, and lost 8 at Pearl Harbor.

This happens when you post from work from memory. Not Hornet, USS Ranger is the other carrier, and Texas, along with New York and Arkansas were part of US Atlantic fleet, with Panama gone, would have to take long trip around South America.

Midway isn't exactly an advanced base in relation to the US - look at a map. And it isn't large enough to support such a large force - using Midway to invade the Continental US would have been like using a couple of Channel Islands as the base to invade France. Regarding taking Hawaii, I still say that it isn't possible, or at least very very very very unlikely for the same reasons I went through earlier. And again, even if the Japanese DID take Hawaii, it would be useless to them as a base for months, as the Americans would undoubtedly wreck the place if they went down in defeat.

Midway is apporx 1,000 Nautical miles north west of Hawaii, and is an atoll, not a harbor. It is sheltered enough to use as a place for fleet refueling from tankers (Japan did this at sea for Pearl Harbor), so would be perfect for USA strike. It only takes 2 weeks at 10 knots to sail from Japan to US west coast, you know.

Of course they couldn't - but I don't think Japan could have seized and held San Francisco. And regarding logistics, apparently you aren't understanding, either. If the US can't supply Hawaii, then Japan sure as hell can't supply such a massive fleet and land force so far away. And before you try to use the argument that the US did it in reverse, we both know that's not a usable argument, and we both know why, so let's not even bring it up, ok?

?
Not sure what your trying to sat here, Hawaii couldn't be supplied if WC was attacked and PC destroyed because supply line would be something like 10,000 miles from East Coast of USA round S america across Pacific, which could be interdicted by Japan.
Japanese resupply is direct from Japan to USA, across Northern Pacific, vulerable only to subs (with faulty torpedoes), no nautical AC could strike till they were near US coast, and Japan would have it's own air assests to protect against that. Also, Japanese strike force would be steadily augmented over time, and IJA aircraft would also arrive to supplement the naval forces.
It is only approx 5,000 nautical miles from Japan to USA West coast, about the same distance as Guadalcanal was to Japan, and Japan could reach this area, and could reach US WC also.

Eh? I don't see the relevance of that - we aren't talking about implications on Europe, we're talking about whether or not Japan could invade California.

It's a domino theory, each peice contributes to a larger whole.

If you think that US troops in particular were easy fodder for Japan, I suggest you read up on Wake, Bataan, and especially MacArthur's campaign in New Guinea, all of which took place early on in the war.

Even though for Che, I will answer, Wake fell easily, only had 400 marines on it. First invasion attempt was repelled because Japan thought the place was undefended. Bataan was USA disaster, 100,000 alleid troops defeated by only 30,000 imperial troops, a poor example to use.
New Guinea campaign begins in late 43, and continues to mid 44, is not "early war" at all.

They were able to conquer Singapore because the British didn't anticipate an attack over land;

A simplifaction. A smaller Imperial force continuosly outflanked British forces in Malay, Singapore was the climax of the campaign, but Japan had already won it before they crossed that little straight.

they got Hong Kong because, let's face it, Hong Kong was surrounded by Japanese possessions in China;

And Britain had no forces to send to help it.

the Dutch East Indies were conquered because there were too few Dutch regulars who were not well liked by the inhabitants of the islands, nor were they well supported by the Dutch colonial militia forces.

The Dutch could have had an army 3 times as large and still lost. Antiquated equipment, combined with no airpower and loss of seapower (ABDA Forces lost every battle at sea with Japan). Sorry, Dutch resistance was almost nil.

But it's a fallacy to say that Japan simply cut through Allied troops like a knife through butter - when American units, in particular, fought against the Japanese, in places such as Wake and the Philippines, they only lost because they were heavily outnumbered and, in the Philippines, were out of supplies.

The old war movie version, is what you just said.
The truth is that JAPAN, not the allies, was outnumbered in EVERY land campaign it fought, yet won them all early. US forces fought poorly in the Phillipennes, Japan was content to let them starve on Bataan (At first, it cost the jap commander his job with this strategy), and they surrendered in April of 42, to a force one third their size!
You really must read up on this David, this is general knowledge of WWII, not something new.

Resupply would also have been greatly hindered by the fact that the Japanese main supply bases were 7000 miles away, and Japan had troops spread all over Asia and the Pacific that needed resupply. The campaigns in India/Burma and China, for example, ate up hundreds of thousands - over a million, really - of troops, as well as vast quantities of supplies.

I addressed this earlier, but if Japan went for USA, all other areas would be of secondary importance, the Lion's share of material would go where the best chance for a decisive battle would lie, the US mainland.

[David Floyd]

I'm gonna work backwards from your post, if that's alright...

I addressed this earlier, but if Japan went for USA, all other areas would be of secondary importance, the Lion's share of material would go where the best chance for a decisive battle would lie, the US mainland.

Then you are underestimating the importance of the China campaign to the IJA. Their focus was always China, and indeed even when the Japanese were losing across the board, they kept racking up victories in China. No, the IJA in China was there to stay, there is no way the Army would have approved of the massive reallocation of resources for a questionable/impossible North American campaign.

The old war movie version, is what you just said.
The truth is that JAPAN, not the allies, was outnumbered in EVERY land campaign it fought, yet won them all early. US forces fought poorly in the Phillipennes, Japan was content to let them starve on Bataan (At first, it cost the jap commander his job with this strategy), and they surrendered in April of 42, to a force one third their size!
You really must read up on this David, this is general knowledge of WWII, not something new.

Of course the Japanese were outnumbered - but on the Philippines, in particular, the majority of the Allied forces were Filipino Army units. This 112,000 man (think that's the right number) force was simply on paper, and totally unreliable. The only decent Filipino forces were the Filipino Scouts. The only US ground forces in the Philippines were, if I recall correctly, the 26th Cavalry Regiment, 192nd and 194th Tank Battalions, 31st Infantry Regiment, 14th Infantry Regiment, 60th and 200th Coast Artillery, and the 803d Engineers. Lump it together, and you get a badly mismatched unit of divisional strength in terms of combat elements, maybe less. Considering that this force, with the Filipino Scouts, was the only reliable defense of the entire Philippine Archipelago (possibly various other small US units throughout, those were the major ones), and considering the fact that this force repulsed numerous Japanese attacks on Bataan (even throwing back a few small scale amphibious flanking assaults into the sea), I'd say they did rather well, cut off from all supplies.

Additionally, the initial Japanese invasion - the Japanese 14th Army under General Homma, with 80,000 men - was nothing to be sneezed at. General Wainwright had under 30,000 Filipino locals and a single regiment of Filipino Scouts. This force simply crumbled - hence, while looking at the whole picture, the Japanese may have been outnumbered, they fought with huge local superiority in the initial invasion, after which the Filipino Army sorta just melted away.

The Dutch could have had an army 3 times as large and still lost. Antiquated equipment, combined with no airpower and loss of seapower (ABDA Forces lost every battle at sea with Japan). Sorry, Dutch resistance was almost nil.

Didn't mean to imply otherwise - I was trying to point out that the blanket statement that Japan rolled across the Pacific isn't quite true in the case of American forces.

And Britain had no forces to send to help it.

See above.

A simplifaction. A smaller Imperial force continuosly outflanked British forces in Malay, Singapore was the climax of the campaign, but Japan had already won it before they crossed that little straight.

See above.

Even though for Che, I will answer, Wake fell easily, only had 400 marines on it. First invasion attempt was repelled because Japan thought the place was undefended. Bataan was USA disaster, 100,000 alleid troops defeated by only 30,000 imperial troops, a poor example to use.
New Guinea campaign begins in late 43, and continues to mid 44, is not "early war" at all.

You are correct. Wake only had 400 Marines and 4 F4F Wildcat fighters that had no spare parts. Yet they still succeeded in throwing back one Japanese attack, sinking a Japanese destroyer and a couple of transports, damaging a light cruiser, and giving the Japanese a rude shock. Of COURSE Wake was gonna fall, and of COURSE the Japanese underestimated it. You would also underestimate 400 troops and a few aircraft. That isn't the point.

Regarding New Guinea, first off it is worth noting that shortly after taking command in Australia, the 31st and 42nd Infantry Divisions were sent to Australia - meaning they were deemed at least well-enough trained for overseas deployment. By extension, the other formations in the US, at least some of them, should have been approximately as far along in their training, and given a few extra months for your ultra-optimistic July 1942 target date for the Japanese invasion, would have had a few more months to train before going into combat. Additionally, US air strength was being constantly shipped to Australia - yet another source from which aircraft could have been withdrawn for shipment back to the US. And yes, these had pilots

However, New Guinea. The Japanese seized Buna in August of 1942, and the battle developed from there in New Guinea. I would consider August of 1942 early in the war, and US troops fought hard there (along with Australians), and also in Guadalcanal, which was going on at the same time. August 1942 is not "late 43".

Not sure what your trying to sat here, Hawaii couldn't be supplied if WC was attacked and PC destroyed because supply line would be something like 10,000 miles from East Coast of USA round S america across Pacific, which could be interdicted by Japan.
Japanese resupply is direct from Japan to USA, across Northern Pacific, vulerable only to subs (with faulty torpedoes), no nautical AC could strike till they were near US coast, and Japan would have it's own air assests to protect against that. Also, Japanese strike force would be steadily augmented over time, and IJA aircraft would also arrive to supplement the naval forces.
It is only approx 5,000 nautical miles from Japan to USA West coast, about the same distance as Guadalcanal was to Japan, and Japan could reach this area, and could reach US WC also.

That's precisely the argument I told you not to make. The Japanese could reach Guadalcanal, sure - but they had bases all along the route from Japan to the Solomons. You don't imagine the Tokyo Express sailed from Japan every night, do you? And you don't think that every Japanese warship came straight to Guadalcanal from Japan, and straight back for repairs, do you? Of course not.
The difference in the West Coast of the US is that Japan did NOT have a string of bases. Owning Midway, the closest base to that area, does not count as a string of bases, and you can't say that because Japan could supply a force in Guadalcanal, they could therefore supply and reinforce one in California. It doesn't work like that.

Midway is apporx 1,000 Nautical miles north west of Hawaii, and is an atoll, not a harbor. It is sheltered enough to use as a place for fleet refueling from tankers (Japan did this at sea for Pearl Harbor), so would be perfect for USA strike. It only takes 2 weeks at 10 knots to sail from Japan to US west coast, you know.

Of course it'd be perfect for fueling. I'm not talking about fueling. It stands to reason that before undertaking something as huge as an invasion of the West Coast, the Japanese would have to stockpile supplies - they're not going to go in with their basic loadouts and whatever was on their transports, and then have to wait 2 weeks for resupply from Japan. Japan simply didn't have enough ships to make a constant "sea bridge" to supply 150,000 men 5-6000 miles away - and that's assuming they could use every merchant vessel and military transport they had, which they couldn't of course. Therefore, you would have to build up reserves of supplies - food, water, ammunition, etc. - in a forward base. Midway was just too small for all of those supplies. Hell, with all of the stuff the US shipped to it prior to the Battle of Midway, it was joked that it was to the point where if anything else was sent, Midway would sink into the sea from all that weight. Obviously an exaggeration, but what it shows is that the US ran out of room building up supplies for a small garrison, a few dozen aircraft, and enough to supply bombing attacks on the IJN. There's no way the Japanese could have used Midway, and Midway only, as a forward base. It's just inadequate.
And what happens when Japanese warships are damaged? Say, a Japanese carrier eats a torpedo that actually explodes? You can't sail it to Midway and repair it - you have to sail it somewhere where it could actually be repaired, probably Japan, if it's coming from the US West Coast. Personally, *I* wouldn't want a damaged aircraft carrier steaming 5000 miles of empty ocean with unknown numbers of Allied submarines out there, and no sane naval commander would want to either.

This happens when you post from work from memory. Not Hornet, USS Ranger is the other carrier, and Texas, along with New York and Arkansas were part of US Atlantic fleet, with Panama gone, would have to take long trip around South America.

Yeah, the Ranger is the one I was thinking of, just couldn't come up with the name. Also remember that the Saratoga was undergoing repairs in Bremerton (IIRC), and assuming ANYTHING other than the ultra-optimistic date of July 1942, it would probably be available as well. I'd also say that, after crushing Japanese wins at Midway and Coral Sea, the US would send those 3 BBs into the Pacific BEFORE a Panama Canal strike could be done.

You could find plenty, but were are the trained pilots to fly them? Were are the trained ground crews to service them? The AA defenses to protect them? The logistical organization to make it work? The USA had none of this in 1942, if you look carefully at Torch, this becomes quickly evident.

The British trained pilots at record rates for the Battle of Britain. No reason the US couldn't have done the same. The trained ground crews were mainly in places such as Great Britain and Australia, and could have been brought back if needed. And if you think US logistics would have been a mess, then imagine Japanese logistics.

Canada had no large formations to send, and in fact contributed only a Corp to the war in Europe

Yes, they only sent a Corps to Europe. But yes, they had more troops back at home that they refused to deploy. Canadian draftees were not sent overseas, only volunteers were. I think a Japanese invasion of the West Coast would have warranted Canadian deployment of some of their troops. Also remember that Canada had both infantry and armored forces in training at the time as well, and could have been used if really needed.

They would be opposed by national guard formations, and units without heavy weapons (Machine guns, artillery) or airpower. They would lose for sure, it would have been a major US embarrisment.

Sure, the National Guard would probably lose a few early pitched battles. But they'd slowly stiffen, and contain any Japanese beachheads. Pretty soon, 7 Japanese divisions - less, if you count troops that would have to be used to hold down US civilians and partisan groups which would undoubtedly form - would be simply overwhelmed, and destroyed in detail. Also remember that Japanese divisions tended to be smaller than American ones. 1 Japanese division was not the equivalent in manpower or equipment of 1 American division.

Half assed green troops against experienced troops means heavy losses, and you keep speaking of US production of 1945 levels.
The USA didn'r have lots of artillery and tanks in mid 1942. In fact, we had to strip the first armored division of it's Shermans to supply the British eight army with them for Alamein. We simply didn't have the hardware yet, so such a statement by you is incorrect.

First off, the US didn't NEED 1945 production levels to beat 7 Japanese divisions. Their was plenty of production going on in mid 1942 - and especially in early 1943, which is much more reasonable of a timeline (assuming they could invade it all, which they of course reasonably couldn't). And yes, the Americans stripped the 1st Armored to supply the British. Yes, the Americans were constantly shipping tanks to Russia. First off, these Russian shipments would dry up REAL fast if the US was actually in danger. Secondly, Shermans weren't the only tank in the US arsenal - there were also Grants, Lees, Stuarts, etc., all of which could beat whatever armor the Japanese could throw at them, and all of which would simple destroy Japanese infantry formations (supported with infantry of course).

Japan's Torpedo bomber was the Kate, an aircraft that also carried bombs just as easily as torpedoes. Remember Midway? The Japanese kept switching back and forth between bombs and torpedoes? Helped them lose the battle.

OK. You got me on that one. The point still stands, though, that 400-odd aircraft simply wasn't enough to support an attack on the US, especially when only around half of those are fighters.

[Wraith]

--"Why break the law when the mechanism exists for changing the law?"

Just a comment here, but Jury Nullification is legal. Judges and lawyers mostly don't like this, but as far as I can tell, it is true.

--"*can't wait till Imran or Wraith goes overseas*"

I don't support the draft. Other than a support for the death penalty, how am I right-wing in any way, shape or form?

And what's wrong with support of the death penalty? Violating someone else's right to life is certainly enough to declare your own questionable.

As far as going overseas... well, I'm currently working on learning Japanese. After I'm reasonably fluent (including written; Kana isn't a big deal, but Kanji...), I'll probably take a nice long vacation and travel some of Europe as well. I don't think your politics, after this forum, are going to be any big surprise to me.

Interesting historical comments in this thread, however

Wraith
Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it - inaccurately

[Chris 62]

Well, there you have it David.

I never said it was likely, or even probale, but it was possible, as I have shown.

History is repleate with turning points, and as a personal note, you should study the pre-war and cold war eras more carefully, your isolationist view would be a disaster for humanity, but you can take that or leave it as you like.

[David Floyd]

Chris, fine, I'll concede that Japan could have put troops on the continental US if YOU concede to me that that was neither militarily wise nor a viable threat. And that's the whole point. The US COULD have invaded France in 1942 - it just wasn't a viable threat to happen and any troops who landed would have been destroyed. Hell, ENGLAND could have invaded France right after the Battle of Britain, doesn't make it a THREAT to happen though.

And yes, I'll also admit that the US going isolationist would probably be a disaster for lots of people around the world. I firmly believe it would help the US and save American lives though, as it clearly would have done in WW1 and WW2.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, fine, I'll concede that Japan could have put troops on the continental US if YOU concede to me that that was neither militarily wise nor a viable threat. And that's the whole point. The US COULD have invaded France in 1942 - it just wasn't a viable threat to happen and any troops who landed would have been destroyed. Hell, ENGLAND could have invaded France right after the Battle of Britain, doesn't make it a THREAT to happen though.

The threat was real and viable, but it's obvious no amount of posting will convince you. If you wish to be a good historian, you must strive to be less regid in your thinking, or you will just be a quoter of facts and figures.

And yes, I'll also admit that the US going isolationist would probably be a disaster for lots of people around the world. I firmly believe it would help the US and save American lives though, as it clearly would have done in WW1 and WW2.

More Americans would have died in the wars to follow, as it was clear neither the axis nor the soviets intended to stop attacking. eventually the Nazis and the Japanese would have taken all of Europe and Asia (Make no mistake, without US help, Russia was doomed, no matter what some people believe), than looked towards the last obsticle to world domination, the USA.