Operation Ten-Go - The bigger they come, the harder they fall

[Dinglehoff]

No one is saying it would be totally impossible. However the difficulty of adding so many ships (some of which will be commandeered civilians) will increase the complexity of the operation by an order of magnitude and decrease the convoy's speed to such a degree that the chance of something going off will be incalculably higher, especially if they take the snaking approach route they historically took. (A more direct route will go right past some American bases)

View attachment 572204

Just marshaling all those vessels off the kuriles will be significant challenge and they'll be at sea much longer. . . giving intelligence assets more opportunities to catch on.

Aside from that, the Malaysia landing force *was* sighted before war broke out and was the reason Repulse was recalled to Singapore. You are quite right that the invasion was successful but the japanese did lose men due to rough sea conditions and the RAAF with much fewer air resources than would be available on Pearl did significant damage to the transports.

I don't doubt the Japanese could keep the larger convoy together. The question becomes what would happen if they are discovered, which is more likely because it's going slower.

The most difficult task would be to win the land battle if they get landed. I believe their infantry relied on intense physical training and light equipment during action, so overcoming determined US resistance would be very tough without support and more supplies from the fleet. Even more important would be sinking or driving away the US fleet. Very risky and dangerous, and they'd have to be very successful to be able to loiter around the islands providing support.

 

[Acheron]

Not to wade too deeply into the feasability of invasion success once they get there, but I do think people are being very unfair to this hypothetical Japanese invasion fleet. I'm surprised everyone is prepared to treat this fleet so differently from say, Allied convoys in the Atlantic (Operation Torch anyone?) or the actual Japanese invasion fleets to Malaysia/French Indochina. The Germans spent a lot of time patrolling to try and find much larger bunches of ships they knew were coming, knowing broadly what their route was and in a much smaller ocean, but they still didn't find/intercept every single convoy. Did the Allies use radio to coordinate their convoys like idiots to give their positions away? Of course not, and neither do the Japanese need to do so. Why shouldn't they sneak through a much larger ocean where more importantly, nobody knows where they are going. Aside from forming up in a convoy and maintaining their position/heading simply by keeping specific ships on their port and starboard to avoid the need to communicate, allowing the lead ship to effectively navigate for the convoy, there are 3 generally accepted means of communications for ships of the period that don't involve radios at all (the movie Tora Tora Tora rather effectively shows at least two of these in use by the carrier strike force on the way to PH btw). These being flags, lights and signal rockets. Why do the Japanese need radio for pre-invasion coordination on the way there just for the transports?

Well, during the Battle of Atlantic, the Germans patrolled (almost) exclusively with submarines. Since the conning tower does not raise so much above the sea, the area they could see was to my knowledge significantly smaller than that of a surface ship.

Besides, one convoy being spotted was bad but not decisive, even if it got subsequently mauled. The Hawaii invasion fleet tripping over someone would be a disaster.

I find it quite natural, that Japanese high command would not accept such an extreme gamble. I just think they should have realized what a huge gamble it was to take on the US in the first place.

 

[Dinglehoff]

Well, during the Battle of Atlantic, the Germans patrolled (almost) exclusively with submarines. Since the conning tower does not raise so much above the sea, the area they could see was to my knowledge significantly smaller than that of a surface ship.

Besides, one convoy being spotted was bad but not decisive, even if it got subsequently mauled. The Hawaii invasion fleet tripping over someone would be a disaster.

I find it quite natural, that Japanese high command would not accept such an extreme gamble. I just think they should have realized what a huge gamble it was to take on the US in the first place.

That visibility difference would be interesting to know. I couldn't find anything about it.

The attack that they did perform was a pretty big gamble, in terms of maintaining secrecy. I don't think going even bigger is comparatively much more extreme in that regard.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The attack that they did perform was a pretty big gamble, in terms of maintaining secrecy. I don't think going even bigger is comparatively much more extreme in that regard.

Probability theory says that it is, though.

Why load yourself even further with risks?

 

[Acheron]

Probability theory says that it is, though.

Why load yourself even further with risks?

I would say because the Japanese needed an enormous win, while the difference between a big win and a defeat in this battle had no impact on the outcome of the war.

Japan was like someone who owns a million to the mob and said load is overdue and if the money isn't there by tomorrow, it is harbor tour in Italian shoes and not the expensive kind. So the debtor goes to the casino. Getting out with 1.000 isn't enough. Getting out with 100.000 won't help. Either a million or finito.

Not to say that even pulling off the invasion of Hawaii successfully would have won Japan the war. With hindsight, I see two options for the Japanese if they decide to go to war with the US:
Either, manage to have the war started by Washington in a way that is least palatable to the American public in the hopes that they will not pursuit the war much.
Or, all-out to keep the US out of the pacific, whcih emans taking Hawaii. The DEI might have to be taken to secure oil supplies, but immediately taking on the Philippines and Singapore when you to the war with the US is like dispatching forces to take out two neighborhood gangs as you wake up Godzilla.

Just to make it clear, while I am NOT confident that the Japanese could successfully have invaded Hawaii, I am even LESS confident of this even winning them the war. If you look at the difference in production, Japan was like a pilot playing chicken with a mountain. The US was not only capable to build more and (ultimately) better planes than Japan, they could also have afforded the carrier for them.

 

[Ming]

Just to make it clear, while I am NOT confident that the Japanese could successfully have invaded Hawaii, I am even LESS confident of this even winning them the war. If you look at the difference in production, Japan was like a pilot playing chicken with a mountain. The US was not only capable to build more and (ultimately) better planes than Japan, they could also have afforded the carrier for them.

That production gives the US so many options.

One thing we haven't even brought up in the context of "what would the US do if the Japanese captured Hawaii" is leaving the difficult to supply base in a Japanese hands, ceding the central pacific and 'island hopping' down the Aleutians to the Kuriles, Sakhalin and Hokkaido. It's less distance from Alaska to Japan than it is from California to Hawaii.

Historically the Japanese worried the Allies would try just such a move and dedicated considerable land, sea and air forces guarding against it. The Kurile islands were extensively fortified and occupying attu and kiska probably had more to do with securing this flank than distracting from the midway operation.

Fighting a war in this environment would be absolute hell and the us had no bases to start from. . .but they could be built. If Hawaii is lost but a war must be prosecuted the front will get serious attention and the Japanese will have their hands full trying to defend their huge perimeter and neutralize the targets they left out of their first strike.

 

[Acheron]

That production gives the US so many options.

One thing we haven't even brought up in the context of "what would the US do if the Japanese captured Hawaii" is leaving the difficult to supply base in a Japanese hands, ceding the central pacific and 'island hopping' down the Aleutians to the Kuriles, Sakhalin and Hokkaido. It's less distance from Alaska to Japan than it is from California to Hawaii.

Historically the Japanese worried the Allies would try just such a move and dedicated considerable land, sea and air forces guarding against it. The Kurile islands were extensively fortified and occupying attu and kiska probably had more to do with securing this flank than distracting from the midway operation.

Fighting a war in this environment would be absolute hell and the us had no bases to start from. . .but they could be built. If Hawaii is lost but a war must be prosecuted the front will get serious attention and the Japanese will have their hands full trying to defend their huge perimeter and neutralize the targets they left out of their first strike.

That is how my friend defeated me in tripleAAA (Axis & Allies play-by-e-mail game).

And the US can also throw waves of convoys to the south towards Australia, going all the way up the South Pacific.

Anyone happen to know the second Lord-of-the-Rings animated film?

 

[Dinglehoff]

Probability theory says that it is, though.

Why load yourself even further with risks?

They had already decided to risk so much; what's a little more, especially when the jackpot is so much better?

 

[Dinglehoff]

That is how my friend defeated me in tripleAAA (Axis & Allies play-by-e-mail game).

Is that a game product you bought or the free website knockoff?

 

[Acheron]

Is that a game product you bought or the free website knockoff?

The later. Is it okay to post a link? If not, I will take down, until then, here it is:

TripleA: An Open Source Turn Based Grand Strategy Game

TripleA is a free open source turn based grand strategy game engine with play similar to Axis & Allies and Risk. Over a hundred different maps created by the community covering a wide variety of scenarios (such as WW1, WW2 and various science fiction and fantasy worlds) are available for...

triplea-game.org

 

[Dinglehoff]

The later. Is it okay to post a link? If not, I will take down, until then, here it is:

TripleA: An Open Source Turn Based Grand Strategy Game

TripleA is a free open source turn based grand strategy game engine with play similar to Axis & Allies and Risk. Over a hundred different maps created by the community covering a wide variety of scenarios (such as WW1, WW2 and various science fiction and fantasy worlds) are available for...

triplea-game.org

I've been using gamesbyemail .com