Whats the use of Capships?

Ultimately, yes - if the Americans could fend off the Japanese until their fleet was ready to strike back. But where would the Americans find enough ships right then in December to prevent the Japanese from wiping Pearl Harbour and the rest of Hawaii off American maps? Would they take back the ships they had just transferred to the Atlantic? They couldn't just sit tight until the ships are built. So, the European war would have gone very differently.

Wedge: Can't change it, but it's fun to speculate :).
 
From what I know the Japanese did destroy Pearl Harbour. The rest of Hawaii didn't really matter. And yes the Americans could sit tight. Why? Because the Japanese never attacked Continental America. They didn't even attempt to occupy Pearl Harbour.
And yes they did send reinforcements through the Panama Canal. 2 carriers (Yorktown & Hornet I think) were definitly sent to the Pacific in response to Pearl Harbour.
Finally the Japanese attitude to America was defensive. They never thought they could take down America & many Japanese didn't think it was a good idea to try. But the Americans were growing very nervous about Japan's expansion in East Asia & the way the war was going in Europe. Despite they're isolationist attitude it looked like they might get involved. With their finite resources already spreading thin the Japanese decided on a knock out punch. They figured that if they eliminated the Pacific Fleet the Americans might decide to back off. They definitely didn't want a full strength Pacific Fleet charging into the Western Pacific.
One should also note that battleships were considered the star performers of any ocean going fleet. The importance of carriers as we know it was yet to be fully established.
 
Because the Japanese never attacked Continental America. They didn't even attempt to occupy Pearl Harbour.
Click to expand...
That's because the carriers didn't get plastered :).

And yes they did send reinforcements through the Panama Canal. 2 carriers (Yorktown & Hornet I think) were definitly sent to the Pacific in response to Pearl Harbour.
Click to expand...
Ay, but had they lost the carriers which were already there, two carriers wouldn't have been enough. They would have had to seriously cut down on their Atlantic Fleet, simply because Roosevelt would have no choice. People would have demanded protection, and lots of it.

They figured that if they eliminated the Pacific Fleet the Americans might decide to back off.
Click to expand...
Aye. Biggest mistake they ever made, since knocking out those ships, especially the carriers, would have made peace completely unpalatable.

One should also note that battleships were considered the star performers of any ocean going fleet. The importance of carriers as we know it was yet to be fully established.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think Yamamoto knew their importance... and on December 7th, the Americans figured it out too ;).
 
From what I've read even if the Japanese had sunken every USN ship in the Pacific they still wouldn't have attempted to occupy American soil. The whole strategy was defensive. The idea was convince the Americans of Japanese naval superiority so that the Americans would back off. Considering the isolationist attitude that was prevalent at the time this does seem like a fair assumption.

As for reinforcements I think the Americans had 2 options. They could've shifted more ships from the Atlantic or they could've risked an invasion and rely on the army & USAAF to hold the fort.
Considering that Japanese troops were already scattered throughout East Asia, an invasion of US turf doesn't sound credible.
Therefore they could afford to sit tight. Ship production was running at record levels so eventually (assuming all the Pacific Fleet was gone) they could counterattack with sufficient strength. Besides the primary threat in the Atlantic was the U Boats. Any carriers & cruisers built could be deployed to the Pacific with the destroyers left to protect the Atlantic convoys. That was what destroyers were for anyway.
 
Aye, they wouldn't invade American soil - but what about Australian soil? That was most definitely an option... hell, the Australians were considering the prospect of abandoning northern Australia (everything north of Brisbane) in the event of an invasion. This would indeed have been a real possibility - the Japanese came within a hair's breadth of capturing Port Moresby as it was; imagine how they would have fared if the Aussies didn't have American support in those first crucial months. And once they had Port Moresby, they would have landed in Oz.

This would have created another huge problem for the Allied war effort. After all, the carriers were what defeated the Japanese forces, but it was the submarines that prevented resources from reaching Japan. Japan had those resources - they had oil in Indonesia, they had rubber, they had everything (they would have iron from Australia) - imagine, then, if Allied subs couldn't use bases in north and west Australia... would Pearl-based subs really make a difference to the war effort?

So what would have happened then? Would the Americans be able to race across the Pacific if Japanese pilots weren't green due to lack of fuel for training flights? And if the number of Japanese planes and carriers was, instead of shrinking, growing?

About the Atlantic, keep in mind that American carriers were needed, for example, to ensure safe landings in North Africa (though whether these were truly vital to the war effort is probably debatable - well, they were vital politically but not strategically).
 
Blast Radius has much better capital ships

Blast Radius is a Sony PlayStation game -- it has much better capital ships. They're ALOT MORE challenging than Wing Commander. Origins should make their capships like them. Blast Radius capships have more guns and they don't take long at all to shoot fighters.
 
I think its fairly obvious you know more about WWII than I do. Anyway even if the Japanese did occupy Oz I still think they would've been pushed back eventually. If the Americans couldn't use Oz, there's always NZ. And failing that they could try the various Pacific islands. As for actually invading Australia, if they had the manpower & necessary resources than why not attack America? Advancing across the American plain has got be easier than advancing across the Australian desert.
As for the Atlantic they had the RN.
 
I think its fairly obvious you know more about WWII than I do.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's just that I only just finished reading a book about it, so it's all still fresh in my mind ;).

Anyway, it's difficult to to say what exactly would have happened. I think you're right - eventually, the Japanese would have been pushed back, regardless of whether the Americans were operating from Oz or NZ. At the same time, it seems to me that this would have given the Japanese a real chance. Why? Because of the way the two theatres of war interrelated. Any withdrawal of American naval power from the Atlantic would directly affect both the Russians and the British. Destroyer escorts were also not too numerous, so had few of them been sent off to the Pacific...
(Ironically, the Japanese launching of the war in fact saved the Russians - large numbers of Russian troops which had been sitting in Siberia waiting to fight off the Japanese assault could now be sent to fight the Germans, and were very much a nasty surprise for Hitler.)
You mention the Royal Navy. Remember, that America was very much divided between Roosevelt and the isolationists. If American forces weren't visibly making a difference (and escorting convoys does not fall into this category), Roosevelt would have lost a lot of support.
Advancing across the American plain would have been suicide, because America has a much greater population than Oz ever did. This population would have actively opposed the Japanese. Australia, on the other hand, is inhabited mostly by sheep and cattle :).
 
The reason I think the Japanese would've lost is that America's resources were so much greater. Even if the Japanese could've gained Oz there's no way they could harness the resources of their empire as effectively as the Americans.
I'm not too sure on how much of an effect withdrawing combat ships from the Atlantic would've had on the British/Russians. At the height of the U Boat menace many convoys were still getting through. Also Russian wartime industry was also gearing up to scale where they could've toughed it out on their own. As for the British, the German defeat in the Battle of Britain & subsequent invasion of the USSR, should've giving the UK enough breathing space. That is they weren't in danger of being knocked out of the war entirely.
As for Russia and Hitler. I don't see how Hitler planned on conquering the USSR. Its too big. Its got too many soldiers. Such an operation would've required the full might of Germany and even then it would be touch & go... Besides I believe that the winter was the nastiest surprise in stall for Herr Hitler.
The Japanese assault on Pearl Harbour should've gained Roosevelt all the support he needed. They couldn't say "You've buggered our fleet. That's perfectly OK with us."
Attacking America in any overt way is suicide. But you got to admit marching through a desert isn't very pleasant either.
 
I'm kinda getting bored with this discussion, so I think we'll have to cut it or change topic soon :).

But anyway...

The Americans didn't really harness their resources effectively... certainly not as effectively as the Japanese... but rather they simply threw everything they had at their enemies until the latter died under the weight of all those resources. But you're quite right - as long as America wasn't getting bombed (which would be quite impossible for the Japanese to achieve), there was no hope. Sooner or later, an American offensive would have reached the Marianas, and the firebombing would have started (actually, I wonder if anybody has ever considered putting the commanders responsible for that idea on trial for crimes against humanity). Not to mention, eventually the nuke would have come along.
The height of the U-Boat menace only passed because the Americans finally got off their asses and started building escort vessels (before this time, escort vessels were at the very end of the things-to-do list). But what if the shipyards were too busy churning out new carriers and destroyers for the Pacific front instead? You're right in that neither the UK nor the Russians would have been knocked out of the war, but the war would have lasted a year or two longer (which, imho, would in itself have been almost as disasterous as an Allied defeat).
I'm also not entirely sure what Hitler thought he was doing in Russia. Maybe he was skipping class the day they taught about Napoleon? :) Seriously, he had a chance, but he was pretty much an absolute idiot. Why bother opening up a second front, when he could have smashed the British out of the Middle East? Why declare war on the Americans? Why waste money building stadiums in preparation for victory celebrations, while his forces were freezing to death in Russia?

Now, lastly, about Roosevelt. Yes, the Japanese gave him support for war - war against the Japanese. You have to consider that this was not synonymous with war against the Germans. But come to think of it, it dinna matter - Hitler was dumb enough to declare war out of sympathy for the Japanese. He basically untied Roosevelt and gave him a gun.
 
"I wonder if anybody has ever considered putting the commanders responsible for that idea on trial for crimes against humanity)."
When you get right down to it you could try all commanders for human rights violations. War IS NOT an ethical or fair means of solving disputes unless you believe in might is right...

Considering that I'm out of my depth on WWII I'd welcome a topic change. It'd be much better than reading through all those Earthworm vs Chip threads. :p

Chip: "I have an idea."
Earthworm: "No your idea is stupid and here's why."
Chip: "My idea's not stupid, its from Homeworld and Homeworld is relevant to the WCU."
Earthworm: "I don't care about Homeworld but I keep replying to your responses despite having promised not to."

Note: the above is in jest and is not meant to offend anyone.
 
Just remembered this. In response to human rights sometimes I think they go to far. Just recently a scheme was implemented whereby an owner of a car could place a sticker that reads: "no under 25s." The idea being that it would notify the police that if they saw a person under 25yrs of age driving a car bearing this sticker then in all likelihood the driver was probably a car thief. Obviously the sticker would only be used by people whose car's are not meant to be used by anyone under 25.
Anyways some under 25 year olds protested on a human rights basis and succeeded in getting the sticker removed. Police were instructed to ignore all such stickers.
This prompted some responses to the newspaper, which were overwhelmingly in favor of the stickers. The correspondents stated that the practical value of the sticker overrode any implied human rights violation. I tend to agree with this view.
Any thoughts anyone?
 
Err... what human rights violation? It's a statement of fact - this car is not owned by someone under 25 years of age. Surely, it's not a HR violation to state facts - if it was, then I guess we can't say, for example, that most people in France speak French :).

That is to say, I don't agree with you - the practical value of these stickers does not override the human rights violation, simply because there is no human rights violation to speak of.

When you get right down to it you could try all commanders for human rights violations. War IS NOT an ethical or fair means of solving disputes unless you believe in might is right...
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, that's right.
 
Interesting. I agree with the sticker because of its practical value.
And you think the same way except you think there is no violation to begin with.
Anyways those who launched the protest against the stickers said that the sticker implied that all under 25yr olds are car thieves and that is the basis of the violation. What do you think of that?
 
Originally posted by Penguin
Earthworm: "I don't care about Homeworld but I keep replying to your responses despite having promised not to."
Click to expand...
Hey, I only replied once or twice after I promised not to...:)

And then I turned the thread back on track with few of my own sugestions.
 
Anyways those who launched the protest against the stickers said that the sticker implied that all under 25yr olds are car thieves and that is the basis of the violation. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
Hmm... that's a very extreme interpretation. Yes, it can be interpreted like that if you use your imagination, but it's far too extreme an interpretation to pay any attention to. If I say that Polish people live in this house, surely I'm not implying that the rest of the world's population are all illegal squatters?

This whole problem would disappear if the sticker's message was slightly rephrased. Perhaps "This car's owner is over 25 years old"?
 
Quarto: "Hmm... that's a very extreme interpretation."

Exactly. And that's the problem. These days you can interpret anything the way you like. And if you keep pushing it, eventually the deliberating authority will come to your side.
 
Quite, quite true. Ah, well... c'est la vie, n'est-ce pas? There's always some persuasive fools (or fools with an agenda, which is even worse) around. Always have been, always will be.
 
Well, n'est-ce pas, means isn't that right, IIRC, while I belive that c'est means it is/this is... and la means the


... c'est la vie, n'est-ce pas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top