WI U-203 had sank USS Texas

[ModernKiwi]

Originally Posted by Dilvish

From what I've read about this incident, the U-boat's captain knew it was a US battleship, and may have identified her as USS Texas.

And thought she'd been lend-leased...

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

Both... they are not separable . Japan had to attack the US if it wanted to attack the DEIs

IIRC Japan even offered the US/WAllies a deal which gave Japan access to the resources without conquest. (joint expolotation or the like)

That was my point. I had understood that they had to take the southern resource area in order to maintain their economy/war with China, and thus had to attack the US.

If the second part of your post was doable, it may have been in their best interest long-term, but I don't know if the US or the Allies would have gone for it.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Texian

[*]Spawns battle cry: Remember the Texas! (i liked that!)[/LIST]

Would be very fitting.

[David Floyd]

If the second part of your post was doable, it may have been in their best interest long-term, but I don't know if the US or the Allies would have gone for it.

Not possible - from what I understand, US relations with Japan were largely linked to Japanese actions in China. The IJA wasn't going to back down in China and lose face, no matter what. But the US wasn't going to look the other way with regards to China, no matter what - too many long-term economic interests, as well as religious/political reasons (very strong Christian/missionary pro-China lobby that was pretty influential in Congress).

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by David Floyd

Not possible - from what I understand, US relations with Japan were largely linked to Japanese actions in China. The IJA wasn't going to back down in China and lose face, no matter what. But the US wasn't going to look the other way with regards to China, no matter what - too many long-term economic interests, as well as religious/political reasons (very strong Christian/missionary pro-China lobby that was pretty influential in Congress).

That's what I thought.

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by Shaby

I do not think it would alter that much of Japanese outlook.

They'd have zero chance for a surprise attack is the armed forces were already at war. Since Japan and Germany had their pact going, the Navy will be keeping an eye on the Pacific. Japan would still need the oil, so maybe they can lure the 7th Fleet out to the Phillippine Sea (ala War Plan Orange) and destroy them in some really deep water.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

They'd have zero chance for a surprise attack is the armed forces were already at war. Since Japan and Germany had their pact going, the Navy will be keeping an eye on the Pacific. Japan would still need the oil, so maybe they can lure the 7th Fleet out to the Phillippine Sea (ala War Plan Orange) and destroy them in some really deep water.

War Plan Orange called for a slow campaign going across the Pacific (the OTL Central Pacific Strategy) engaging the IJN at the periphery of their empire, say, the Marshall Islands. At those distances, Yamamoto isn't going to have an easy time of it unless the USN is foolish enough to engage him before the Atlantic Fleet comes into play and some of the newer built warships come on-line.

The Philippines, as always, are written off with Wake and Guam.

EDIT: I am not so completely sure of no Pearl Harbor. Maybe not complete surprise, but racism had a serious deleterious effect on the strategic thinking of US War Planners regarding defense of the Hawaiian Islands.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

They'd have zero chance for a surprise attack is the armed forces were already at war.

It was only a big coincidence that they managed to hit Pearl Harbour at all, if they'd come on the 6th or the 8th, or even the afternoon of the 7th, or if they'd come from further West Tyler might well have smelled a fish. Hells, if he's been told of the size of the radar signature he'd probably have cottoned on.

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

War Plan Orange called for a slow campaign going across the Pacific (the OTL Central Pacific Strategy) engaging the IJN at the periphery of their empire, say, the Marshall Islands. At those distances, Yamamoto isn't going to have an easy time of it unless the USN is foolish enough to engage him before the Atlantic Fleet comes into play and some of the newer built warships come on-line.

Ah, but it was the attack on Pearl Harbor (to say nothing about the destruction of the big guns) that woke the Navy up to the true potential of carriers. As already mentioned, the battleships were toast (four sunk, the other four in various states of damage) and thus forced the USN to rely on carriers and subs. Without the attack, will the 7th Fleet have proper air cover when it eventually engages the Combined Fleet? Without the sucker punch, a lot of conservative Admirals will stubbornly insist carriers are more for scouting than fighting.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by MattII

It was only a big coincidence that they managed to hit Pearl Harbour at all, if they'd come on the 6th or the 8th, or even the afternoon of the 7th, or if they'd come from further West Tyler might well have smelled a fish. Hells, if he's been told of the size of the radar signature he'd probably have cottoned on.

12/7 was a Sunday morning. As in, everybody's sleeping in, hungover, at church, or in the case of radar reports coming in, at breakfast. It was NOT a coincidence. The Japanese very specifically PLANNED a Sunday morning assault. Has any war ever started on a Wednesday afternoon?

Coming from due north was also part of the plan (No North Pacific approaching aircraft and ships). The level of training for handling incoming radar reports at Pearl was very poor at this time. Tyler WAS told of the radar image size, but he lacked both the training and experience to know how to interpret the data. There was a lot of mistrust still regarding radar in the ranks. That mistrust went down with the Arizona.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Ah, but it was the attack on Pearl Harbor (to say nothing about the destruction of the big guns) that woke the Navy up to the true potential of carriers. As already mentioned, the battleships were toast (four sunk, the other four in various states of damage) and thus forced the USN to rely on carriers and subs. Without the attack, will the 7th Fleet have proper air cover when it eventually engages the Combined Fleet? Without the sucker punch, a lot of conservative Admirals will stubbornly insist carriers are more for scouting than fighting.

I would think the fate of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales would change their minds. And not all black shoe officers were dinosaurs about the importance of air cover.

Besides, I was referring to the Marshalls, not exactly a bastion of Japanese land based airpower. The Central Pacific strategy called for a series of air raids to denude local air strength, then close in to destroy ground defenses, followed up by invasion forces. The actions of the IJN, of course, would determine what would follow. Much of the early war in the Pacific was reactive, anyway. With the IJN going ever farther beyond their means, resulting in eventual disaster.

The Central Pacific Strategy and War Plan Orange were the same thing, only with carriers doing all the fighting themselves. Basically, the pre-Pearl strategy called for the carriers to weaken the enemy and let the enemy advance into the guns of the US Battleforce. There was no other alternative, as the slowness of US battleships mandated that the Japanese had to come to them. Aggressive forward attacks by the battleships themselves simply wasn't possible. All the tactical initiative would be with the Japanese.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

12/7 was a Sunday moning. As in, everybody's sleeping in, hungover, at church, or in the case of radar reports coming in, at breakfast. It was NOT a coincidence. The Japanese very specifically PLANNED a Sunday morning assault. Has any war ever started on a Wednesday afternoon?

Fine, if they'd hit on November 30th or December 14th they wouldn't have taken them so much by surprise.

Coming from due north was also part of the plan (No North Pacific approaching aircraft and ships). The level of training for handling incoming radar reports at Pearl was very poor at this time.

Coincidentally, the inbound path of the Japanese was a just a few degrees off that one would be later taken by the bombers

Tyler WAS told of the radar image size, but he lacked both the training and experience to know how to interpret the data.

Tyler was later cleared of ANY wrongdoing, not the sort of outcome you'd expect of the moronic mind that would come up with "hey, a huge formation of aircraft, that's got to be the six bombers we were expecting".

[hairysamarian]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

If they had the capability to hit targets that specific, it makes me wonder why they didn't skip over the battleships and do that instead.

Because, later mythology to the contrary, the Japanese were just as enamored as Americans of battleships as the queens of the fleet. They set out to cripple the USN, and in their minds that meant the BBs.

[Adler17]

What if the USS Texas was sunk, after SHE had opened hostilities against a German ship outside the neutrality patrol area. For example she caught a blockade runner or attacked a German warship and was sunk by U-203?

Adler

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Ah, but it was the attack on Pearl Harbor (to say nothing about the destruction of the big guns) that woke the Navy up to the true potential of carriers. As already mentioned, the battleships were toast (four sunk, the other four in various states of damage) and thus forced the USN to rely on carriers and subs. Without the attack, will the 7th Fleet have proper air cover when it eventually engages the Combined Fleet? Without the sucker punch, a lot of conservative Admirals will stubbornly insist carriers are more for scouting than fighting.

The Navy had EIGHTEEN Carriers on order BEFORE Pearl Harbor from what I recall

Pearl Harbor was launched to hit the US before these were ready in 1943

They knew carriers were good for more than scouting

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

The Navy had EIGHTEEN Carriers on order BEFORE Pearl Harbor from what I recall

Pearl Harbor was launched to hit the US before these were ready in 1943

They knew carriers were good for more than scouting

I don't suppose you have a source for that information, preferrible one that doesn't begin with wiki. I'm not saying you're spouting nonsense, I just want to see the statistics and all.

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

I don't suppose you have a source for that information, preferrible one that doesn't begin with wiki. I'm not saying you're spouting nonsense, I just want to see the statistics and all.

Will this do?

19 July 1940 Congress Authorized 18 new Carriers and only 7 Battleships and 6 Battlecruisers, of which most of the BB and BC were cancelled

The Essex class carriers started commissioning in late 1942, you can google that fairly easily

This was why Japan went to war then, I do not have a source for this particular line but it is usually accepted

[Some Bloke]

If yougo ahead with a full timeline I insist on the battle cry being the title!

[Colossus]

Another interesting outcome of a "no Pearl Harbor" scenario might be how Japanese-Americans would be treated in this ATL. Remember, Pearl Harbor was seen as a cowardly sneak attack by Japan and that really increased the resentment towards the Japanese at the time.

Also, the US military and civilians were seeing Japanese spies everywhere. Without such intense (and racist) paranoia, could the internment camps be butterflied away?

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

If yougo ahead with a full timeline I insist on the battle cry being the title!

Seconded.