Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan. Subs, Schnorkels & radar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Japan. Subs, Schnorkels & radar

    Suppose Japan decideds to follow Germany's ww1 example & builds more subs than it did & stressed attack instead of using them the way they did, supply etc. & developed radar, ( Saburo Sakai's book mentioned a Japanese scientist who did develop sophisticated radar in the 30's but was not funded as Japanese thought Americans had poor vision & therefore not important ).

    & Italy developed schnorkel starting in the 20's, suppose Japan took an interest in it, they did copy many ideas & designs from other countries, dive bombers from US etc. & their longlance torpedo was 2nd to none.

    Would allied intelligence still be too much to overcome? & would US radar even the score?

    Japan likely lose the battle of attrition over time, US raw materials & shipbuilding ability hard to deal with.

    Nonetheless, how might the above scenario effect the pacific theater? Does Japan send US fleet packing around Guadalcanal? & hold it & move forward? depends on how many subs employed there I suppose. Say they send a whole pack of em & operate as a team?

    Does war lengthen?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Purple fang View Post
    Suppose Japan decideds to follow Germany's ww1 example & builds more subs than it did & stressed attack instead of using them the way they did, supply etc. & developed radar, ( Saburo Sakai's book mentioned a Japanese scientist who did develop sophisticated radar in the 30's but was not funded as Japanese thought Americans had poor vision & therefore not important ).

    & Italy developed schnorkel starting in the 20's, suppose Japan took an interest in it, they did copy many ideas & designs from other countries, dive bombers from US etc. & their longlance torpedo was 2nd to none.

    Would allied intelligence still be too much to overcome? & would US radar even the score?

    Japan likely lose the battle of attrition over time, US raw materials & shipbuilding ability hard to deal with.

    Nonetheless, how might the above scenario effect the pacific theater? Does Japan send US fleet packing around Guadalcanal? & hold it & move forward? depends on how many subs employed there I suppose. Say they send a whole pack of em & operate as a team?

    Does war lengthen?
    Japanís subs were used in the offensive in the beginning (one sank my favorite carrier the Yorktown) the problem they had is that they didnít go after the supply ships which allowed the U.S. to provide many fewer escorts in the Pacific then in the Atlantic. We also got away without the need to use convoys which would never have worked in the Atlantic. If Japan had gone after the supply ships then the investment in subs would have been worth something.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

    Comment


    • #3
      Est as of 1937

      Country % of Total Warmaking Potential world wide
      United States 41.7%
      Germany 14.4%
      USSR 14.0%
      UK 10.2%
      France 4.2%
      Japan 3.5%
      Italy 2.5%
      Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)



      http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
        Est as of 1937

        Country % of Total Warmaking Potential world wide
        United States 41.7%
        Germany 14.4%
        USSR 14.0%
        UK 10.2%
        France 4.2%
        Japan 3.5%
        Italy 2.5%
        Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)



        http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
        I think that sums it up.


        had Japan used it's subs better (likely and possible), and had it have more subs (unlikely - it's industrial output wa already stretched to the limit), it could have done more harm to the US buildup of stockpiles and material for the 1943-1945 onslaught on Japan.

        in the end, it would result to nothing more than perhaps one month more of war (and suffering to Japanese) but very little Else, the US has such an overwhelming force, that any war of attrition was doomed.
        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
          I think that sums it up.


          had Japan used it's subs better (likely and possible), and had it have more subs (unlikely - it's industrial output wa already stretched to the limit), it could have done more harm to the US buildup of stockpiles and material for the 1943-1945 onslaught on Japan.

          in the end, it would result to nothing more than perhaps one month more of war (and suffering to Japanese) but very little Else, the US has such an overwhelming force, that any war of attrition was doomed.
          Also IF Japan had used their subs in an anti-shipping role all the U.S. and UK anti sub units that had years of experience would have been turned on them after the German surrender in May. Whatever Japanese sub force still survived at that time would have discovered what Hell on earth was really like.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X