From: thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:15:41 GMT


From thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)

In article <BxB87s.KDL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>
>In article <BwqoxE.Ivz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>
>>From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>>
>>In article <BwLHEE.I9q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Besides I don't think the survival of the Battleships at Pearl Harbour
>>>would have had much impact one way or the other.
>>
>>[Depends on how effective they could have been.  Could the battleships have
>> closed to gun range with enemy carriers?]

The battleships attacked at Pearl might have made 22 knots on a good day,
whereas all the Japanese carriers actually used in combat could make 24 easy,
and most of them were a lot faster than that.  The U.S. Pacific Fleet actually
had a force of six battleships with an escort carrier (presumably to provide
fighter cover) available for the Battle of Midway; Admiral Nimitz kept them
on the West Coast so as not to get into trouble.

>[German battlecruiser Gneisenau sunk the British carrier Glorious;
> battleship guns were perfectly useful against anything in range.
> The British used their battleships effectively, partly because they
> had a sizable force of battleships, unlike the U.S. after Pearl Harbor]

Going into WWII, the U.S. had fifteen battleships, of which three were
considered obsolete due to insufficient protection, although they had
better protection than some battleships in other navies (including the
Japanese).  At the end of March 1942, five of these battleships were
out of commission still due to Pearl Harbor, and therefore the U.S.N.
had seven old and three older battleships.  In June, the newer battleships
started to arrive in the Pacific.  The U.S.N. had a strong battleship force
for some time, and found no way to use it effectively.

>[and partly because their carrier planes weren't very good.]

True enough.  Also, the weather in the North Atlantic was typically nastier
than the weather in the Pacific, and neither the Germans nor Italians ever
had carriers, and the Royal Navy was not seriously into sea battles in that
war, basically because the Axis was going to lose any such battles and they
knew it.  It was a different theater of war.

>My conclusion:
>If battleships were available, and used well, they were still a
>major force in World War II, and could, to a certain extent, cope
>with air attacks. If the American battleships had survived Pearl
>Harbor, it would have been a different war. I'm sure we would
>have lost some, (Japanese carrier planes were good!) but I think
>there would have been some more traditional style battleship
>actions.
>
IMHO, if the Japanese had inflicted minimal damage at Pearl Harbor,
the war would have proceeded in much the same way.  There would have
been no more traditional battleship actions, since the U.S.N. would not
have risked the slower battleships against Japanese air attack, and the
Japanese would not have tried to engage with their battleships.  The
only battles the U.S. could not have fielded a powerful battle line for
were the earliest ones (Java Sea, the invasion of Wake, etc.), and the
Navy never tried to get these battleships involved in sea battles.

DHT



Xref: sparky sci.military:10758 soc.history:9226