US Navy Aircraft Carriers at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41?

[BillSlim]

So if WW2 were to last till 1946/47 does that mean the Korean War would be delayed or maybe not start at all?

Means lots of instant sunshine for Japan, if the war goes on that far. A land invasion of Japan (OLYMPIC) would have taken place by then, as would have a Soviet invasion.
The Americans planned to use A-bombs in the tactical role and drench the largest cities in Japan with poison gas, and attack agriculture with anthrax, so if one doesn't get reduced to radioactive dust, or choked to death, one would get anthrax instead. The Japanese were also planning to use chemical and biological weapons against any invaders, and planned to arm those balloon bombs with BW cargoes to attack the US.

An extended war in the Pacific is just like an extended war in the West, the longer it lasts the worse it gets for the Axis powers, and makes it more likely that American nuclear weapons will be used against them. By 1947, for example, the US would have the capacity to build enough A-bombs to completely destroy Germany, or Japan if they chose to.
Instead the Americans decided to suspend manufacture of A-bombs to improve the production line, since there was no pressing requirement for lots of bombs.

The Americans were pretty committed to 'Germany First', I doubt anything would deflect that much. Looking at it dispassionately and logically one would think that the dissasters in @ would have diverted the US, but they did not. IMVHO even losing two carriers at Pearl Harbor, then losing one at Coral Sea (or equivalent), and Midway (or equivalent) would divert the US from the policy agreed with the British Empire.
Besides, by early 1943 the USN can bury the IJN in new Essex and Independence class carriers.

[Mossie]

Would America have entered the war in Europe at all?  Germany, mistakingly, declared war on the US believing that they would not be able to respond, with them being seriously distracted by a full scale war with Japan.  Up until then, the US had only given relatively limited assistance to the allies, mostly in the form of equipment.  If the situation had seemed more desperate, maybe the US would have focused most of their attentions on the war in the Pacific?

Many people & politcians in Europe needed a lot of convincing that they needed to join in the war in Europe.  After all, if the Europeans want to take pot shots at each other, let them, it's nothing to with us.  Roosevelt himself needed a lot of convincing that the US wan't just going to fight the war for the British, he wanted to know that they were going to push on themselves.  It took a lot of effort for Churchill to convince him, what if hadn't have managed?

So maybe it wouldn't even have been a 'World War', just two seperate large scale wars in different parts of the world?

[Brian da Basher]

With the war in the Pacific stretching on into 1947, I don't think the Korean conflict would've erupted as it's likely the Soviets would'be pushed all the to the end of the peninsula. In OTL, the only reason the Svoiets stopped at the 38th parallel was because the U.S. brokered a deal with them and was already landing occupation forces in Japan.

Brian da Basher

[BillSlim]

Would America have entered the war in Europe at all?  Germany, mistakingly, declared war on the US believing that they would not be able to respond, with them being seriously distracted by a full scale war with Japan.

Yes, unless Hitler decides to go all sane on us and not declare war on the USA.
Admiral Rader was apparently quite keen on declaring war on America, as his u-boats were effectively in an undeclared war with the USN anyway.
The Germans had already sunk, or damaged a couple of USN destroyers, all, IMVHO it would take would be another incident of that kind for the US to enter the war.

It is beginning to sound like some folks are trying to make the PoD worse and worse for the allies to a point where it becomes difficult for them to win without nuking the Axis powers sometime around 1947.  

Many people & politcians in Europe needed a lot of convincing that they needed to join in the war in Europe.

I assume you mean America, Mossie. We didn't need any convincing this side of the Pond, people were dropping bombs on us.    

[Lawman]

One possibility would of course be to simply build more escort carriers for the Atlantic, and shift all the proper carriers over to the Pacific. The Liberty ships would have made lousy conventional carriers, but they could have carried a more small-ship friendly aircraft like the Swordfish. The US thus churns out a hundred small escort carriers based on either the Liberty cargo ship, or possible the T-2 tanker ship. These displace around 16-22,000 tons, and would carry around 30-40 aircraft, since they would be completed as proper escort carriers. Once this batch of cheap slow escort carriers is completed, they switch to ones of a similar size, but with better machinery, with a much higher speed. For the Atlantic, they then operate the slow escorts with mostly ASW aircraft, within range of long range fighters - off the coast of Canada, off the UK, and around Iceland. The faster escorts are then used for wolf-pack interception.

All of this frees up the fleet carriers for service in the Pacific, and these are then supplemented by huge numbers of fast escort carriers, aka the Jeep carriers. With the loss of three or so fleet carriers on the 7th December '41, the response is to build dozens more fleet carriers, and hundreds of escort carriers. All in all, it would bite Japan in the backside - it would be slow, but it would come back to get them. I strongly suspect that it would only have delayed the war by 12-18 months, but it might have made the war faster once the US comes back. Since the US would put carrier construction in much higher gear, the US might have been able to fight back much faster.

Another thing is that the UK might have crafted a deal whereby the Americans get some of the British carriers, in exchange for getting escort carriers down the line. With the UK's limited numbers of aircraft, the escort carriers prove a hit, since they can operate a nearly full size airwing off the small carriers. This rubs off the on the UK, which then abandons its existing carrier concepts, and switches to producing a UK copy of the Essex class. As such, at the end of the war, the UK has a fleet mostly made up of escort carriers, with a batch of a dozen UK-Essex class carriers on the way. At the end of hostilities, the UK leaves them on the blocks, and stalls until the Korean war, when the UK decides the carrier age is not over, and finishes all twelve. Four of the twelve are intended for UK allies - two to France temporarily, one each to Australia and Canada, with the French pair then being passed onto the Netherlands, and the second one for testing, before going to Australia. Since they are built to UK methods, they have a much more modest crew. Since they are all completed with a full angled deck, they remain useful carriers clean through to the '70s, and operate modern aircraft.

With this, the UK has eight full size nearly identical carriers, and thus aims to replace them in two batches, with two large CVA-01s and two smaller LPHs replacing each batch of four Essexes. With this, the UK goes from eight medium, to four large and four small carriers.

Overall, the loss of the carriers in Pearl could have had a lot of positives!  

[Geoff]

On the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend for the moment - -

How about the US supplying carriers, either jeep or Essex class to the USSR to operate in the Pacific, along with Hellcats and Helldivers??
Also SeaHurricanes etc.

B777 -  I think that seaborne instant sunshine is a possibility, but perhaps delivered by mini-sub to Tokio bay? The Germans allegedly had a similar idea for New York.  :redx:  

[Madoc]

Geoff,

Supply to Soviets with a blue water naval capability?  

Um. No.

First off, we'd have a helluva time getting the stuff there as the Japanese would be a might bit peeved at the prospect.

Secondly, and more to the point, the Soviets wouldn't have the manpower, the logistical support, nor the doctrinal ability to make use of the things.  Even throughout the Cold War the Soviets really never "got it" when it came to carrier operations.  Expecting them to do so almost overnight, circa 1942, while they're also facing down the Germans to the West and were officially at peace with the Japanese is not a high probability thing.

Madoc

[Madoc]

Folks,

Okay, here's what I think we've come up with thus far:

The Pearl Harbor attack takes place "on schedule" but manages to sink two of the three fleet carriers the US has in the Pacific.

The Japanese advances in the Pacific Theater of Operations now face far less naval opposition from the US and thus are both faster and broader in scope.

Options are:

The US engages in an even more massive ship building program to make up for the loss in carriers and fields even more Essex class ships as well as more Jeep escort carriers.

These take time to build and deploy.  Also, the Japanese holdings are more widespread and advanced thus it takes longer for the Allies to push them back to the home islands.

In this scenario, Germany still comes first but the desire on the part of the US for vengeance is greater (if that's even possible) due to the greater initial loses.

A delay of a year to a year and a half is expected in the progress of events out in the Pacific with the ending being about the same - naval blockade, strategic bombardment, firebombing of Japanese cities with nukes employed if the conventional bombing fails.

Another scenario would be where Germany does _not_ come first.  Somehow, Germany manages to stay out of war with the US.  No small feat, that.  But, for the purpose of discussion, Germany makes the impossible possible and thus the US has no alternative but to go after Japan first.

Here too it would take a while to gear up and have an effect.  But, with 100% of the US war effort going toward the Pacific, then the progress in that theater would be even greater in this Alternate Time Line than in Our Time Line.  Perhaps, due to the Japanese achieving greater initial success, the greater US capability is slowed sufficiently that no real difference in time period results for the final outcome - naval blockade of the Japanese home islands, strategic bombing of Japan's military and industrial capabilities, firebombing of Japanese cities with nukes employed if the conventional bombing fails.

An alternate here is that the full might of the US war effort focused on Japan greatly speeds up the process and brings the war in the Pacific to a close six months to a year ahead of schedule.

Some things to think about with a Japan First strategy:

What of Lend/Lease?

Would the US also be supplying the Soviet Union during this time?  If not, what effect would that have on the Soviet's ability to fight off the Nazi advance?

In OTL, the US essentially fed all of Russia, provided all its high octane gasoline, provided 1/4 of its air force, provided almost all of its trucks, provided all but two of the railroad engines the Soviets used during the war to move their armies via rail, and provided a huge portion of the ammunition the Red Army went through in the fighting.

No feeding of the Bolsheviks by the US would mean that the Soviets would have to keep millions of able bodied men back on their farms lest the rest of the nation starve.  That means the Red Army would be shy an equivalent millions of troops.  Having to produce their own rail engines means they can produce as many tanks.  Same same with having to produce all their own trucks and so on.

I think the US would continue to do Lend Lease with Britain but the lack of US manpower after 1942 would have a stymying effect on Britain's ability to both mount and sustain any offenses against the Nazis.

Your thoughts?

Madoc

[tinlail]

Here another possible way of getting to something interesting (scary), the US screws up.
Japan success causes enough naval resources to be diverted that the battle of the Alantic is lost. If Pearl Harbor oil storage is destoryed causing tanker traffic to England to instead go to Hawaii, because the US fears a real chance of a invasion of the island. England withers on the vine unable to become a base for attacks.

Germany could get a second chance to win the battle of Britain.

[BillSlim]

Japan success causes enough naval resources to be diverted that the battle of the Alantic is lost.

The IJN would have to succeed in diverting a hell of a lot of resources, including ASW vessels that were not much use in the Pacific. For the Germans to win the Battle of the Atlantic you would also need to remove a large portion of the RN and RCN, get rid of ULTRA and give the KM more u-boats.

While there was a lot of USN help, the heavy lifting in the Battle of the Atlantic was done by the RN, RCN and other Cw navies.

If England withers on the vine, presumably the rest of the UK (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), is OK then?  

To really defeat the USN the IJN would need to make sure that the entire fleet, both PACFLEET and LANTFLEET was in Pearl Harbor on 7th December '41, otherwise the losses, even if we include all of PACFLEET's CVs, will be replaced by transfers from the Atlantic. The USN would also probably only transfer capital ships, which it did, and enough escorts to screen them.
ASW ships stay in the Atlantic.

Am I begining to sound like a stuck record, or is that just me?    

[tinlail]

"lost" might be overstating things. But not winning as quickly could be very bad for the UK.

IJN can't defeat the US. At worst it could make it give up. Over reacting to the PH attack is some what more likely and could cause big problems.

On the bright side we could get skyraiders flying in WWII.

[Madoc]

Folks,

I can't see the US letting England collapse.  Most folks in the US knew that doing what we could to keep England in the fight against Nazi German made strategic sense.  So, keeping them going with war materials was the smart thing to do even from an isolationist point of view.  It also made excellent business sense for the US as all those war orders really brought the US economy back to life after the Depression.  The US might not have been willing to go to war against Germany just for the sake of Englad, circa 1941 - 42, but I also don't think we'd have let England fall at that time either.

So, I wouldn't worry about England withering for lack of US supplies during those years.  Mind you, a much more intense U-boat effort combined with the US somehow not being at war, officially, with Germany, might make the amount of those supplies a good deal smaller than in OTL.  That might make for just enough to keep Britain going but not enough for much offensive actions.

One thing to bear in mind in working out a scenario in which the US and Germany do not go to war with each other in December of '41 or through '42, is that this could very well mean the defeat of the Soviet Union.  Without any American supplies reaching the USSR by mid-spring of '42 then things would get exceptionally bad for the Russians come that summer's German offensives.  And if the US wasn't at war with the Nazis then we'd have about zero reason - and even less political ability - to send supplies over to the Soviets.

I think most Americans could see the logic of keeping England in the fight but they'd draw the line at helping out those Red bastards in Moscow.  Without all that food, without all those trucks, without all those planes, and without all those other supplies, the Soviets would be extremely hard pressed to stop the Nazis - let alone go on to the offensive.  And all it would take to knock the Soviets out of the war at that time would be a concerted drive by the Germans on to the Caucus.  If Army Group South drove through to the oil fields there then the Red Army would soon be, literally, out of gas.  A few set piece battles later and it'd be all over for the Soviet Union.  At which point the entire German war machine could be brought to bear upon Merry Old England.  All this whilst the US was busy mucking about in the Pacific with the Japanese.

Charming prospect, eh?

Madoc

[elmayerle]

So if WW2 were to last till 1946/47 does that mean the Korean War would be delayed or maybe not start at all?

It depends on who takes Korea.  If we go in there, near the Chosin Reservoir, to stop the Japanese A-bomb effort and acquire their uranium and heavy water stocks, the communists might never get it.

[elmayerle]

Would America have entered the war in Europe at all?  Germany, mistakingly, declared war on the US believing that they would not be able to respond, with them being seriously distracted by a full scale war with Japan.  Up until then, the US had only given relatively limited assistance to the allies, mostly in the form of equipment.  If the situation had seemed more desperate, maybe the US would have focused most of their attentions on the war in the Pacific?

Many people & politcians in Europe needed a lot of convincing that they needed to join in the war in Europe.  After all, if the Europeans want to take pot shots at each other, let them, it's nothing to with us.  Roosevelt himself needed a lot of convincing that the US wan't just going to fight the war for the British, he wanted to know that they were going to push on themselves.  It took a lot of effort for Churchill to convince him, what if hadn't have managed?

So maybe it wouldn't even have been a 'World War', just two seperate large scale wars in different parts of the world?

Shades of 1945 by Gingrich and Forischen (with a small sex scene written in by publisher Jim Baen       ).  It wasn't a successful novel, but it had some fascinating bits to it.

Uchronia review of 1945

[NARSES2]

Another thing is that the UK might have crafted a deal whereby the Americans get some of the British carriers,

We did - HMS Victorious was lent to the USN