Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

51

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the heavy AA guns appear like they can't point down over the deck. They can only point upwards or parallel to the surface, but not down at the surface. This assumption is wrong. The US Mark 12 5"/38 caliber dual purpose (surface and aircraft) mount was the primary heavy AA armament facing kamikazes. It was mounted on ...


27

No. Japan had almost no capability to continue waging war. In fact, strangled by the American blockade, Japan was tottering on the brink of collapse. Experts both then and since believed that the combined pressure of the Soviet entry, the relentless blockade (and usually, the conventional aerial bombardment campaign) would have compelled Japan to surrender. ...


24

Many people seem to be confused that this was a plan developed during or just prior to WWII to defend the home islands, this is not true. Kantai Kessen was developed and adopted after the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) and well before the US entered WWII (1941). With that in mind, answers must take into account the interwar situation and mindsets of the ...


23

The Japanese navy had a fundamental misunderstanding of the American navy, in large part because of its experience with other, European navies such as those of Russia and Britain. And perhaps they were confused by America's War Plan Orange," which preached similar doctrine, but was more "honored in the breach than the observance." In the 1905 war with ...


12

Japan was not really capable of "maintaining war" by mid-1945. The problem was that it was unwilling to "make peace" on anything like reasonable terms. If the Allies had wanted a stop to the fighting, one possibility might have been a "cease fire in place." That would leave the Allies in possession of the Philippines, and Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but it would ...


12

The answer to this question is yes, Japan was capable of maintaining the war at the time and likely would have done so. However, Japan was incapable of conducting meaningful offensive operations by then. So, in a sense they couldn't have hurt the U.S. but they would have hurt many others. U.S. General Curtis LeMay was responsible for implementing the ...


11

Yes. The most famous example is an embassy to Rome sent by several Christian daimyo from Western Japan. Consisting of four teenage envoys and a number of attachés, the group departed from Nagasaki on 20 February 1582 and reached Lisbon on 10 August 1584. In addition to meeting Pope Gregory XIII, the Japanese toured Spain and visited several Northern Italian ...


9

Midway was a distraction at a critical moment in the battle, but this more due to luck than anything else. If you replay the Battle Of Midway over again, it is unlikely it would have turned out that way again. Despite the US advantage of surprise and Japanese overconfidence, so much of the battle was down to luck. Midway made three important (I won't say ...


8

Initially, Japanese observers thought the Taiping Rebellion was a nationalist revolt by Ming China loyalists. This perception was encouraged by for instance the rebel slogan "Destroy Manchuria, Revive Han China (滅満興漢)". Thus, Japan believed the rebellion to be an attempt by the subjugated Han Chinese natives to free themselves form their Manchurian ...


7

Kindly allow me to update completely. As a starter, I being a native speaker, kindly be reminded it would sound very strange when the OP says "Kantai Kessen, the Japanese naval strategy for a Pacific war" ( Excluding the fact that the Wiki was updated by someone ). The reason is, simply, in term of the usage of the word. Kantai Kessen simply denotes the one ...


6

As for strategy, in general going for the side of an American WWII capital warship would probably not be the most effective approach. During WWI the US pioneered an approach to warship armoring popularly titled All or Nothing. The idea was that any armor incapable of stopping a capital ship shell or torpedo/mine from damaging a battle-critical component ...


6

Yes, the USS Enterprise was hit near the waterline in by a Kamikaze in1945 and it stuck in the side until broken up by wave action. From the page "Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers". The side of a major ship was much more resistant than the wooden flight deck of US carriers, and the deck was also a better target due to the fuel and bombs that ...


6

First of all, largest caliber AA guns are generally used for far-distance defense by producing air bursts near the planes, and medium and small caliber AA gun supported the near-distance deference. In WWII 5" AA gun shoot down 30% of enemy planes, similar to the percentage of 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors. 5" gun is effective to deal with kamikaze, but it is ...


5

The direct military effect of the land based bombers was zero, as they did not inflict a single hit on the Japanese fleet in their multiple sorties. Level bombing was very ineffective during the entire war in hitting Japanese ships in motion, and none of the planes on Midway were trained in the dive-bombing attacks that would prove crucial. The distraction ...


4

You can never be sure that a naval blockade will indeed lead to a national collapse. E.g., Britain did not surrender. Why do you think Japan would have? You must also remember the international situation: what if the SU would land in Japan and occupy it? By mid-1945 is was already a fact that, despite numerous agreements and promises of free elections, SU ...


3

There are several points to consider here: Firstly - most warships (capital - i.e. Battleships, Battle cruisers and Heavy cruisers had multiple decks. The first deck usually was meant to remove the ballistic and armour piercing caps (ballistic was thin light metal to allow the projectile to pass through the atmosphere more easily - meaning a higher ...


2

There's three questions here. Was Japan a threat? If not, could it be a threat again? Would Japan surrender without the atomic bomb or invasion? These are aspects of the larger question, "was the atomic bomb and invasion necessary"? That's a big question with lots of moving parts that's still debated by professional historians, so it's good to reduce ...


2

I think the possible answer could fall into how to tread the OP's word "capable of maintaining the war".... Thus I would like to analyze between the "material capability side" and the "spiritual capability side". Material Capability Side From this source Data comparison ( From 1941 to 1945 ) The number of soldiers ( including civilian related ...


2

I think you are formulating the debate in the wrong terms. There were Japanese who correctly believed that the war was lost, nukes or no nukes. There also were Japanese, who believed that an honorable settlement was still possible, through some far fetched pipe dream scheme like Soviet mediation or Kamikaze pilot wild successes. Nukes gave the former a ...


2

Agnes Smedley, Communist spy and triple agent, was writing much of the "reporting" about the Communist army in the field. So, an independent observer rating of less than zero. She also helped the Communists by suckering Gen. Smedley to send them arms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_smedley.html


1

The Japanese rebellion was caused by heavy taxes and Christians being persecuted. Its not like the taiping rebellion which was a cult organized by someone power hungry. So it probably didn't remind the Japanese of anything since there's such a big difference between what they are seeing in China, which was a deadly civil war, and their own much smaller ...


1

The Japanese primary strategy was to create an East-Asia Prosperity sphere of influence, including SE Asia, parts of China and Indonesia. This also fit in with their desperation for resources, especially oil (see, for instance, the book The Prize by Daniel Yergin). SE Asia also had bauxite for Aluminum refining (as did the Caroline Islands, see Aluminum ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible