What If in 1942 the Norden Bombsight and USN Torpedoes had worked?

[jackehammond]

Folks,

One of the big questions about the Battle for the Philippines in 1941/42 is what would have been the result if the Norden bombsight had worked in the anti-shipping role and the USN torpedoes with their magnetic fuses had worked at all. Some say that it is possible the Japanese would not have been able to land large military units on Luzon. Anyone agree? Disagree? Comment?

Jack E. Hammond


.

[James]

Seeing as MacArthur's air power was destroyed on the ground and the Navy wasn't doing much around the Philippines at the time, no, it wouldn't have mattered.

[CMNot]

The issue of USN torpedoes is a massive 'if'. As a generalisation, American torpedoes where consistently poor right through until the latter stages of the war.

It is a lasting testament to the skill and endeavour of the USN's sub fleet crews that they had such remarkable success against such a competent enemy with such poor equipment.

What is remarkable is that within 6 months of losing the Phillipines in the wake of Pearl Harbour, an inferior US fleet would turn the tide of the naval war for the duration at Midway.

[strumbird]

Against mobile ships, high altitude level bombing with the Norden bombsight proved difficult. Skip bombing are much more effective.

[jackehammond]

Dear Members,

MacA did not loose ALL his air force. He even had a number of B-17s that operated against Japanese shipping when they made their major landing at Luzon. Even the PBYs were fitted with Norden bombsights (they were suppose to use them at night under flares). The mistake with the Norden bombsight was never testing it against a moving target (the older one it replaced had been tested and proven against moving targets). It was discovered much later that while the Norden bombsight was extremely accurate it locks in its targets location and actually was one of the worst bombsights for use against shipping at sea (the Japanese, Germans and British had pretty good bombsights for targeting ships -- ie the Italians the best). In 1942 and early 1943 when the B-17s were basically taken out of service in the Pacific, only one Japanese warship was sunk while moving by the Norden. And it was a destroyer in the Solomn Islands which had slowed down to rescue survivors from another warship hit by dive bombers. As the captain of that poor destroyer was fished out the water he kept muttering "By a B-17! BY A B-17!"

As to skip bombing it was a good tactic as long as you also had the aircraft to suppress the antiaircraft guns of the ship you were attacking (why Pappy Gunny stuffed so many .50 calibers on A-20s and the B-25). Until that tactic was developed, most USAAF multi engine bombers used shallow dive (some times called "glide bombing) tactics.

As to the USN. After Admiral Hart took the Asiatic Fleet south to the Dutch East Indies, he left a good number of submarines and a sub tender. True they were the older coastal type, but the main Luzon landing area was within a day's sailing easily. And they attempted to stop the landing. But the USN torpedoes showed how bad it was. And for the first year most USN submarine commanders thought the problem was the depth keeper on the torpedoes.

Another "What If" -- ie imagine instead of sending the two battleships, Churchill had instead ordered every submarine that the RN could spare to be sent to Singapore and also to patrol out of Hong Kong (with the exception of the ones being refueled most would have been on patrol on December 7th if that had been done)????? Remember, that the British torpedoes were highly effective. Only the Italians had better torpedoes. In fact in the Falklands War a Argentine cruiser was sunk using those pre-WW2 torpedo design.

Jack E. Hammond


.

[SBL]

The issue of USN torpedoes is a massive 'if'. As a generalisation, American torpedoes where consistently poor right through until the latter stages of the war.


I thought John Wayne and Jack Pennick worked out the torpedo issue in Operation Pacific.

[Kaplanr]

Only because Ward Bond had started Duke on the right track.

Could the RN sub fleet have made the trip? Weren't their "legs" shorter than USN and even the U-Boat fleet's?

[Ordie]

One of the first acts that should've happen was to send B-17's to bomb Kaoshung (Taiwan). Given on what we know about the Doolittle Raid, the Japanese would've held back resources to protect Taiwan (Considered as a Japanese home island) and bought time for MacArthur to re-organize.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

One of the first acts that should've happen was to send B-17's to bomb Kaoshung (Taiwan). Given on what we know about the Doolittle Raid, the Japanese would've held back resources to protect Taiwan (Considered as a Japanese home island) and bought time for MacArthur to re-organize.

Not only that but it might have taken out a decent chunk of the Japanese aircraft that would later be used to attack the Philippines.

[Hollis]

I think the answer is simple, the US was caught with it's pants down. The Isolationist and anti-military/war movement in the US was sufficient to basically keep the US military in a 1920 state of readiness. Our saving grace was that the distance of Japan to the West coast was as far as it was, along with Japan's desire not to invade the US.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

MacArthur DID order a bombing raid on Formosa after delaying for 24 hours. The planes were being fueled and loaded when the Japanese air attack struck.

MacArthur put planes in the air to counter a possible Japanese attack on December 7th. But he didn't do 24-hour CAP patrols for some reason. So when the Japanese attacked on December 8th, only a few obsolete P-35's and P-26's were in the air.

[James]

Another "What If" -- ie imagine instead of sending the two battleships, Churchill had instead ordered every submarine that the RN could spare to be sent to Singapore and also to patrol out of Hong Kong (with the exception of the ones being refueled most would have been on patrol on December 7th if that had been done)?????

Again, it wouldn't have mattered. The British defenses were already postured to defend an attack from the sea, but the Japanese Army marched through the jungle. Submarines couldn't have defended against that.

If you already know the answers to your questions, please stop asking them and showing us how brilliant you are. Thanks.

[marktigger]

As has been said the US were caught out by the Isolationist anti war stance that was US foreign policy throughout the 20's and 30's.
Japan was not out to start a war with the US but to keep the US out of the war it wanted to have in the S Pacfic to secure comodities like oil, rubber, Metals etc for its domestic industries. Remember the US were embargoing strageic supplies to Japan from I think it was 39 and it was starting to hurt the Japanese.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

American leaders considered our most likely military foe to be Japan and thought their most likely target would be the Philippines. That's why when MacArthur got the warning that war with Japan was expected imminently, he was ready and had combat air patrols above American air bases on December 7th. When he heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he stood down and then his planes got wiped out on Dec. 8th.

The US war plan for the Philippines called for the US Pacific Fleet to sail to the islands and defend them against Japanese landings.

We weren't entirely caught off guard, just the highest levels never imagined a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to start the war. They all thought such a surprise attack would be aimed at the Philippines.

[oldsoak]

Again, it wouldn't have mattered. The British defenses were already postured to defend an attack from the sea, but the Japanese Army marched through the jungle. Submarines couldn't have defended against that.

If you already know the answers to your questions, please stop asking them and showing us how brilliant you are. Thanks.

True - but they had to be supplied by sea. At the start of the battle for Singapore, Yama****a was forced to ration ammunition due to supply problems. Subs could have made that even more difficult. Also, had British subs been availiable in quantity to operate in the straits of Malacca and in Indonesian waters by useing Dutch held ports after Singapore fell, they could have had significant impact on IJN activities and the ability of the Japanese to mount an invasion on the Indonesian archipelago. They would have also been able to play a part in the battle for the Coral sea.

[James]

I recall that the Japanese had a pretty capable Navy in 1941/1942. It wouldn't have been a bunch of British subs vs. Japanese transports.

[jackehammond]

I recall that the Japanese had a pretty capable Navy in 1941/1942. It wouldn't have been a bunch of British subs vs. Japanese transports.

Dear Member,

By their own admission the Japanese were not very capable in anti-submarine warfare. In fact they never adopted the convoy system during the whole war. They had individual warships escorting a tanker/merchant, etc.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> The greatest damage done to the Japanese goal of seizing the DEI oil source was done by a lone Dutch submarine that sank a small Japanese passenger liner carrying almost all the Japanese oil engineers they had assigned to get production back up. Another "What If" -- What if Churchill and FDR had convinced (as one British general had recommended) that the Dutch immediately blow ALL the oil wells, pumping stations, storage tanks on the declaration of war by the Japanese. The Japanese actually even broadcast threats if the Dutch did that, so much was their concern.

[Mastermind]

Well, "What If"...There were so many...but we are concerned with only these two right now.

I figure that if we had gone to war with Japan as we did with the equipment we had at the time, we probably would have still ended it the same way we did, with Hirosima blasted flat 63 years ago today and Nagasaki in the same condition three days later and then the Missouri steaming into Tokyo Bay for acceptance of the surrender of all of Japan.

It simply would not have mattered...might be a few more people alive here at home today and a few less alive over there today if wqe had begun with better weapons, I suppose. We were mad as hell over PH and the Death March in the Phillipines and we were not going to be stopped, no matter what.

Japan laid her own path to destruction on Dec 7, 1941...and even Nagumo and Yammamoto fully understood the consiquinces...they didn't stand a chance even if all we had at the time it started were biplanes and sling shots...we were going to take them down.

The weapon that mattered at the time was the American determination to win.

Too bad we don't have many of those kinds of Americans here anymore.

[jackehammond]

Ref: The weapon that mattered at the time was the American determination to win.

I hope I don't get dinged again, but just one comment. In US past war history, Americans have not always been in full support of the nation during a war. The War of 1812 and Mexican-American War are prime examples. Until December 7th the majority of Americans were against going to war and in fact the draft narrowly approved both times had sever restricts.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[Mastermind]

Probably, what you say is true. But, after PH, and the Phillipine Death Marches...The American public was out for Japanese blood. Most believed very much as Halsey, "When we're through with the Japs, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell!"

Fortuantely, for humanity, that thought never materialized in reality. But, that was the feeling.

[jackehammond]

Probably, what you say is true. But, after PH, and the Phillipine Death Marches...The American public was out for Japanese blood. Most believed very much as Halsey, "When we're through with the Japs, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell!"

Fortuantely, for humanity, that thought never materialized in reality. But, that was the feeling.

So true. My Mom told me that when her uncle came and told her Mother about Pearl Harbor that her Mom started crying and her uncle told her "Hattie, stop crying. We will have those little b*stards cities burning by the day after tomorrow."

Finally, no other than Halsey himself wrote a letter in the 1960s to USNI PROCEEDINGS (the #1 USN monthly in the USA) on one anniversary of December 7th, that Pearl Harbor (and sank the battleships) was actual a favor by the Japanese. That if they had not struck Pearl Harbor, the American public would have forced the USN to sail across the Pacific and relieve the garrison at the Philippines. And that could have been a far worst disaster. The carriers would have been saddled down by the slower battleships, etc and the Japanese had planned for years on counter such a move (they had the island chains between Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and were experts in night warfare). He even stated that if the US had spotted the approaching fleet and the decision was made to sail out (instead of buttoning down in Pearl Harbor and preparing for the attack) it would have most likely a bad outcome. And while the loss of life was bad at Pearl Harbor the loss of valuable trained naval personnel life at sea would have been far worst and the carriers and battleships would have sunk where they could not have been recovered. The worst loss if I remember the letter correctly was Wake Island.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> We are probably going to get dinged for off topic you know.

.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Probably, what you say is true. But, after PH, and the Phillipine Death Marches...The American public was out for Japanese blood. Most believed very much as Halsey, "When we're through with the Japs, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell!"

Interesting how that was the reaction in 1942, when nowadays if a soldier is murdered or tortured it is taken as a sign that "wow these people really don't want us here, we should leave."

[Mastermind]

Megaraptor;3460321']Interesting how that was the reaction in 1942, when nowadays if a soldier is murdered or tortured it is taken as a sign that "wow these people really don't want us here, we should leave."
Once again, though, what was the mood the few weeks after 9/11? Americans were ready and willing to take what ever action was necessary and we were not all that concerned about who or what got smashed as long as it was something Muslim.

Bush & Co. made a grevious mistake in overly tamping down that public support. Even the congress critters were shouting for blood and offered Bush a declaration of war. Instead, Bush climbed the steps of a mosque and stated Islam is a religion of peace. Magnaimous, but foolish.

You simply can not run a war without public support...I thought Vietnam had taught our pols that.

As for the Norden bomb sight and the torpedoes, I think they were as good a device(s) as we could come up with at that time conisdering the low public support for the military and any sort of intervention into warring nations and their affairs. We should not forget that Europe had already been at war for two and half years before PH...and also, don't forget the Panay incident, on December 12, 1937. The Japanese had sunk a US gun boat anchored in the Yangtze in China and straffed the survivors and yet, that still did nothing to dramatically change public opinion back home...the Navy and the Army Air Force still had to beg and scrape for funding.

So, public opinion was really the culprit and, like Bush failing to understand the importance of public opinion, the failure of leaders to lead gave way, ultimatley to public apathy...and thus, loss of support for anything warlike ...and in Bush's case, has turned into down right public scorn.

I suspect, fifty years from now, on these forums, people will be duscussing, "What if the US Coalition forces had had heavier armored vehicles instead of Hummers when they went into Iraq...?"

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Yes, but that outrage barely lasted 6 months.

When it comes to managing public opinion...well, FDR lived before television. News footage was show in movie theaters, therefore controlling what was shown and what wasn't was much easier. The government actively censored images deemed detrimental to home front morale.

Also, it's a little known fact that the FDR administration covered up not only war crimes committed by the Allies, but war crimes committed by the Axis as well. They wanted to prevent Americans from hearing about atrocities committed by the enemy so as to forestall revenge attacks by Allied forces.

[jackehammond]

Dear Members,

I could comment further on this subject, but if I do I risk getting dinged for off topic and I really don't want that.

Finally, again thanks for the great discussion on the subject of the Norden Bomb Sight and the WW2 USN torpedoes. Sort of nice to debate issues without everyone going to a mini-war over the issue.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[James]

Dear Members,

I could comment further on this subject, but if I do I risk getting dinged for off topic and I really don't want that.

Finally, again thanks for the great discussion on the subject of the Norden Bomb Sight and the WW2 USN torpedoes. Sort of nice to debate issues without everyone going to a mini-war over the issue.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Dude, have at it. You created the topic after all... Let's just keep it in the realm of WWII.

[jackehammond]

Dude, have at it. You created the topic after all... Let's just keep it in the realm of WWII.

I would love to, but if you look under my name and at the bottom of the stats you will see why I got watch what I post for the next two weeks. Thanks for the request though. I love to debate the "What Ifs" of WW2, but I had better wait till I am off house arrest. <GRIN>

Jack E. Hammond

.