What if the IJN won at Midway?

[ren0312]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?

[Sasori]

No the US would not have sewed for a truce. They may have lost all of the pacific in the process and dragging out the war in the pacific for several more years. But the shipyards in the East Coast would have put into production a lot of aka baby flat tops to fill the gap in the carrier fleet.

[Bro Jangles]

had the Japanese won, the war would have been longer, but the US industrial base would replace those ships and overwhelm the Japanese.

a more interesting possibility is if the Manhattan project had been a failure.

[ren0312]

had the Japanese won, the war would have been longer, but the US industrial base would replace those ships and overwhelm the Japanese.

a more interesting possibility is if the Manhattan project had been a failure.

I think the success of the invasion of Kyushu may be been doubtfull, unlike in the case of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, in the case of Kyushu the Japanese defending force had a roughly 1:1 parity with the Allied invasion force, way below the conventional 3:1 of invader to defender that is needed in order to ensure success for the assault force.

[Bro Jangles]

I think the success of the invasion of Kyushu may be been doubtfull, unlike in the case of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, in the case of Kyushu the Japanese defending force had a roughly 1:1 parity with the Allied invasion force, way below the conventional 3:1 of invader to defender that is needed in order to ensure success for the assault force.
if you find it cheap, pick up "MacArthur's war" its an alternate history about your exact scenario.

http://www.amazon.com/MacArthurs-War-Novel-Invasion-Japan/dp/0765351420/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237440275&sr=8-1

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?

Australia and New Zealand are cut off from Europe and the US.

US would maybe lose Pearl Harbour. At a minimum it would no longer be a base.

Possibility that Japan although not launching an out and out invasion may attempt to control key economic centers on Australia's East Coast.

[ren0312]

if you find it cheap, pick up "MacArthur's war" its an alternate history about your exact scenario.

http://www.amazon.com/MacArthurs-War-Novel-Invasion-Japan/dp/0765351420/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237440275&sr=8-1

I think that by the time that the US, which lost virtually all of tis fleet carriers at Midway and Coral Sea, finally manages to get into a position to invade Japan, it will be at about late 1947-1948 already (maening that the US had been at war for nearly 6 years already), by which time the US public may already be suffering from war fatigue (like what happened during Viet Nam, with the anti war protests and the like) due to the heavy casualties involved in taking the Japanese held territories in the Pacific, this may be just enough to save Japan for an invasion, and instead of unconditional surrender the US will just arrange an armistice with Japan that leaves the home islands intact, in return Japan will agree to some symbolic reparation to the US, plus handing over some low ranking war criminals as sacrificial lambs.

[kongman]

I think that by the time that the US, which lost virtually all of tis fleet carriers at Midway and Coral Sea, finally manages to get into a position to invade Japan, it will be at about late 1947-1948 already (maening that the US had been at war for nearly 6 years already), by which time the US public may already be suffering from war fatigue (like what happened during Viet Nam, with the anti war protests and the like) due to the heavy casualties involved in taking the Japanese held territories in the Pacific, this may be just enough to save Japan for an invasion, and instead of unconditional surrender the US will just arrange an armistice with Japan that leaves the home islands intact, in return Japan will agree to some symbolic reparation to the US, plus handing over some low ranking war criminals as sacrificial lambs.



you forget the us people were behind the war effort 100% , the us would have won , but it might have taken longer

[ren0312]

you forget the us people were behind the war effort 100% , the us would have won , but it might have taken longer

You have a point, after all, you are talking about the World War 2 generation here, not the baby boomers.

[ren0312]

you forget the us people were behind the war effort 100% , the us would have won , but it might have taken longer

If I remember correctly, there was a scene in Flags of our Fathers where an official mentioned that they were having trouble raising funds from war bonds, do not know how true that is though.

[Laworkerbee]

You have a point, after all, you are talking about the World War 2 generation here, not the baby boomers.

Shows how much you know about Americans, maybe you should stick to what you know?

[ren0312]

Shows how much you know about Americans, maybe you should stick to what you know?

Apparently Giap did not know Americans as well because it will be no small exagerration to say the right after Tet, he was already searching his closet for a white piece of cloth, before Cronkite made his infamous announcement on national TV, the US military did not lose the war, the anti war crowd did, the Tet Offensive was the North Vietnamese version of Gaugemala.

[Laworkerbee]

Apparently Giap did not know Americans as well because it will be no small exagerration to say the right after Tet, he was already searching his closet for a white piece of cloth, before Cronkite made his infamous announcement on naitonal TV.

Holy Cow, you're a genius!

Our wars of intervention are a **** of a lot different than when this country and it's people decide to fight all out war. History has proven that, even your own country's history has proven that.

[ren0312]

Holy Cow, you're a genius!

Our wars of intervention are a **** of a lot different than when this country and it's people decide to fight all out war. History has proven that, even your own country's history has proven that.

If you look at it objectively, the US would not have much to lose even if it settled with Japan, all it would lose is the Philippines, which is a colony that it wanted to have largely for its strategic location, of the 50 states it would not lose an inch of land, and Germany would still have lost, if the US had ever had a negotiated peace with Japan, objectively speaking, it would be the British Empire and the Dutch that will have the most to lose, with the British Empire losing Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong, plus have the constant threat of a strengthened Japan invading British India, and the Dutch losing its only major colony the Dutch East Indies, which are a very valuable source of oil and raw materials, plus Australia would effectively be cut of from the outside, at least until the Royal Navy comes back from the Med after Germany's defeat.

[rolls]

I shouldnt think it would have made to much difference,

The War in europe wouldnt be affected so much, perhaps even accelerated given no protection for troop ships in the pacific, thus diverting more forces to the Germans 1st.

And i doubt Pearl would fall, America would be flying sorties like mad men from this island base, not to mention they had allready reinforced the island by this time.

Australia invaded? I doubt it, but you couldn't rule out a battle of the Coral Sea pt.2 and that would have been difficult.

Also Japan lost 1CV at the coral sea right? So thats 5 not 6 CV's??

In any event the war would have raged on without some farcial truce. Allied Airpower would have come to bare and with the defeat of Germany the war maybe prolonged till 1947-48.

As some one also pointed out lets not forget the Nukes. 1 for the Jap Fleet, 1 for Tokyo.

[Ivo]

Other than the loss of so many US service personnel in the overall scheme it would have meant bugger all, by the end of June the US had commissioned 2 Essex class carriers and 1 Independence class light carrier more than making up for the losses incurred at Midway. Aircraft wise as of Feb 1943 the first squadrons of Hellcats arrived in the Pacific joining the Corsair that arrived in December of the proceeding year.
This website would be useful to see how overwhelmed the IJN was
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

And no it would not have changed the timeline either D-Day goes ahead the same time as it did on June 6th.

[Arfah]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?

FDR gets in touch with his new best friend and says, "Hey Winnie, how about you help us out against the japs ! Could you send us some carriers ?"

Winston replies, " Absolutely, it will cost you 50 bases in the Caribbean though !" rofl

[backpack]

FDR gets in touch with his new best friend and says, "Hey Winnie, how about you help us out against the japs ! Could you send us some carriers ?"

Winston replies, " Absolutely, it will cost you 50 bases in the Caribbean though !" rofl

If you read FDR's big biography (Champion of Freedom), there is significant debate among the Allies in 1942 regarding the US' desire to commit more troops to the Pacific than the Atlantic because Japan was the greater threat to the USA. If we had lost our carriers, Japan would have run amuck in the Pacific (including making Pearl uninhabitable), and we would have pushed more assets toward that front than the Atlantic...

So, the war in Europe would have lasted longer because we would not have gone into Africa as quickly, not had the troops/ships ready as early for the Italian or cross-Channel campaign...so the entire war would have lasted longer, simply from an asset management/logistics basis. That is why Hitler wanted Japan in the Axis...to bleed away American strength. If they had taken out all our carriers at Midway, Japan would have had our full attention.

Would that have given Hitler enough time to develop a working A-bomb? That's the real question...

[Arfah]

The USS Wasp was in the Atlantic and could easily have travelled through the Panama Canal earlier than actually happened.

I doubt that the European war would have been extended by even as much as year. The U.K. could/would have contributed some of its carriers, I'm sure.

The Russkies wouldn't have received as much kit from the U.S. and the Brits would've relied even more on the Commonwealth forces to defend India/Burma.

p.s. U.K.and Commonwealth carriers eventually did rather well in the Pacific campaign. No losses due to armoured flightdecks although some of a/c were shot down due to lack of familiarisation and identification by Americans. Thankfully, most of the a/c used were of U.S. origin. Especially the F4U Corsair and TBM Avenger.

[Arfah]

The U.S. would have reinforced the Hawaiian islands with land based aviation as well as basing more troops there. I doubt these Islands would have been lost.

[SniperLane]

What if the IJN won at Midway?

They would lose at another place.

[Anthony91]

They would lose at another place.

That is a very conclusive statement, please, tell us more.

[TheKiwi]

There was no way Japan could have held Midway, even if they had won the battle. They didn't have enough transport capacity to support a garrison on the island.

At the same time, I wouldn't have mattered much i the US carriers had been sunk. Not only were 13 carriers coming off the lines within 6 months of Midway, but there were also 3 more in the Atlantic Fleet that could have come through the Panama canal to join the fight (although this would have stopped the Wasp from flying off Spitfires to Malta).

THe most likely scenario in this event is that the Pacific theatre gets an 35% instead of 30% of the war effort, and the war ends exactly as in our timeline, with 2 explosions in Japanese cities around August 1945.

[Solomin]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?

Don't forget about CV-4, The USS Ranger! It could have been redeployed from it's duties in the Atlantic.

[TheKiwi]

Yes, although Ranger would have a last resort as she wasn't regarded as being well suited to the Pacific.

[RSone]

If you look at it objectively, the US would not have much to lose even if it settled with Japan, all it would lose is the Philippines, which is a colony that it wanted to have largely for its strategic location, of the 50 states it would not lose an inch of land, and Germany would still have lost, if the US had ever had a negotiated peace with Japan, objectively speaking, it would be the British Empire and the Dutch that will have the most to lose, with the British Empire losing Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong, plus have the constant threat of a strengthened Japan invading British India, and the Dutch losing its only major colony the Dutch East Indies, which are a very valuable source of oil and raw materials, plus Australia would effectively be cut of from the outside, at least until the Royal Navy comes back from the Med after Germany's defeat.

Old colonial thinking held the Dutch East Indies as ESSENTIAL for the mainland. The post war economic boom proved that wrong. Hell, we were able to put a very large force in to effect in the effort to regain the Indies. We would have been succesfull too, if the UN hadn't intervened. By november 46, we had 55,000 troops in Indonesia. Eventual troop strength numbered over 100,000. The operations were proven unnessecary by history.

Let's say that the allies were able to beat the germans in the western theatre ,but a midway lost would delay Allied(American) victory in the pacific. Liberated Europe would probably switch to a warfooting and head for the pacific. Japan would eventually be defeated, a-bomb or not, because eventually they could simply be starved of their warfighting capacity, if the Japanese islands were isolated from their resource sources, such as the oilfields in the Dutch East Indies. Victory wouldn't even have to be gained by an offensive, but could be attained by a massive holding operation, keeping the Japanese at bay and isolated.

[Solomin]

Yes, although Ranger would have a last resort as she wasn't regarded as being well suited to the Pacific.

Yeah, understood, although my armchair Admiralty was thinking less blue water and more protection of the Panama canal or the West Coast.

[Bringer of Greater Things]

A far more interesting scenario is what would have happened if the Japanese had launched their planned third strike on Pearl on December 7th. The would have destroyed of seriously damaged the fuel tanks and pumps, base infrastructure, and dry docks and other repair facilities, hampering our ability to support a fleet in the Central Pacific.
No dry docks at Pearl means the Yorktown has to sail to San Diego for repairs after Coral Sea and isn't even at Midway. Suddenly instead of 3 carriers against 4, you have 2 against 4.

Now for arguments sake, let's say that in addition to that, their planned operation to use submarine-launched bombers against the Panama Canal succeeds in damaging one of the locks, meaning that for at least a few months, all East-Coast ships must transit South America to get to the Pacific. Things start getting hairy very quickly.

[Solomin]

A far more interesting scenario is what would have happened if the Japanese had launched their planned third strike on Pearl on December 7th. The would have destroyed of seriously damaged the fuel tanks and pumps, base infrastructure, and dry docks and other repair facilities, hampering our ability to support a fleet in the Central Pacific.
No dry docks at Pearl means the Yorktown has to sail to San Diego for repairs after Coral Sea and isn't even at Midway. Suddenly instead of 3 carriers against 4, you have 2 against 4.

Now for arguments sake, let's say that in addition to that, their planned operation to use submarine-launched bombers against the Panama Canal succeeds in damaging one of the locks, meaning that for at least a few months, all East-Coast ships must transit South America to get to the Pacific. Things start getting hairy very quickly.

Interesting, how's the quote go? "Amateurs talk strategy while Generals talk logistics."

[TheKiwi]

A far more interesting scenario is what would have happened if the Japanese had launched their planned third strike on Pearl on December 7th. The would have destroyed of seriously damaged the fuel tanks and pumps, base infrastructure, and dry docks and other repair facilities, hampering our ability to support a fleet in the Central Pacific.
No dry docks at Pearl means the Yorktown has to sail to San Diego for repairs after Coral Sea and isn't even at Midway. Suddenly instead of 3 carriers against 4, you have 2 against 4.

Now for arguments sake, let's say that in addition to that, their planned operation to use submarine-launched bombers against the Panama Canal succeeds in damaging one of the locks, meaning that for at least a few months, all East-Coast ships must transit South America to get to the Pacific. Things start getting hairy very quickly.

The stuff I have read suggests that the IJN was not capable of launching an effective 3rd strike. They had lost over 1/3rd of their strike force to deck landing accidents during the 2 earlier strikes, and were running low on avgas and munitions. Not to mention their losses to AA etc from the earlier strikes (29 aircraft) and those that were only just able to return to the carrier and land (and 6 or so I seem to recollect).

A better what if is "what if these were the target for the 2nd strike"?

I'd suggest still not much changes. The IJN air fleet didn't have enough strike power to properly knock out the dry docks which are vast and unless you hit a few "magic" spots, unlikely to be taken out. The oil tank farms too are large, and not as easy to turn into a mass conflaguration as is commonly thought.

EDIT: And hey, my 2000th post and it's both serious and non-IT related

[budgie]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?


Two words. Atomic Bomb. Japan was gonna lose one way or another.

[G-AWZT]

Operation Olympic would've been a success regardless of US casualties. We would've thrown everything at the Japanese including tons of gas to flush out caves.
The battle for Kyushu would've been epic in scale as the Japanese were prepared to throw in everything they had left , at us.
Had it been necessary for Operation Coronet to have been put into effect the Japanese wouldn't have had much to left to fight with, everything was slated for Kyushu.
Also had Olympic happened it is likely Hokkaido would've fallen into Soviet hands.
We might've had a post war Communist North Japan and a Democratic South Japan.

[Waterman]

The Japanese would have helped their situation had they invaded and occupied the Hawaiian Islands all the way out to Midway, not just raided Pearl Harbor.

But ultimately, the outcome would have been the same. The Hawaiian Islands are a chain of closely grouped islands, it would have been very hard for them to defend all the islands. The US would have found a weak point and landed. And from there, they work their way up the chain.

Oahu and then finally Midway might be the last islands to fall, but the US does not give up territory willingly. It may have taken years, and been expensive in terms of money and manpower, but the job would have still been done.

[TheKiwi]

There were 2 full US divisions on Hawaii on the 7th of December. Japan didn't have the transport capability to bring enough ground forces to Hawaii and carry out all their other attacks in Malaya, Thailand and the Phillipines. There were only 11 divisions available for the entire Pacific operation from recollection. Needing at least a 2 to 1 ratio for success, there was literally no way Japan could bring 4 divisions to Hawaii.

[bucketfoot-al]

What if the IJN managed to sink the Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet at Midway, with the IJN not losing any, in this case, the IJN will have 6 carriers, against 1 for the US, the Saratoga, and some old battleships in the West Cost, since Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea, in this case Hawaii and even the Panama Canal is practically open to attack by the Japanese, with this happening, will the US just throw in the towel and sign a truce with the Japanese, in return for the Japanese making some symbolic concessions, such as returning captured American POWs and the Aleutians?

There is great book written a few years back, that explodes the myth of the "miracle at Midway". In fact the USN lured the Japanese into a trap; the fact that Shokaku and Zuikaku were damaged at Coral Sea and did not participate made matters far worse.

Even had the above scenario unfolded, the ability of the US to outproduce the Japanese in the number of ships and carriers in particular would have led inescapably to the same out come. Plus the fact that Japanese innovation badly stalled after the war began, while the US was shortly producing far superior carriers and planes.

Having started the Pacific War, the Japanese had no strategy for ending it once the US, instead of suing for peace, went on a 'holy mission' - total victory being the objective. A defeat at Midway would not have shaken American resolve. The "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor - as it was somewhat inaccurately portrayed had foreclosed any option in the American mind other than total victory. And you must recall that the US kicked the Japanese butts from Midway to Okinawa while devoting the MAIN resources to the European Theater of Operations, which was rightly recorgnized as being far more critical to the War.

Had Midway been a disaster for the USN instead of the Japanese, heads would have rolled, and the Japanese might have gotten another year of life - the war ending perhaps in 1946. Of course, once the A-bombs were ready, the Japanese were doomed no matter what had happened.

Read: "Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway""

The entire Japanese doctrine of war was inflexible, unfocused, and fundamentally flawed. It suffered from lack of clear planning - on the tactical and strategic levels. For example, at the time of Midway, precious resources were being expended on a pointless invasion of the Aleutians (!)

In short an American defeat at Midway would have delayed ultimate victory by 6-12 months, at most. Nothing more.



My Yam Site:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tripod.com/the_ultimate_battles/

[bucketfoot-al]

The Japanese would have helped their situation had they invaded and occupied the Hawaiian Islands all the way out to Midway, not just raided Pearl Harbor.

But ultimately, the outcome would have been the same. The Hawaiian Islands are a chain of closely grouped islands, it would have been very hard for them to defend all the islands. The US would have found a weak point and landed. And from there, they work their way up the chain.

Oahu and then finally Midway might be the last islands to fall, but the US does not give up territory willingly. It may have taken years, and been expensive in terms of money and manpower, but the job would have still been done.

I agree with your assessment of the final outcome. There was no way the Japanese had the resources or transports to pull off a successful invasion of Hawaii. Even had the US carriers been sunk, and the stores of petrol that were the target of the aborted third strike of Dec 7th been destroyed, the US could still transport large divisions from the mainland (to say nothing of flying in bombers) to Hawaii well before the Japanese could have mounted a large invasion. Well, maybe they could have taken some of the outer islands like Kauai at first - to no end other than to create another theater of jungle warfare where they would fight to the end - and lose.

And, as we saw elsewhere, the Japanese suffered from flawed doctrine, flawed planning, and any attempt to invade Hawaii would have ended in total disaster for Japan. In short, the moment that the first bomb hit Pearl Harbor, Japan's fate was sealed.

Had the Japanese really wanted to hurt Hawaii, they should have not only launched that missed third strike - the USN would have been out of commission for 6 months had the petrol tanks - so visible in some of the surviving Japanese aerial shots of the battle - been destroyed. And if there was ever a last chance to put all those IJN battleships to good use, they should have steamed close to Hawaii and bombarded the US military installations into rubble - they still had the air superiority, and the US submarines, in addition to dealing with criminally defective torpedoes, would have had to contend with the Japanese destroyers - which, surprisingly, remained hands down the best destroyers of any WW2 combatant to the very end on the war.



My Yam Site:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tripod.com/the_ultimate_battles/

[bucketfoot-al]

I shouldnt think it would have made to much difference,

The War in europe wouldnt be affected so much, perhaps even accelerated given no protection for troop ships in the pacific, thus diverting more forces to the Germans 1st.

And i doubt Pearl would fall, America would be flying sorties like mad men from this island base, not to mention they had allready reinforced the island by this time.

Australia invaded? I doubt it, but you couldn't rule out a battle of the Coral Sea pt.2 and that would have been difficult.

Also Japan lost 1CV at the coral sea right? So thats 5 not 6 CV's??

In any event the war would have raged on without some farcial truce. Allied Airpower would have come to bare and with the defeat of Germany the war maybe prolonged till 1947-48.

As some one also pointed out lets not forget the Nukes. 1 for the Jap Fleet, 1 for Tokyo.

The critical Japanese loss at Coral Sea was not the one baby carrier they lost (Shoho) but the damage that their best carriers - Shokaku and Zuikaku - fastest, most modern - took, rendering them inoperable in time for Midway, cutting the original Pearl Harbor carrier force by a third.



My Yam Site:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tripod.com/the_ultimate_battles/

[TheKiwi]

Had the Japanese really wanted to hurt Hawaii, they should have not only launched that missed third strike - the USN would have been out of commission for 6 months had the petrol tanks - so visible in some of the surviving Japanese aerial shots of the battle - been destroyed.

Those "petrol" tanks were full of fuel oil, a lot harder to set alight than petrol.

And the US torpedo faults were a real lottery. Some submarines got "lucky" and had a batch that worked well, others fired off torp after torp for no results. This was one of the reasons why it took so long to agree that there was a torpedo fault. If a sub with a "lucky" batch got near the IJN fleet, Christmas would indeed have come early. Japanese ASW was pitiful.

[bucketfoot-al]

BTW, for those who do not frequent the Photo Directory - check out my recently completed Archive Photo Library of Battleships Yamato and Musashi. Dozens of never-before-seen aerial photos in there that will knock your socks off:

http://ultimatebattleshipyamatosite.tripod.com/the_ultimate_battles/

[Stainless Steel Rat]

I would note that during the battles around Guadacanal, the US Navy did lose the Wasp and Hornet and both Enterprise and Saratoga were damaged enough to need repairs, so 1942 was not a good year for US carriers anyway.

That said, by 1945 we had deployed or were deploying 25 Essex-class Fleet Carriers and over 100 Escort Carriers, along with superior planes and pilots.

All defeat at Midway would have meant was perhaps a delay in the Guadacanal attack and one honkin' big carrier battle in late 1943-early 1944 with the odds all in the US Navy's favor.

IMHO of course. Press on.

[TheKiwi]

All defeat at Midway would have meant was perhaps a delay in the Guadacanal attack and one honkin' big carrier battle in late 1943-early 1944 with the odds all in the US Navy's favor.


AKA the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

[Panchito12]

I would note that during the battles around Guadacanal, the US Navy did lose the Wasp and Hornet and both Enterprise and Saratogo were damaged enough to need repairs, so 1942 was not a good year for US carriers anyway.



Not a "good year"?? Dude, Midway aside 1942 was a LOUSY YEAR for the USN....but it was also the year it learned how to win.

But we cannot forget that 1942 was also the year that the Japanese Naval Air Wings were decimated to the point that they were unable to recover their combat capabilities.

[CornfieldNavy]

Even if the Japanese were able to occupy not only Midway but Hawaii proper, the war would have continued; note that the 1930s "Fleet Problem" Exercises of the USN centered around San Francisco, not Pearl Harbor, as the nexus of operations.

Consider the copius amount of ships that were available for European convoy escort and amphibious support in 1942 and more than enough USN assets would have been available to plug the gap until CONUS shipbuilding overtook the Japanese as it did in reality.

Manhattan Project aside, the war would have probably stretched into 1946 (or even beyond) and the postwar map would look quite different as the USSR, having assumedly defeated Germany anyways, would have entered the war far before the US made it to Japan's first island chain. The Soviets would have probably overrun Korea, Manchuria, and Kwangtung in 1945 under this hypothetical scenario; by the time the USN would have clawed back to where they were in 1943 in our reality.