Re: What IF: ... Japan had more Oilers for Dec.7'41 ?

dabrob wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:43 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
> 
>> Have you looked at why the Japanese did nothing with those assets? Can
>> they afford to burn the oil necessary to use them?
>>
>>> What is the point in capturing the NEI's resources if an Allied thrust
>>> can take it away or destroy the infrastruture all over again ? The
>>> objective was not to just gain the NEI's resources for Japan but to be
>>> able to PERMANENTLY integrate those resources into the Greater Co-
>>> Prosperity Sphere. Or at least that should have been their ultimate
>>> goal.
>> What's the point of attacking the US Pacific Fleet if you don't leave
>> yourself enough fuel to carry out the invasions of mainland SE Asia and
>> the NEI? Or if you give the BCE and Dutch time to prepare and they
>> manage to hold you off, at least long enough to destroy the very
>> hardware you wish to use?
> 
> My understanding is that in November 1941 the Japanese had a military
> reserve of a volume that they deemed sufficient to fuel two years of
> combat tempo operations. 

Spector says 18 months for Navy operations. Historically, if I'm reading 
the figures correctly, the Navy burned 300,000 tons of fuel per month in 
1942. What effect are your proposed operations going to have on this 
consumption rate? The battle****p forces are considerably more expensive 
than the carriers.

You haven't addressed the issue of allowing more time for the defenders 
of Malaya and the NEI. In poking around on the oil question, I was 
reminded that there were weather considerations that bore on the timing 
issue, arguing for early December operations.

Again, what's the point of attacking the US if you don't achieve your 
strategic objectives?