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

dabrob wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:59 pm, Stephen Graham  wrote:
> 
>>> If Luzon is tem****arily bypassed then there are more than enough
>>> unused Japanese resources available to make it so
>> You might want to look at how long it took the United States to subdue
>> the area.
> 
> Yeah, I know but the US was considerably less ruthless than the
> Japanese showed themselves to be.

I suspect that you don't know anything about the Philippine Insurrection 
or the Moro Rebellion.

You might also look at the success or lack thereof of Japanese 
anti-guerrilla operations in the Philippines during World War Two.

>> That's a fundamentally silly take on the options available to Japan.
>> They had their own internal groups that thought that the China
excursion
>> was ill-considered.
> 
> Yes they did, but those groups were not "running the show" were they ?
> And fundamentally, was it not true ? From that moment on, every time
> that Japan did something not approved by the US, the "oil taps" would
> be turned off yet again.

How much have you really looked at the political events running up to 
the outbreak of the Pacific War? The oil embargo only kicks in when the 
Japanese seize northern Indochina. There's a long period of operations 
in China before then with only grumbling from the United States.

In any case, this really doesn't address the point I made that the 
entire mess wasn't in Japan's best interest.

>>>> In addition, wouldn't the US at least attempt to resupply those
forces?
>>>> Perhaps the Japanese should have some concern that this might occur.
>>>> Then where are they?
>>> With Pearl Harbor a burnt out cinder, no fuel to be found on Oahu and
>>> Hawaii sucking in US storage tankers like a giant swirling whirlpool,
>> That's your presumption; it's not a given.
> 
> When discussing an AH scenario everything is a presumption on the part
> of the author, is it not ?

When you're plotting a scenario, you should allow the actors some level 
of rationality, including planning for alternate outcomes.

>>> And how would Australia and tne British feel if they even
>>> tried ?
>> Probably perfectly happy about it. It's tying down Japanese assets that
>> might be used against them.
> 
> Or from their PoV, a waste of military resources better used by the
> Commonwealth.

If it's tying down assets that could be used against BCE forces, what's 
to object to?

>> Or you could use, say, a fi****ng boat not dependent on fuel and
equipped
>> with a radio to keep an eye out.
> 
> Just a couple of points to consider ... If not dependent on fuel to
> run a generator, just how do the crew charge the batteries needed to
> provide the electrical power used by that radio to transmit ? ...

I think we can usefully distinguish between the amount of fuel necessary 
to run a generator to recharge batteries and the amount of fuel required 
to supply a PT boat on "high speed search runs each and every night".

> Since the kind of unremarkable fi****ng boat that I believe you
> describe is only about 6' above the waves, 

They have masts that are taller than 6 feet.

> I don't think that your fi****ng boat watch line is going to work very
> well over the open ocean distances involved in this case.

Until they're convinced they have a problem, the Japanese oilers will 
use predictable routes (because they did historically). That's what you 
have to cover, not every single square meter of ocean.

And coverage doesn't have to be perfect. You just have to catch some of 
the ****pping.