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

dabrob wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2:08 pm, Stephen Graham  wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This question reallty speaks to the overall ATL projection that I hope
> to write which will link all/most of the AH sceanraios that I have
> been exploring here.

It's the fundamental question for the Japanese effort in the Pacific. 
Any scenario where the forces involved can't walk to their destination 
needs to address it as one of the first considerations.

> Having said that, if all goes as I hope that it might I see "my"
> operations against Oahu as reducing IJN fuel use. With Oahu badly
> mauled, some fleet oilers bombed, it's fuel gone up in flames and
> probably Enterprise sunk/out of action then the USN won't likly be
> making the same historical carrier raids on Japanese islands that cost
> the IJN so much fuel. With no US carrier raids happening then the IJN
> won't be chasing around the Pacific after the American carriers. So,
> less fuel use.

I think it unlikely that your scenario will do any such thing. Carrier 
raids are what the US could do early in the war. Unless you've sunk 
every single carrier, they'll occur and the Japanese will expend 
historical levels of effort in hunting them down.

Besides, the bulk of the fuel expenditures aren't for combat units, 
they're for ****pping. That stays the same. Or increases if the Japanese 
are tempted to undertake additional operations further away from their 
bases.

>> 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.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are comin from here. I see the Malaya operation
> on the historical schedule but with a bypassed PI, the Japanese
> operational schedule against the NEI would likely be advanced over the
> historical.

As I've indicated, I don't see bypassing the Philippines as a realistic 
option for the Japanese. It will delay the NEI operations and may have 
an ill effect on the Malaya operations.