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

On Aug 28, 6:00=A0pm, Stephen Graham  wrote:

> 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.

I've previously stated my belief that if Japan doesn't force the US to
the peacetable quickly, none of it will matter in the long run anyway.

> > 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.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

>Carrier raids are what the US could do early in the war. Unless you've
sun=
k
> every single carrier, they'll occur and the Japanese will expend
> historical levels of effort in hunting them down.

Not with Enterprise, Neosho and Ramapo gone they won't. Eventually
replacement Atlantic Fleet oilers will arrive but the fuel re-supply
stockpiling effort at Ohu should delay the raiding for many, many
months.

> Besides, the bulk of the fuel expenditures aren't for combat units,
> they're for ****pping.

That is not my understanding of how the combat fuel reserve was
controlled. Regular merchant ****pping had its own non-IJN sources of
fuel that did not come out of IJN stockpiles.

>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
defender=
s
> >> of Malaya and the NEI. In poking around on the oil question, I was
> >> reminded that there were weather considerations that bore on the
timin=
g
> >> 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.

Your opinion is always your own to hold and cherish.

>It will delay the NEI operations

Why do you feel that will be the case ?

>and may have an ill effect on the Malaya operations.

Ditto ?