Less interest in the Pacific?

What a bunch of idiots. Dang.

 

Japan simply didn't have the shipping. Even if Japan had won the carrier battle at Midway, the possability of Japan taking the island was far to slim. To many defenders, not enough troops for the assault. No, Japan could not have invaded Hawaii, Even if they had, their troops would have starved do to the geographical position of each relative to the other. It was simply to far away. Nor could Japan afford to pull those troops from China, or any other theater.

 

I believe they could have been succesful immediatley after the Pearl Harbor debacle. We were at our weakest at that point. By the time Midway came about, we had already built up a large concentration of forces in the Hawaiian islands. No way they could have at that point. But it's only speculation on my part.

 

Guys -- Please stop hi-jacking the thread and turning it into a what if. You can start a new thread if you want but this thread is supposed to focus on the intellectual, emotional and literary focus on the ETO vs the PTO and whether the PTO truly gets less attention.

 

We just went through all this with another poster. I will not go through it again. Try reading through this to get an idea of Japans early war possibilities of invading Hawaii

The Hawaiian Invasion, and other Nonsense

 

I stand corrected.

 

Wow, did this thread drift or what. As a noob to the "study of WWII", I can't offer much. But as a U.S. boomer, I can offer one viewpoint - my own. I suspect that the true answer is overdetermined, e.g. that it is many faceted.

I'm just going to address one of those facets:
It's been mentioned here that there were more WWII movies made about the Pacific than Europe and that's true. However, so many of the ones made back in the 40s & 50s seem to fall in the entertainment/propaganda movies category. And, from my own experience, they gave the impression that the Pacific was won with a few major battles by the Marines on land and a couple of Naval battles were thrown into the mix. Sort of a "Wham Bam, Thank Ya Ma'am" version of the Pacific Theatre. How's that for skewing history? If I hadn't had some close relatives who were Pacific vets, I might not have become very interested in that part of the war, especially if I had kept that erroneous impression - one that may well be shared by others.

I've just finished reading The Combat History of the 32nd Infantry Division in WWII. And although Maj. Gen. H. W. Blakely isn't the greatest story-teller of all time (he's just a tad dry ) - the story of The Red Arrow is one well worth the time to absorb. It certainly has given me a whole new level of awe for every vet of the Pacific. That was some seriously tough fighting those boys did. It was hideously slow going and tedious warfare an awful lot of the time. And that last might be another reason the Pacific isn't as much "fun" (for want of a better word) to learn about. It is sometimes painful to read about - what a hellhole the Pacific islands were on so many levels.

I can only hope and pray that the upcoming Spielberg/Hanks saga of the Pacific will be as engrossing as their BoB series was. (I've lost track of the number of times my family has watched our copy of that. We never tire of it.) If they are successful at all with this new offering, perhaps it will inspire those who find the Pacific less interesting than Europe to take a second look.

 

Pen,

My thoughts as well... there is much hope and anticipation for the new Hanks/Spielberg series. I just finished the BOB series this past weekend My brother has since picked up the series and watches it every night... nothing but good feedback.

Mark

 

Lately I've been MORE interested in the Pacific theater... I've been doing some research on December 7th 1941 (Pearl Harbor, Day of infamy) addressing the two waves of 350 Japanese aircraft. Within those aircraft deployed, I have read of High-level bombers, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers... Can someone please tell me what those planes were?? The loss of 29 Japanese aircraft Nagumo had secured a significant, but not decisive, victory.

In honor of the 2,403 lives that had been lost that day

Jem

 

Well, the Pacific was mainly an American/Australian/Japanese operation after the first couple of months, and remained that way mostly till 1945, with a few exceptions. I'm not saying the British weren't involved, but they were occupied elsewhere mostly, and let the Australians handle it.

CBI of course involved the Brits, but not so much the Pacific itself.

Therefore, you don't have as large a pool of countries with people who were there, or that the Pacific section of the war was important to.

 

Well, the attack was comprised of Vals, Kates, and Zeros. In the different waves, and sections of waves they are broken down here:

See:

Pearl Harbor Ships and Planes - Remembering Pearl Harbor @ nationalgeographic.com

It doesn't tell you how many were "return" sorties, exactly but one must figure there were at least some who did two trips.

 

Dive bombers were Vals, level and torpedo bombers were Kates. Level bombers had modified AP battleship shells, if I remember right, and the torpedo bombers had modified torpedoes for the shallow water in the harbor.

 

Hi Clint, nice link, and pretty much to restate what you guys just said...

...there was the Mitshubishi A6M 'Zeke' fighter, Aichi D3A 'Val' dive bomber and the Nakajima B5N 'Kate' torpedo bomber, also used as a level bomber.

 

Thanks Clint! Cool link

Jem

 

Mavfin and Jag,

Thanks for the response guys! well done

 

I wasnt aware of these and im from Australia........

 

While I agree with this statement, I would point out that in early 42 those ABDA boy's sure were glad to have the battle hardened crew of the Exeter near by.

The boys of the RN did have their hands full. One of the reasons they were unhappy with the US achieving equall tonnage in the Washingon Naval Treaty. An equall sized fleet just would not be capable of patroling the Pacific, Indian, Atlantic Oceans, and the Med.

 

The Aussie prisoners captured on New Britian (Rabaul) were tied to a tree and used as bayonet practse by the IJA troops who were apparently peeved that such a small force had caused such large casualties.

 

I'm doing the Pacific War for my senior project. It'll be on why it was a harder fight for the infantry compared to fighting in Europe. I'm also making an interactive online map, with pinpoints to every single island where something happened. Each pinpoint will contain a description, photos, video etc. People can even add more if they want. I'm using the Marine Corp history book, which is about 600 pages, so hopefully I'll get most of those unknown islands on there and recognized.

 

Camaro,

Cool topic for your senior project A couple questions for ya... What do you mean by the infantry?, and fighting in Europe?? That it was harder to fight for the infantry in the Pacific theater vs the European Great idea for adding an online map and pinpoints and photos. Are the Marines the focus of your project as well, or are there other aspects to touch on?? Let me know Camaro, I'd love to help if you wish. I think you are off to a great start, with some tasty ideas

all the best,

Mark