Thanks for the nice reviewThanks. Pacific War ending in 43 or 44 instead of 45?
I gave your timeline some attention on my blog.
http://accordingtoquinn.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-fun-alternate-pacific-war.html
Kent
Thanks for the nice reviewThanks. Pacific War ending in 43 or 44 instead of 45?
I gave your timeline some attention on my blog.
http://accordingtoquinn.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-fun-alternate-pacific-war.html
I did some edit work on original posts to corect grammer and spelling.
Thanks again for all the positive input.
I am working on a draft of an ASB type story on the Livermore National Lab that while doing a run up of the National Ignition Facility (nuclear fusion ignition) causes an ISOT that causes a shift of time for a seventy five mile radius around the lab in all directions. A ball of earth moved from 2011 to maybe 50 million years in the past. This in turn replaces the 2011 circle with one from that time. It also releases and causes all the major California earthquake faults to move causing massive SoCal earthquakes and a new bay of the Pacific to form after the earth movement causes an opening 25 miles wide 1 mile deep between San Diego and LA fifty miles inland. Might even have it cause the Cascadia fault to move southward with big earthquake off Washington coast. Lots of damage to 2011 California. Seventy five mile distance would include most of the Bay Area and Delta regions. Replaced into a time of prehistoric dino's and semi-tropical jungle. Also the other way a new seventy five mile ball dropped that has dino"s and jungle where the Bay had been.
I hope to start posting soon.
Should I do more edit work and post this to the Finished timelines and Scenarios?
I have finished a rewrite of this timeline and posted it to finished timelines. I do not know how to post a link in that discussion group back to this one, could a moderator please assist with that.
Kent. WI Guam -The Fate Of An Alternate Guam WI - Full StoryI do not know, I have asked Ian in a PM how long it should take?
thanks for checking on it
Kent
I used the name of Admiral Cunningham in place of Admiral Daniel CallaghanWho is Admiral Cunningham?
Thanks for nice review.Kent:
I am fascinated by your post. I find it an extremely cogent post in its overall concept. A miniscule measure of paranoia on the part of the U.S. might have resulted in a vastly different scenario in the Pacific Theater of Operations. I like the attention to detail as far as what specific ships and aircraft types were available at the time and what likely would have been delivered. The quad- fifties were a nice touch and even a few of those at Guam or Wake would have been a rude awakening to japanese pilots acustomed to straffing troops with little or no anti-aircraft.
I do not find the scenario implausble in its macro sense, but I have a few constructive criticisms. I do this only in the hope of improving your work, I found it quite enjoyable and I'm anxious to see future posts on this subject.
1. I think the rate of success of bomb hits and torpedo strikes by U.S. forces is well above what could have been expected. The USAAF was quite untested and in most of the early battles against Japanese forces were almost laughably ineffective. I think you are right in your premise that they would have done much better with P-40's and A-20's than P-36's and Brewster Buffalo's. Even at Midway, the AAF was horribly ineffective, months after hostilities began. They did almost zero damage to the Japanese fleet, but they did convince Admiral Nagumo to fatefully rearm his bombers for another strike at the Midway airfield. USAAF losses in aircraft were quite lopsided in favor of the Japanese because the Japanese had real combat experience and were flying "Zeros". Even with the updated equipment you describe I doubt the results would have been much different. The Type 96 fighter, however, was never a match for the P-40 and I found your description of their destruction quite accurate. I think your scenario and Japanese aircraft losses would be more believable if the Type 96 aircraft had been used in subsequent airstrikes on Guam. It would have given the defenders real combat experience so they could have a better chance against the later attacks by the "Zeros" and more plausible. Few airmen made "ace" in a day, and never in the early stages of the war against seasoned japanese pilots. Another point of divergence might have been to incorprate some of Chenault's "Flying Tigers" into the air group as advisors. They had a remarkable record against Japanese aircraft while flying P-40's, even against the "Zero".
2. The Philippines: Yes, Dugout Doug was caught with his pants down in OTL. There is no reason to believe he might not have again been a victim of his own arrogance. Having said that, if Guam in your timeline has an airfield and a regiment of Marines then what might the Philippines have received. Certainly they would have had more than one radar and many more aircraft. If their woeful performance in OTL was due to lack of communication and bad leadership, that might not change. If better vectoring was used, as on your Guam, then many of the B-17s might not have been lost on the ground. An extra radar set or two probably would have made poor communication a moot point as multiple radar sightings could have warned all of the Pursuit Squadrons. If the number of forces allowed McArthur was roughly doubled he would have had a formibable force and might have been able to hold Manilla until reinforcements arrived.
3. I like the early arrival of US submarines in theater. They were easily produced and if production were ramped up early, they would have been some of the first ships to arrive. They, also, were less effective than they could have been. They were cursed with faulty torpedos with weak firing pins and bad magnetometers. If it your premise that this problem was solved in the extra vigilance displayed by the U.S. then there effectiveness is given a plausible explanation.
4. Submarine doctrine for the U.S. Pacific Fleet was to attack merchant shipping in preference to capital ships. The use of the subs for intelligence gathering fit nicely with their role in the war. It is possible that in the desperate months of the early conflict they might have been used as you describe, especially in conjunction with air power to save a beleaugered outpost like Guam. But it was an aberation for Pacific Fleet subs to target warships unless they just stumbled upon a choice target. I find it more plausible that the subs would have been designated to target the freighters and troop ships, but they certainly would not have let a carrier slip by if they had a good firing solution.
5. The carrier planes landing on Guam after their ship was damaged was nice. It happened more than once in the action off Guadalcanal and I got the impression you based the conflict around Alter Guam on many of the actions fought near Savo and Iron Bottom Sound.. I also liked the mention of how many US pilots were recovered after being shot down, it was a strength of the US that they went to great liengths to pull pilots from the ocean. Many brought back invaluable experience and their failures were less likely to be repeated repeated. Going down in th ocean in a flaming wreck does wonders to focus the mind.
Good job! Can't wait for your next post.