Pearl Harbor doesn't happen

[J. J.]

The RN had the following carriers in service or under construction as of 1 December 1941

Experimental WW I/post WW I era carriers using various converted hulls.

• Furious (Decommissioned September 1944.)
• Argus (Decommissioned August 1944.)
• Hermes (Sunk off Ceylon April 1942.)
• Eagle (Sunk off Malta August 1942.)

Illustrious class fleet carriers

• Illustrous
• Formidible
• Victorious
• Indomnitable

Implacable class fleet carriers

• Implacable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)
• Indefatigable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)

Unicorn (light fleet/aircraft maintenence carrier)

• Unicorn (launched, but still being fitted out, in service as of March 1943)

Escort carriers

• Activity (launched May 1942, commissioned September 1942)
• Archer (lend-lease Long Island class)

There were also a number of escort carriers intended for use by the British via lend-lease that were in various stages of completion, but had not yet transferred to the RN.

The converted merchant ships were not yet in service or even undergoing conversion as of Pearl Harbor.

It's hard to say who would win a naval war bewteen the 1942 RN and the 1942 IJN with no other combatants to clous the issue.  The RN had superior carriers, but the IJN had better planes and pilots and more carriers than the British.

The RN was using Swordfish as strike aircraft, which were biplanes (possibly wooden).  They, for example, disabled the Bismarck, but did not sink her.

Also, as indicated, some were assigned to the Mediterranean and possibly to the Narvik run to the Soviet Union.  From what I've seen of the RN performance during the IJN advance on Ragoon, the RN would have been at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

Okay, here is scenario:

On 12/7/41, Japan does not attack the Pearl Harbor, but do (as they did in OTL) attack the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and move on to Burma.  Because they do not attack the US (or the Philippines), they have more and they do it a few weeks more quickly (mid 2/42, for the DEI; Burma falls in 3/42). 

New Guinea is also attacked and the invasion is more successful (more troops, more ships).  In March 1942, The Anglo Australian fleet loses at the Battle of the Coral Sea; IJN enters the Coral Sea.  By July 1, 1942, all of New Guinea is taken by the Japanese, after a heroic defense of Port Moseby.

I'll post the NA and Eastern Front situations later.

[J. J.]

North Africa:  The 1942 German-Italian Offensive starts as in OTL. 

British forces are not as well supplied as well supplied as OTL, but the Germans are the same.  By June 1, 1942, the Nazi offensive stops at El Alamein.

Eastern Front:  Soviet winter offensive goes about the same.  There are increased supply problems toward the end and the advances are not quite as far (10-15 miles less).  The reason is that there are fewer Lend Lease supplies getting through.

The Germans launch their southern "Spring offensive" taking back Stevabastopol in mid May.  The "Summer offensive," east of Sea of Azov beigns  in the first week of June.

Basically, there is no real change in what happens, but it happens sooner, for the Nazis.

This is basically how I'd see the first six months of 1942, with the Japanese going to war with the British, but not attacking Pearl Harbor.

Now, the question is, does FDR decide to go to war because of a potential threat to the Philippines?  Is there any provocation to get the US into the war?

[J. J.]

As in OTL, the Japanese bomb Darwin, repeatedly, but much heavier. 

The Allied Navy, devastated at the Battle of the Coral Sea, regroups off of the Willis Group.  On Austrailia's western coast a small Allied Naval detactment is the southeastern edge of the RN's "Indian Ocean Line."

On July 7, 1942, a large Japanese invasion force captures Darwin (these are troops destined for Guadalcanal in OTL).  They are supported by a IJN carrier group of three, wich destroys the detactchment (RN, RDN, RAN) at the battle of Rowley Schoals.

The landings are successful, and Darwin falls by 7/8/42.  Secondary landings are made Derby, which falls on 8/10.  The Japanese storm Katherine on 7/18 and move down the west coast as far south as La Grange 1/11/42.

On the east coast, invades at Cairns, with smaller landings
on the Cape York Pennisula.  The Allied forces near Wallis is destroyed.  This IJN force also has three carriers, though one is sunk by land based bombers.  This invasion secures the port (which is largely destroyed) but cannot go very far.  Townsville and Rockhampton are heavily bombed and there is virtually no Naval defense of eastern Australia.

Australia is in a panic.  The PM demand that Austrailian Army units be brought back and that the RN be brought in.  Churchill, recluctantly agrees, and sends them troops from Egypt and India.  The first troops arrive in mid August, but by 1/11/42, there are several new divisions.

Churchill looks at the map and decides that the only way he can do this, is to pull ships out of the Meiterranean.  When as about Malta, Churchill says, "If I must sacrifice an island to say a continent, I must."

[J. J.]

In 11/21, the RN sends these carriers to the Indian Ocean:

• Hermes (Sunk off Ceylon April 1942.)
• Eagle (Sunk off Malta August 1942.)

Illustrious class fleet carriers

• Illustrous
• Formidible
• Victorious
• Indomnitable

Implacable class fleet carriers

• Implacable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)
• Indefatigable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)

Two others stay in the North Atlantic:

• Furious (Decommissioned September 1944.)
• Argus (Decommissioned August 1944.)

All carriers now fly Spitfires.

On 11/30/42, the RAA attateks at  La Grange, pushing the Japanese Army back to Derby by Christmas.  On 12/5-12/8, there is the Battle of the Sumba, a carrier battle.  Two of the three IJN carriers in that group are sunk with two RN carriers badly damaged.  Adm. Nagumo commits suicide.

On 12/7-12/13, the RN launches a combind assult on the IJN at Second Coral Sea.  Both remaining IJN carriers are sunk.  The Yamato is hit, and Adm. Yamamoto injured.

On 12/25, the Battle of Gulf of Papua destroys most of the IJN ability to resupply the invasion the invasion force at Cairns.  Basically, eastern Australia is safe and Japanese ability to launch further offensive action is gone by 1/1/43.

In NA, Montgomery cannot attack.  With the RN out of the Western Mediterranean, Rommel's supplies improve.  On 1/18/43, Alexandria falls, with the British retreating behind the Nile; on 2/2/04 Cairo is abanded and on 3/15/43; the British retreat behind the Suez Canal, which is blocked by sunken ships.

[ATFFL]

In NA, Montgomery cannot attack.  With the RN out of the Western Mediterranean, Rommel's supplies improve.  On 1/18/43, Alexandria falls, with the British retreating behind the Nile; on 2/2/04 Cairo is abanded and on 3/15/43; the British retreat behind the Suez Canal, which is blocked by sunken ships.

The problem in NA was less that supplies could not get through, but that they could not get to the front.  More than adequate supplies got through to the army, they just could not get them anywhere since it would have taken 20 years to build up the infrstructure to anywhere needed levels.

[dazzleman]

Do you guys think strong resistance movements would have materialized in the Nazi/Axis occupied nations? 

Yes, but I think there effectiveness would have been directly proportional to the war fortunes of the Germans versus the allies.  In other words, as the Germans got stronger against the allies, the resistance movements would have been crushed.  They were kept going by the hope of German defeat.

The Japanese were going to make a military move, whether or not they attacked Pearl Harbor.  The US at some point would have been forced to enter the war under poor circumstances to stop the Japanese, and keep in mind that was not the war Roosevelt wanted.  He viewed Germany as the primary threat, and Japan as secondary.  I believe he was correct.

Another interesting question is what would have happened had Hitler not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.  Roosevelt's request for a declartion of war after Pear Harbor included only Japan, not a word about Germany.  The Germans let him out of a very difficult box when they declared war on the US.

[J. J.]

In NA, Montgomery cannot attack.  With the RN out of the Western Mediterranean, Rommel's supplies improve.  On 1/18/43, Alexandria falls, with the British retreating behind the Nile; on 2/2/04 Cairo is abanded and on 3/15/43; the British retreat behind the Suez Canal, which is blocked by sunken ships.

The problem in NA was less that supplies could not get through, but that they could not get to the front.  More than adequate supplies got through to the army, they just could not get them anywhere since it would have taken 20 years to build up the infrstructure to anywhere needed levels.

Do you think that Montgomery could have held Alexandria, even with the removal of most non-UK troops?

[ATFFL]

In NA, Montgomery cannot attack.  With the RN out of the Western Mediterranean, Rommel's supplies improve.  On 1/18/43, Alexandria falls, with the British retreating behind the Nile; on 2/2/04 Cairo is abanded and on 3/15/43; the British retreat behind the Suez Canal, which is blocked by sunken ships.

The problem in NA was less that supplies could not get through, but that they could not get to the front.  More than adequate supplies got through to the army, they just could not get them anywhere since it would have taken 20 years to build up the infrstructure to anywhere needed levels.

Do you think that Montgomery could have held Alexandria, even with the removal of most non-UK troops?

Yes.  There are too few avenues of attack and Rommel will be stretched far, far beyond the limits of his logistics.  Rommel's strength lay in fluid battles.  An assault on Alexandria would have to be much more of a set-piece affair.  His only chance would be to surround it and grind his way in.  This is not something he liked to do.

Worst of all, such a battle could turn into a disaster for the Germans.  If the British broke the cordon at any point in the line, all the Germans and Italians to the east of the breakout point would be trapped and have very few supplies with them.

Rommel was best known for breaking through in a small area and surrounding his opponent.  Oddly enough, this same tactic was always his downfall.

Keep in mind Monty will have almost all of his armor.  The British were always smart enough to realize their armored divisions were of limited use in the Pacific theater.  He will still have a large and well supplied armored force.  His men will be well fed and wearing fine Egyptian cotton.   

Rommel will be at the end of a tenuously thin supply line.  Hitler will be pushing him to finish off the British now and not wait to build up supplies.  Rommel was never much for building up supplies to begin with.  His men will be stuck in the desert, far from teh comforts of a city.  To win they are going to have to storm a city, something not really in the German skill set.

[J. J.]

Keep in mind Monty will have almost all of his armor.  The British were always smart enough to realize their armored divisions were of limited use in the Pacific theater.  He will still have a large and well supplied armored force.  His men will be well fed and wearing fine Egyptian cotton.   

Well, remember the scenario.  The Japanese have landed in Australia, at Darwin and Broome, in the west, and are moving south along the coast.  It's exceptionally flat and semi arid.  You are going to see armor being sent there.  In may ways, that's the closest armor there.

In OTL, the Japanese used their ground forces in the Phillipines and South Pacific Isllands.  Those troop are free to invade Australia in this timeline.  Also in OTL, the US basically defended Australia; in this one, there is no US participation in the war.

The question is, with Montgomery weakened, can he still hold against Rommel or does he fall back?

[The Dowager Mod]

The japanese army wanted to invade Russia.
The navy wanted the oil and rubber in the south and since the navy had more clout at the time....

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A few comments, J.J.

1) Standard IJN pactice at the time was to pair their carriers in groups of 2, so without losses, I doubt that they would have used two groups of 3 carriers, a group of 4 and a group of 2 is more likely

2) A landing at Cairns is improable thanks to the Great Barrier Reef.

3) The Achilies heel of the Japanese effort in the Pacific was th slow speed of their merchant fleet.  At  only 5 knots, they couldn't have supported a faster advance than what the Japanese accomplished in the Spring of 1942.

[J. J.]

A few comments, J.J.

1) Standard IJN pactice at the time was to pair their carriers in groups of 2, so without losses, I doubt that they would have used two groups of 3 carriers, a group of 4 and a group of 2 is more likely

2) A landing at Cairns is improable thanks to the Great Barrier Reef.

3) The Achilies heel of the Japanese effort in the Pacific was th slow speed of their merchant fleet.  At  only 5 knots, they couldn't have supported a faster advance than what the Japanese accomplished in the Spring of 1942.

First, geography makes a difference.  I submit that because there is attack on both coasts, the carriers were evenly split.

Second, I checked Cairns prior to choosing it.  It has an active port, and a ship repair facility; it takes both cruiseships and freighters.  Now, the might have cut a path through the Great Coral Reef since 1941, but that's unlikely.  I will also note that it bombed with minor damage in the Spring of 1941.

Third, as indicated, the spring 1941 moves are only about two week ahead of where they were in OTL.  At the Coral Sea, there was an invasion force moving tward the Solomons (?), but it had to turn back.

Up to the actual invasion of Austrailia, the DEA campaign went pretty much the same it did in OTL.  In OTL, DEA surrendered on March 8, 1942.  I submit that even if this happened the same way in this time line, the IJN could have launch an invasion of Darwin on 7/8/42.