That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.
Pacific Turning Point: Midway or Guadalcanal
-
Midway of course!
-
Midway. The carriers were irreplaceable.
-
Midway!
-
As a navy guy, when we say fleets, please keep in mind that the fleets never saw each other, and this is not only THE turning point in the Pacific, but a historical first, and why we have our “super carriers” of today. This is also why missing the carriers by a week in Pearl Harbor in concert with the fuel tanks was COSTLY for Japan.
-
As a navy guy, when we say fleets, please keep in mind that the fleets never saw each other, and this is not only THE turning point in the Pacific, but a historical first.
Actually, the first naval engagement in which the opposing fleets never saw each other was the Battle of the Coral Sea, which took place shortly before Midway.
-
ack…you’re right…should have fact checked it before looking dumb…too late!
-
gotta be careful of that, there a a few lurkers here, that would jump all over you for such an error :roll:
-
Guadalcanal relieved the enemy of any idea that the United States was going to be a push over. The marines showed themselves willing to endure sacrifice.
-
I once stated in football terms, that Midway was similar to Japan throwing a interception returned for a touchdown during a tied game. Guadalcanal was a 20 play drive for a touchdown.
-
Was Hiroshima an on-side kick?
-
The turning point was when Japan attacked USA.
Japan winning those battles only postpones the the final result.
Japan needed to finish off China, or settle that war by armistice.
Then take the dutch assets and the British alone and consolidate for 10 years.
-
@ABWorsham:
I once stated in football terms, that Midway was similar to Japan throwing a interception returned for a touchdown during a tied game. Guadalcanal was a 20 play drive for a touchdown.
Since I know zero about football, I don’t grasp any of this – but your analogy sounds interesting. Could you explain or restate it in different terms?
-
I thought it pretty too Wors, but wasn’t going to say: eh?
Funny how we speak the same language, but still are worlds apart at times. -
@Imperious:
The turning point was when Japan attacked USA.
Japan winning those battles only postpones the the final result.
Japan needed to finish off China, or settle that war by armistice.
Then take the dutch assets and the British alone and consolidate for 10 years.
The reason why japan attacked indonesia and UK was because they needed the resources for the war in china.
-
I once stated in football terms, that Midway was similar to Japan throwing a interception returned for a touchdown during a tied game. Guadalcanal was a 20 play drive for a touchdown.
Ok for those of you NON-Americans/Canadians.
Imagine a game of what we call Soccer, or you call football. It’s the FIFA World cup 2013 CHAMPIONSHIP game.
The game is tied… Japan Vs America.
Japan is about half to 75% way down the field towards the American goal, they look like they might score. Then their guy suddenly kicks the ball to an American player in front of him, who is totally uncovered/unblocked and takes the ball all the way back down to the Japanese net where he finds the Japanese goalie having a nap, or NOT THERE AT ALL, and Scores!
Guadalcanal was a 20 play drive for a touchdown
This is like taking the ball from your net, and slowly passing it up the field over a 10 to 15 minute period, where it’s been ALL HARD WORK, and then you finally score, without having let up any ground, or let the ball be touched by any defenders.
-
Without Midway, would the US have been able to send the landing force to Guadalcanal when they did?
-
@Col.:
Without Midway, would the US have been able to send the landing force to Guadalcanal when they did?
If I recall correctly, there wasn’t much carrier involvement (on either side) during the Guadalcanal campaign. I think it was mainly surface surface ships that participated. If so, then the results of Midway might not be significant on the course of Guadalcanal one way or the other.
-
Am not a Pacific historian, but was there no Carrier action on Guadalcanal because the Japanese had lost 4 Carriers at Midway?
Where were Japan’ s remaining Carriers at the end of 42? -
Yeah, but does the US send a fleet knowing there are 4 carriers out there?
Like Wittman said, there wasn’t any carrier action because Japan just lost four carriers at Midaway.
-
@CWO:
@Col.:
Without Midway, would the US have been able to send the landing force to Guadalcanal when they did?
If I recall correctly, there wasn’t much carrier involvement (on either side) during the Guadalcanal campaign. **I think it was mainly surface surface ships that participated.** If so, then the results of Midway might not be significant on the course of Guadalcanal one way or the other.
Are you implying that the Carriers were submersible?:P
Suggested Topics
