[Pacific] Balance of Force & Operating Conditions in 1941

[@TH-wm5cu]

Calm Austrian historical narration...ends with shredding guitar...subscribed

[@KristianKumpula]

I think it should have been mentioned that the Japanese didn't properly co-operative with themselves either. The animosity and lack of communication between IJA and IJN was ridiculous.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

agreed, although I mentioned the lack of an unified command and thus their inability to focus their limited resources.

[@henleinkosh2613]

the lack of unified command is mentioned often in various publications about the japanese war effort, but so far I have not found any material that discusses this in detail, any suggestions? (note I only speak english and danish)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@Christian: not really. In "why air forces fail" there is some mentioning that the IJA and IJN basically produced several aircraft of the same type, but not much more.

[@PotatoBearRawr]

Excellent point. As I understand the political situation in Japan their military branches, were something like parties in a democracy fighting for political influence. Essentially the country was a military dictatorship, but with competing militaries. Even the internal units of the each branches did not always coordinate fully, as they were continuing their tradition of acting as competing warlords for shogunate (I seem to remember something about the Marco Polo incident was started by the army in Manchuria without even telling anyone else in the Japanese power structure, but my memory is terrible... So would not trust it over someone with actual sources). I might have misunderstood some of this (not my main focus of historical interest), but at least it coherently explains things as far as I have gotten (correction are very welcome). If this is true, then a unified command or even proper coordinating anything at a strategical level would be impossible, as one branch would have to surrender (Japanese at the time and "surrender") power to another. And with the US build up of naval forces it seems as a now-or-never scenario for Japan, and their land war was eventually going to bring them into conflict with the European powers, so they probably did not have a choice. Their internal political power dynamics alone lead them down a path toward unavoidable collapse. I have a hard time seeing how that they would logically implement a unified command structure if my understanding of the political climate (in Japan at the time) is correct.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

It's my understanding that the Army didn't tell the Navy about their defeat in Mongolia and the Navy, for a very long time, kept the losses at Midway a secret.

[@SNOUPS4]

Constructive comment: the animation at 3:52 is really great, it's a good idea! :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thx, that animation was the reason for getting PowerPoint 2016 :)

[@EmptyPrmises]

what programs do you use to make animations trough whole vidio? Thanks a lot. :)

[@MartinRichardi]

please make more like that whit different years and different batle fronts

[@wingng1900]

Danilo Bulatovic

[@2001lextalionis]

Specifically the Japanese navy never instituted the well established strategy of Convoy. As such Japans merchant marine was highly vulnerable to US submarine forces. The total and complete failure of Japan, a country dependent on imports going into a war without a method to deliver commodities is staggering in its ineptitude. An interesting naval note was the failure of American torpedoes at the outset of the war. Significantly hampering US combat effectiveness in the early stages of the campaign.

[@2001lextalionis]

The lack of self sealing gas tanks on Japanese fighter planes combined with a total lack of a pilot rescue force meant that virtually every experienced Nihonjin pilot died either by being shot down, running out of gas and crashing into the ocean once his fuel lines were damaged by allied weapons fire and drowning, or the aforementioned disease factor. The US maintained a highly effective pilot rescue force and many highly trained pilots were picked up by submarines and smaller surface craft. In fact former president George Bush Sr was shot down and rescued by submarine. Thanks for much for another excellent video

[@novat9731]

I believe your reading comprehension need to be addressed. His words said that the Japanese lacked a pilot rescue force. I.E, there were no dedicated men in the Japanese armed forces whose main responsibility was to find and rescue pilots. I think it is somewhat justifiable, considering the state of Japanese radar in their airplanes. In contrast to the Americans, British and the Germans. Japanese airplanes (not all) did not have radar equipment, and had to resort to visual signaling between the pilots. The American system was effective, partly because pilots could alert command of their situation and possibly even their position. This is not to say a Japanese system would not work at all, patrol boats could sweep the operational area of shot down airplanes. Sea planes could have been produced to sweep larger areas, and outposts could have been placed on strategic smaller islands in the pacific. Regardless of the effectiveness, even a wounded Pilot would have been extremely useful for educational purposes. Even early in the war.

[@james5971]

he was right though, no need to be so harsh

[@MChagall]

You know so much, yet you act like a child. This is a public comment section so everyone is free to respond, even if you don't like it.

[@james5971]

i think he might be a troll

[@b1laxson]

An interesting spin off would be to look at the US submarine force. When the BBs were knocked out at Pearl Harbour the few carriers would be initially risky to use. The submarines were out there, ready to go and began taking a toll. While the carriers won naval battles, the BBs supported landings it was the submarines that wrecked the ability of Japan to operate a war.

[@OwenBudd1]

Partially true. The US Submarine fleet was not trained to hunt shipping at the start, US Naval doctrine emphasised their use as fleet screening only. So submariners were asked to undertake a role they were not properly trained for yet. Also, their torpedoes were literal garbage at the start, so there was numerous reports from US Submarine crews saying their torpedoes ran too deep or failed to detonate on impact. So they weren’t actually a force to fear until later.

[@walteralter9061]

Really excellent channel. I've been a student of WWII most of my life and find KZbin to be an awesome resource, particularly for foreign videos. I'll eventually get to all of your presentations. Love the diagrammatic approach. Many thanks for your efforts.

[@CommonwealthMarches]

Could you do the Mediterranean and Atlantic too please?

[@Zajuts149]

Just some points about the guns of the Japanese cruisers: The calibres used were usually the same as any other navies, as it had been established in in the Naval treaty of 1922 that 8in guns were the maximum for heavy, or armoured cruisers, and 6in were the maximum for light cruisers. This did not change for anyone until they stopped building gun cruisers. Japan converted some of their light cruisers to heavy cruisers, and the UK stopped developing and building heavy cruisers in the mid-30s, while some of the new light cruisers for the US in 1941/42 was the Atlanta-class, which instead of the normal 6in main armament, used the excellent 5in/38 Dual Purpose guns. These were usually the secondary armament of larger ships, such as heavy cruisers and battleships.

[@RWMoortgat]

Fantastic video!!

[@Magicannon_]

Japan even had issues within their own command structures. Not just IJA vs. IJN. Yamamoto threatened to resign from Combined Fleet HQ multiple times to get his way. The most powerful weapon in the Pacific, the coordinated carrier strike, was squandered on smaller operations that lead to attrition that the IJN could not keep up with. For instance, only one carrier division was sent to assist with the Port Moresby operation. This lead to Coral Sea where the US Navy was able to fight without a disadvantage in numbers. CarDiv5 would then not be available for Midway. The Midway operation's mobile force would then be at a numbers disadvantage in terms of planes against the similar strength US task forces with Midway itself backing them up as well. Midway itself was also mismanaged with so many spread out forces including an invasion of the Aleutians which was basically just stapled onto the overall plan (the timing of the operations writes off the possibility of a feint to bait US forces up north). This comes before the tactical blunders and weaknesses in doctrine.

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

Final Spark considering they left most details of orders and operations up to subordinate commanders to deal with, I doubt your first statement.

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

Final Spark considering they left most details of orders and operations up to subordinate commanders to deal with, I doubt your first statement.

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

Final Spark considering they left most details of orders and operations up to subordinate commanders to deal with, I doubt your first statement.

[@Dreamw4lk3r]

Another great video! I love your channel for the way you visualise and highlight several key aspects of war. It's great for getting a better perspective on history :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@alanegdell7406]

Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics

[@MrChickennugget360]

you need to study both. the US has also struggled to win since WW2 mainly because they think they can win with logistics alone.

[@mrbrainbob5320]

MR.Chickennuget 360 not really that was only Vietnam and even then the US never lost a battle.

[@MrChickennugget360]

Mrbrain bob there is more to winning a war than winning battles. look at Germany in both World Wars.

[@mrbrainbob5320]

MR.Chickennuget 360 not really a good argument considering the Germans did lose major battles. while the US didnt

[@MrChickennugget360]

Mrbrain bob True, i guess i should also name drop the Civil War and the American Revolution since they better represent my claim.

[@kalle911]

Japan's ASW experience dated back to ww1 Mediterranean, but they skipped that part when going to the next war. An excellent source for Japanese naval history is the book Kaigun: Japanese naval history 1887-1941.

[@lukecornNL]

the German does a good job of making this dutchman feel small :P Great video

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

that is just from "our" inferiority complex, because we had no colonies over there ;)

[@JBlackjackp]

three cruisers was four just to much

[@pac1fic055]

Dude is Austrian if I remember correctly

[@geoffreymowbray6789]

The Royal Netherlands Navy in the Netherlands East Indies had the HNLMS Sumatra - a old light cruiser laid up needing major refit after her escape from the Netherlands in 1940; the HNLMS Java was the HNLMS Sumatra's sister ship but was still operational; the HNLMS De Ruyter a modern light cruiser; the HNLMS Tromp a very small modern light cruiser. Thus 4 light cruisers of which 1 was unfit for service. The British considered crewing the HNLMS Sumatra with survivors from the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse but were surprised at the HNLMS Sumatra poor state of repair. The HNLMS Sumatra was withdrawn from the area and ended up as a breakwater for a "Mullberry" harbour for the Normandy landings in June 1944. The HNLMS Troop was withdrawn after battle damage and the HNLMS DE Ruyter and Java were both sunk with heavy loss of life in the Battle of the Java Sea.

[@lukecornNL]

Ah... The battle of the Java Sea, better known as the reason why every dutch city has a Karel Doorman street and 4 vessels or so have been named after him... At least he tried...

[@lolroflroflcakes]

Basically you could sum it up as: Imperial Japan was a drunk guy who got cut off at the bar, he then decided that since he had been going to the gym lately he could use that new found strength to somehow intimidate the other patrons and staff into giving him more drinks with a cunning plan. Unfortunately that plan involved jumping in front of a speeding semi-truck and trying to stop it with his bare hands.

[@KallegrandStudios]

Outstanding video. Very complete.

[@nattygsbord]

The Japanease navy had 15 large aircraft carriers, 15 light aircraft carrier, 5 escort carriers, 18 cruisers, 25 light cruisers, 169 destroyers, 184 submarines in World War two. That's a lot of crewmen and lot's of tons of steel. But how many of those japanease warships have survided the war and can be visited today? One. A midget submarine at Pearl Harbor.

[@lolroflroflcakes]

The Nagato survived the war an can still be visited today.

[@Outshinedsg]

Not entirely accurate. The Nagato did survive the war, but shortly afterwards the US used it as a nuclear test target in the Bikini Atoll, where it sank in shallow water. I suppose you can technically still "visit" it, if you've brought your scuba equipment ;). Closest thing to a museum ship would either be the old pre-dreadnought Mikasa, or the scale model of the Yamato in the Yamato Museum.

[@Diamonddogusa]

Not true. With the appropriate diving gear you can visit many ships of the IJN.

[@nattygsbord]

I was refering to ships that could be visited without a scubadiving kit or a mini-submarine... if you get what I mean ;-)

[@MetalRodent]

They have two more, the Mikasa (obsolete by WW2) and the ice-breaker Sōya. I'll admit it is rather sad to think all the survivors were scrapped or nuked postwar, and that the only possibly ship to have been saved, the Yukikaze, was scrapped by Taiwan in 1970 despite Japanese efforts to return it for preservation. (The Soviets sank Hibiki as target in 1970s). However, sadly that's the case for almost every nation, Germany only have a few submarines, Britain has three ships (Caroline, Belfast and Cavalier) and France and Netherlands have none, Canada has a DD. Only Russia and the USA had the space and money to preserve vessels.

[@cadengrace5466]

Excellent presentation with one very minor error: Japanese cruisers did not have larger caliber guns. They did often have more guns on their cruisers but not larger. US light cruisers (CL) had6" guns with 10, 11, 12 or 15 gun totals on various classes. The Japanese light cruisers, were generally much smaller and had, at the start of the war 5.5" guns with gun totals ranging from 4 to 7 of these weapons per ship. In heavy cruisers, the US and the Japanese both used an 8' gun with US ships carrying either 9 or 10 such guns per ship. The Japanese ships had either 6 or 10. Another even smaller error is that you give the impression that the huge I-boat type submarines of the Japanese navy were a benefit. They generally weren't. They were very, very slow to submerge and this caused many of them to be sunk before they could do so. They were slow to surface and were not easy to maneuver. The US had similar problems with the small number of V-boats produced before the war. They somewhat offset these issues when these ships were refitted just before the war with much more powerful engines.

[@malyngar4854]

This is my favorite video on your channel it's really great!

[@willnettles2051]

The boxer Mike Tyson once said, "Everybody has a plan. Until they get hit." Corollary to this might be what Yamamoto tried to get the Japanese leaders to understand prior to Pearl Harbor, "If you sneak up on him, anybody can hit Mike Tyson. What's more important is what happens next."

[@Yamatocyberdark]

Excellent presentation!

[@robertclifton5795]

Great video ...... I've thought and discussed the exact topic and helped me understand it better !

[@MartinRichardi]

you need to make more like this one, whit info of every side forces in all theater operations. good video

[@constantdrowsiness4458]

The video was excellent. I am glad you actually spoke about East Asia and SE Asia, which what the war was really over. I'd like to add that the Japanese economy was not really built to absorb exports from SE Asia with some exception such as oil and so the whole region's economy basically fell apart.

[@ronlee2776]

If you look at Janes book of ships for the USN there was a large number of Carrier, Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer keels laid during the 1930’s! The USN knew that a war was brewing in the Pacific and started major modernization and building plans in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. This is a little known story during the run up to the US entry into WWII. The amazing thing is this is during the height of the Depression years in the US!

[@paulgent9203]

People talk about the preponderance of American power, remember in the beginning the Japanese Navy was twice, yes twice the size of the American Navy. The way the American commanders conducted the early war was excellent.

[@mr.andrew9171]

I remember watching Battle 360, the story of the U.S.S. Enterprise, in the first episode they targeted a completely undefended atoll that had several dozen unarmed Japanese merchantmen sitting in a choke point. Basically the naval equivalent of the Finn's mowing down company after company of Soviets. Between our leaders and the Japanese flaws mentioned in this video, I agree that the outcome was most satisfying.

[@Rommel88AK]

Thank you, excellent and balanced as always. Regards R

[@kennethworde862]

been gone awhile, but great stuff a usual, though I am ex military, this is great stuff, and presented well, all should watch, and learn, as did I, great point on divisions of Japan an Germany.

[@karakondzula1388]

Cool video, cant wait for castles part 2. Gj

[@sosojosef9120]

I really really enjoy the stuff you make, continue making great content.

[@Dude1337jeeb]

Great video! Will you cover the Battle of Khalin Gol or the Manchurian offensive (1945)??

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

once wanted to do the first one, but the source was "meeh", Manchurian offensive unlikely. My and popular interest is limited, first one might change.

[@Palora01]

great video as always but next time, when you do stuff like you did at 3:29 could you also add a number in the image, it's easy to forget the numbers you specified if they arn't on the screen as well.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

still figuring out a way to do it without looking like crap, like it did in my last video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYHPon-OZa2bjpo right now I will stick with the no numbers approach, because the overall dimensions are clearly visible and for those people that want to full detail, well, there is no way around reading, which should be quite clear after I mention that the numbers are different in almost every publication.

[@DerSheriff]

maybe add a factor to each box. very small. x10 for example

[@kyoshiroma]

Very very good and accurate analysis

[@aleksandrmikhail3803]

lesson learned..... never beat someone who feed you everyday however strong you are :p

[@Milkmans_Son]

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you" has a better ring to it.

[@D3C3n50r]

Can that same rational be applied to the Middle East who feeds the US with oil?

[@faque5634]

+D3C3n50r Nope, not with the shale boom in North America now.

[@D3C3n50r]

+Fa Que You do realise over 41% of US oil is still exported from the middle east right?

[@triggernutsy1]

hahahaha youre an idiot. less then 13% of its oil from middle east. moron. www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

[@maogenvivi]

I dunno if there is a english version but there is a very good book about utter failure of Japanese political and military leadership called "Defeat in summer of 1941" or 「昭和16年夏の敗戦」.

[@andreastiefenthaler3811]

Gute Arbeit, gut recherchiert!Gruß aus Wien!

[@lepantzeus1]

Dear MHV, Excellent video, Sir, but Japanese Merchant Ships weren't protected or escorted by the IJN. That task fell to the Imperial Japanese Army Railway Units who deployed large numbers of specialized, small escort vessels and placed troops and guns onto merchant ships and barges as well as some fishing boats. Fortunately for the U.S., they lacked a unified command structure, communications, planning and intelligence and coordinated poorly with their IJN counterparts. They did excel at logistics which was their primary function. ;-)

[@peacebrother8235]

Awesome video you did a great job researching . . .

[@WadcaWymiaru]

One thing was ignored: patiency. If Japanese were patient, they could have discover the Loao-he oil field: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaohe_oil_field in 1935 by drilling a 100 meters or so...that field could give alies the MASSIVE head ache...

[@TheBigSleazy]

This was a great vid...would be great if you did some from the Japanese side of the pacific. There never seems to be much information on this...just that they got massacred. Keep up the good work!!

[@paxofpayne]

I agree we here so much about the battle of the Atlantic and the merchant fleet but what of the poor Japanese sailor did they use convoys ?

[@PotatoBearRawr]

All I have seen and read is that convoying was not considered honourable by Japanese naval officers, so they did not do it for this reason. Seems crazy now from our perspective, but just think about the cultural situation and how where Japan is now. I would not at all be surprised if it was true, but still seems to crazy to believe.

[@egthomas2922]

GRIFFIN PAYNE The IJN had excellent crews ships and weapons. Sadly the leadership made several errors. The training program was not continued so aircrew ships companies and support crews were not able to be replaced. So many new aircraft types were tested and very few new models were fielded. The Jills,Susies, and George were very good aircraft but lacked more qualified aircrews. The Japanese lacked ASW. Interestingly a Japanese Army Escort carrier was equipped late in the war with autogyros which dropped depthcharges. It was deployed late in the war but was also sunk. Better training once the war started and of course better logistical operations would have aided the Japanese. Also Japan never worked with the Germans. Imagine one or two Japanese light Carriers deployed with the various German surface action groups. Even a few Zeros would have been able to protect ships like the Bismark or other German assets, many which were caught outside friendly air cover.

[@raychristison5231]

I generally enjoy the quality of your visualisations, but feel that you should have broadened your sources on this one. By early 1941 Australia had a well trained army of almost 380,000. These troops had been in training since 1940 and played a critical role in the defeats of Japanese forces during 1942.

[@joechang8696]

the North Carolina class, authorized in 36, FY37, were commissioned in 41 and working up for fleet operation. The 4 South Dakotas were authorized in 38, FY39 and would be commissioned in 42. The 4 Iowas were ordered prior to the first Naval Act of 40 (Jun). Technically, the two-ocean act was the Jul 40, but both together can be considered. Hornet and Wasp were working up? The first three Essexes were also ordered as part of the Jun 40 act? The biggest thing Japan failed to consider was that the American people were strongly opposed to involvement. Japan could have sailed past the US forces in the Philippines, perhaps politely inquire with the US if a port call was possible, then gone on to "take over management" of the Dutch East Indies. In that circumstance, Roosevelt may have had a hard getting was authorization. Second, they could have just let the eight old US battleships come out to fight. These were 32K ton, 32K shp ships which maneuvered very slow. Forget top speed. The North Carolina were 35K ton 120K shp for 27 kt. Its the shp per ton that is the better measure of maneuverability.

[@j.christopherbowen252]

Your videos are excellent. On the subject of the Pacific WWII I am interested what you think of the Japanese complete neglect of anti submarine and anti-aircraft defenses.

[@binaway]

The Japanese Army and Navy didn't just fail to co-operate but at times almost sabotaged each other. To spite the Navy the entire workforce of a naval dock yard was knowingly conscripted by the army which then had to be forced to return these essential war workers. The army built and operated it own submarines due to lack of trust between the two services. Just a small example of their problems with each other.

[@1986tessie]

always great mate see you @ 8.

[@tomgjgj]

Nice one.

[@treyriver5676]

A example of lack of IJA and IJN co-operation. Japanese use 7.7x58 (Army) AND 7.7x56R (Navy) ammunition in machine guns there is little difference in regard to ballistics . Standardizing on one of them (7.7x58 would be the better as the Type 99 Rifle was the same cartidge) would have made production easier. Its a small thing but small things add up.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Love the way you pronounce Hawaii.

[@Diamonddogusa]

Its important to remember that these force comparisons was the entire Japanese fleet vs pacific only for US. The US had 6 large fleet carriers plus the poorly suited Ranger at the time of pearl harbor. Further, the US had a total of 17 battleships and 3 of the excellent south dakotas had already been launched and another soon to be launched. These numbers apply to the rest of the categories as well. Further, the US marines and army, while small in number, had a huge reserve officer corps, allowing for rapid mobilization. Japan never really stood a chance. The US defeated Japan while concentrating on the European theater, basically with one had tied behind its back.

[@ItzMrKennedy]

Diamonddogusa thank you because during world war 2 the British had the most powerful navy and it was confusing when he said they had like nothing.

[@mrbrainbob5320]

Kyle Elward the british were spread out. But still I dont think they were stronger than the US maybe in the beginning they did.

[@ItzMrKennedy]

Mrbrain bob they had the worlds biggest navy. It might not have been more powerful but it was a huge factor in world war 2. The rest of the allies never get enough credit for what they deserve. Look at Hollywood they turn everything into an American story even when it's not. I have nothing against America but it wasn't just them

[@mrbrainbob5320]

Kyle Elward bigger is powerful when talking about a navy. www.quora.com/Which-navy-in-WWII-was-stronger-The-British-Navy-or-the-Japanese-Navy you should read that.The UK was the most powerful at first but there ships were old and outdated unlike the US . Who build a new bigger and more advance navy. As for the Hollywood statement well I don't work in Hollywood so I can't really do much.

[@questingyoyo141]

While you are right America did most of the work not to say others did not do anything, the canada did a lot in operation overlord then got benched and the UK did a ton of work, however of it wasnt for the USSR on the eastern front the war would have taken much longer and they deserve WAY more credit.

[@leonasmith6180]

Very well done thank you, just wish I had found this before I sat my A level

[@sindey2000]

i love these videos

[@jonathanhansen3709]

At the start of the war the U.S. had 6 carriers, not 3, CV2-Lexington, CV3-Saratoga, CV5-Yorktown, CV6-Enterprise, CV7-Wasp, CV-8 Hornet. There were also the CV1-Langley, and CV4-Ranger that were never used in combat because they were early, slow moving designs.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Pacific theater...

[@Eanki_]

I remember the argument that under the modified War Plan Orange, Manila was not a fortress, at least to the US Navy. McArthur had other grander defense plans for my country that sadly my then under developed country could not economically support but the Navy never intended to fight for Manila. They would give up islands they cannot feasibly hold and wait til they built up such a force that the outcome of a battle and the war will be a forgone conclusion. And then they will sweep and swipe the islands back.

[@nesa1126]

wix, i do not need a website, ty.

[@Syndie702]

Could you discuss early war uniforms and equipment used by the US Army and Marine Corps? In addition to the M1903 and Doughboy helmets left over from World War I, they wore more intricate, expensive uniforms. The iconic uniform worn by 1943 was heavily simplified. Unfortunately, due to their being defeats, the desperate delaying actions of the early war are so forgotten most Americans don't even know what US Troops would have looked like in 1941.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

uniforms is not really my thing, if I stumble across something in a Museum maybe, but else very unlikely.

[@sfsfinancing3299]

Good overview. One thing I think would have changed everything, is if Japan had followed the "Northern Strategy", and not the "Southern Strategy". I believe it was discussed in Japan, but a defeat of the Japanese by Zhukov caused the Japanese to think that a southern strategy would be easier. If Japan had invaded Siberia instead of subjugating China, after it took Manchuria, I bet the US would have been OK with that. After all, the US had troops in Russia in the 20's trying to overthrow Lenin. 1. The US would not have embargoed Japan. 2. Siberia and Manchuria would have all the coal, iron, and other raw materials needed. 3. Since Japan would have never attacked the US, America's entry into WW2 would have been delayed. 4. Even if we supported Stalin against Germany, I am not sure we would have minded Soviet Union losing a bit of Siberia, and its Pacific ports. I think our strategists would have been glad for that. Japan could have carved a nice little empire for itself that I believe the US and UK would have been OK with. The Japanese Empire would have then been Japan, Formosa, Korea, Manchuria, part of Mongolia, and Eastern Siberia. Japan would never had been defeated, and would still be ruled by Shinto inspired militarism.

[@f430ferrari5]

@SFS Financing. Most English speakers don’t like to discuss this but the way Japan looked at things is that why are there white nations ruling and hogging up oil and other resources of other Asian nations. In the end...all those white nations did pull out of those Asian countries.

[@timothysoo6353]

8:06 Japanese strategy Siege of Port Arthur = Attack on Pearl Harbor (crippled the nearby naval threat) Battle of Tsushima Bay = Battle of Midway Island (lure the enemy naval into a trap) Russia sued for peace = US sued for peace (but of course since both operations failed strategically, that did not happen)

[@MrChickennugget360]

of course US suing for peace is wishful thinking, Russia was severely strapped both economically and politically, while the US after Pearl Harbor was champing at the bit. Japan's biggest failure in WW2 was a lack of understanding of he political underpinnings of war, they looked at it purely in a tactical fashion and used wishful thinking to fill in the gaps.

[@timothysoo6353]

Indeed, in fact the Japanese Navy and ithe civilian government agreed that this was wishful thinking. The problem, I believe, was the Japanese Army (the ground forces) whose staff had overseen victories over China (1895) and Russia (1905) could no longer put up with continuous US and British intervention in Japan's negotiations with their defeated opponents which forced Japan to compromised its demands. This culminated with the Japanese Army seizing power of the civilian government and forcing the Navy to plan and prepare Japan to go to war.

[@bokrif]

+MR.Chickennuget 360 (Edited) I'm not sure in case the US lost the Pacific war (including but not necessarily Hawaii), it would not have sued for peace? Loosing the Pacific Fleet, loosing a lot of troops and loosing most of the Pacific holdings could have undermined the popular support for war.

[@MrChickennugget360]

bokrif no it wouldn't have. Is English your first language? how old are you?

[@bokrif]

MR.Chickennuget 360 Perfect reasoning man! Now I completely understand your opinion. Thank you for the deep insights and explaining the underlying causes and facts. ;)

[@mustafacanguvercin]

AMAZING! Dude , i love you

[@michaelkovacic2608]

very good video!

[@woltzwurld6760]

This guy is really awesome.

[@jotabe1984]

well, technically the USA had larger naval power, and they only used destroyers and minor vessels in the atlantic up to the invation of north africa, italy and finally france in which not a lot of Battleships where used anyway, and for bombardment older BBs where deployed (Like Arkansas, New York and Texas) while 2 or 3 modern BBs where used to escort convoys in across the norway coast (to prevent German's Naval strikes) The order of battle for USA Battleships and their location on Dec. 7 1941: BB - 33 Arkansas Casco Bay Maine. Atlantic BB - 34 New York Argentia Newfoundland. Atlantic BB - 35 Texas Casco Bay Maine. Atlantic BB - 36 Nevada Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 37 Oklahoma Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 38 Pennsylvania Dry Dock, Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 39 Arizona Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 40 New Mexico Norfolk Virginia. Atlantic BB - 41 Mississippi Hvalfjordur Iceland. Atlantic BB - 42 Idaho Hvalfjordur Iceland. Atlantic BB - 43 Tennessee Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 44 California Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 45 Colorado Overhaul, Bremerton Washington. Pacific BB - 46 Maryland Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 48 West Virginia Pearl Harbor Hawaii. Pacific BB - 55 North Carolina Post shakedown overhaul, Portland Maine. Atlantic BB - 56 Washington Shakedown cruise, Gulf of Mexico. Atlantic By february 1941 2 of the damaged BBs where back in service, By that time (3 months after attack) the total USA battleship reduction was of 6/17, that leaves 11 battleships ready for battle in February 1942. That's even compared to the japanese 4 Kongo, 2 Fuso, 2 Ise, 2 Nagato and 2 Yamato. Yes, i Know, yamato could eat up any of those except maybe for North Carolina, but remember that by May 1942 3 of the South Dakota class where at active duty, that's 6 monts after Pearl Harbor, and SD class was not an easy target for Yamato. Japan never had any real naval advantage over USA, not even the first year of the war

[@jotabe1984]

As for aircraft carriers, USA had: CV2 - Lexington (Lexington fleet carrier) CV3 - Saratoga (Lexington fleet carrier) CV4 - Ranger (limited/Light fleet carrier) CV5 - Yorktown (Yorktown fleet carrier) CV6 - Enterprise (Yorktown fleet carrier) CV7 - WASP (limited/Light fleet carrier) CV8 - Hornet (Yorktown fleet carrier) CVE-1 Long island (escort carrier) this was a formidable force, kind of equal to IJN counterpart, that in fact was the main component that defeated japanese carrier force during 1942, depsite larger Essex class carriers took place as main class that US carrier force used, that dominated the Pacific from 1943 up to the end of the war. Its true that only 3 where in the pacific in december 7, but the others (except Ranger) where redeployed in a matter of days to the pacific coast

[@f430ferrari5]

@Juan Jotabe. Just plain delusional. Explain the vessel discrepancy at Midway then.

[@RonDuligi]

Fascinating, and great presentation quality as usual :)

[@Jonwallachio]

The "British" troops were mostly Indian and Australian. They were not "colonial" - this was 1941, not the 1800s. They also weren't British. And while the fall of Burma and Singapore was obviously terrible, they went on to fight well, defeating the Japanese in both Burma and New Guinea.

[@ggarlick46]

There were no Australian troops in Burma and Malaya after the fall of Singapore... they fought in New Guinea. The 14th army that fought in Burma were Indian, British and West African divisions.

[@beverleyrose7903]

Where did you get that they weren’t colonies they where our puppets. They had there own governments but the British government where still in control of them they weren’t independent nations

[@sosig6445]

Dominions are still colonies, even if they have a higher level of autonomy, and India at the time wasn't even a Dominion like Australia

[@artificialintelligence8328]

@@ggarlick46 There were Australians in Malaya, just not so many. There's quite a collection of pictures, even. Of course there weren't any after the Fall of Singapore, they were all sent to POW camps.

[@guyh9992]

I am surprised to find that Australia operated no submarines in WWII although US and Dutch submarines were based in Fremantle and Brisbane. Australia had around 250,000 poorly trained militia at the end of 1941. It was the militia that was initially deployed to New Guinea in 1942 and 19 year olds went up the Kokoda trail to stop the Japanese. They were later supplemented by the AIF returning from North Africa. I wouldn't say that the Allies closely cooperated in the Pacific during 1942. The ABDA arrangements were problematic and the Europe First strategy meant that Australia, MacArthur and the US Navy/Marines had to beg for resources. Churchill and Roosevelt discussed solely supporting China at the Arcadia conference but the course of the war changed when defensive actions were fought at Coral Sea, Midway, New Guinea and Guadalcanal. If Churchill had had his way no fighting would have occurred in the Pacific even if it meant hanging Australia and NZ out to dry. Churchill even argued during a secret speech to the Commons on 23 April 1942 that both US and British forces should not be based in Australia because it was too far away from Europe.

[@sfsfinancing3299]

One more thing... A Northern Japanese Empire would have been more difficult to attack. Shipping of raw materials to Japan from Korea and Siberia would be much more difficult to interdict, than it was from SE Asia.

[@keggs73]

I'm not sure about the Japanese Cruisers having larger caliber guns. Cruisers were either light with up to 6 inch guns or heavy cruisers with guns larger than 6 inches. Maybe your correct but the type of cruiser should be taken into account.

[@Jatischar]

you are aaaaaaaaaawesome my Landsmann! :D

[@patrickwentz8413]

The US Navy had extremely limited capacity of merchant shipping at the beginning of the war. Tons and tons of equipment was piled up on the docks in SF which were meant for the Philippines. If the Navy had been able to deliver those supplies MacArthur's troops would potentially been able to hold out for years instead of months at the beginning of the war. The US Army may have on paper 30 divisions of troops in 1941 but I doubt even a half dozen would be considered battle ready. Sad state of affairs.

[@_DK_-]

Don't forget that simultaneously with the Pearl Harbour attack, invasion forces attacked various British, Dutch, Phillipine and American territories.

[@VigoDoria]

Could you make a video about The Battle of Iwo Jima please ? It would be interesting.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Iwo Jima is extremely likely, but Okinawa is probably first, because I got an excellent source on that.

[@VigoDoria]

A professional channel like yours needs serious military sources indeed. I don't know such about Iwo Jima, but i have and read multiple times the book "So Sad To Fall In Battle" by Kumiko Kakehashi. It isn't focuses on the battle itself, but rather explores General Kuribayashi perfectly. I can recommend this book to you with pure heart.

[@bokrif]

Such a good book.

[@davidhanson8728]

I always enjoy your videos. You spoke of Japanese Cruiser using higher caliber guns to make of for numerical deficits. On the Heavy Cruiser side they the guns were very similar. The US have 8"/L55 vs. Japanese 8"/L50's. The US guns had a slightly bigger charge and shell weight but very close. The big difference is that the Japanese Heavies had a lot (usually between 8-16 launchers and additional reloads) 24" long lance torpedoes. These were the most significant difference in the Cruisers.The ship numbers are a little deceiving. The Japanese represents all Japanese available strength (which very little in the pipeline) while the US and Royal Navy only show the ships in the theater at on December 1941 and is technically correct but deceiving. The US quickly had hits carrier strength to 5 (Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise there to start and Yorktown and Hornet immediately committed to the Pacific) and when the Wasp came 6 months later they has 6 fleet carries to Japan's 6 fleet carriers to start with the two Hiyo class CV's commissioned in the first half of 1942, the others being light carriers which acted more in axillary roles. Additionally the Japanese had to deal with the RN in the Indian Ocean which they did sortie against in April 1942 which had 2 fleet and 1 light carriers at the time. Within a few short months there was numerical parody in carriers (particularly if you look are the strength of their air complements), although Japanese air crew were much more experience. It may be helpful to show what was quickly committed to the Pacific once war broke out to give good relative strength for operational considerations rather than talk about what was planned or in process of construction. Most of this stuff was a year out while the transfers were there in a few months. Keep up the great work.

[@f430ferrari5]

@David Hanson. I scratch my head over your comment. Yes this shows the IJN in the Pacific which is where they would naturally belong. It’s not that easy moving vessels from the Atlantic to Pacific. The US didn’t make wholesale moves. As certain vessels were lost either way then some vessels moved. At first the US was pilfering from the Pacific fleer. As for the US carriers, they were never all together as you described. In 1941 and what this vid shows is “pre-Pearl Harbor”. I don’t think you understand this. The 3 US carriers were Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga. Saratoga was in San Diego at the time of Pearl Harbor bombing. “After Pearl”, Yorktown was sent over to the Pacific and she paired with Lexington to head south. Horner then came over and paired with Enterprise for Doolittle Raid which I’m sure you’re aware. Saratoga stayed closer to Hawaii and Mainland to protect the area. Let’s remember though the bombing of Pearl Harbor already happened and the IJN took out numerous battleships where many were unavailable for Midway. Wasp didn’t even come over until Lexington was sunk and Yorktown damaged. It was never 6 vs 6. The IJN had 6 fleet. At most the US had 4 with Saratoga held back. Midway was not an even match. The IJN had far more available vessels. They simply decided to hold vessels back or send to the Aleutians. This is where I’m scratching my head with you thinking somehow they were evenly matched. The irony somewhat too is that the same vid creator showed another vid where he shows why the Japan had no chance. That one is misleading because he shows total production but fails to note many of those vessels were promised to the Atlantic and wouldn’t even be in the Pacific. We need to remember that all Japan was trying to do was get the US to cease fire. They had a great chance at Midway but blew it. It’s as simple as that.

[@pascoett]

Ribbentropp was the only minister of the Germans who’s ever been to the USA before war started. The US industrial power was underestimated because no one had seen it. The age of information has changed a lot but in 1940, the fascists were mostly in the dark. Hitler was well aware of economics and psychological warfare, yet he and the other party leaders needed a lot pressure to finally put in economic measures needed for a total war. Also, the British Empire was unimaginably stronger than it is nowadays and they’re still Europes’ number two. Also the specific needs of 20th century equipment of any kind was already very advanced and needed a lot of rare resources from different locations to be produced. Just try to construct meters for flight altitudes or just rubber wheels without gum!

[@benanddadmechanical6573]

A good over view of this snapshot in time. If you are looking for a good further resource for this topic try: www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm . Specifically look at the page titled 'War Production Stats'. The big take-away from the review of economic forces in the pacific war is that the US's industrial output essentially swamped the Japanese. Another source for the pacific war is the DANFS (dictonary of american fighting ships) published on line at Haze Gray and underway.

[@zel3888]

wasn't there a British Royal Navy aircraft carrier that was sunk in the Pacific theatre around the time of the fall of singapore? Surprised the RN listed as having no carriers in the region.

[@ddjay1363]

Good vid.

[@f430ferrari5]

The only good thing about this video is how it shows how many vessels the IJN had in 1941. What it does not do Is highlight the sheer size advantage the IJN had after Pearl and some other major battles in the early part of 1942. The size advantage the IJN had going into Midway and what they still had as a work in process was ridiculously ahead of wha the US was producing in 1942. In 1942, the US was backpedaling and trying to pump out what it could from a mere defensive standpoint and built whatever was fastest to complete. Subs and destroyers. In the meantime, the IJN was completing Battleship Yamato in early 1942, Carrier Hiyo in July 1942, 3 escort carriers in Aug 1942 as well as Battleship Musashi. Nobody had ever demonstrated how the Us could have ever survived out of 1942 has the US lost at Midway. It should have been a crushing defeat for the US when you match up the sheer size advantage. Certain folks always want to make believe the US was in no way ever in doubt of winning WW2. Let’s be real. There was a lot of doubt. The victory at Midway was truly a miracle. Because of this US victory everything else falls into place.

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Could you do a video on the special aviation units of World War 2 like the US Navy Black Cats.

[@jean-baptistecarrere-gee9157]

Would you mind adding subtitle to you video ? I found them really interesting but your accent make it really hard to understand what you say sometime.

[@kryts27]

You need to examine why the American submarine campaign succeeded in economic strangulation (blockade) of Japan where the Germans U-boats failed in the Atlantic.

[@rascallyrabbit717]

air power

[@Quincy_Morris]

History always appears inevitable in hindsight.

[@valenrn8657]

USN also has escort aircraft carriers to support fleet aircraft carriers.

[@scottmusser7974]

U.S. NAVY had 20 battleships at the time of Pearl Harbor. The older ones where on the east coast.

[@MikhaelAhava]

Brilliant.

[@ericludendorff9347]

Were do you get the photos eg. When your listing the amount of ships on each side and the infantry brigade signs

[@stupidburp]

Japan's most serious error was going after China even after they could see that they would not have enough forces to maintain control much less capture it all. It was going to be a massive drain on resources as well as manpower with little to gain in the short term to help the war effort. The Allies may have even been willing to negotiate a deal for control of their colonies as long as they still had access to the resources there. The major sticking point was they absolutely insisted that China be left alone. It would have been in Japan's best interest to cooperate but the military leadership was absolutely focused on China and was not going to change strategy for anyone. Could have made a deal and avoided the massive destruction and loss of life that was inevitable from the start.

[@geoffreymowbray6789]

There once was a joke set of the "old rules of war" - never invade Russia; never invade China;......... a long way down the list was - never attack English infantry with secure flanks defending a low hill.................... It was humour but also factural, but sadly I cannot remember were I read it as it was in a very serious military history publication.

[@geoffreymowbray6789]

Thanks, my memory is not as good as it once was.

[@Ralphieboy]

Discounting Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines and New Guinea, the total land area in the Central and western Pacific came to about the size of the US state of Ohio.

[@Argentarius11]

Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@2001lextalionis]

Specifically the Japanese navy never instituted the well established strategy of Convoy. As such Japans merchant marine was highly vulnerable to US submarine forces. The total and complete failure of Japan, a country dependent on imports going into a war without a method to deliver commodities is staggering in its ineptitude. An interesting naval note was the failure of American torpedoes at the outset of the war. Significantly hampering US combat effectiveness in the early stages of the campaign. The lack of self sealing gas tanks on Japanese fighter planes combined with a total lack of a pilot rescue force meant that virtually every experienced Nihonjin pilot died either by being shot down, running out of gas and crashing into the ocean once his fuel lines were damaged by allied weapons fire and drowning, or the aforementioned disease factor. The US maintained a highly effective pilot rescue force and many highly trained pilots were picked up by submarines and smaller surface craft. In fact former president George Bush Sr was shot down and rescued by submarine. Thanks for much for another excellent video

[@PotatoBearRawr]

Did you pick anything up along the way about Japanese sources, because the Japanese way of telling the story is still extremely politicised today, and what I know about their perspective mostly seem like hearsay. So do we really have solid data on anything about the Japanese side of things (similar to the Soviets before Jeltsin took over and the Iron Curtain came down, until Putin then closed the archives again, when he got to power). For me at least it seems like there are a lot more questions than answers about Japan, so if you came across any good sources, then I would be very interested to know about them. The allied perspective seems limited in scope to understanding, why a fundamentally flawed Japanese state could ever hope to achieve any meaningful war goals. Is this a case of both the Germans and the Japanese expecting too much of the other members of the Axis? Especially as from a Japanese perspective Barbarossa could seem like a giant success and not the pyrrhic victory it actually was... So if the USSR was to be considered ready to collapse, and Germany heading for an unavoidable confrontation with the US, then it would seem like the perfect time to strike (if there ever was one). But I just feels like connecting dots on completely different pages that are not even from the same book...

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

From what I've read, both Hitler and japan were in similar situations. Neither had a great chance of winning, but what chance they had would only get worse as time passed. It was now or never. Also, the I.J.N. could not say they were unable to fight the U.S.N.after all the money Japan had invested in the fleet. As with the C.S.A. in the American Civil War, they fought not because they thought they had a good chance of winning but because they couldn't honorably refuse. Though the I.J.N. did have the most powerful fleet in the world at the end of 1941.

[@SuperMauserMan]

bloodlazio Try "The Rising Sun" by John Toland.

[@WayneMoyer]

Great video as well. That really clears up a lot of information on the topic. It does make me wonder if we, the US, couldn't have finished Japan off sooner by putting more resources behind it. I've always thought about that. Since they did attack us. I know we needed to defend our allies but the Japanese actually attacked us and we virtually ignored them for them for a couple of years.

[@Elementalism]

The Pacific fleet was damaged pretty bad at Pearl Harbor. And our ship building process was going to take time. But even with a reduced naval effort in the Pacific we scored victories in Spring and Summer of 42. This video highlights why we didnt roll into Tokyo by the end of 43. Vast ocean distances really created a logistical problem for quick advance. If Japan was landlocked we probably would had defeated her much more quickly. Even with a Germany first policy. The economic differences were staggering.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, naval strategy is "built strategy" as one of my professors put it.

[@lanceheaps581]

If we had focused on the Pacific we would have set back Japan sooner, but I am not sure it would have impacted when the war actually ended. I believe we still would have waited to have the atomic bombs to try and avoid a massive and logistically complicated amphibious assault.

[@DNesij]

Comparison of US Construction program vs The German Plan Z: 15 Battleships vs 10 11 Carriers vs 4 54 Cruisers vs 58 191 Destroyers vs 68 73 Subs vs 90

[@DNesij]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act ( the wiki article numbers are different than this video) I added German Battlecruiser to Cruisers. (?) German Scouts (Panzerschiffe) ships are Light Cruisers. Btw German time for the completion of the project was 1948 USA eta: 1946~ but this was seen as problematic.

[@erikrosdorff606]

Your accent is awesome!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Military History Visualized difficult to understand at times, but awesome nonetheless. Keep up the great work.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

This is good but just giving the strength of the Pacific Fleet is a little misleading since the U.S.N. could and did draw on it's total naval strength after Pearl Harbor. I assume the 3 carriers you list were the U.S.S. Lexington, Enterprise, and Yorktown but the Saratoga was quickly committed and would be joined by the Hornet and Wasp in 1942. What is most revealing is the addition of new warships on each side during the course of the conflict. Saying Imperial Japan only had 10% of the industrial strength of the U.S. only hints at the actual advantage the U.S. had in terms of ship and aircraft production. What would be even MORE revealing would be if you could come up with figures for naval air groups on both sides. That the U.S.N. was able to relieve and rotate their carrier air groups while he I.J.N. often was unable to provide air groups for the carriers it had was as decisive as any other factor in determining the outcome of the war.

[@MrChickennugget360]

Ships were Lexington, Saratoga and Enterprise. Later Yorktown joined the pacific followed by Hornet. After Lex' was sunk and later Yorktown, Wasp was sent escorting the 2nd Marine Division and was sunk. US lost in the First year most of its carriers.

[@kryts27]

Ship numbers are not quite right. Early in the Pacific War, the British had a carrier, HMS Hermes,that was sunk by the IJN off Madagascar in April 1942

[@harrygriffiths-iy5gb]

Ignore the Kakoda Campaign then, because that didn't cost Japan their first land defeat

[@romanace3432]

You should do one about the end of the war

[@lars1701again]

As a American General once said, war is 80% logistics

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, but I have been thinking about this lately, for America this is more true than for most other countries, because, well usually you need to cross at least one ocean to fire even a single shot. European countries don't have this "problem".

[@lars1701again]

Military History Visualized I studied American industrial might during the war and it staggers ones mind how much we made for Lend Lease let alone what we made for our armed services. I read the book called: The Arsenal of Democracy by A.J. BAIME, very good book about Detroit's efforts in WW2. I agree the oceans protected us during that war for the most part

[@thedriftingkitchen]

What program did you use to edit and make this video? Thanks in advance.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

PowerPoint

[@thedriftingkitchen]

Thanks a lot:)

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Military History Visualized you're a boss with PowerPoint.

[@leongrelck7810]

hypeeee

[@tHeWasTeDYouTh]

11:04 HOLY SHIT