There is one very specific thing captains of Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers have in common.  And in this one specific thing, US Navy carrier captains don't have in common with the others mentioned.  What is this?

Here's a big hint:

It has to do with qualification.

I believe that RN aircraft carrier captains needed no previous experience of flying or even serving aboard a carrier. I don't know if this applies to the others.

Quote:

Wonders never cease. Not often I beat Woody on nautical matters.

Quote:

Sounds like a good idea. I've read of several instances where the captain of a RN carrier, usually a career officer who would much rather have been commanding a battleship, completely ignored the advice of the Commander (Flying) & the squadron commanders who were usually RNVR (Wavy Navy) officers.

Quote:

And what better navy to be mentored by bearing in mind it's only opponent in a century refused to come out for round two.

Quote:



Technically, until 1938 ('39?) wasn't RN aviation under the "command" and purse strings of the RAF?

We can't have flyboys commanding capital ships of the senior service, can we?

Speaking of RN, USN, and IJN, here's an example of "egregious treaty violation":

IJN Mikuma, more than 3,000 tons over treaty tonnage.

Quote:


The 5-5-3 ratio was designed to keep the Brits happy too, with their "Impregnable Bastion" of Singapore to look out for!   

Just as impregnable as our bastion on Corregidor Island.   

The 5-5-3 treaty only served to offend and infuriate the Japanese, which in itself aided in the escalation toward war in the Pacific.

Quote:


Not true.  Although the militerists in the army never accepted it, Japan was a signatory, but withdrew in 1937.


And in my opinion, war in Europe and war in Asia and the Pacific were contemporaneous seperate events.  The formation of the tripartite pact was one formed out of oppertunism and convenience.  Even though events in Europe and Asia did have an effect on each other, there was no conspiracy or organized effort.

Quote:

Yes they signed it. I was never saying they didn't. All I was saying is that they didn't have to sign it if they really didn't want to and in the end it made bugger all difference to how they acted.

Quote:


You're right, but anyway, they did sign it and did become offended and infuriated by it.

Quote:


I agree,that were wasn't a coordinated effort, but that's not to say that there wasn't an attempt.

Russia's best secret agent in Japan, Richard Sorgee, even warned Russia about Germany's impending invasion of Russia - not that this information was acted upon nor believed, by Stalin.  There was a definite attempt by the Germans to get Japan to attack Russia from the East.  By not doing so, this freed Russian divisions to counterarrack.

One wonders, if GERMANY had not declared war on the US, would the US have "legally" entered into the European War?  It's a moot point, since by the end of 1941 I think that the US was poised to really step in (not that they weren't already trading bullets in the Atlantic).

Quote:

I don't know the technicalities but I agree with Felix, it wouldn't have made much difference in the end. I suspect that apart from showing support for Japan the main reason was that declaring war on the US made U-boat attacks on American shipping legitimate. That's if war can be called legitimate. It's a funny old do.

I know we're already way off dcunning's original topic, and I hardly consider myself a WWII expert, but having just finished Wm. Shirer's massive The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I'm reminded by this discussion that I learned a great deal about the Japenese-German alliance from it.  Some might find some of this of interest.

According to Shirer, here's what happened around the time Japan struck Pearl Harbor:
"Japan was the key to Hitler's efforts to keep America out of the war until Germany was ready to take her on..."
"Hitler and Ribbentrop ... stressed the importance of not provoking the United States...By the beginning of 1941 they were exceedlingly anxious to draw Japan into the war... against Britain....Japan should come in 'as soon as possible- in its best interest' (Ribbentrop), and seize Britain's empire in Asia".
  "Hitler paid dearly not only for this assurance (his promise to back Japan in any potential conflict with the US)... but for... not telling the Japanese about his intention to attack Russia..."

  -Then the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with Russia, and when Germany attacked Russia, despite Berlin's pleas for Japan to attack Russia on its Eastern front, Tokyo would not violate the treaty. Now, tied up on two fronts, Germany could ill afford the US getting involved, but Hitler was confident that even if the Japanese attacked Britain in the Pacific, America would focus its attentions there, not in Europe-

"...it never seems to have occurred to (Hitler).... until very late that Japan... might be fearful of embarking on a grand offensive...against the British and Dutch, not to mention attacking Russia in the rear, until they had secured their own rear by destroying the United States Pacific Fleet."

-as the Japanese tried to lull Washington with new peace talks in order to make their attack more of a surprise, the Germans tried to sabotage the talks, fearing that they'd find themselves taking on the Japanese if America entered the war in Europe. The suspicions were mutual:

"The Japanese warlords still did not trust the Germans enough to inform them of the blow against the US...But they were more worried... that Hitler would refrain from giving his guarantee unless Japan agreed to take on not only the US and GB, but the USSR as well. In this predicament Togo got off a long message to Ambassador Oshima in Berlin urging him to somehow stall the Germans on the Russian matter...Togo's instructions to Oshima on that fateful Saturday, december 6, which are among the intercepted messages decoded by Secretary Hull's expert decipherers, give an interesting insight into the diplomacy practiced by the Nipponese with the Third Reich at the eleventh hour".

"... Hitler did not insist on Japan's taking on Russia along with the US and Britain, though if he had the course of the war conceivably might have been different."
-Togo's message, once deciphered (as news came to Washington that the Japanese Embassy was destroying its codes), caused Roosevelt to say:
"'This means war'.
  "But exactly when and where, the message did not say... Even Admiral Nomura did not know. Nor... did Hitler. He knew less than Roosevelt."

Hitler's reaction to the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor was predictable; he honored his hasty agreement with Japan, explaining:
"'It was... at the moment when the surprises of the Russian winter were pressing most heavily on the morale of our people, and everybody in Germany was oppressed by the certainty that sooner or later the US would come into the conflict. Japanese intervention, therefore was, from our point of view, most opportune'."

Hitler also admired the move, telling Oshima on December 14th:
"'You gave the right declaration of war!   This method is the only proper one.'"

  there was of course the issue of American interference with Germany's efforts to control the Atlantic by force, but:
"There was one other reason... Dr. Schmidt (Hitler's interpreter)... put his finger on it: 'I got the impression that, with his inveterate desire for prestige, Hitler, who was expecting an American declaration of war, wanted to get his declaration in first'."

So Hitler ranted and raved about Roosevelt in the Reichstag on December 11th,declared war on the US, and continued digging his hole deeper...

"With the situation in Russia... not to mention that in North Africa... the thoughts of the German Supreme Commander and his military chiefs quickly turned from the new enemy, which they were sure would have its hands full in the Pacific far away. Their thoughts would not return to it before another year had passed, the most fateful year of the war, in which the great turning point would come- irrevocably deciding not only the outcome of the conflict which all through 1941 the Germans had believed almost over... but the fate of the Third Reich..."
 
 

Quote:

Indeed interesting. That's what I like about these topics. I don't know much about the Pacific war myself & this gives food for thought.

Quote:

I'm not sure it's the only reason. Here's the official view from the US Navy website. http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm

Quote:

Quote:

I seem to remember reading that General 'Billy' Mitchell warned about the same thing. In fact he forecast Pearl Harbor being attacked in much the same way as it was. Ironically it might have been his own bombing experiments against warships in the 1920s that gave the Japanese the idea.

PS. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/postwwi/gbm.htm
Quote:

Or at least prooved that it was possible.

Quote:


  They were planning on taking as much of the Pacific as they could for a long time; the Philippines, for example, were a major bone of contention as regards the US (our history of occupation there is not exactly stellar, either).  They wanted more land and more resources (esp. oil), and knocking over the islands of the Pacific would be a snap compared to attacking their mainland neighbors like China or Russia... and the US fleet was the only major obstacle.
I'd imagine  the attack on the US Pacific fleet(Pearl Harbor was targeted because most of the fleet was there) was in the works even before Hitler came to power. I was just describing how Germany and Japan wound up at war against the US at the time they did.

Quote:



Aha... the lure of History beckons, beware, once you go down that path, there is no turning back!  You will spend hours, nay, DAYS, pondering such questions as whether it was the longbow or the lay of the land that doomed the French knights at Agincourt? Did the French really HELP the nascent American colonies in their War of Independence, or were they using the overt help to wiggle their way into the upper echelons of American life and twist to their advantage?  How did the Romans use their famous short swords against "barbarians" with longer weapons??

You are hooked by a pox from which there is no escape!

MUAHHHHAAAAhAAAA!

Actually Rotty...

The Japanese had attacked China and had been at war with the since the early 1930's.

Events such as the rape of Nanking and their trreatment of prisoners of war told of the unspeakable horrors and atrocities that they were capable of.

You must remember that the Japenese firmly believed in their own superiority as a warrior nation. Their code of honor said you kill yourself, you do not surrender to you enemy. If you surrendered you lost not only your own honor but that of your famlies as well. They expected their enemies to act the same way and when they didnt they were classed as sub-human and were treated as such. Many captured prisoners had their heads cut off or were shot because of that code.

That is why to this day there is so much resentment towards the Japanese around the world and why China was gravely offended by the Japanese Prime Ministers visit to the monument to honor Japanese war dead.

The Japanese didn't consider attacking the US until the US stopped sending scrap iron, oil, and other raw materials to Japan to protest Japan's war against China.

Quote:


How I forgot about that I have no idea... embarassing. I had a kung-fu teacher who was a rifleman with the Chinese Army during that awful period; he was very proud of his service. Good thing he doesn't visit these forums... he's old, but can easily  kick my butt...   

Quote:

Well if you consider the Gulf War to be for oil then it has to be pointed out that Japans intentions were not solely for oil but for coal, metal ores and everything as mainland Japan had little in the way of any natural resources. So on those grounds it could be said that the Gulf war is the first war when oil is of the most primary concern whereas Japans invasion of China was just an all out resource snatching affair.

Woodlouse2002

I disagree.  Although they went after all the raw resources, but they had great priority for the oil.  And the history bears this out.  First off, Admiral Lockwood created the doctrine that his submariners go after Japanese shipping, with oilers being given high priority.  Also, as Lockwood's doctrine began showing results, the Japanese had to do their war planning around the availability of oil.  Prior to operation A-Go, the Japanese Mobile Fleet couldn't venture far away from Tawi-Tawi because there they could get raw bunker-c oil that didn't need to be refined, so bad was their need for oil to prosecute the war.

As many know, as the war progressed, Japanese aviators lacked sufficient training, why?  Because the lack of oil.  The Yamato's sortie to rendevious at Okanawa to disrupt the American landings was a suicide mission.  The knew this.  Why?  The fueled the small fleet with enough oil for a one-way mission.  They lacked enough oil to top off their tanks, so desperate was their need for oil.

Addition for a point of accuracy:  Although they fueled the fleet for a one-way mission, the officer in charge of dispensing the fuel-oil, out of sympathy, disobeyed orders and gave Yamato more fuel to attempt a return trip, just in case they survive.

....anyway,

The Japanese had the rubber and steel to build the ships and planes, but they lacked the oil to fuel them.

It was the 1st war for oil.  

Quote:


I don't know of a single combat or auxilary ship in WWII that used coal.  Every major navy converted to fuel-oil in the inter-war years.  And I used those examples to illustrate the importance of oil.  The facts remain, although the embargos of all raw resources were alarming to Japan, it was the embargo of oil that proved most alarming.

I recommend reading "The Rising Sun" by John Toland.  He discusses this subject to a great detail.

Quote:

The coal would be needed to run the power stations and iron works and most of the other facilities required in the manufacture of ships, planes weapons etc. Therefore without the coal there would be no need for the oil.

Whoa!

I thought we were talking about ships, I didn't catch your shifting to discussding power generation buildings.  In that case, coal fueled power generation plants are in use, even today.

And that still doesn't make the case.  As a matter of fact, modern war (even to 1940 standards) is fueled by placing munitions onto target.  We're talking OIL (in various refined states) to get them there!!!

Japan, being an island nation, lives and dies by ocean going vessels doing stuff, we're talking fuel oil!  Many authors have discussed this subject regarding Japan and the leadup to Dec 7th.  Members of the Combined Fleet staff were alarmed when the oil embargo took place.  1st of all, they weren't pleased with the militerists in the army and the Tojo cabinet agitating for war with the US.  They felt they weren't ready, but reluctantly realized they were using so much fuel-oil to support the army's activities in China, they had no choice but to go along, or else they would end up running dry in less than a year.  The die had been cast.

Quote:

A lot of the older cargo ships even on the Atlantic convoys were coal-burners. Britain is also an island nation & with most of Western Europe occupied by Germany was just as dependent on sea transport as Japan. I believe that no high octane aviation fuel was refined in Britain during WWII so like many other necessities it all had to come from the US.