Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M
If you play "what if" and imagine the Japanese had won Midway, and the US had no carriers at all, that gives the Japanese total control of the Pacific. The Japanese can take Hawaii if they want to, because how could the US possibly reinforce and resupply it? The Japanese can attack shipyards and ports on the West Coast at their leisure - and those would be defended obviously, but the attacks would greatly slow the progress of shipbuilding.
Fortunately for the US, they have other ports in the Atlantic. So okay, the US builds carriers there. Now the problem is, you can't just build one carrier and send it to the Pacific. If you have just the one carrier, the Japanese will be very eager to sink it. They'll have spies and recon subs so they'll know when it sorties. If you try to take it through the Panama Canal they'll ambush it.
The bottom line is, you have to build several carriers before you even think about challenging the Japanese again. That means you're looking at years - YEARS - during which, the Japanese do whatever they like. And when you finally put a carrier task force together, at best it's a fair fight ...you might lose again.
And don't forget, while all this is going on you're also fighting Germany.
So here's the big problem with that thesis: the attacks at Pearl Harbor and Midway stretched the IJN's supply and logistical capabilities to their utmost limits. It's very likely that in any actual attempt to take Pearl Harbor, the US would have sabotaged the port facilities to the point that it would have required months, if not years [1], to bring it back up to an operational status capable of being used as a forward operating base for striking the US West Coast. Oh, and this is Hawaii--everything has to be brought in from the mainland, which means you're diverting a lot of shipping to maintain a supply line while you're repairing the harbor at the same time. Which is going to be vulnerable to submarine activity the entire time, and Japanese anti-submarine practices were terrible.
Yes, Hawaii is the strategic linchpin of the Pacific Ocean. However, it is so remote that actually acquiring strategic control is extremely challenging. At the same time, Japan is basically running against the clock: the Essex carriers start commissioning at the beginning of 1943, and that's the countdown Japan is running against. Japan just doesn't have the time to consolidate Pearl Harbor into an advance operating base, even if it could theoretically capture it.
[1] Keep in mind that the US was still in the middle of upgrading Pearl Harbor to serve as Pacific Fleet anchorage, which was I believe a decade-long process.
Taking Hawaii at all is already outlandish, no chance that if they found a way to pull that off, they'd be able to supply it heavily enough to make it an active seaport, patrol the waters to the east aggressively, or carry out attacks against the US West Coast and their land-based defenses at a high enough tempo to impede shipbuilding there. Similarly, maintaining enough spies and subs to track ship sorties and ambushing them at the Panama Canal isn't in the cards for them.
WWII is ultimately a logistics war. Individual battles don't really matter that much, whoever makes the most stuff will win eventually somehow, and whoever is on the other side from them will lose. Japan was way too far behind on industrial capacity to have a chance. Maybe if they managed to pull off their Co-Prosperity Sphere plan without any interference and make the most of it, they'd have the capacity in 40 years. But that's doubtful too, since everyone else in their so-called Co-Prosperity Sphere hated their guts due to horrible occupation practices on the part of the IJA.
The war was a Japanese gamble and quite a few intelligent Japanese predicted it would fail.
Japanese military planners in 1937 knew an invasion of China would be a waste of precious resources for little potential gain. But they were sidelined by younger military officers that wanted a shot at battlefield glory and ignored orders from above for a ceasefire after the Marco Polo bridge incident. And after the first battlefield victories started rolling in it became politically impossible to halt the momentum for continued war.
I'm claiming that if one side has a carrier and the other side doesn't, that will determine who can reliably move convoys across the pacific.
The carriers have such an enormous capacity for reconnaissance, it's hard for me to imagine a convoy sneaking past them. So if Japan has a carrier dedicated to the blockade of Hawaii, it seems to me that Hawaii is effectively cut off.
By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.
You're proposing using capital ships--ships of which even the largest numbers had single digit numbers--to escort convoys. This takes them out of the action for any other offensive or defensive naval operation you might want to use. Instead, you'd use destroyers (of which you have hundreds) and cruisers (merely dozens). This also lets you have several escort vessels per convoy, which is superior because two ships can be in two places at once which a single ship cannot.
> By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.
... Merchant and convoy raiding by WW2 existed almost exclusively of submarines attacking convoys. The Germans did attempt using surface ships to raid convoys, but their record was absolutely abysmal, and it's pretty universally agreed among naval historians that not building those ships would have been better for Germany.
Now, in 1942, the US submarine fleet was greatly hampered by the fact that the Mark 14 torpedo was a piece of shit that didn't work, and the Bureau of Ordinance refused to countenance those claims. However, the US was historically targeting Japanese shipping with submarines the entire time, and once the Mark 14 torpedo was finally fixed, the US submarine fleet would go on to be the most successful of WW2, having sunk virtually the entire Japanese shipping fleet.
There's even more considerations that I'm not including here, but hopefully this should be enough to convince you that figuring fleet carrier numbers are not going to determine the victor of a battle for merchant shipping.
The Allies (mostly the US) built lots of escort carriers, precisely for escorting convoys (be it "normal" convoys or invasion fleets in the Pacific), and AFAIK they were considered pretty successful and took some of the glory of winning the battle of the Atlantic. But yeah, you can, with some justification, argue that escort carriers aren't capital ships.
> The Germans did attempt using surface ships to raid convoys, but their record was absolutely abysmal
IIRC the German auxiliary cruisers (HilfsKreuzer) were considered pretty successful, as they were cheap and since they were just converted merchant ships with guns etc. hidden they could often get quite close to a target before revealing themselves. But these were used for picking off lone merchantmen, not convoys.
> it's pretty universally agreed among naval historians that not building those ships would have been better for Germany.
Yes, the German capital ships were an almost complete waste of resources. Those resources would have been much better spent on, say, u-boats and land-based aircraft. I guess the only positive return Germany got from them was as a sort of 'fleet in being', in that their mere existence forced the allies to commit their own capital ships to the area in case they turned up to attack some convoy.
Of course, had the Germans not built their own capital ships, the Allies would have also reacted, e.g. by not building or stationing their own capital ships in the area, and spending more resources on, say, anti-submarine efforts. So I'm not certain the battle of the Atlantic would have turned out any different in this case either, just even more bloody.
Any Japanese fleet unlucky enough to come within five hundred miles of Oahu would be subject to an unending stream of heavy US bombers like the B17 escorted by long range fighters such as the P-38.
There would be little chance of any surprise either with radar installations far improved and a vigilant picket line of US subs.
Landing troops without air superiority would have been impossible, and it’s unclear whether a Japanese carrier fleet could even hold off US battle ships if they sailed with US air cover.
To win that parley, land troops and push a large US Army force off Oahu is almost impossible. But even then, to raid the US coast with your remaining fleet, against an even more formidable air and sea defense many thousands of miles from any resupply would be a disaster for the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.
I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.
The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decisive battle, no matter if they were winning or losing the various engagements, but they never got the big battle they wanted. Eventually, they did try to force it at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, although that attempt did not turn out well for them.
And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean.
The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion.
The battles of Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in WWI were decisive and stopped Russia for up to years, and they never recovered in the north, their only successes coming against the Austria-Hungarians.
In WWII, the Bagration and Manchurian strategic operations were pretty decisive on land. Midway was on water. The invasions of the low countries and France, Denmark and Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, (present day) Malaysia and Indonesia were decisive and swift as well ( even if they indeed resulted in a war of attrition ultimately lost to allies of the decisively defeated countries in question).
But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.
France fought on, the Free French forces were active on each front. Including the Eastern Front. Norway formed a government in exile, and continued the fight. Including the sabotage of the Nazis heavy water production. So no, these countries didn't surrender, as defeated countries did in the Napoleonic Wars.
> In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
Update: It looks like there are such things, called “amphibious assault ships”. Apparently there are 7 of this type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assaul... and 2 of a more recent type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_ass.... It seems they’re about the same length and overall size as a WW2 carrier.
So that’s interesting. So there are 11 large nuclear powered carriers and 9 of these smaller type. That’s already kind of a lot.
There was the idea of the "Sea Control" ship in the 70s that would have built on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship
For small-scale conflicts however, it's somewhat paradoxical that a large carrier is what you need. Putting airpower over land from a carrier requires throwing a lot of weight into the air to put an aircraft with both an effective warload and a useful loiter time. This is coupled with a large sortie rate, as the time it takes to get a warplane on station is long and needs to be replaced often. That adds up to a lot of launches.
All of that is to say then that you need a larger carrier, ideally with a catapult and the powerplant to fire it often. Skijumps and STOVL don't get you that kind of range except to the beach.
So for any kind of land strike mission, you really need a big fleet carrier. But for sea operations, smaller carriers are looking more feasable, so the idea is coming around again. The America class as you mentioned is likely going down this path, and Japan's Izumo-class is likely going to go down this route as well.