From the US Naval Institute ...

[Admiral Donuts]

"In naval warfare, a smaller fleet of superior quality ships is not a way to victory. The side with the most ships almost always wins."

Is it just me, or do they ignore all of Japan's history?

[Lastreaumont]

47 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:

Is it just me, or do they ignore all of Japan's history?

Or Trafalgar? ☺️

[Suribachi]

I think what they are referring to is shipbuilding capacity.  If you can build superior ships, but cannot build enough or repair fast enough to keep ships in the fight, it does not matter how good they are.

[Captain Basilone]

Ah yes, the ancient question of quality or quantity. 

[Wowzery]

Yet it didn't work for Japan in WW2.

[Admiral Donuts]

14 hours ago, Wowzery said:

Yet it didn't work for Japan in WW2.

WWII was preceded by an extraordinary event... the Washington Naval Treaty, which ALLOWED fleet sizes for the US and UK to be disproportionate to Japan as well as others.

The Japanese surface navy would have been a different animal without it.

[Durham Dave]

16 hours ago, Admiral Donuts said:

WWII was preceded by an extraordinary event... the Washington Naval Treaty, which ALLOWED fleet sizes for the US and UK to be disproportionate to Japan as well as others.

The Japanese surface navy would have been a different animal without it.

No, because they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up. Without the treaties Japan's fleet may have been bigger, but the others would too. Japan may have only able to have 2/3 the battleships under the Washington Treaty, but a lot less area for those battleships to cover compared to the US and UK. They had more than France, which did have possessions in the Caribbean and Far East as well as dealing with Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts in home waters. The treaties allowed them to compete. When the gloves came off in WW2 Japan couldn't replace losses, the US could and expanded massively on top of it.

[Admiral Donuts]

13 minutes ago, Durham Dave said:

No, because they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up. Without the treaties Japan's fleet may have been bigger, but the others would too. Japan may have only able to have 2/3 the battleships under the Washington Treaty, but a lot less area for those battleships to cover compared to the US and UK. They had more than France, which did have possessions in the Caribbean and Far East as well as dealing with Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts in home waters. The treaties allowed them to compete. When the gloves came off in WW2 Japan couldn't replace losses, the US could and expanded massively on top of it.

They surely must have done everything possible to overcome. But in the end, the war would have been won by US submarines anyway. By 44 and 45, they had finally gotten around to shutting Japanese industry down.

[Admiral Donuts]

Suffice it to say, Japanese quality and doctrine won the day versus both the Chinese and Russian navies, early and often.

[Suribachi]

I think Oversimplified on youtube said it best in his WWII video, "[The Japanese] victories were based on speed, not power.  And power would eventually catch up with them."

Also, if US subs were sinking trains, they were doomed no matter what. (See USS Barb score card)

[SiWi]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:04 AM, Admiral Donuts said:

WWII was preceded by an extraordinary event... the Washington Naval Treaty, which ALLOWED fleet sizes for the US and UK to be disproportionate to Japan as well as others.

The Japanese surface navy would have been a different animal without it.

Japan ignored the treaty early on.

[Captain Basilone]

On 1/5/2023 at 2:09 PM, Durham Dave said:

No, because they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up. Without the treaties Japan's fleet may have been bigger, but the others would too. Japan may have only able to have 2/3 the battleships under the Washington Treaty, but a lot less area for those battleships to cover compared to the US and UK. They had more than France, which did have possessions in the Caribbean and Far East as well as dealing with Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts in home waters. The treaties allowed them to compete. When the gloves came off in WW2 Japan couldn't replace losses, the US could and expanded massively on top of it.

Certainly, a good theory. However, if the Washington treaty didn't exist, quite a few carriers would not exist. Carrier development would also lag and the battleships would have been the kings of the sea. In that case the Japanese still would have a decent chance as they would have rather good designs that were comparable if not superior to the US battleships. The losses at Pearl Harbor suddenly become extremely bad for the United States if such a war starts.

[madham82]

Quality wins short wars, quantity long ones. Japan's strategy was a short war, which obviously didn't happen. Just look at the number of ships the Japanese built "during" the war versus the US. Yamamoto was right. 

[Durham Dave]

On 1/10/2023 at 12:31 PM, Captain Basilone said:

Certainly, a good theory. However, if the Washington treaty didn't exist, quite a few carriers would not exist. Carrier development would also lag and the battleships would have been the kings of the sea. In that case the Japanese still would have a decent chance as they would have rather good designs that were comparable if not superior to the US battleships. The losses at Pearl Harbor suddenly become extremely bad for the United States if such a war starts.

Except those losses were caused by: carrier attack!

[Captain Basilone]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:16 AM, Durham Dave said:

Except those losses were caused by: carrier attack!

After the Battle of Port Arthur, Japan began to include preemptive strikes in all war plans. While we can debate the damage that would have been caused, Pearl Harbor would have been subject to a surprise attack by carrier or battleship. Read Seapower in the Pacific by Hector C Bywater. The man clearly predicts many of the opening moves of the Pacific War in the early 20s when carriers were still unproven.