History Buff Needed

[Adente 1,000]

Hey, if there's any history buffs out there who know a thing or two about the Battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII, I could use some help. I'm writing a thesis paper for my Naval History class, and I'm stuck. What factors would you say were the most important in enabling the US Navy to so decisively defeat the Imperial Navy at Leyte? Any help would be very appreciated!

[Neutral 1,185]

I would say the destruction of the 4 japanese aircraft carriers since the japanese had a strong Air Force and focused very strongly on the Air Force. So crippling and destroying the aircraft carriers weakened the Air Force massively and also it stopped the kamikaze attacks that were effective to damaging and destroying U.S. navy ships.

[Adente 1,000]

I would say the destruction of the 4 japanese aircraft carriers since the japanese had a strong Air Force and focused very strongly on the Air Force. So crippling and destroying the aircraft carriers weakened the Air Force massively and also it stopped the kamikaze attacks that were effective to damaging and destroying U.S. navy ships.

 

But Letye Gulf was after the battle of the Philippines Sea. By this point Japan had to rely on land based planes; the carriers were just a decoy force Admiral Ozawa sent out to draw Admiral Halsey away from the gulf? By this point I was under the impression Japan was relying almost entirely on surface ships like battleships and cruisers to destroy the US fleet.

 

But thanks for the input! 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Windy Runner

[Delernil 952]

Air power.

 

It wasnt just Leyte Gulf. Air Power could destroy battleships and capital ships extremely easily. Thats one of the large reasons battleships arent effective anymore.

More specific, the multiple carriers the US had at Leyte Gulf. They wiped out the Japanese carriers and brought down their battleships without any massive naval losses (though escort carriers had a rough time, with some losses.)

 

I used to be able to explain the entire battle, but its been a while since ive read/watched/seen etc anything relating to WW2, so im sorry i couldnt give a more detailed explanation.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Delernil

[Adente 1,000]

Air power.

 

It wasnt just Leyte Gulf. Air Power could destroy battleships and capital ships extremely easily. Thats one of the large reasons battleships arent effective anymore.

More specific, the multiple carriers the US had at Leyte Gulf. They wiped out the Japanese carriers and brought down their battleships without any massive naval losses (though escort carriers had a rough time, with some losses.)

 

I used to be able to explain the entire battle, but its been a while since ive read/watched/seen etc anything relating to WW2, so im sorry i couldnt give a more detailed explanation.

 

So the deterioration of Japan's carrier air power at battles like Midway and the Philippines Sea (The Marianas Turkey Shoot) enabled the US to have air superiority and sink otherwise formidable Japanese Battleships?

[Delernil 952]

So the deterioration of Japan's carrier air power at battles like Midway and the Philippines Sea (The Marianas Turkey Shoot) enabled the US to have air superiority and sink otherwise formidable Japanese Battleships?

Yeah. Even if they had planes from land based aircraft, the US had overwhelming number and later in the war, better planes. 

And its not like Japan could rebuild those carriers or battleships. They didnt have the steel to fix them or the oil to run them. Midway was the turning point for a reason.

[Adente 1,000]

Yeah. Even if they had planes from land based aircraft, the US had overwhelming number and later in the war, better planes. 

And its not like Japan could rebuild those carriers or battleships. They didnt have the steel to fix them or the oil to run them. Midway was the turning point for a reason.

 

Yeah, everyone at my school is definitely obsessed with writing about Midway... which is probably why we weren't allowed to write out papers on it! 

 

Also, assuming somehow Japan pulled out a victory at Leyte and actually succeeded in destroying the amphibious invasion force meant for the liberation of the Philippines, would that not have changed the outcome of the war in the long run? 

[Delernil 952]

Yeah, everyone at my school is definitely obsessed with writing about Midway... which is probably why we weren't allowed to write out papers on it! 

 

Also, assuming somehow Japan pulled out a victory at Leyte and actually succeeded in destroying the amphibious invasion force meant for the liberation of the Philippines, would that not have changed the outcome of the war in the long run? 

Well, im not too good at the whole 'would X change' kinda things, but i think it would. I dont guess it would impact it as 'Japan wins', but the war would have been longer.

Now, if you mean every US ship bound for Leyte was destroyed? The war goes on, perhaps Japan takes some land back or even manages to rebuild some of its navy. But the US was just too powerful and could produce ships so fast i dont think the outcome would have changed. They wouldve built those ships right back and gone in. 

[Adente 1,000]

Well, im not too good at the whole 'would X change' kinda things, but i think it would. I dont guess it would impact it as 'Japan wins', but the war would have been longer.

Now, if you mean every US ship bound for Leyte was destroyed? The war goes on, perhaps Japan takes some land back or even manages to rebuild some of its navy. But the US was just too powerful and could produce ships so fast i dont think the outcome would have changed. They wouldve built those ships right back and gone in. 

 

I know, I'm no good at speculation either. Although specifically I was talking about Japan just sinking the transports carrying several thousand Marines for the recapture of the Philippines, not the US surface fleet.

[Delernil 952]

I know, I'm no good at speculation either. Although specifically I was talking about Japan just sinking the transports carrying several thousand Marines for the recapture of the Philippines, not the US surface fleet.

Im not quite sure. That could be a *massive* hit to morale. On that side of things, im not quite sure what wouldve happened. I can see there being a pretty big reorganization of the fleet as they try to protect the transports better in the future, but i dont think much woldve changed. Again, that wouldve bought Japan some time but it wouldve been so little that it couldnt do very much other than hurt the US through the morale standpoint.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Delernil

[Adente 1,000]

Im not quite sure. That could be a *massive* hit to morale. On that side of things, im not quite sure what wouldve happened. I can see there being a pretty big reorganization of the fleet as they try to protect the transports better in the future, but i dont think much woldve changed. Again, that wouldve bought Japan some time but it wouldve been so little that it couldnt do very much other than hurt the US through the morale standpoint.

 

And there's the fact that the last time Japan conducted a strike designed to cripple the US and destroy morale sort of backfired..

[Delernil 952]

And there's the fact that the last time Japan conducted a strike designed to cripple the US and destroy morale sort of backfired..

Yeah, that kind of went wrong... 

[Adente 1,000]

Yeah, that kind of went wrong... 

 

Although of course that'd be opening up a discussion about how shortsighted Pearl Harbor was, seeing as almost every ship sunk was refloated and operational within a year, and the sub base and oil facilities were ignored, which would have been much more damaging in the long run. The Japanese always did have an obsession with battleships, and sinking them, for most of WWII

[Delernil 952]

Although of course that'd be opening up a discussion about how shortsighted Pearl Harbor was, seeing as almost every ship sunk was refloated and operational within a year, and the sub base and oil facilities were ignored, which would have been much more damaging in the long run. The Japanese always did have an obsession with battleships, and sinking them, for most of WWII

I find it amazing that Japan was the country that proved how weak battleships were to airpower (Pearl Harbor, Renown/Repulse, etc) yet they still spent resources on building and maintaining their massive battleships.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Delernil

[Adente 1,000]

I find it amazing that Japan was the country that proved how weak battleships were to airpower (Pearl Harbor, Renown/Repulse, etc) yet they still spent resources on building and maintaining their massive battleships.

 

There was a quote by Yamamoto I read once that went something like, "The three great follies of the world are The Great Wall of China, the Pyramids, and the battleship Yamato" 

 

Which I guess was proven pretty correct when the most powerful battleship in the world was blown up by intercepting planes for a loss of almost all the crew. The Americans lost 10 planes by comparison. Although to be fair, the Japanese obsession may be because of their battleship victory over Russia in the Sino-Japanese war of 1905.

[Delernil 952]

There was a quote by Yamamoto I read once that went something like, "The three great follies of the world are The Great Wall of China, the Pyramids, and the battleship Yamato" 

 

Which I guess was proven pretty correct when the most powerful battleship in the world was blown up by intercepting planes for a loss of almost all the crew. The Americans lost 10 planes by comparison. Although to be fair, the Japanese obsession may be because of their battleship victory over Russia in the Sino-Japanese war of 1905.

Even more interesting is that they werent blind to the Yamatos weakness. A bunch of its smaller surface-to-surface guns were stripped and replaced with anti air around 1943/44

 

And yeah, i can see why theyd want the battleships. Even the US had theirs. It was a symbol of power, why would they get rid of it?

[Adente 1,000]

Even more interesting is that they werent blind to the Yamatos weakness. A bunch of its smaller surface-to-surface guns were stripped and replaced with anti air around 1943/44

 

And yeah, i can see why theyd want the battleships. Even the US had theirs. It was a symbol of power, why would they get rid of it?

 

Then again, the US took that obsession to the extreme. I mean, we reactivated two battleships in the 80's just because we could. Reagan didn't even bother trying to give a reason, he was just like "we needed to spend more on defense to outpace the Soviets."

 

But dammit if I didn't say they were cool!

 

[Delernil 952]

Then again, the US took that obsession to the extreme. I mean, we reactivated two battleships in the 80's just because we could. Reagan didn't even bother trying to give a reason, he was just like "we needed to spend more on defense to outpace the Soviets."

 

But dammit if I didn't say they were cool!

 

That pretty much sums up alot of the military right now.

 

"Well, its cool so we have to do it."

and im entirely alright with that

[Adente 1,000]

That pretty much sums up alot of the military right now.

 

"Well, its cool so we have to do it."

and im entirely alright with that

 

Tell me about it! Did you hear the Navy is building a laser testbed weapon and its proven to work? And it works! I spoke to one of the people who worked designing it when they came to speak to my class, and she said they could "fry ants on top of a hill five miles away with it"

[Hidey 2,836]

Is WWII the only "history" schools teach anymore 

[Delernil 952]

Tell me about it! Did you hear the Navy is building a laser testbed weapon and its proven to work? And it works! I spoke to one of the people who worked designing it when they came to speak to my class, and she said they could "fry ants on top of a hill five miles away with it"

The navy is also testing railguns because WHY NOT?

 

Is WWII the only "history" schools teach anymore 

No, but the largest conflict in history that changed the world is kind of important. And hes taking a course about naval history, and part of that includes the Pacific area during WW2, where some pretty big naval battles took place.

[Adente 1,000]

Is WWII the only "history" schools teach anymore 

 

Not at all, but this course is specifically focusing on American Naval History, and considering a lot of Graduates from my school served and died in World War II, it would make sense to know our school's history and heritage.

 

The navy is also testing railguns because WHY NOT?

 

No, but the largest conflict in history that changed the world is kind of important. And hes taking a course about naval history, and part of that includes the Pacific area during WW2, where some pretty big naval battles took place.

 

Exactly! Although sadly railguns won't work or look like the one in Transformers 2.

[Delernil 952]

Not at all, but this course is specifically focusing on American Naval History, and considering a lot of Graduates from my school served and died in World War II, it would make sense to know our school's history and heritage.

 

 

Exactly! Although sadly railguns won't work or look like the one in Transformers 2.

I found the video if youre interested, pretty cool.

[Adente 1,000]

I found the video if youre interested, pretty cool.

 

Holy crap, that's awesome!

 

Almost makes me want to become a Surface Warfare Officer when I graduate... Almost! 

[Aly 77]

In the end, the factors come down to three things: numbers, artillery, and strategy