[Oxymoron]

I have always wondred why didnt the Japanese send a small Marine/Para force to Pearl harbour and trap the Carrier groups out at sea. At the same time dismantle what the bombings could not.What kind of ground force did the US hace to oppose such a landing?

[Zyx]

At the same time dismantle what the bombings could not.What kind of ground force did the US hace to oppose such a landing?

The US Army . . . dumb question.

[getfiscal]

The attack did not destroy everything, it only crippled part of the American fleet. Sending in ground forces would have required a much larger and longer operation with a lot of Japanese losses. Doing this would have required the Japanese to think they were engaging in a total war from the start, when their goal was just to force out the US and UK from the region and make them hesitate long enough for Japan to be ascendant.

[Oxymoron]

Yes I understand that I am not saying a huge invasion force but a trained crack outfit to finish off what the air attack could not it would require a few additional troop carrier boats.

[hannu]

The Japanese were very short sighted at that time.

It's very rare you would see a high ranking military officer without glasses.

[Oxymoron]

[The American Lion]

The operation would have been to risky. The main goal of the attack was to cripple the US Pacific fleet, so Japan will have no problem invading the East Indies.

[Red Rebel]

If the Japanese sucseeded in crippling the US Navy and more importantly the dry docks, what the US Army did, wouldn't affect Japan.

[Thunderhawk]

The USA could, and did, repair the damage the Japanese did. Devestated dry docks would not have slowed down USA retaliation and rehabilitation of their fleet by much.

Taking the islands might have been a good idea, but that would require huge amounts of resources the Japanese wanted (and did) to spend in the Pacific.

Sending in crack sapper units to devestate what was left would not have done much. Additional air strikes might have been more effective, tracking down the USA carriers would have been great too, but sending in sappers would not have achieved much more then what was already done, and certainly less then what they could have done otherwise.

[PredatorOC]

I'm not well read on Pearl Harbor, but my understanding is that it was a half-hearted operation to begin with.

For example, in hindsight, the Japanese should have gambled on a third wave of attacks, since it might have dealt a far more severe blow US pacific fleet operations.

A landing force would have required a completely different approach. It was only a raid, with carriers staying pretty far away from shore. A landing would have required much more support vessels and for them to be much closer to the shore. This of course would have endangered them considerably and the the logistics of the operation would have been much greater. Also, the surprise element probably would have been lost, due to the size of the fleet.

Landing even a small force would have been problematic. You would have needed a large enough force to make any impact (1000-2000 soldiers at least?) and even that would have been a suicide mission. Maybe they could have landed a few SNLF soldiers with midget subs, but I doubt they would have had any significant impact sabotage-wise.

[Oxymoron]

I agree that the operation with a landing force might have lost the element of surprise. Perhaps they could have sent an additional landing force after the attack had been accomplished, the biggest mistake the Japanese made was to fight a defensive war against the US instead of a Blitzkrieg attack against Hawaii and San Fransisco. If they would have knocked out the US capabilites in the Pacific no one would stand in their way to hold the rest of Asia. ANd perhaps intervene in Germans war against Russia and hold the Soviet Asian divisions away from Moscow.

[Truth-a-naut]

One answer.

Logistics. The Japanese could barely supply their forces in China.

[Oxymoron]

If thats true why did they strike at the most powerful force in the Pacific? What were they expecting?

[Thunderhawk]

The USA was economically and politically hindering the growth of the Japanese economy and power. The strike was to cripple the USA and thus give the Japanese a free hand in the Pacific. With that free hand they were to garner territory, resources and force the USA to the negotiation table.

[Oxymoron]

did they really think sinking couple of Battle ships and destroyers would stop the Americans?

[getfiscal]

did they really think sinking couple of Battle ships and destroyers would stop the Americans?

They thought it would put the US on the defensive and unable to intervene to stop the attacks on Western colonies by the Japanese. Some didn't think that the US would go on a full war footing but would instead be shocked into accepting Japan as a major power. It was a gamble but from some perspectives it seemed plausible. Look at how much Hitler had achieved by late 1941.

[Oxymoron]

I dont think Hitler would have gotten away with bombing London in 1938.

I mean a limited tactical strike was meant to stop the US from protecting her Strategic interests in the Pacific? what sorth of funny cigarets were they smoking?

[Ombrageux]

That's easy, Japan's war aims were limited. All they wanted, were European colonies in East and Southeast Asia. They had no ability to substantially harm the US so weren't going to occupy Hawaii for it's own sake. As the Japanese were not looking to invade the US itself, far from it, they did not need Hawaii as a stepping stone.

[GIjoel88]

I agree, the japanese weren't looking to destroy or invade the US. Just postpone our reaction to taking over some of the smaller colonies and landholdings, they just got more thatn they bargained for from the american people.

[Lensky1917]

It wasn't till the Vietnam War that the United States started to become fully efficient in the field of insertions. I seriosly question as to whether the Japanese had the capability. The truth is Isoroku Yamamoto knew that they would lose in the long run, however followed orders to the best of his ability. The attack on Pearl Harbor was quite effective in keeping the United States from retaliating.