snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Military

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10 March 2010, 07:33 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

The Japanese should have made more such "random" coastal attacks, it would have forced USA to divert an unproportionally large force to defend the coasts, diverting lots of resources from the real battle. It would probably not have changed the outcome of the war in the long run (face it, as soon as the inevitable fall of Germany happened, they would have had to face the full weight of Stalin's forces, as well as the US and British forces), but it would have made them last longer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10 March 2010, 09:46 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
You miss my point. A base is not a place you bother to defend, it's mostly a peace time installation. During war, it's kept as long as it's safe as a training ground before sending new troops off to fight. If the Japanese were to invade (which, of course, would be a logistical impossibility), the base would not be a priority to defend, and would be abandoned as the troops protect priority targets and the training aspects of the base are moved to safe baser further back.
Some bases are important enough to rate defending in and of themselves, though bases in the US hardly exist for the purpose of being defended positions and so might not be the best place to mount a defense from. A particular base might be a priority to defend, based on its purpose and location. It just might be that you have to defend forward of the base on better defensive ground. I can think of quite a few bases that are not associated in any way with training. Professional standing military force and all that, don't you know? You also need bases that act as logistical support, transportation hubs, communications, command and control, detection, and maintenance facilities, among other things.

In any event, just because a defensive stock pile is kept at a base doesn't mean it would be intended for use at that base.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10 March 2010, 03:06 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Also, consider that in the OP, the hidden stash is supposidly from WWII, when many of the bases were on small pacific islands. In those cases, abandoning the base would be an impossibility, as there was no where else to go. Think of Wake and Midway islands as examples.

Some of those bases remained in use until well into the cold war. As others in the thread have theorized, it could be that same of those bases kept outdated defensive equipment simply because nobody thought it was worth the effort to dispose of it. Eventually that could give rise to the sort of UL in OP.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10 March 2010, 03:53 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
You miss my point. A base is not a place you bother to defend, it's mostly a peace time installation. During war, it's kept as long as it's safe as a training ground before sending new troops off to fight. If the Japanese were to invade (which, of course, would be a logistical impossibility), the base would not be a priority to defend, and would be abandoned as the troops protect priority targets and the training aspects of the base are moved to safe baser further back.
It's a naval base. You cannot abandon it and move back because then you would not only give the enemy a beachhead, but a port from wivc=ch to strengthen their invasion forces. Some bases are too critical to just give up. Others are fortified for the purposes of being defended. Naval bases and Airfields come to mind. In order to fight the enemy, we need places to refuel planes and ships.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11 March 2010, 10:06 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
Some bases are important enough to rate defending in and of themselves, though bases in the US hardly exist for the purpose of being defended positions and so might not be the best place to mount a defense from. A particular base might be a priority to defend, based on its purpose and location. It just might be that you have to defend forward of the base on better defensive ground. I can think of quite a few bases that are not associated in any way with training. Professional standing military force and all that, don't you know? You also need bases that act as logistical support, transportation hubs, communications, command and control, detection, and maintenance facilities, among other things.

In any event, just because a defensive stock pile is kept at a base doesn't mean it would be intended for use at that base.
Forward bases such as coastal defenses and Maginot lines are a very different beast, built with another purpose. The only thing they have in common is that they are called "bases". Bases deep in continental USA have a different purpose altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Also, consider that in the OP, the hidden stash is supposidly from WWII, when many of the bases were on small pacific islands. In those cases, abandoning the base would be an impossibility, as there was no where else to go. Think of Wake and Midway islands as examples.
Good examples, but also special cases.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11 March 2010, 11:08 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
The Japanese should have made more such "random" coastal attacks, it would have forced USA to divert an unproportionally large force to defend the coasts, diverting lots of resources from the real battle. It would probably not have changed the outcome of the war in the long run (face it, as soon as the inevitable fall of Germany happened, they would have had to face the full weight of Stalin's forces, as well as the US and British forces), but it would have made them last longer.
Of course it would have also diverted more of their resources away from their real battle. Sending subs against the US coast, especially as the war progressed and the US achieved naval dominance, would have been a waste of subs and their crews. Oh, and fuel, which they were also running low on by the end of the war. I don't think any amount of coastal raiding could have had a serious affect on the US given the distances involved and the difficulty in adequately supporting such far flung forces. Especially when we’re talking diesel powered subs. Any forces the Japanese sent our way would have been a loss to them. A real loss, not just a nuisance loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
It's a naval base. You cannot abandon it and move back because then you would not only give the enemy a beachhead, but a port from wivc=ch to strengthen their invasion forces. Some bases are too critical to just give up. Others are fortified for the purposes of being defended. Naval bases and Airfields come to mind. In order to fight the enemy, we need places to refuel planes and ships.
The only "fortifications" most US bases have, including the Naval and Air bases, are fences to keep the riff-raff out. The only base I've ever seen with a hardened defensive position of any sort was an Air Force base in South Korea. And for all I know that was a relic from the Korean War being used as a storage shed. I'm not counting the holes the Japanese dug into the hills in and around Yokosuka naval base as "defenses." More like air raid shelters. Every base I've ever seen in the US? Nothing. Sometimes they don't even have a fence. We just don’t use major bases as fortifications anymore, not in the continental US at least. The idea is ridiculous.

Just because a stash existed (if it existed) doesn't mean it was meant to be used at that site. Once again, if there were a base worth defending in the US, it probably wouldn't serve as a defensive position in and of itself any more than a town, a city, or an airport would. There’s a difference between being worth defending and being defensible. Oh, and just supposing the US did have heavily fortified air and naval bases? If I were an invading force looking for a beachhead, I think I’d be satisfied with one of the hundreds of non-military ports along the US coast. Defending the coast line didn’t work for the Nazi’s and it will work even less for the US if the time ever comes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15 March 2010, 09:17 PM
Meka Meka is offline
 
Join Date: 20 December 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf
The US did, however fear the possibility and prepared for the it and even built additional shore defenses just in case.
I recall reading about tanks and other vehicles cached by General Patton in the Mojave Desert in the event of a Japanese invasion - though not at any specific base (likely deliberately so, as the fixed bases would be key targets for air attack). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read about it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 17 March 2010, 09:46 PM
kanazawa kanazawa is offline
 
Join Date: 19 January 2007
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meka View Post
I recall reading about tanks and other vehicles cached by General Patton in the Mojave Desert in the event of a Japanese invasion - though not at any specific base (likely deliberately so, as the fixed bases would be key targets for air attack). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read about it.
Patton trained at Chiriaco Summit, in the Mojave Desert north east of San Diego (from my perspective). I flew into the airport once--it's tiny. Just 4 parking spots and a wind sock on the (automotive) gas station.

Didn't have time for the museum though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiriaco_Summit
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18 March 2010, 10:42 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
Of course it would have also diverted more of their resources away from their real battle. Sending subs against the US coast, especially as the war progressed and the US achieved naval dominance, would have been a waste of subs and their crews. Oh, and fuel, which they were also running low on by the end of the war. I don't think any amount of coastal raiding could have had a serious affect on the US given the distances involved and the difficulty in adequately supporting such far flung forces. Especially when we’re talking diesel powered subs. Any forces the Japanese sent our way would have been a loss to them. A real loss, not just a nuisance loss.
Well, it's not just about losses, it's also about how much troops you can have on the battlefield. If you can divert, say, ten subs, to make disruptive attacks, the US would have had to use a disproportionally large force to hunt them, perhaps ten times as large or more. These forces would not be on the main battlefield, doing damage to the main Japanese forces.

It's a bit like how tanks are often used. Punch through the enemy lines, and move quickly and attack weak targets of opportunity. To clean out such an incursion, a disproportionally large force needs to be used. They can't just be ignored either, as they will cause too much damage.

Locking down enemy forces in places there they are not really needed is an excellent strategy.

As for sacrificing crews, the Japanese surely wasn't shy of that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nixon carried Satchmo's stash snopes Politics 15 29 December 2009 10:57 PM
No Naval Swords for U.S.N.A. Graduation snopes Politics 0 13 June 2009 07:35 PM
Phantom military base scam snopes Military 9 12 August 2007 08:27 PM
Base Building for Air Force? Malruhn Military 14 28 January 2007 11:24 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.