| WI: Admiral Richardson Remains US Pacific Fleet CIC | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 18 2015, 07:55 AM (136 Views) | |
| Delta Force | Jun 18 2015, 07:55 AM Post #1 |
|
Until May 1940 the US Pacific Fleet had always been based in California. It was decided to rebase the fleet to Hawaii to discourage Japanese expansionism, an action opposed by Admiral Richardson because he felt it would leave the fleet too vulnerable to a surprise attack. Admiral Richardson was removed of command and demoted to rear admiral, with Admiral Kimmel selected to replace him. What if Richardson had remained head of the US Pacific Fleet after its relocation to Hawaii? He was considered the USN's leading expert on the Japanese military and it seems he would have been more proactive than Kimmel. Would the Pacific Fleet under Richardson be better prepared for a surprise attack and perhaps even be proactive enough for a few hours warning? Alternatively, what if Richardson manages to convince Congress and President Roosevelt to keep the fleet in San Diego? Does that butterfly away Japan's war against the United States since it is a less aggressive posture and the USN is outside of surprise attack range? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 18 2015, 10:19 AM Post #2 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Japan would still end up at war with the USA with the fleet in San Diego, with the result not following through the stereotypical dash to the Decisive Battle, but a slog through the Mandates with the Kido Butai capable of inflicting a nasty surprise on the first US offensive. I think that under Richardson the fleet would be better prepared in an operational and strategic sense, but would still be hit with the same issue of tactical surprise if at Pearl. As has been often observed, too much warning time at Pearl Harbor could result in much more damage to the Pacific Fleet. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |






8:39 AM Jul 11