War Plan Orange

Last updated December 14, 2023

War Plan Orange (commonly known as Plan Orange or just Orange) is a series of United States Joint Army and Navy Board war plans for dealing with a possible war with Japan during the years between the First and Second World Wars. It failed to foresee the significance of the technological changes to naval warfare, including the submarine, air support and aircraft carriers, and although the Battle of Midway was important, and the US Navy did "island-hop" to regain lost territory, there was no culminating "showdown" battle as anticipated by Plan Orange.

Development

Informal studies as early as 1906 covered a number of possibilities, from basing at Gibraltar or Singapore ^[1] (an idea revived by the British before World War II)^[2] to "a quick trans-Atlantic dash" to the Pacific.^[3] The plan eventually adopted was conceived by Rear Admiral Raymond P. Rodgers in 1911.^[4]

19 Dec 1919: Strategy of the Pacific (JB 325, Serial 28)
7 Jul 1923: Estimate of the Situation, Orange (JB 325, Serial 207)
15 Aug 1924: Joint Basic War Plan - Orange (JB 325, Serial 228)
10 Jan 1929: Revision of Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Orange (JB 325, Serial 280)
20 Jun 1934: Inadequacy of Present Military and Naval Forces Philippine Area to Carry Out Assigned Missions in Event of an ORANGE War (JB 325, Serial 533)
8 May 1935: Revision of Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan - Orange (JB 325, Serial 546)
19 May 1935: Revision of Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan - Orange (JB 325, Serial 570)
14 Oct 1936: Revision of Joint Orange Estimate of the Situation (JB 325, Serial 589)
9 Dec 1936: Changes in Joint Basic War Plan Orange (JB 325, Serial 594)
19 Feb 1938: Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Orange (1938) (JB 325, Serials 617 & 618)

The plan was formally adopted by the Joint Army and Navy Board beginning in 1924.^[5] Predating the Rainbow plans, which presumed the assistance of allies, Orange assumed that the United States would fight Japan alone.

Strategy

As originally conceived, it anticipated a blockade of the Philippines and other U.S. outposts in the western Pacific. They were expected to hold out on their own while the Pacific Fleet marshaled its strength at bases in California and Hawaii and guarded against attacks on the Panama Canal. After mobilization (the ships maintained only half of their crews in peacetime), the fleet would sail to the western Pacific to relieve American forces in Guam and the Philippines. Afterwards, the fleet would sail north for a decisive battle against the Imperial Japanese Navy's Combined Fleet and then blockade the Japanese home islands.

The strategy was in keeping with the theory of Alfred Thayer Mahan, a doctrine to which every major navy subscribed before World War II in which wars would be decided by engagements between opposing surface fleets^[6] (as they had been for over 300 years).

Following the 1933 Operations IV Wargame, which resulted in defeat for a hypothetical blue fleet meant to symbolize a US Philippine relief force, War Plan Orange was revised to account for a more steady, methodical advance in order to take Japanese strongpoints in the Marshall Islands. This was done in accordance to observations that both stretched logistical capacity in the "through ticket to the Philippines" strategy, and inability to repair damaged vessels, allowed Japan to gain command of the sea via the neutralization of the US battle line force.^[7]

The game carried two implications, both of them fatal to the "thrusting" concept. First, it showed that underwater damage would likely trump whatever the fleet could do in the western Pacific at the outset of a war. Ships would almost inevitably be torpedoed, and they would have to go somewhere other than the Philippines for repairs. If enough of them had to be repaired at a rear base, the fleet would no longer be superior to Orange's. Given the agreements barring fortification of Far Eastern bases, only Pearl Harbor could repair U.S capital ships. Sending them back to Hawaii would forfeit the Far East to the Japanese.
— Norman Friedman, Winning a Future War: War Gaming and Victory in the Pacific War

Despite this, the strategy followed by the U.S. in the Pacific War differed little from Rodgers' concept from 1911: a "leapfrog" campaign to conquer the Marshalls and Carolines (held by Japan before the war); liberation of the Philippines; and blockade.^[3] Absent was the "decisive battle" of Mahan, and of Japanese planning.

Japanese plans

In accordance with the Kantai Kessen naval strategy, the Imperial Japanese Navy developed its own plan that allowed the US Pacific Fleet to sail across the Pacific while the IJN would use submarines and carrier attacks to weaken it. The Japanese fleet would then attempt to force a fleet action against the weakened US fleet in a "decisive battle area", near Japan, also in line with Mahanian doctrine, which Japan had enthusiastically embraced. It was the basis for Japan's demand for a 70% ratio (10:10:7) at the Washington Naval Conference, which was considered necessary to provide Japan superiority in the "decisive battle area" (taking into account that the US had naval commitments in other theaters, while Japan did not). It was also the basis of the United States' insistence on 60%, which amounted to parity.^[5]

Outcomes

Actual events generally followed the plan. Although carrier battles and the use of airplanes and submarines overshadowed surface action, the "leapfrog" campaign played out largely as anticipated.^[8]

The Imperial Japanese Navy, obsessed with the "decisive battle" doctrine, ignored the vital need for defense against submarines.^[9] The German and American submarine campaigns against their opponents' merchant shipping demonstrated the need for an anti-submarine warfare strategy. While the Allies took extensive measures to combat the threat of German U-boats, the Japanese failed to effectively counter the American submarines which ultimately choked Japan's industrial production and paralyzed her navy. Japan also notably failed to institute an anti-commerce campaign where systematic use of commerce raiders could have made Allied operations much more complex and conquering and holding Japanese-held islands more difficult.

American war planners failed to appreciate that technological advances in submarines and naval aviation had made Mahan's doctrine obsolete and did not anticipate a preemptive strike from the Japanese. In particular, they did not yet know either that aircraft would be able to effectively sink battleships or that Japan might put the American battleship force (the Battle Line) out of action at a stroke, which actually happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

American plans changed after this attack. Even after major Japanese defeats like Midway, once the effectiveness of aircraft carriers was known, the Americans favored a methodical "island-hopping" advance, never going far beyond land-based air cover.^[10] Meanwhile, a blockade was imposed from the very beginning of the war, with the first American submarine, USS Gudgeon, arriving off Japan on about 31 December 1941.^[11]

A number of requirements grew out of Orange, including the specification for a fleet submarine with high speed, long range, and heavy torpedo armament.^[12] These coalesced in the submarine Dolphin ^[13] in 1932 (only to be rejected and returned to with the Gato class in around August 1941).^[14] The demand for submarines of this size also drove the development of the notoriously problematic Mark 14 torpedo (and its equally notorious Mark VI exploder), under the guidance of Commander^[15] Ralph W. Christie.^[16] The Navy also spent "several hundred thousand dollars" to develop powerful, compact diesel engines, among them the troublesome Hooven-Owens-Rentschler, which proved useful for railroads.^[16]

Related Research Articles

A battleship is a large armored warship with a main battery consisting of large caliber guns. It dominated naval warfare in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Isoroku Yamamoto was a Marshal Admiral of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and the commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet during World War II.

Alfred Thayer Mahan was a United States naval officer and historian, whom John Keegan called "the most important American strategist of the nineteenth century." His book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783 (1890) won immediate recognition, especially in Europe, and with its successor, The Influence of Sea Power Upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793–1812 (1892), made him world-famous and perhaps the most influential American author of the nineteenth century.

The Imperial Japanese Navy was the navy of the Empire of Japan from 1868 to 1945, when it was dissolved following Japan's surrender in World War II. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) was formed between 1952 and 1954 after the dissolution of the IJN.

The history of the United States Navy divides into two major periods: the "Old Navy", a small but respected force of sailing ships that became notable for innovation in the use of ironclads during the American Civil War, and the "New Navy" the result of a modernization effort that began in the 1880s and made it the largest in the world by 1943.

War Plan Red, also known as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan, was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States Department of War during the interwar period of 1919–1939, covering scenarios related to a hypothetical war with the British Empire. Many different war plans were prepared by mid-level officers primarily as training exercises in how to calculate the logistical and manpower requirements of fighting a war, and War Plan Red outlined those steps necessary to defend against any attempted invasion of the United States by British forces. It further discussed fighting a two-front war with both Japan and Great Britain simultaneously.

Ernest Joseph King was a fleet admiral in the United States Navy who served as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet (COMINCH) and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) during World War II. He directed the United States Navy's operations, planning, and administration and was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was the U.S. Navy's second-most senior officer in World War II after Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Harold Raynsford Stark was an officer in the United States Navy during World War I and World War II, who served as the 8th Chief of Naval Operations from August 1, 1939, to March 26, 1942.

In naval warfare, a "fleet in being" is a naval force that extends a controlling influence without ever leaving port. Were the fleet to leave port and face the enemy, it might lose in battle and no longer influence the enemy's actions, but while it remains safely in port, the enemy is forced to continually deploy forces to guard against it. A "fleet in being" can be part of a sea denial doctrine, but not one of sea control.

During the 1920s and 1930s, the United States Armed Forces developed a number of color-coded war plans that outlined potential U.S. strategies for a variety of hypothetical war scenarios. The plans, developed by the Joint Planning Committee, were officially withdrawn in 1939 at the outbreak of World War II in favor of five "Rainbow" plans developed to meet the threat of a two-ocean war against multiple enemies.

The Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, at the beginning of the Pacific War in December 1941, was the third most powerful navy in the world, and the naval air service was one of the most potent air forces in the world. During the first six months of the war, the Imperial Japanese Navy enjoyed spectacular success inflicting heavy defeats on Allied forces, being undefeated in every battle. The attack on Pearl Harbor crippled the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet, while Allied navies were devastated during Japan's conquest of Southeast Asia. Japanese Navy aircraft operating from land bases were also responsible for the sinkings of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse which was the first time that capital ships were sunk by aerial attack while underway. In April 1942, the Indian Ocean raid drove the Royal Navy from South East Asia. After these successes, the Japanese now concentrated on the elimination and neutralization of strategic points from where the Allies could launch counteroffensives against Japan's conquests. However, at Coral Sea the Japanese were forced to abandon their attempts to isolate Australia while the defeat at Midway saw them forced on the defensive. The campaign in the Solomon Islands, in which the Japanese lost the war of attrition, was the most decisive; they had failed to commit enough forces in sufficient time.

Leapfrogging, also known as island hopping, was an amphibious military strategy employed by the Allies in the Pacific War against the Empire of Japan during World War II. The key idea was to bypass heavily fortified enemy islands instead of trying to capture every island in sequence en route to a final target. The reasoning was that those islands could simply be cut off from their supply chains rather than needing to be overwhelmed by superior force, thus speeding up progress and reducing losses of troops and materiel.

The Fleet Faction was an informal political faction within the Imperial Japanese Navy active in the 1920s and 1930s. The kantai-ha sought to drastically increase the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy in order to reach force parity with the fleets of the United States Navy and Royal Navy in the Western Pacific Ocean. The group advocated for the kantai kessen, a doctrine specifying a need for larger warships and larger-caliber guns.

Naval strategy is the planning and conduct of war at sea, the naval equivalent of military strategy on land.

The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660–1783 is a history of naval warfare published in 1890 by the American naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan. It details the role of sea power during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and discussed the various factors needed to support and achieve sea power, with emphasis on having the largest and most powerful fleet. Scholars considered it the single most influential book in naval strategy. Its policies were quickly adopted by most major navies, ultimately leading to the World War I naval arms race. It is also cited as one of the contributing factors of the United States becoming a great power.

The Decisive Battle Doctrine was a naval strategy adopted by the Imperial Japanese Navy prior to the Second World War. The theory was derived from the writings of American naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan. In the Decisive Battle Doctrine the Japanese navy would win a war by fighting and winning a single, decisive naval action. The idea gained broad acceptance following the Russo-Japanese War, where a well-trained, smaller Japanese naval force gained a decisive victory in the Sea of Japan at the Battle of Tsushima, defeating the Imperial Russian Navy of their rival the Russian Empire, a western naval power. Operational plans thereafter were influenced by the effective naval gunnery Japan demonstrated at Tsushima.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allied submarines in the Pacific War</span> Pacific Submarine Warfare conducted by the Allied forces in the Second World War

Allied submarines were used extensively during the Pacific War and were a key contributor to the defeat of the Empire of Japan.

The 1st Fleet was the main battleship fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The United States Navy grew rapidly during its involvement in World War II from 1941–45, and played a central role in the Pacific War against Imperial Japan. It also assisted the British Royal Navy in the naval war against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The U.S. Navy grew slowly in the years prior to World War II, due in part to international limitations on naval construction in the 1920s. Battleship production restarted in 1937, commencing with the USS North Carolina. The US Navy was able to add to its fleets during the early years of the war while the US was still neutral, increasing production of vessels both large and small, deploying a navy of nearly 350 major combatant ships by December 1941 and having an equal number under construction.

At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world, with the largest number of warships built and with naval bases across the globe. It had over 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines. With a massive merchant navy, about a third of the world total, it also dominated shipping. The Royal Navy fought in every theatre from the Atlantic, Mediterranean, freezing Northern routes to Russia and the Pacific ocean.

References

↑ Holwitt, Joel I. Execute Against Japan, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 2005, p. 131.
↑ Miller, War Plan Orange.
1 2 Holwitt, p.131.
↑ Holwitt, p. 131; Vlahos, Michael. The Blue Sword (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1980), p. 163.
1 2 Miller, Edward S. (1991). War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897–1945. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-759-3.
↑ Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Seapower on History, 1660–1783 . Boston: Little, Brown, copyright 1918, reprinted 1949.
↑ Friedman, Winning a Future War: War Gaming and Victory in the Pacific War (PDF), pp. 68–69
↑ Miller, pp. 323-346; Vlahos, Michael. The Blue Sword (Naval War College monograph series, Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1980), pp. 113-121.
↑ Parillo, Mark (1993). The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War 2. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-677-9.
↑ Willmott, H.P. (1983). The Barrier and the Javelin: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies, February to June 1942 . Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-092-0.
↑ Blair, Clay, Jr. Silent Victory (New York: Bantam, 1976), pp.107 & 110.
↑ Holwitt, pp. 130 & 132-3.
↑ Lenton, H. T. American Submarines (New York: Doubleday, 1973), p.35.
↑ Lenton, pp. 61-63. The Salmons and Tambors were a trifle smaller, while the Cachalots and Porpoises were really too small for the Pacific, and too slow for fleet operations. Lenton, pp.37-39, 45-47, 55, & 58; Blair, p.60.
↑ Holwitt, p.147fn52.
1 2 Blair, p.61.