Pearl Harbor Defense

B2431 wrote:

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:


And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?


Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...


Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched successfully
from land.

Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face.
Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they
would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry.

As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and
get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to
these guys.

When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the
impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls?

Cheers

--mike

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Mike Dargan
Date: 9/22/2004 7:19 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: tEo4d.87069$MQ5.83561@attbi_s52

B2431 wrote:

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:


And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?


Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...


Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
successfully
from land.

Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face.
Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they
would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry.

OK, as I said the defenses were pointed seaward. That means the British planned
for a sea attack. They grossly underestimated the effect of infantry coming in
from the woods. They DID turn the defenders around to face the attack. The
defense was poorly led and under equipped for such a thing. Simply put the
British failed to prepare for such an attack.


As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and
get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to
these guys.

How about the fishermen who took depth readings using fishing lines? How about
the B-girls and bar men who picked up information?


When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the
impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls?

Cheers

--mike

I never said there were any saboteurs only that the fear of them was there. You
might want to do some research on the subject. It's an interesting subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired