pearl harbor, why no usn a/c in the air?

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
radar installation work.

How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Damned if I know.

Why don't you take a look at Vol. 3, "History of U.S. Naval Operations in
WWII" by CAPT Samuel Elliot Morrison, USNR. IIRC he has a complete order of
battle for PACFLT in December, 1941 that includes some information on the
technical capabilites and availability of U.S. vessels.

Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical decisions
made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back at
Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision made
at the highest levels of government.

Much has been made of the "proof" of Pearl Harbor vulnerablity given a
successful raid during naval exercises a few years before and the successful
British attack at Taranto. In truth those operations don't really show the
basing decision, or the specific defense decisions, to be inherently
unsound. They only show that any base is vulnerable to attack under some
conditions.

Toland has written a couple of books, IIRC, on the subject of December, 7,
1941. I comment them to you.

Bill Kambic

Bill Kambic wrote:
Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical decisions
made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back at
Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision made
at the highest levels of government.

That's still a good idea today.

5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
Tripoli.

The only place you could base a carrier further from any place you'd
possibly use it is in Texas.

I just hope that as the Navy once again becomes more forward based that
better care is put on force protection this time.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message

Bill Kambic wrote:
Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical
decisions
made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back
at
Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision
made
at the highest levels of government.

That's still a good idea today.

Indeed.

5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
Tripoli.

I'm not sure I see your point.

The only place you could base a carrier further from any place you'd
possibly use it is in Texas.

I just hope that as the Navy once again becomes more forward based that
better care is put on force protection this time.

Sure, but no defense is 100% (as no offense in 100%). Commanders do the
best they can with the assets available.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

Bill Kambic wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
Tripoli.

I'm not sure I see your point.

Take the top dozen trouble spots where a carrier battle group might make
a difference.

The compare the distance between the current carrier bases and these areas.

Select the base that is most distant and transfer the carriers out
elsewhere so they can react to trouble quicker.

The result is better coverage and quicker response for the same long
term costs.

Ignore Boxer's whining, it's not like she'd ever vote for any real
defense spending.

-HJC