December 6,1941

In message ,
Mike1 writes
Carrier aircraft could have flown to land-based fields, refueled there,
then attacked the Jap carriers as they approached.

Consider how effective US aviation was against IJN forces in early 1942.
No chance of a Midway Moment (catching carriers in the midst of a
mission change), however bravely the USN crews try to press their
attacks.

Subs may have also have been able to intercept.

And if they get to fire, and hit, so what? They're at the start of the
learning curve of "why don't USN torpedoes work?" in December 1941.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam ) wrote:
: In message ,
: Mike1 writes
: Carrier aircraft could have flown to land-based fields, refueled there,
: then attacked the Jap carriers as they approached.

: Consider how effective US aviation was against IJN forces in early 1942.
: No chance of a Midway Moment (catching carriers in the midst of a
: mission change), however bravely the USN crews try to press their
: attacks.

: Subs may have also have been able to intercept.

: And if they get to fire, and hit, so what? They're at the start of the
: learning curve of "why don't USN torpedoes work?" in December 1941.

Not to mention that USN practice against fleet units was to
fire on sonar indications. The realization that the IJN wasn't
really good at ASW would come later.


--
David Benjamin

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"BOB URZ" wrote in message

I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

What could have been done differently to affect the outcome?

The USAAF could have been alert with some fighters airbornes
and the rest properly dispersed instead of parked together in the
middle of the field lacking only a neon sign saying 'bomb here'

[...]

The army hearings estimated that if they had been alert between 70 and
80 fighters could have been in the air.

[...]

What (if any) could have been used for night operations?
What would have been the likely outcome of an even plane
dogfight scenario?

Given the quality of Japanese aircraft and especially pilots in Dec 1941,
along with the American P-40 and pilots trained to dogfight, the AAF
wouldn't have done much better in actual A-A combat against the Japanese
than happened with no warning.

Perhaps the good part of having no warning was that more pilots lived,
while their aircraft died. Somewhat similar to Navy ships being sunk
in harbor (salvageable; lower loss of crew) versus open water.

It took time for US pilots to learn dogfighting Japanese fighters
wasn't good policy. That would have been unknown on Dec 7.

About the best the AAF could have salvaged with advanced notice and
preparation, was the saving of more aircraft, but I think such notice
would have killed more pilots; a net loss over the total surprise
that actually occurred.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"BOB URZ" wrote in message

I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

What could have been done differently to affect the outcome?

The USAAF could have been alert with some fighters airbornes
and the rest properly dispersed instead of parked together in the
middle of the field lacking only a neon sign saying 'bomb here'

[...]

The army hearings estimated that if they had been alert between 70 and
80 fighters could have been in the air.

[...]

What (if any) could have been used for night operations?
What would have been the likely outcome of an even plane
dogfight scenario?

Given the quality of Japanese aircraft and especially pilots in Dec 1941,
along with the American P-40 and pilots trained to dogfight, the AAF
wouldn't have done much better in actual A-A combat against the Japanese
than happened with no warning.


The handful of pilots who did get airborne managed to shoot down
a number of enemy aircraft, as many as 11 while losing 4 of their
own number, 3 of whom were shot down by 'friendly' AAA


Perhaps the good part of having no warning was that more pilots lived,
while their aircraft died. Somewhat similar to Navy ships being sunk
in harbor (salvageable; lower loss of crew) versus open water.

It took time for US pilots to learn dogfighting Japanese fighters
wasn't good policy. That would have been unknown on Dec 7.

About the best the AAF could have salvaged with advanced notice and
preparation, was the saving of more aircraft, but I think such notice
would have killed more pilots; a net loss over the total surprise
that actually occurred.


Perhaps they would have learned those lessons a little earlier.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

The handful of pilots who did get airborne managed to shoot down
a number of enemy aircraft, as many as 11 while losing 4 of their
own number, 3 of whom were shot down by 'friendly' AAA

I *think* by the time AAF aircraft got airborne, the Japanese Zero escort
had largely separated from its charges, given the surprise of the attack.

If surprise had not been achieved, fighter escort probably would have
stuck with its dive/torpedo bomber assignments. I think attacking P-40s
would have had a much more difficult time.

This assumes a true air battle over Pearl would have played out just
as it did in the SWPA or Central Pacific area a year later. I don't see
why it would not have.

About the best the AAF could have salvaged with advanced notice and
preparation, was the saving of more aircraft, but I think such notice
would have killed more pilots; a net loss over the total surprise
that actually occurred.


Perhaps they would have learned those lessons a little earlier.

They were lessons waiting to be learned. The sooner the better I guess.


SMH

Good points. A sortie to safety might have been best, but if they had been
caught a lot of hardware and good men would have gone to the bottom. Any
attempt to engage with the battle line would have likely been disastrous.
Staying put, condition zebra set and GQ at 7:00 am with fighter cover may
well have proven best ... I doubt they would have imagined the need for
torpedo nets (a shame, had they been rigged, the damage would have been far
less).

OTOH, the devastating losses forced the US to abandon traditional thinking.
The battle line was obsolete. The cargru was the wave of the future. It
all came to fruition at Midway.

I still think the Pearl Harbor strike was one of the most brilliantly
planned and executed tactical air strikes of all time. Strategically, it
was wrong. Geopolitically, it was dead wrong.

R / John

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"BOB URZ" wrote in message
...
I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

What could have been done differently to affect the outcome?

They could have issued ammunition for the army fixed AA guns
instead of keeping it in depots (the army didnt like its shells
getting dirty - no kidding)

The USAAF could have been alert with some fighters airbornes
and the rest properly dispersed instead of parked together in the
middle of the field lacking only a neon sign saying 'bomb here'

The fleet could have been on a higher state of readiness instead
of enjoying a sunday morning lie in

They could have taken some basic precautions like rigging torpedo
nets.


Granted at that point in the war, some of the hardware was not up
to snuff with the Japanese. With a 24 hour warning, how many fighter
aircraft could have been prepared, armed, and either flying or on
alert?

The army hearings estimated that if they had been alert between 70 and
80 fighters could have been in the air.

What (if any) could have been used for night operations?
What would have been the likely outcome of an even plane
dogfight scenario?

Given the 24 hour warning time, where would you position the
carriers that were out at sea and why? Offensive or defensive?


They were too far way to make an effective counterstrike or defense.

What about the surface ships in the harbor. In or out?
Was there better way to position them against air attack?


The BB's could have been sent back to the West Coast.

What combination of aircraft could have been marshalled for an
offensive strike against the carrier group at the range they
were at? Were there enough trained aviators to even attempt this
at this time? Were the Japanese aviators better trained and equipped
at this point in the war?


There really wasnt an effective strike force available.

Would the crude land based radar have been any major help with the
advanced warning and defensive attack ?


The land based radar detected the incoming attack very succesfully,
trouble is the information center couldnt handle the data and
simply assumed the aircraft were friendly, no IFF was available.

Would the US fleet have attempted to put to sea to go after the Japanese
task force, or stay close in for the defence against the possible
invasion of Hawaii? Was the fleet safer at sea knowing the
japs were coming, or safer in the harbor?


Safer halfway to San Francisco, sortieing against the carriers
was a hopeless task, they were too slow to catch them and
would likley have lost more men as ships were sunk in the
deep ocean and would not have been salvageable.

Keith

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Good points. A sortie to safety might have been best, but if they had
been
caught a lot of hardware and good men would have gone to the bottom. Any
attempt to engage with the battle line would have likely been disastrous.
Staying put, condition zebra set and GQ at 7:00 am with fighter cover may
well have proven best ... I doubt they would have imagined the need for
torpedo nets (a shame, had they been rigged, the damage would have been
far
less).


Thet didnt have to imagine the need, the FAA had shown at Taranto that
you COULD sir drop torpeddoes in shallow water.

OTOH, the devastating losses forced the US to abandon traditional
thinking.
The battle line was obsolete. The cargru was the wave of the future. It
all came to fruition at Midway.

I still think the Pearl Harbor strike was one of the most brilliantly
planned and executed tactical air strikes of all time. Strategically, it
was wrong. Geopolitically, it was dead wrong.


The whole decision to wage war on the USA was disastrous,
once that decision was made however the Japanese navy
had to make the most of the opportunity that they were
offered. Yamamoto knew he could not fight a long war
and the only possible chance, slim as it was, was to destroy
the US Pacific fleet as an offensive unit while other forces
seized the Phillipines and NEI.

Keith

I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

It might well have been worse in some ways. I understand that part of the
Navy's planning was to move the fleet out of the harbor to a different
anchorage that was much deeper. So if some of the ships could have been
torpedoed or sunk by bombs there they might well have been unrecoverable.

John Dupre'

In article , jdupre5762
@aol.com says...
I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

It might well have been worse in some ways. I understand that part of the
Navy's planning was to move the fleet out of the harbor to a different
anchorage that was much deeper. So if some of the ships could have been
torpedoed or sunk by bombs there they might well have been unrecoverable.

Were any of the ships that were recovered worth much anyway?

Most of the effort that went into recovery was done for national pride
to deny the Japanese as much of a victory as possible.


--
People are not apathetic in a bookie shop.

13th saying of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a1cc45edfb975c29896ec@news...
In article , jdupre5762
@aol.com says...
I have often wondered. Given a 24 hour advanced notice that an attack
was eminent in 72 hours or less, what would have been the outcome at
Pearl Harbor? Say on dec 6, Pearl was given intel that an attack would
come anytime in the next 72 hours.

It might well have been worse in some ways. I understand that part of
the
Navy's planning was to move the fleet out of the harbor to a different
anchorage that was much deeper. So if some of the ships could have been
torpedoed or sunk by bombs there they might well have been
unrecoverable.

Were any of the ships that were recovered worth much anyway?


Hell yes, they were used throughout the later part of the war.

Most of the effort that went into recovery was done for national pride
to deny the Japanese as much of a victory as possible.


Perhaps but do recall that the ships in the USN line at the battle
of the Surigao Strait, part of the largest naval battle of WW2
was made up of Battleships salvaged from Pearl Harbor.

Revenge was sweet that day.

Keith