If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"William Wright" wrote in message news:2LP2d.62556$MQ5.42514@attbi_s52... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Tom Cervo" wrote in message ... The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept. Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an attack in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as the base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?) about no, they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them. Nope Not a single Army AA unit was able to engage the first wave of attackers and only 10% were able to engage the second wave. Not only were the mobile guns not deployed the fixed guns had no ready use ammunition as the quartermaster thought it got too dirty in the field. I believe they had just returned to depot after the war warning the week earlier. They never left the depot. Keith |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Hix" wrote in message ... Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's Even they got some Japanese aircraft, though. But not enough to make a difference. In the absence of a functional radar and fighter control system they couldnt meet any attack with adequate forces. The fact that such a system was not in existence despite the presence of 7 radar sets is ample evidence of the ineptitude of those in command. Keith |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"William Wright" wrote in message news:VVP2d.210921$Fg5.133498@attbi_s53... At Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. I do, as did the congressional board of inquiry The most they got over the target at one time was about 45. According to the joint congressiional committee findings the Japanese had 81 fighter aircraft in the attack wave Just about any time P-40s or F4Fs took on Type 0 Kansen on equal terms they did reasonably well with losses being pretty close to one-to-one. When the Americans really got wacked they were usually out numbered 2 or 3 to one. The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in commission that morning. The had exactly 108 fighters of all type on strength but a full 59 of those were not available for flight leaving only 49 airworthy fighters. Even the Far East Air Force only suffered about one-to-one loss ratio in air combat on December 8th. The problem was they were only able to get about 12 of their 72 P-40s into combat against about 100 Type 0s. You just said the IJN only had 45 Keith |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft. Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was the better plane, or else that the American pilots were extraordinarily fast learners. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in commission that morning Every air force that is surprised is overwhelmed. Pearl (nor Manila either) isn't an example of how the U.S. army and navy aircraft fared against the Japanese versions, but of how badly you fight when the ammunition is locked up and you have been partying all night and, more important, your tactics are premised on peacetime conditions. As posted, the Wildcat pilots fought the Zero pilots to a draw over the first six months. In Burma, the AVG in P-40Bs did better than that. Neither plane (Wildcat nor Tomahawk) was anything to be ashamed of, and the Zero and the Hayabusa were far from being invincible. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01... Ragnar wrote: "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53... The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept. While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft. Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu? Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's More like 108 P40s alone. If some of them weren't gassed up and ready to go, whose fault was that? Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers? Because he was a peacetime admiral. As were Nagumo and Yammamoto before December 7. Kimmel, Short, and MacArthur should have all faced the same squad. Cheers. --mike Keith |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft. Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was the better plane, or else that the American pilots were extraordinarily fast learners. Problem is there were no Wildcats at Pearl Harbor and no carrier pilots The defense of the naval base was the responsibility of the army. On the day of the Japanese attack the IJN had more modern fighters available for combat than the USAAF Keith |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in commission that morning Every air force that is surprised is overwhelmed. Pearl (nor Manila either) isn't an example of how the U.S. army and navy aircraft fared against the Japanese versions, but of how badly you fight when the ammunition is locked up and you have been partying all night and, more important, your tactics are premised on peacetime conditions. As posted, the Wildcat pilots fought the Zero pilots to a draw over the first six months. In Burma, the AVG in P-40Bs did better than that. Neither plane (Wildcat nor Tomahawk) was anything to be ashamed of, and the Zero and the Hayabusa were far from being invincible. Nobody is suggesting they were, its a sinple fact that the IJN had more A6-M Zero's available for combat on the morning of Dec 7 1941 than the USAAF had P-36 and P-40 aircraft. Even had they not been caught on the ground the odds were against them. Keith |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Taranto was relatively deep, on the order of 100' IIRC. Pearl was 40'. No
standard aerial torpedo would operate properly in that harbor. SOOOO, the Japanese developed one that would. R / John "John Mullen" wrote in message ... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in Pearl Harbor's shallow waters. So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously reached Japan ok.... John |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept. While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft. Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu? I doubt USAAC training addressed the vastly superior Zero turning performance. Flying Tigers were successful because of tactics developed (quickly) given the P40's few advantages versus the Zero. Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers? Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target. Given that he had insufficient resources to mount a real patrol effort, he elected to do (virtually) nothing instead. R / John\ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 0 | December 7th 04 07:40 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |