A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pearl Harbor Defense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 17th 04, 04:53 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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.

Keith


Ads
  #12  
Old September 17th 04, 09:41 AM
Ragnar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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.


They also had better ships in many cases.



  #13  
Old September 17th 04, 10:30 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
wrote:

The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.


It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm

Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
defects.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
  #14  
Old September 17th 04, 01:39 PM
Tom Cervo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #15  
Old September 17th 04, 01:45 PM
Tom Cervo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm

Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
defects.


The aircraft torpedos used by the TBD's were about as bad. There can be no
more harrowing thought than that of the TBD and TBF squadrons at Midway being
slaughtered making their runs to deliver torpedoes that tended to explode on
contact with the water.
  #16  
Old September 17th 04, 08:51 PM
Marc Reeve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

vincent p. norris wrote:
..... the IJNs Japanese Navy Long Lance Torpedo could manage 46
knots for about 22 knautical miles and 35 Knots for about 36 nautical
miles.



Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
22 nm away?

Sure, if it's at anchor. A common tactic on all sides was lying off an
anchorage and plinking the sitting ducks. The Japanese could do it from a lot
farther away, though.

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email
  #17  
Old September 17th 04, 09:02 PM
Marc Reeve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cub Driver wrote:

On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
wrote:


The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.



It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm

Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
defects.

Until Dan Daspit gave them incontrovertable evidence...

While commanding USS Tinosa, Daspit came upon the Japanese oil tanker
(converted from a whaling factory ship) Tonan Maru #2. He fired two torpedos,
one of which exploded at the stern, leaving Tonan Maru dead in the water. No
escorts being evident, Daspit surfaced to finish her off. Torpedo after torpedo
was fired, with result varying from clean misses, to circular runs, to clean
hits that did not explode. In all, Tinosa fired 12 torpedoes at a stationary
target, of which none functioned as designed.

Fortunately, Daspit had a movie camera on board and filmed the whole operation.
The film caused some consternation back at Pearl.
--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email
  #18  
Old September 17th 04, 09:16 PM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Hix wrote:

In article i%[email protected]_s53,
Mike Dargan wrote:

John Mullen wrote:
"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....


The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.


The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
Repulse, not to mention Singapore.


From a UK TV programme I saw some years ago now, it was apparently no surprise at
all to some of their crew.

They should have been accompanied by a carrier.


Graham

  #19  
Old September 17th 04, 09:39 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

Thats pretty dammed inept when you have been issued
a war warning.

Keith


  #20  
Old September 17th 04, 10:09 PM
Marc Reeve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pooh Bear wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:


In article i%[email protected]_s53,
Mike Dargan wrote:


John Mullen wrote:

"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....

The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.


The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
Repulse, not to mention Singapore.



From a UK TV programme I saw some years ago now, it was apparently no surprise at
all to some of their crew.

They should have been accompanied by a carrier.

Wasn't HMS Illustrious slated to accompany them, until she grounded?

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA Fitzair4 Home Built 0 December 7th 04 08:40 PM
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.