Pearl Harbor Defense

Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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. 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.

I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
the way?

The "again" refers to some of the nonsense you have posted in other threads.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.


And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Gernot Hassenpflug writes:
"Peter" == Peter Stickney writes:

Peter Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
Peter Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
Peter ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../

Peter /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
Peter forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
Peter without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
Peter to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
Peter they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

Peter /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
Peter the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
Peter fighter. /../

Peter Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
Peter to its success early in the war. /../

Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
'Claude'.

The existance of the Zero wasn't a secret - the fact that the Japanese
had built a single-engine fighter that could fly from Taipei to Manila
and back was. That was certainly not apparent to anybody, and the IJN
wasn't advertising that fact.

One reason was that the Japanese were unaware that they had the capability
until sometime in 1941. Clark and Iba were over 450nm from the closest
Formosan bases, Manila was 500nm away. They'd never made attacks at such
ranges in China, and they were flying over land there, where navigation was
much easier. They'd originally planned to use three small carriers (the big
ones were going to PH), but that was inconvenient as they were slow and
unable to operate sufficient numbers of a/c (only 75 vs. the 250 or so Zeros
they had assembled on Formosa and believed to be necessary). So in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Guy

B2431 wrote:

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.


And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian
Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired as a
result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the
case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino
"freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once
McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much easier)
and the Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10 years. While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

Guy

Guinnog65 wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...

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. 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.


I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
the way? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
ever encountered!

My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

These old Air Force guys aren't much for reading. Probably hard to do
with his Rush Limbaugh's Greates Hits tapes roaring in the background.

Cheers

--mike

Sheesh!

Joe Osman 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?

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?

Cheers

--mike



It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols.

Then what were all those PBYs for?

The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole
responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them to
get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense
responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and
didn't like to fly over water.

No kidding. Maybe they should have hired a bunch of nannies to hold
their hands.

Cheers

--mike


Joe



They also had better ships in many cases.








-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...

Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
a bunch of white folks."



Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
white folks was exactly what WAS expected.

Then why did they get caught jerking off in bed instead of at their duty
stations?

The problem
was that while they believed attacks would take place at
Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

They didn't do much thinking at all until it came time to come up with
alibis.

Cheers

--mike

Keith

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

From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/22/2004 6:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

B2431 wrote:

From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events
which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.


And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian
Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired
as a
result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the
case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino
"freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once
McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much
easier)
and the Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10 years.
While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

Guy

Good point.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired