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
  #41  
Old September 18th 04, 07:07 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 04, 07:09 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 04, 07:16 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 04, 10:23 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 18th 04, 10:29 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old September 18th 04, 02:27 PM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 18th 04, 05:15 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 04, 05:17 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 04, 11:51 PM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 18th 04, 11:55 PM
John Carrier
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.


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

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 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.