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
  #61  
Old September 20th 04, 10:28 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.


Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?


Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.

(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


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

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
  #62  
Old September 21st 04, 01:00 AM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cub Driver wrote:
Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.

Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?



Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed.


Your straw man is hopelessly lame. There's no need to allege conspiracy
here, MacArthur, Kimmel and Short were asleep at the switch. They
ignored one warning after another. They should have hanged the lot of
them.

It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.


Then why was Pearl surrounded with gun emplacements? Were they figuring
to flock shoot pheasants? Why did they have interceptors based in
Hawaii? What were they going to intercept? How big would a P40's drop
tanks have to be to attack Tokyo and return? Do you think Hawaii was a
training base? Cheaper than Texas? Why base interceptors where you
don't expect an attack? What, if anything, are the Kimmel/Short
apologists thinking of?


(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines.


Don't forget Singapore. That surrender made Churchill pull the covers
up over his head. About 30,000 Japanese on bicycles rolled up a UK
garrison of 88,000. Turns out that the Gibraltar of the east was the
Tobruk of Asia times two.

Nobody there was prepared, either.

It wasn't because of lack of supply or other support from the states.
If they'd had twice the resources the Japanese would have had twice as
many targets. The problem was a lack of leadership. If you'd have
swapped Allied generals and admirals with those of the Japanese, the
outcomes would have been reversed.

And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


The notion that resistance to the Japanese was hopeless is what made it
hopeless. If the Allied heroes had gathered their wits and acted like
leaders instead of pathetic old geezers, the second week of December 41
could have turned out far differently.

Cheers

--mike




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

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

  #63  
Old September 21st 04, 03:09 AM
Gernot Hassenpflug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John" == John Carrier writes:

John Taranto was relatively deep, on the order of 100' IIRC.
John Pearl was 40'. No standard aerial torpedo would operate
John properly in that harbor. SOOOO, the Japanese developed one
John that would.

Not only did they develop a torpedo that would work, they also trained
their torpedo bomber crews to the extent that they could drop those
tropedos in the very restrictive envelope in which it would work. No
easy task, and it made the bombers very vulnerable, as witnessed by
Nevada's score of 5 downed as they flew past. As has been pointed out
in a different thread, the TB guys had big brass ones (not suggesting
the others didn't, but it's hard to concentrate when you know you're a
sitting duck).

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan
  #64  
Old September 21st 04, 06:01 AM
Geoffrey Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Carrier wrote in message ...
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.



Be careful here, Taranto is two harbours, a near land locked
Mar Piccolo, the channel to which could handle cruisers and
below and the 12 square mile Mar Grande, an artificial harbour
formed by breakwaters that incorporated two islands out in
what was the bay, which is where the battleships were berthed,
amongst the barrage balloons and anti torpedo nets. All the
battleships were berthed near the main coastline on the night
of the RN strike, one was being sheltered by a further breakwater
the Diga di Tarancola. As far as I am aware the water depth
where the Italian Navy battleships were berthed was less that
the depth in Pearl Harbor, Taranto at 42 feet versus Pearl
Harbor at 45 feet.

By the looks of it at Taranto 5 of the 9 torpedo droppers actually
approached from over the Taranto urban area.

Battleships have the deepest draft, typically a WWII US battleship
was around 35 to 36 feet, at designed full load, before the wartime
overloading, the battleships end up in the deepest part of the harbor.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


  #65  
Old September 21st 04, 08:22 AM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:gaK3d.128016$3l3.43395@attbi_s03...
Cub Driver wrote:
Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.

Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?



Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed.


Your straw man is hopelessly lame. There's no need to allege conspiracy
here, MacArthur, Kimmel and Short were asleep at the switch. They ignored
one warning after another. They should have hanged the lot of them.

It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.


Then why was Pearl surrounded with gun emplacements? Were they figuring
to flock shoot pheasants? Why did they have interceptors based in Hawaii?
What were they going to intercept? How big would a P40's drop tanks have
to be to attack Tokyo and return? Do you think Hawaii was a training
base? Cheaper than Texas? Why base interceptors where you don't expect
an attack? What, if anything, are the Kimmel/Short apologists thinking
of?


(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines.


Don't forget Singapore. That surrender made Churchill pull the covers up
over his head. About 30,000 Japanese on bicycles rolled up a UK garrison
of 88,000. Turns out that the Gibraltar of the east was the Tobruk of
Asia times two.

Nobody there was prepared, either.

It wasn't because of lack of supply or other support from the states. If
they'd had twice the resources the Japanese would have had twice as many
targets. The problem was a lack of leadership. If you'd have swapped
Allied generals and admirals with those of the Japanese, the outcomes
would have been reversed.

And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


The notion that resistance to the Japanese was hopeless is what made it
hopeless. If the Allied heroes had gathered their wits and acted like
leaders instead of pathetic old geezers, the second week of December 41
could have turned out far differently.


Great post. I still suspect there was more than a hint of racism in the
assumptions that were made about the warmaking abilities of the Japanese.


  #66  
Old September 21st 04, 04:37 PM
denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cub

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.

(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


Yeah Right,a conspiracy but a very typical Anglo conspiracy.
They got first definite warning about that in case of hostilities with
Japan Pearl Harbor would be the first target on Jan.27,41.
Afterwards they received hundreds more including intercepted JN-25B
messages.

BTW do the names like Roosevelt,Stimson,Marshall,Hull etc sound like
German-American,Irish-American ,Italian or Hispanic-American names?


"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion on foreign policy issues except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external
threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997.


The creation of such truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threats is the job of the Members of the Anglo minority who
govern US .

It was true in 1941 it was also true in 2001.
  #67  
Old September 21st 04, 06:14 PM
Peter Twydell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , denyav
writes
Cub

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.

(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


Yeah Right,a conspiracy but a very typical Anglo conspiracy.
They got first definite warning about that in case of hostilities with
Japan Pearl Harbor would be the first target on Jan.27,41.
Afterwards they received hundreds more including intercepted JN-25B
messages.

BTW do the names like Roosevelt,Stimson,Marshall,Hull etc sound like
German-American,Irish-American ,Italian or Hispanic-American names?


Your ignorance transcends your idiocy and racism. "Roosevelt" is a Dutch
name, like Stuyvesant, Van Buren, Brooklyn (Breukelen), Yonkers
(Jonkheren), etc., etc. How does that fit in with your batty theories of
"Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.

What is it with you, anyway? Some good-looking Englishman steal your
girl friend?

"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion on foreign policy issues except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external
threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997.


The creation of such truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threats is the job of the Members of the Anglo minority who
govern US .

It was true in 1941 it was also true in 2001.


Do you mean it was as true in 2001 as it was in 1941, i.e. not at all,
except in your fevered little brain cell? I wish I had an imagination as
active as yours.

Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
  #68  
Old September 21st 04, 06:59 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do you mean it was as true in 2001 as it was in 1941, i.e. not at all,
except in your fevered little brain cell? I wish I had an imagination as
active as yours.


You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.

Anglos were both in 1941 and 2001 a minority in US population.(if you are
interested German-Americans make up biggest single ethnic group in US,ffollowed
by Irish-Americans)but fully dominated decision making platforms both in 1941
and 2001.

So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the impression that
the US under massive external threat.

Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
--


Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to Anglos in
Anglo homeland and in Australia.

Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.


Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
Statesman Lord Rhodes.

You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
Boston Brahmins.
  #70  
Old September 21st 04, 09:05 PM
Joe Osman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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. 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.

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! =-----
 




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 04:54 PM.


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