Pearl Harbor Defense

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"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.

And the training and doctrine to use them, at least for the short term.
(Their system for replacing existing pilots was inadequate, at best.)

"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

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.

Keith

In article RCM2d.108318$3l3.12958@attbi_s03,
Mike Dargan wrote:

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.

The problem was with the magnetic fuses.

The contact fuses were no better.

Denyav wrote:
Who ordered Kimmel to abort exercise and bring ships back to anchorage

area

immediately?

Neocons?



Stark

NAKED?!




Who ordered to abort Halseys planned search and destroy Operation and moved
precious carriers away from PH?

George Bush?


Stark

Raving mad?



Who witheld information from Kimmel and Short even though they always know

the

whereabouts and the intent of Japanase fleet?

The mufdvr?



Marshall&Stark

&Theobald?



I prefer my japanase on the side, please. And hold the mayonese.


You can consider yourself lucky as long as they compete with US using
Toyotas,Lexuses Hondas ,Pioneers etc.

Oh bubba, please stop! You're splitting me apart!

Cheers

--mike

In article MtM2d.108280$3l3.81348@attbi_s03,
Mike Dargan writes:
Tom Cervo wrote:

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.

And another thing, if they expected an attack in the Phillipines, why
was the "American Caesar" caught thumbing his asshole while the Japs
shot up his planes on the ground?

Becasue of the weather over Formosa, the nearest Japanese air base,
was lousy on the morning of December 8 (That International Date Line
Thingy), the Japanese raids were delayed about 4 hours. Manila had
heard of the events at Pearl Harbor, and went onto an alert footing,
with fighters in the air. The weather delay paid off, since the
fighters were on the ground refuelling after their initial patrols
when the Japanese struck. That's not to say that there weren't
screw-ups. There certainly were. MacArther's Aviation Commander
wanted to use his B-17s to strike Formosa imeediately when they
learned about Pearl Harbor. MacArthur shot that one down. The
presence of Japanese fighters was unexpected, as well - No Carriers
had been reported in the Philippine Archepelago, (which covers a lot
of area), and the thought that a fighter could make the flight from
Formosa was considered laughable. The Zero, however, could do that,
and more. The lack of a warning and control network hamstrung the
Americans, the Dutch in the East Indies, and the British in Singapore
and Malaysia at the same time, as well. This meant that fighters
protecting these locations didn't take off until teh raids were
already in sight - just in time to have the fighter escorts drop on
them like a bucket of rocks. That was a big difference wrt the P-40's
performance in China, with the AVG, and their performance elsewhere at
teh same time. Chennault had, as part of his setup, built up a
network of agents and spotters to provide long-term warning of
incoming Japanese raids. So, instead of the Japanese meeting fighters
struggling to get their speed up and trying to climb to the bomber's
altitude, the AVG was, for the most part, waiting for them, with an
altitude and speed advantage. These days it would be called Energy
Maneuverability. In WW 2 it was Hit and Run. In WW 1, it was The Hun
in the Sun. In all cases, teh idea was to merge with the Bad Guys
with a significant speed advantage, bust through in a single pass,
without staying to turn, and, after blowing through, climb back to
height and do it again.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article RCM2d.108318$3l3.12958@attbi_s03,
Mike Dargan writes:
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.

The problem was with the magnetic fuses. Again, the dimwits in charge
refused to do proper testing. The tests were expensive and the Navy
knew that their white engineers had innate superiority to gooks. This
oversight, along with some strange attack doctrine, extended the war and
cost us some sailors.

And, thanks to the Germans stealing the design from the Brooklyn Navy
Yard and copying it for the G7 series of torpedos, it helped to win
the Battle of the Atlantic.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:MtM2d.108280$3l3.81348@attbi_s03...
Tom Cervo wrote:

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.

And another thing, if they expected an attack in the Phillipines, why
was the "American Caesar" caught thumbing his asshole while the Japs
shot up his planes on the ground?

Because they had just landed to refuel.


Cheers

--mike

"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.


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

Keith

In article ,
"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

Even they got some Japanese aircraft, though.

"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.

At Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. The most they got over the target at one
time was about 45. 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. 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.


Keith