Some facts 11 AAF fighters got off the ground over half were P-40's the others P-36's they claimed 11 kill's 7 by Welsh and Taylor who got the press so everyone thinks they we the only ones to get airborne.
As for one hour lead time. No battleships would get underway until at least the time the Nevada got underway. It just takes too long to bring a cold boiler from cold iron to being ready to answer bells. Nevad got under way on two boilers because the midnight engineering shift started to warm up a boiler around 0500 so they could swap boilers with the one in service. So she had 2 boilers and could prabably do 12-15 knots when she got underway. I base part of this on being an ex navy engineering officer and an engineer for a utility company. While my navy experience was nuclear, my civilian experience has been fossil and nuclear. Most of the cruisers didn't get undway until well after the initial attack of the first wave for the same reason.
But the crews would have been ready and the AA fire would have been better. California may not have sunk due to all her inspections port that were open.
As for aircraft I beleive in 1 hours time quite a few fighters could have been up, maybe not most of them but still probably 50 or so of the more than 150 fighters avaialble. I dont think there were enough Zeros there to keep 50 or so fighters from managing to knock down some of the bombers, Because they aren't going to go dogfighting the fighters, they are aiming for the bombers. Taylor and Welsh got 7 kills between them mainly bombers. At Midway very few bombers got back from attacking Yorktown on each raid andthis was without any CAP support from Enterprise and Hornet.
Also in the PI after Pearl Harbor the AAF scrambled all avaialbe aircraft. It ended up be a foolish move in hindsight since the planes landed to refuel just before tha attack got there.
Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory?
-
Captain Morgan
- Member
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:27 am
- Location: The Great Lakes, USA
Re: Pearl harbor and Germany's declaration of war
The US has been either isolationist or apathetic, practically since its own civil war. It took a lot of convincing to get America "in" for the last few months of WW1; very few wanted involvement in any war, unless it was brought directly to its mainland shores. It was this way after the Great War too, perhaps even more than previously.George Gerolimatos wrote: The question is, had Germany not declared war on the US, would FDR have been able to overcome the anti-war faction in the US, even in light of Pearl Harbor? George G.
There is little doubt that the American Public would never have backed Roosevelt, had it not been for Japan's attack. It's not so much a conspiracy to initiate a war, but rather a conspiracy against preventing one, when it comes to Roosevelt and his administration's actions. He knew fully and clearly that America would fail to see its own need for direct involvement. Roosevelt didn't strike the match, but at the same time, did nothing to remove the kindling.
The Japanese situation was a political gift horse for Roosevelt, and he not only wanted Japan to make war on America, but to do so before Britain could be defeated. It was fortunate in the long term for the US, that he allowed events to run their inevitable course; in that sense, FDR was one of the greatest US presidents ever to hold office (my opinion, I'm sure others disagree).
-
Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
P40 vs Zeke
"The P40 was no match for a Zero".."the P40 was a match for a Zeke"
This depends on the extent that the AAF pilots knew how to handle their P40's vs a Zeke in the heat of combat. The AVG had good success, because Chenalt had schooled his pilots to avoid dog fighting the Zeke. The tactic was to fight the Zekes on a vertical plane by diving and zooming-hit and run tactics. Chenalt had spent some time observing how the RAF used their P40's in North Africa. The RAF and GAF had been fighting on a vertical plane, instead of a twisting, turning, dogfighting on a horizontal plane, for some time. I'm not sure to what extent AAF pilots in Hawaii would have been able to impliment such tactics in the first few hours of the war.
This depends on the extent that the AAF pilots knew how to handle their P40's vs a Zeke in the heat of combat. The AVG had good success, because Chenalt had schooled his pilots to avoid dog fighting the Zeke. The tactic was to fight the Zekes on a vertical plane by diving and zooming-hit and run tactics. Chenalt had spent some time observing how the RAF used their P40's in North Africa. The RAF and GAF had been fighting on a vertical plane, instead of a twisting, turning, dogfighting on a horizontal plane, for some time. I'm not sure to what extent AAF pilots in Hawaii would have been able to impliment such tactics in the first few hours of the war.
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Here there is a good account of both fighters and a comparative between them. Enjoy it!!!
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
It is a very strange question:
"Did the US commanders let the Japanese attack ?"
1- To begin, my personnal opinion, is that: NO!
US staff took an enormous risk to let japanese destroying the pacific fleet.
Then, there is also people around the world who see consipracy everywhere, the last one, was for the horrible 11 september( the theory that the CIA, with the US army, did this infamy, is very fashionned in europe).
2-But... we all know what politician a able to do to reach what they want, to change the public opinion (Roosevelt), to raise the nation's moral (Churchill).
Roosevelt wanted to do the maximum to help the United Kingdom. Gradually, he tried to change the US people opinion, like in the first months of 1941, when a U-boot was detected by a US destroyer. The destroyed send a radio message to the Air cover and this last attacked the U boot. In USA, Roosevelt told a the radio that the U boot attacked the destroyer.
Did he tried to acelerate the process?
We can also see that the capital ship (aircraft carrier) where not in Pearl on 7th december, and in the case of a consiparcy, only old battleships were let there.
Very very strange question...
But, conspiracy or not, a the end, the US entered the war , and it was a good thing when we are looking what they did...
"Did the US commanders let the Japanese attack ?"
1- To begin, my personnal opinion, is that: NO!
US staff took an enormous risk to let japanese destroying the pacific fleet.
Then, there is also people around the world who see consipracy everywhere, the last one, was for the horrible 11 september( the theory that the CIA, with the US army, did this infamy, is very fashionned in europe).
2-But... we all know what politician a able to do to reach what they want, to change the public opinion (Roosevelt), to raise the nation's moral (Churchill).
Roosevelt wanted to do the maximum to help the United Kingdom. Gradually, he tried to change the US people opinion, like in the first months of 1941, when a U-boot was detected by a US destroyer. The destroyed send a radio message to the Air cover and this last attacked the U boot. In USA, Roosevelt told a the radio that the U boot attacked the destroyer.
Did he tried to acelerate the process?
We can also see that the capital ship (aircraft carrier) where not in Pearl on 7th december, and in the case of a consiparcy, only old battleships were let there.
Very very strange question...
But, conspiracy or not, a the end, the US entered the war , and it was a good thing when we are looking what they did...
Backing away from the micro-details a bit, I am reasonably certain that there was a conspiracy, of sorts---not to foment a war, but to guarantee suppression of preventative efforts and actions.
FDR's whole issue, was getting America to buy into the fact that they needed to play a part in helping save Britain and fight Nazi Germany. The apathetic, isolationist US public wanted no part of a European war---exactly their attitudes prior to America's entry into The Great War that preceded it. Roosevelt, however could see much further away and ahead in the future, than most American citizens.
To reaffirm Karl's point, FDR wasn't about to let Hitler defeat a powerful, friendly Judeo-Christian nation, especially Britain. All the general populus here could see, were their own problems, and were obstinate and quite happy to remain out of the rest of the world's troubles. FDR saw that America could position itself very well by aligning with Britain, but until he had the authority from Congress to do so, he could not fully commit America's vast resources to help Britain fight.
As it was, he practically had to break the law and cheat Congress, just to get 50 destroyers to Britain, not to mention sending material goods overseas to help with their survival. He was in the best position to help, but, like a guard dog tethered to its post, American might was restrained by Congressional resistance and Constitutional limitations.
Against all this, it is very easy to understand FDR's actions concerning Japan. While his aims were not anti Japanese, he fully understood the gift horse trotting toward him from the west---an opportunity to gain the backing of the US public and the subsequent removal of his Congressional "collar".
In allowing Japan to follow its own course of actions, FDR made certain that he covered himself and his administration against any complicity in directly fomenting war, while at the same time making it as easy as possible for Japan to implement an attack against the US. Japan made an attack on 7 December 1941, but it was not a "surprise" by any means, to the FDR administration. It was very clear to him that Japan would eventually attack---somewhere, either the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii, or other US interests in the Pacific---thus providing the opportunity he needed to convince the American public and Congress to "let loose".
There were eight key points laid out by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, which were in effect, a "how-to" guide to a Japanese-American war. FDR and key members of his administration knew these points very well. Japan had extremely good intelligence, and knew exactly what they were doing at Pearl Harbor. It was planned in incredible detail, and they had excellent espionage and surveillance personnel throughout Oahu, all of them well-known to US intelligence sources.
In short, the conspiracy was in suppressing the information needed by our military forces in the Pacific, that could have mitigated or prevented action by Japan; and, equally, to make it appear as if this suppression never took place.
FDR's whole issue, was getting America to buy into the fact that they needed to play a part in helping save Britain and fight Nazi Germany. The apathetic, isolationist US public wanted no part of a European war---exactly their attitudes prior to America's entry into The Great War that preceded it. Roosevelt, however could see much further away and ahead in the future, than most American citizens.
To reaffirm Karl's point, FDR wasn't about to let Hitler defeat a powerful, friendly Judeo-Christian nation, especially Britain. All the general populus here could see, were their own problems, and were obstinate and quite happy to remain out of the rest of the world's troubles. FDR saw that America could position itself very well by aligning with Britain, but until he had the authority from Congress to do so, he could not fully commit America's vast resources to help Britain fight.
As it was, he practically had to break the law and cheat Congress, just to get 50 destroyers to Britain, not to mention sending material goods overseas to help with their survival. He was in the best position to help, but, like a guard dog tethered to its post, American might was restrained by Congressional resistance and Constitutional limitations.
Against all this, it is very easy to understand FDR's actions concerning Japan. While his aims were not anti Japanese, he fully understood the gift horse trotting toward him from the west---an opportunity to gain the backing of the US public and the subsequent removal of his Congressional "collar".
In allowing Japan to follow its own course of actions, FDR made certain that he covered himself and his administration against any complicity in directly fomenting war, while at the same time making it as easy as possible for Japan to implement an attack against the US. Japan made an attack on 7 December 1941, but it was not a "surprise" by any means, to the FDR administration. It was very clear to him that Japan would eventually attack---somewhere, either the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii, or other US interests in the Pacific---thus providing the opportunity he needed to convince the American public and Congress to "let loose".
There were eight key points laid out by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, which were in effect, a "how-to" guide to a Japanese-American war. FDR and key members of his administration knew these points very well. Japan had extremely good intelligence, and knew exactly what they were doing at Pearl Harbor. It was planned in incredible detail, and they had excellent espionage and surveillance personnel throughout Oahu, all of them well-known to US intelligence sources.
In short, the conspiracy was in suppressing the information needed by our military forces in the Pacific, that could have mitigated or prevented action by Japan; and, equally, to make it appear as if this suppression never took place.
FDR made war inevitable, but I doubt he expected the Japanese to attack PH.
With respect to the carriers being absent, he was not involved in deciding when they would leave on local ops. He may not have even understood they had supplanted the BB as the capital ship. Remember, this is the guy who wanted the white elephants of the Alaska class built over navy objections.
With respect to the carriers being absent, he was not involved in deciding when they would leave on local ops. He may not have even understood they had supplanted the BB as the capital ship. Remember, this is the guy who wanted the white elephants of the Alaska class built over navy objections.
Sorry, but I'm just not buying the conspiracy theory idea. Yes, there's a lot of evidence that suggests a possible suppression of intelligence. However, interpreted another way, the evidence could also suggest a scenario quite similar to modern times.
"Okay, we know the Japanese empire is continuing to spread, and our policies restricting the flow of oil to them isn't helping matters. We know they have a sizable army and navy, and we believe it's only a matter of time before they attack our interests."
"That's all good. But do we know exactly where they will strike? Or how? With what numbers?"
"Well....not exactly, sir."
"Better get right on that, then."
"Yes, sir."
Forgive my imaginary dialogue above, but it only illustrates my point. FDR may have suspected that the Japanese would attack, but he did not know where or when until it was too late.
As far as suppressing information that our military could have used to mitigate or prevent action by Japan, I'm not sure what info FDR could have given the military that would allow them to do such a thing. You're talking about an imperialistic nation with a far reach across the entire Pacific Ocean. What could our military do about that?
A pre-emptive strike was out of the question, as the American public would never stand for that back then. Build up our military "muscle" in the Pacific with more ships, planes, and men? Sounds plausible, but it would only force Japan to build up even more on their side. Besides, building up our forces would have taken months, if not years. What about spreading out our forces to "mitigate" any damage we might incur? Well, that would allow our military to keep most of its strength, but I suspect Yamamoto would eventually get word of this and simply invade one of our interests outright.
No, the only way the US could have prevented or mitigated anything Japan was about to do was if they had broken Japan's military codes. That, and maybe put all US forces on high alert (which, IMHO, would have only mitigated damage and losses by a small fraction).
One other point about the conspiracy theory: it seems to draw the conclusion that FDR knew he could get what he truly wanted (the US involvement with the European war) if he simply allowed Japan to attack the US. While Germany and Japan may have been allied together before Pearl Harbor, going to war with Germany was by no means a foregone conclusion!
Remember, FDR asked Congress to declare war on "the Japanese Empire". It was Hitler who declared war on the US and gave FDR what he wanted. It's entirely possible that Hitler could have chosen to denounce PH while secretly applauding the Japanese for keeping the US busy in the Pacific. (Yes, I know, I'm accusing Hitler of having a diplomatic side, but it's not a stretch when you consider all that he gained prior to 1939). 
"Okay, we know the Japanese empire is continuing to spread, and our policies restricting the flow of oil to them isn't helping matters. We know they have a sizable army and navy, and we believe it's only a matter of time before they attack our interests."
"That's all good. But do we know exactly where they will strike? Or how? With what numbers?"
"Well....not exactly, sir."
"Better get right on that, then."
"Yes, sir."
Forgive my imaginary dialogue above, but it only illustrates my point. FDR may have suspected that the Japanese would attack, but he did not know where or when until it was too late.
As far as suppressing information that our military could have used to mitigate or prevent action by Japan, I'm not sure what info FDR could have given the military that would allow them to do such a thing. You're talking about an imperialistic nation with a far reach across the entire Pacific Ocean. What could our military do about that?
A pre-emptive strike was out of the question, as the American public would never stand for that back then. Build up our military "muscle" in the Pacific with more ships, planes, and men? Sounds plausible, but it would only force Japan to build up even more on their side. Besides, building up our forces would have taken months, if not years. What about spreading out our forces to "mitigate" any damage we might incur? Well, that would allow our military to keep most of its strength, but I suspect Yamamoto would eventually get word of this and simply invade one of our interests outright.No, the only way the US could have prevented or mitigated anything Japan was about to do was if they had broken Japan's military codes. That, and maybe put all US forces on high alert (which, IMHO, would have only mitigated damage and losses by a small fraction).
One other point about the conspiracy theory: it seems to draw the conclusion that FDR knew he could get what he truly wanted (the US involvement with the European war) if he simply allowed Japan to attack the US. While Germany and Japan may have been allied together before Pearl Harbor, going to war with Germany was by no means a foregone conclusion!
Remember, FDR asked Congress to declare war on "the Japanese Empire". It was Hitler who declared war on the US and gave FDR what he wanted. It's entirely possible that Hitler could have chosen to denounce PH while secretly applauding the Japanese for keeping the US busy in the Pacific. (Yes, I know, I'm accusing Hitler of having a diplomatic side, but it's not a stretch when you consider all that he gained prior to 1939). -
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
I don´t buy the conspiracy theory neither, even when there are facts, as those stated before, that make it plausible. What I believe is this:
Pearl Harbor wasn´t the only time in which the U.S. was caught with its pants down: in Korea the U.S. inteligence failed to predict the North Korean invasion and, after McArthur victory over those forces, the US weren´t able to predict the Chinese intervention (old Mac included). In Vietnam the US inteligence wasn´t able to predict the Tet offensive, and even with a US ground tactical victory the war was lost after that; in the 1991 war in Iraq the CIA with all those satelites and trillions of dollars of hardware and analysts salaries were unable to forecast Saddam´s move into Kuwait; and the 2003 fiasco of not finding the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... So, considering the bureacracy of the US intelligence and the narrow mind of many officers (remember the USS Ward) it doesn´t surprise me that the Japanese were able to attack Pearl and run away unscratched.
Anyway, in the US Goverment High Levels there was a policy of let the conflict grow in order to get the US into the war. That to help Great Britain win over the nazis. But that doesn´t imply that FDR and his goverment knew about the Japanese plan or inmediate intentions. As far as I know they were expecting sabotage and insurgency in Manila, nor an airstrike in Hawai.
Let the conspiracies to to leftist wild dreamers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.
Best regards.
Pearl Harbor wasn´t the only time in which the U.S. was caught with its pants down: in Korea the U.S. inteligence failed to predict the North Korean invasion and, after McArthur victory over those forces, the US weren´t able to predict the Chinese intervention (old Mac included). In Vietnam the US inteligence wasn´t able to predict the Tet offensive, and even with a US ground tactical victory the war was lost after that; in the 1991 war in Iraq the CIA with all those satelites and trillions of dollars of hardware and analysts salaries were unable to forecast Saddam´s move into Kuwait; and the 2003 fiasco of not finding the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... So, considering the bureacracy of the US intelligence and the narrow mind of many officers (remember the USS Ward) it doesn´t surprise me that the Japanese were able to attack Pearl and run away unscratched.
Anyway, in the US Goverment High Levels there was a policy of let the conflict grow in order to get the US into the war. That to help Great Britain win over the nazis. But that doesn´t imply that FDR and his goverment knew about the Japanese plan or inmediate intentions. As far as I know they were expecting sabotage and insurgency in Manila, nor an airstrike in Hawai.
Let the conspiracies to to leftist wild dreamers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.
Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Marcello, what deployment would you recommend? The US Navy didn’t have a huge number of cruisers. I believe were were only a few with the battle fleet at PH.marcelo_malara wrote:An air raid on Hawai was as unexpectable as one on San Francisco. A fleet sailing unnoticed from Japan to Hawai was deemed imposible.
But the prove that they me be expecting something was that just light forces were attached to Manila, the cruisers Houston and Marblehead.
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
I think I understood your meaning. I guess my point is that under that prevailing situation, reinforcing the area might just mean losing more ships to an initial attack. I think you want your navy intact, and then respond offensively when the fighting starts. Show the flag, and have enough presence to act as a trip wire, but don't commit major fleet units until the fighting actually starts.marcelo_malara wrote:I ment that in spite of the deteriorating situation they didn´t reinforce the Asiatic Squadron, as the British did sending PoW and Repulse. That give me a clue that they may have an idea that an attack on the Far East was posible, just they didn´t expect one so close to home.
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Correct. The USN did not consider Manila to be ready to support a fleet. The British even offered to send their ships to the Philippines, but the Americans didn't even consider Singapore a suitable base. Looks like they were right.
If you can find some good info on this in writings by Ian Cowman. He misinterprets some of the specifics on in-fighting within the British command, but the more general information about base assessment is very interesting.
If you can find some good info on this in writings by Ian Cowman. He misinterprets some of the specifics on in-fighting within the British command, but the more general information about base assessment is very interesting.