# Was the impending Pearl Harbor attack known in advance?



## syscom3 (May 16, 2007)

I like debunking these stupid conspiricies.

Your thoughts?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2007)

It was evident that something was going to happen during the first week of December, 1941. From Malaysia to Pearl Harbor, there were preparations for some kind of action by US, Dutch and Commonwealth forces and there have been encounters and skirmishes with the Japanese for months. There were spottings of the Japanese invasion force that would eventually wind up in the Philippines.

Did Roosevelt know something was going to happen? - YES. Did he know about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance? NO. No way would Roosevelt risk his Pacific Fleet just to get into the war. Although he might of known that the carriers were away from Peal, he had no way to know or control what would have happened to them had they been spotted by the Japanese. 

Another stupid conspiracy...


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2007)

The War Dept was *POSITIVE* that the Japanese would attack the Philipines.

It simply was not in anyones scenario's that a "2nd rate" country could put a six carrier task force and strike 1/2 way across the Pacific on strongly defended military installations.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

Myths like this have consistantly been brought up since man first walked up to 9/11. The US were aware that Japan would do something but it is fantasy to think anyone would ALLOW it. Same thing happened for Poland and Russia during WW2. The blame game for percieved inaction goes on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2007)

In my wife's grandfather's book "Surviving the Day" he talks about the intelligence traffic the days preceding Pearl Harbor. We (The US) had broken some diplomatic codes but we had no idea the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. He mentions the Philippines as a suspected target.

BTW for those who might doubt this, my wife's grandfather LtCol Frank Grady was on Macarthur’s staff. We was a cryptographer and intelligence officer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

I agree with FBJ on this. We knew something was going to happen, war was inevitable, but when and what we did not know.


----------



## trackend (May 17, 2007)

Here here guys I've never heard so much tripe, war was coming but the details where not a known factor.


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2007)

You're wrong. Roosevelt knew everything. Nostradamus told him! 8)


----------



## Haztoys (May 17, 2007)

I think the one who did know or maybe knew...Were the Russia's and Stalin...People some times do not understand..The Soviets were realy keeping a eye on Japan ..Do to the Jap-Russia War of some years befor..And Stalin was going to run over the world anyhow..So having the American Fleet sunk ..would of been just fine...I bet Stalin was pissed..That Japan and Germany..Started to try to take over the world ..Now he had to work with the Allieds..He wanted to "BE" the Axis..

Some say Chirchill may of knew too..

FDR should of known..But thats us Americans...Someone has to hit us hard before we see whats going on..

We would of been in it anyhow..Pearl or not..


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I like debunking these stupid conspiricies.
> 
> Your thoughts?



People that believe the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories also believe that space aliens built the pyramids and Septmber 11th was an inside job. 

Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race. Politicians make a living doing just that every day.


----------



## Cyrano (May 17, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> People that believe the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories also believe that space aliens built the pyramids and Septmber 11th was an inside job.
> 
> Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race. Politicians make a living doing just that every day.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 23, 2007)

3 thoughts on this:

1. there something to do with the international dateline and that it was supposed to be simultaneous with a declaration of war - making it 'honourable / legal'

2. (connected to the above ) I believe FDR was a very clever man and was playing the long-game - he knew that staying out of the war too long would spell disaster / mean a 20 year war 

3. history is often re-written to suit the eventual reality

So I think there was an aspect of a blind eye turned / 'day of infamy' fanning of flames to achieve the ultimate goal - joining the just cause.

I'm not saying that he quietly sat there thinking 'in 25 minutes time they're going to killl XXXX yanks and sink our battleships' but that realpolitik is a nasty grubby business and all great leaders have to, perhaps, muddy the waters a bit for the collective overall good.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 24, 2007)

Again, I tihnk they knew some sort of attack was coming, but didn't know where and when. After all, didn't they think Pearl was protected from air attack by the water being too shallow for torpedo attacks? The base certainly wasn't ready for an air raid, the radar setup was basic and ships were grouped close together. I can't see the government having put some of its best ships, and fuel reserves, in harms way. I have however read something similar, that Churchill knew an attack of some sort was coming, but didn't tell the Yanks as it would be a sure fire way to draw them into war.


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2007)

One question that needs answering (if you believe in conspiricies) is how Churchill or FDR could have known and none of their staff or ministers (cabinet members) did.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

What would have happen if they had acted and sailed out to meet the IJN BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor? Would it have resulted in more severe and complete losses of ships and men? Instead for the ships that were salvaged and put back into service, they would have sunk, how would the USN have recovered?


----------



## machine shop tom (Jun 3, 2007)

The only people who knew the details, timetable, and target of the attack were the Japanese who were involved in the planning and carrying out of the event. That the Americans knew OF a possible imminent attack didn't mean that they purposely let it happen. And Britain certainly didn't have anything to gain by having it's principle ally involved in a war halfway around the world, and I don't think Churchill was interested in losing half of the British Empire just to get the Americans involved.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> What would have happen if they had acted and sailed out to meet the IJN BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor? Would it have resulted in more severe and complete losses of ships and men? Instead for the ships that were salvaged and put back into service, they would have sunk, how would the USN have recovered?



Interesting question.

I think it might have done us better in the long run to have the battleships sunk in shallow waters, than deep in the Pacific and unrecoverable.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I think it might have done us better in the long run to have the battleships sunk in shallow waters, than deep in the Pacific and unrecoverable.



True but then counteract that with the fact the Americans could of sunk 1 or 2 of the Japanese carriers and perhaps a number of support ships. With these losses Midway might not of happened (or at least happened later) and it that had panned out as it did then the Japanese could of been 5 or 6 carriers down (instead of 4) as well as perhaps losing some Battleships (Yamato?) and maybe killing Yamamoto in the process?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> True but then counteract that with the fact the Americans could of sunk 1 or 2 of the Japanese carriers and perhaps a number of support ships. With these losses Midway might not of happened (or at least happened later) and it that had panned out as it did then the Japanese could of been 5 or 6 carriers down (instead of 4) as well as perhaps losing some Battleships (Yamato?) and maybe killing Yamamoto in the process?



The battleships were sitting ducks to any type of air attack (as you brits learned a few days later with the PofW and repulse).

Besides, the battleships at Pearl were slow and incapable of catching up to the fast moving Japanese carrier forces, and we only had a single carrier within striking distance of the Japanese.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The battleships were sitting ducks to any type of air attack (as you brits learned a few days later with the PofW and repulse).
> 
> Besides, the battleships at Pearl were slow and incapable of catching up to the fast moving Japanese carrier forces, and we only had a single carrier within striking distance of the Japanese.



In that case the outcome was probably the best although results could perhaps of been different had the Japanese successfully hit the fuel dumps.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> .... although results could perhaps of been different had the Japanese successfully hit the fuel dumps.



Yes, that was a blunder.

There also was a fully loaded tanker tied up to a pier right next to "battleship row"....

Several thousand tons of hi octane av gas, just waiting to be lit!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2007)

All weekend long the Military Channel has been airing the invasion of Malaya and Singapore which began 2 hours before Pearl Harbor ever started. No western powers had an inkling what the Japanese were really up to until December 7th....


----------



## mkloby (Jun 3, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> What would have happen if they had acted and sailed out to meet the IJN BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor? Would it have resulted in more severe and complete losses of ships and men? Instead for the ships that were salvaged and put back into service, they would have sunk, how would the USN have recovered?



Interesting. If the US concentrated her carriers, and the Pacific fleet steamed out in force - it would have been interesting. Think of what happened at Midway, only six months later... The Japanese were thoroughly worked over.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 3, 2007)

How far away from Pearl Harbor were the carriers Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga? Were they close enough to catch up, get close and send their torpedo and divebombers to attack? If I remember correctly Yorktown was in the Atlantic, right?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> How far away from Pearl Harbor were the carriers Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga? Were they close enough to catch up, get close and send their torpedo and divebombers to attack? If I remember correctly Yorktown was in the Atlantic, right?



*Enterprise*: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

*Lexington*: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

*Saratoga*: Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.

Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 3, 2007)

Cheers Syscom...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 4, 2007)

So Admiral Kimmel saved the carriers while taking the blame for Pearl? Theres justice for ya.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2007)

Njaco said:


> So Admiral Kimmel saved the carriers while taking the blame for Pearl? Theres justice for ya.



Kimmel (and Gen Short) was derelict in defending Hawaii for many reasons.

The carriers were out on missions to deliver aircraft, not to be out of port in case of an attack.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2007)

Yes I agree but almost every reference I've seen underscores his defense of Pearl while this is the first that I've seen where he had a hand in having the carriers away from the attack. He takes the blame but when I saw that he ordered the carriers away, just made me wonder.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

What if they had sent up fighters when they first saw the Japanese coming? Did they spot them early enough to get them up to altitude?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2007)

Radar was in its infancy and they had a few sets brought over from England but didn't rely on it much. They saw the blips and thought it was a fliight of B-17s due in from the mainland.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> What if they had sent up fighters when they first saw the Japanese coming? Did they spot them early enough to get them up to altitude?



The Japanese were coming in at a middle altitude, so the time to climb wasnt excessive.

Unfortunatly, they were all pretty much destroyed on the ground quickly.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 5, 2007)

Gotta side with the US knew something, but had no idea it was Pearl.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

Isn't that the general belief that they knew that there were an attack going to happen but they didn't know where?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2007)

The consensus was that a Japanese attack would start at the Philipines.

While some USN and US Army officers suspected that there could be an attack on pearl harbor, it was discounted.

In 1941, no one suspected that Japan could put together 6 carriers and execute a perfect strike on such a large and important military installation like Pearl Harbor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The consensus was that a Japanese attack would start at the Philipines.
> 
> While some USN and US Army officers suspected that there could be an attack on pearl harbor, it was discounted.
> 
> In 1941, no one suspected that Japan could put together 6 carriers and execute a perfect strike on such a large and important military installation like Pearl Harbor.



Agree 100%


----------



## timshatz (Jun 5, 2007)

There was an interesting supposition about radar and what would've happened if the guy in the Operations Center (Kermit Tyler?) had hit the panic button instead of saying to the two privates "Don't worry about it". 

The bottom line it came down to was....nothing much would've changed. 

The US was not on a war footing. The guns for the planes weren't armed, the ships weren't ready, everybody was at peace. The first thing that would've happened (again, this was all supposition but it was fairly well thought out) would've been the contact report would've gone up the line, each guy passing the buck. That would've taken at least an hour if the chain of command (remember, it was Sunday morning) was efficient. It wasn't. That can be seen by the USS Ward sinking (not just depth charged but actually fired it's main armament at) a midget sub at 6:45Am and the commander of the US Pacific Fleet didn't find out about it until after 8am. 

Even if the radar call had gotten down to the people in charge, they'd passed it along and everybody had done what they were supposed to do, the Pacific Fleet still would've gotten clobbered on Dec 7th. 

In a way, they were lucky it happened in Pearl Harbor and not out in the open Pacific. As it was, the survivors from Battleship row and other sinkings only had to swim to shore (about 100yds away) instead of awaiting rescue in the middle of nowhere.

Not only did the machine shops, oil depot and submarines survive the attack, so did most of the personel in the Pacific Fleet. And those guys were the nucleas of the fleet that later destroyed Japan.


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2007)

Nit picking but Salt Lake City was CA25 not CA24 which was Pensacola. Actually Halsey, in command of the task force in Enterprise, had them pretty much on a war footing because they felt that war was imminent. However, if the US had been aware of the IJN and the attack on PH and sent Enterprise and Lexington and the BBs to ambush them I think the US taskforce would have been lucky to survive. With only 2 carriers versus 6 Japanese our BBs would have been sitting ducks and the carriers may have both been sunk and the air groups decimated. Our carrier air groups were not nearly as efficent and experienced in December 1941 as they were in June 1942.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 17, 2007)

Which probably would have cost USN a lot more in sunken ships which they couldn't salvage.... Coral Sea and Midway might have happened a lot later instead, right?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Which probably would have cost USN a lot more in sunken ships which they couldn't salvage.... Coral Sea and Midway might have happened a lot later instead, right?



Coral Sea happened because of an impending invasion of Port Moresby. If the US took a couple of carrier casualties at Pearl, look for either the Coral Sea invasion to happen as planned, or no Doolittle raid on Japan.

If there was no Doolittle raid on japan, Midway might not have happened, and if it did, the US would only have a pair of carriers vs the Japanese 4 to 6.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 17, 2007)

If USN had taken carrier casualties at Pearl Harbor and be left with only two carriers and maybe less of other ships, could Japan have taken the chance and go for Port Moresby?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> If USN had taken carrier casualties at Pearl Harbor and be left with only two carriers and maybe less of other ships, could Japan have taken the chance and go for Port Moresby?



They did in May 1942. The question is if the USN was going to gamble with its remaning carriers and stop them. If so, you could say the battle would end up as planned, but the upcoming Midway battle would be two carriers instead of 3. And thats if the IJN decided to go for Midway, as there were plans to thrust SE into the Pacific towards Fiji and Samoa.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> They did in May 1942.



The Coral sea defeat ultimately forced the Japanese to attempt a land invasion of port Moresby by coming over the Owen Stanley mountain range. This campaign kicked off in July '42 and although the Japanese came close to reaching Port Moresby (IIRC 30miles?) they were eventually driven back and defeated by Australian Infantry. Do a search for kokoda track for more info.
Meanwhile in August '42 the Japanese launched a seaborne invasion on the Eastern tip of NG at Milne Bay. Again the Australian's defeated the japanese who were forced to withdraw making this I believe the last attempt by the Japanese to capture Port Moresby.
A question I have, The RAAF had two P40 squadrons at Milne Bay that was instrumental in the defeat of the Japanese. Not only did they provide excellent close air support (I've read the Japanese could hardly move during the day) but they effectively destroyed all the Japanese landing barges which left the Japanese unable to "leap frog" along the coast therefore unable to out flank the Australians. The P40's also destroyed a bunch of barges that had just dropped off about 350 Japanese soldiers on Goodenough Is therefore trapping them there and unable to take part in the action.
Back to my question, the Australian's enjoyed air superiority over Milne Bay because the Japanese were at the time concentration on the Solomons, in fact only a reletively few raids were carried out against the Milne Bay defenders, had the Japanese concentrated their air assest on Milne Bay instead, I believe it is highly likey they would have gained the upper hand, would this in turn lead to a Japanese victory? If so would Port Moresby fall next?


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 17, 2007)

I could remember hearing that radio messages were intercepted from the Japanese Carrier Group but it was thought to be a bluff the idea of a Pearl Harbour attack. There were coded references to it, by John Curtin's friend in the Documentary on John Curtin so I am unsure whether this is true fact. The true facts though will never probably be known of how much the US knew or suspected of Japanese Intentions before Pearl Harbour...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I could remember hearing that radio messages were intercepted from the Japanese Carrier Group but it was thought to be a bluff the idea of a Pearl Harbour attack. There were coded references to it, by John Curtin's friend in the Documentary on John Curtin so I am unsure whether this is true fact. The true facts though will never probably be known of how much the US knew or suspected of Japanese Intentions before Pearl Harbour...


Radio messages? They were "radio silent" almost from the time they left Japan.

Another myth....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Radio messages? They were "radio silent" almost from the time they left Japan.
> 
> Another myth....



There were no transmissions from the fleet due to the imperitive it had to achieve absolute surprise.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Yep...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

Could things have been done differently?


----------



## renrich (Jun 18, 2007)

If the Pacific fleet had tried to intercept Nagumo at sea prior to Pearl harbor I believe they would have lost Enterprise and Lexington and some BBs with maybe one IJN carrier being sunk. That would have meant no Doolittle raid. US would not have had carrier strength to oppose Port Moresby landing so Coral Sea is out and probably also Midway. War in Pacific would have lasted longer and been more costly. Even though atom bomb would not have been delayed, bases to launch B29s from would have taken longer to acquire.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

renrich said:


> ....War in Pacific would have lasted longer and been more costly. Even though atom bomb would not have been delayed, bases to launch B29s from would have taken longer to acquire.



I disagree.

In the summer of 1943, the USN was going to be etting a fleet carrier in action every month (CV and CVL). By the end of 1943, the IJN was going to be completely overmatched.

And then add in the flood of AAF units that occured in 1943, and events in the Pacific would have unfolded as they did in 1944.


----------



## renrich (Jun 18, 2007)

Syscom, think about this, without Midway the IJN would have had 4 carriers and their excellent air groups that they did not have to contest Guadalcanal campaign plus you have to subtract Enterprise. They would have kept Guadalcanal at least another 6 months to a year. That would have delayed everything in both Nimitz's area as well as McArthur's.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

renrich said:


> Syscom, think about this, without Midway the IJN would have had 4 carriers and their excellent air groups that they did not have to contest Guadalcanal campaign plus you have to subtract Enterprise. They would have kept Guadalcanal at least another 6 months to a year. That would have delayed everything in both Nimitz's area as well as McArthur's.



I did think about it and came to the conclusion that neither Midway nor Guadalcanal would have occured.

And think about this: The IJN only added 2 fleet carriers after Pearl Harbor while the US added dozens.

The US would have advanced across the central Pacific in late 1943 just as what happened. The qualitative edge was with the US and the quantitative edge was beginning tobe felt.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 19, 2007)

I think that it wouldn't have delayed the US too substantially either. If anything it might have meant more focus on the B-36 Peacemaker to achieve a greater range of attack early on...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I think that it wouldn't have delayed the US too substantially either. If anything it might have meant more focus on the B-36 Peacemaker to achieve a greater range of attack early on...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2007)

Healz is in love with the "not going to fly before the end of the war" B-36 aint he? He just wont give up on it...

I think instead of Playboy magazines hidden under his bed he has pics of the B-36....

....I hope none of them are sticky!


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 20, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2007)

Healz - even if the B-36 program was doubled, the aircraft would never of flown before the end of WW2. The first models were underpowered and had numerous problems. The production spec for the aircraft did not appear until April 1941. Under the best conditions during that period the aircraft wasn't going to be flying for at least five years - do the math.


Just to satisfy your fetish for the B-36, see the link below....

www.B-36.net


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2007)

LOL


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2007)

Summer of 52, I was working hanging sheetrock on low income housing near the end of the runway at Kelly Field in SA, Texas. They were bringing in burn patients from Korea in, I think, the C99 which was the transport version of the B36, to go to BAMC. If a hammer was lying on a shelf, the vibration from the props and engines of the ac would make the hammer jump up and down. That was a big airplane.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 27, 2007)

One thing you don't understand, is that I believe that in the event of what you were talking about, a project for a bomber like the B-36 Peacemaker would have been given a very high priority. The fact that it was even on the drawing board was a preparation for circumstances which didn't eventuate. I am suggesting that if circumstances demanded it, its priority would have increased up the list. The B-36 Peacemaker was started in 1941 and flew in 1946. I am saying that this time could have been reduced if there had been a need for the aircraft. The B-29 first flew in 1942 and was in squadron operation in 1943. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that if necessary the B-36 Peacemaker could not have been produced in a shorter period of time than it was in this reality if there was a need for it. The B-29 was considered a very complex aircraft when it was first produced. And yet, two years from first flight to squadron service. The B-36 Peacemaker took 3 ending up in squadron service in 1949. This is a well-reasoned argument on my part as the USAF considered its projects on the basis of what it needed at the time. At the time, the US had the power to seize those islands at great cost due to their air power and naval power. Therefore the suggestion is that after Coral Sea and Midway the project for the B-36 Peacemaker perhaps didn't seem as important for Consolidated and thus was perhaps partially shelved.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 27, 2007)

Comparing the B-36 to the B-29 programs doesn't make sense. A lot of the B-29 program used parts and lessons from the B-17 program. 

The design for the B-36 was preliminarily submitted on May 3, 1941. Consolidated was too busy building B-24s and B-32 to give more priority to the B-36.

Boeing submitted the prototype design for the B-29 to the Army in 1939 (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html). It was three years before the first one flew. And even after that, there was a lot of testing and rework to do before it was operational.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

Besides Healzdevo compare the B-29 to the B-36 please. Jet engines were still in there infancy in 1945 and you are thinking that the B-36 could have been ready to fly as early as 1941. Come on now!!!

You have to think a bit realistic now...

The B-36 was way more complex than a B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2007)

Even if the US would of lost Coral Sea, Midway and even been repelled at Normandy, the B-36 would not of been ready for flight by 1945, it's that simple. Even given the people, material and priority technology doesn't materialize based on numbers and as stated the B-36 was a very complex aircraft.

And I'm not even talking about the addition of the jet engines....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2007)

The P&W 4360 engine slated for the bomber was having just as difficult of a time getting its bugs worked out as the Wright 3350.

Even if the airframe was completed by 1945, it wasnt going anywhere untill the engines were working.

Thus no B36 flight untill when it actually happened, in 1947.


----------

