# Dec 7th, Pearl Harbour



## Hunter368 (Dec 7, 2005)

Here is a little different post about one of the most well known days in USA history.

Has there ever been a greater and more successful military attack (first attack/battle) by one country on another than when the JA Empire attacked and crushed the USA Pacific fleet. (maybe Germany's attack on Russia was better)

Has any country buried its head in the sand or messed up as badly as the USA did around Dec 7th, knowing full well that an attack someplace soon was going to happen from Japan. 

Pearl Habour is a military classic, David vs Goliath, Japan vs USA. The underdog used what he had to to win. When I remember this day I think of alot of people who died, a great military success and a great military failure. It all depends on your view point.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 7, 2005)

I wouldn't necessarily say the Pacific fleet was "crushed". They certainly did some significant damage, but they didn't get the carriers.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2005)

The Pacific Fleet might have been fortunate to be sunk in the shallows of the harbor, where they were all raised and repaired.

If they would have been at sea, they would have been sunk and lost for good.

Plus the oil tanks, repair facilities, and numerous other ships in the harbor where not damaged.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say the Pacific fleet was "crushed". They certainly did some significant damage, but they didn't get the carriers.



Very true they did not get the carriers. But at the time most people still thought that Battleships ruled the sea, Japan proved that wrong on Dec7th and with sinking two British ships (Repulse, and Prince Of Wales). The Pacific fleet for the USA was pretty much a total write off after Dec7th for months until they could repair ships. All they had for a while was their carriers. By any objective point of view it was a huge huge defeat on the part of USA and huge victory by Japan. At the time USA around the world was still thinking that it would stay out of WW2 (like in the WW1) until events dragged them into it. It was a huge blunder on the part of USA commanders to let such a attack happen and be sooo totally stunned by it. Really Pearl Habour (which is most often referred to as a surprise attack) should never been a surprise a tall, it should of predicted. In the end it would not of mattered even if Japan sank the carriers, it would not of changed the war, just maybe delayed it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 7, 2005)

A salute goes out to the planners and most of all the flyers of Japan for a well planned and carried out attack. A salute goes out to the USA service men and woman who's commanders let them down and they actually paid the greatest price of all.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2005)

Lets not forget that while the japanese were busy at Pearl, they were also getting ready to attack the Philipines. Another complete and total debacle.

It was America's good fortune that Gen MacArthur was a genious when it came to figuring out his mistakes in strategy and tactics then recovering to quickly come up with a plan to stop the Japanese (although it wasnt untill he was in Australia that he could do anything about it).


----------



## evangilder (Dec 7, 2005)

Speaking of that, I read a great book years ago about a group of 18 guys that took a small boat (a minesweeper) out of Corregidor after the surrender and made it to Australia. It was called "South from Corregidor". It was a great read, written by one of the survivors, John Morrill. It's out of print now and hard to find, but would make a great movie.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Lets not forget that while the japanese were busy at Pearl, they were also getting ready to attack the Philipines. Another complete and total debacle.
> 
> It was America's good fortune that Gen MacArthur was a genious when it came to figuring out his mistakes in strategy and tactics then recovering to quickly come up with a plan to stop the Japanese (although it wasnt untill he was in Australia that he could do anything about it).



Very true about the Philipines, very badly handled by the Americans. But I would not agree with Mac Arthur. I have read a fair amount about him (althought I do not claim to be a expert on him) and he would seem more like a jackazz, brutal General and a coward. But that is just my humble thoughts, like I said I am not an expert on him or a fan of his. From what I have read alot of what happened in the Philipines was his fault and instead of takes blame for it like a man, he blamed his commanders under him. It then does not take a genious to retake an island when you totally out number and out class and enemy. Like I said I am not a fan of his. There is alot and I mean alot better Generals out there then him.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2005)

Hunter368 said:


> ....does not take a genious to retake an island when you totally out number and out class and enemy. Like I said I am not a fan of his. There is alot and I mean alot better Generals out there then him.



In 1942, he had little support from Washington, except an abundance of promises. It wasnt untill spring of 1943 that he and the Aussies under his command had enough troops and firepower to go on the rampage through New Guinie.

As many faults he had, he still was one of the best Generals to ever wear the stars.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > ....does not take a genious to retake an island when you totally out number and out class and enemy. Like I said I am not a fan of his. There is alot and I mean alot better Generals out there then him.
> ...



I agree that he did not have alot of support early on, but when he did retake the island, it was not a stroke of genius, just sheer numbers and better tech (support) on the USA side. That is the hard thing about rating USA Generals, see I cannot think of many times where a USA General was out numbered and his enemy had better tech and still the USA Gereral won. When USA armies win battles most times that I can think of they have outnumbered and/or had much better tech and support. ie attacking a island with 35000 marines when the defender has 65000 men sounds good but if the USA battleships pound away at the enemy for days and planes bomb them around the clock........ well the USA should win that battle. What I am saying is that it is hard to say if a USA General is good or is it the better support and numbers and tech that wins the battles. I would say most times it is the numbers,tech, and support that wins them the battles.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 8, 2005)

That may be true but all of those things don't mean squat if you have bad tactics or command. If you read about the battle of Iwo Jima, you will see that even with numerical superiority, advanced bombing and better technical equipment, it was a hard slog for the Marines. 

Any time you attack an enemy, the defensive forces have the advantage because they have built defensive encasements and fields of fire. It would be unwise to attack a numerically superior force, especially when you are talking about the campaigns of the Pacific.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> That may be true but all of those things don't mean squat if you have bad tactics or command. If you read about the battle of Iwo Jima, you will see that even with numerical superiority, advanced bombing and better technical equipment, it was a hard slog for the Marines.
> 
> Any time you attack an enemy, the defensive forces have the advantage because they have built defensive encasements and fields of fire. It would be unwise to attack a numerically superior force, especially when you are talking about the campaigns of the Pacific.



True, but with bad tatics you still might win but with higher deaths on your side or it might take you longer than it should of with better tatics. Hard slog for the Marines is only relative speaking for what they were used to. The "deaths" that they (Marines about 6800 from what i have just seen on the net) suffered was still small compared to many battles that the German or Russian suffered in their massive battles. 

Yes attacking a larger force with a smaller would be .... unwise but I still have not heard of alot of battles where the USA was attacked with a enemy with numbers, tech and support all on their side and the USA won. Can you point any or many out where they have won under these conditions? That is what I am saying, when you always have everything on your side and you win, well you get no credit, you only get credit when you pull off being the underdog and rarely has the USA forces been the underdog and won.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2005)

Hunter368 said:


> I have read alot of what happened in the Philipines was his fault and instead of takes blame for it like a man, he blamed his commanders under him. It then does not take a genious to retake an island when you totally out number and out class and enemy. Like I said I am not a fan of his. There is alot and I mean alot better Generals out there then him.



Not totally true. My wife's grandfather was an intelligence officer under him and was captured on Bataan. MacArthur was devastated about the while situation and was ready to violate evacuation orders from Washington. 

Pearl harbor was a "battle victory" for the Japanese, no denying that, but then again, for all their cunning and planning they allowed a major portion of their fleet to be obviated 5 months later at Midway, at that point the Japanese was on the defensive for rest of the war. I think if you look at the errors made by the Japanese at that time far outweighed the Pearl Harbor blunders by the US Military. It one think to allow your self to be subject to a "sneak attack" without a declaration of war, it another thing to allow yourself to be "ambushed" by a smaller and supposedly technically inferior opponent when you know you had the advantage....

I give credit to the Japanese for pulling off Pearl Harbor, but the diplomatic foul-up of making this action occur prior to a formal declaration or war is treacherous. Even if the diplomatic message arrived as planned, Japan's declaration or war would of came down right as the first bombs were being dropped on Pearl Harbor. This was just the tip of the iceberg of Japanese treachery.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 8, 2005)

Hunter, I suggest you read up about MacArthurs campaign in New Guinie. It wasnt untill late in 1943 that he had numerical superiority over the Japanese. And his "navy" if you can call it that was a motley collection of a couple of light cruisers, an occasional Aussie heavy cruiser, and some destroyers.

When MacArthur finally had enough troops and material, he performed a series of brilliant maneuvers across the New Guinie at almost no cost. And although NG is an island, its also a HUGE island, larger than most countries in Europe.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2005)

i'm not trying to ruffle nationalistic pride but wasn't most of the tough ground slogging in probably the second worst combat zone after the eastern front done by tha aussies .The US army did a lot of end runs (also extremely tough) and from what I've learned the aussies came in a cleaned up the isolated areas not withstanding the great efforts of US air and sea power over the 4 year length of the campaign


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 8, 2005)

The Aussies deserve plenty of credits and accolades for their actions in NG. The US 31st Infantry Division also saw some really tough action too. In fact the Aussies and American troops in NG had a far tougher fight than the Marines on Guadalcanal.

Untill mid 1943, most US troops were going to the Solomons, and MacArthur had to make do with his motley crew.

I think the fighting conditions in the SW Pacific was probably the worst on earth. Disease, tropical conditions, insects, wildlife and above all, rain, all sapped at the strength and fighting ability of both sides.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Hunter368 said:


> I agree that he did not have alot of support early on, but when he did retake the island, it was not a stroke of genius, just sheer numbers and better tech (support) on the USA side. That is the hard thing about rating USA Generals, see I cannot think of many times where a USA General was out numbered and his enemy had better tech and still the USA Gereral won. When USA armies win battles most times that I can think of they have outnumbered and/or had much better tech and support. ie attacking a island with 35000 marines when the defender has 65000 men sounds good but if the USA battleships pound away at the enemy for days and planes bomb them around the clock........ well the USA should win that battle. What I am saying is that it is hard to say if a USA General is good or is it the better support and numbers and tech that wins the battles. I would say most times it is the numbers,tech, and support that wins them the battles.



And this coming from someone who has never been in combat.

Dont forget the men who fight the battle. It is not the General in the rear who wins a battle, it is the men on the ground who win the battle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2005)

Hunter368 said:


> Yes attacking a larger force with a smaller would be .... unwise but I still have not heard of alot of battles where the USA was attacked with a enemy with numbers, tech and support all on their side and the USA won. Can you point any or many out where they have won under these conditions?



YEP!!!!

Midway! We know that story....

Lete Gulf, Taffy 3

http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/History/Leyte5.htm


----------



## evangilder (Dec 17, 2005)

Excellent example, Joe! Otherwise known as the Battle off Samar. Clifton Sprague was one hell of a commander!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 17, 2005)

At Guadalcanal, we usually were out numbered on the ground, air and sea.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2005)

YEP!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes attacking a larger force with a smaller would be .... unwise but I still have not heard of alot of battles where the USA was attacked with a enemy with numbers, tech and support all on their side and the USA won. Can you point any or many out where they have won under these conditions?
> ...



The thing that pops out at me is that in all three (Pearl, Midway, and Leyte Gulf) the Japanese would have won had they kept on and completed their missions.

One more attack on Pearl would have taken out the fuel stores and the dry docks, at a minimum forcing a reduction in our efforts in the first months of the war (also denying the Yorktown at Midway). At a maximum forcing the fleet to move to San Diego.

They had the firepower and manpower to take Midway anyway, our airpower was essentialy gone, again they would be denying us a stratigic base.

They had Taffy 3 and the landing craft/beaches on the edge, had they come on it would have been a disaster for us.

Esp. in situations like Leyte Gulf, you have what is essentialy a suicide mission, you have to drive it home to succede, the effort and sacrifice is wasted if you turn tail and leave half way through.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Dec 19, 2005)

While that may be try, it still illustrates the point that these were outnumbered American commanders that fought through and won.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2005)

My ex-father in law was on one of the surviving destroyers during Taffy 3 - I don't remember which one but he hated Admiral Halsey....

He said they got pelted pretty bad....


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2005)

The battle of Savo island in Aug 1942 was another example of the IJN not finishing off with a complete victory at hand.

After the IJN had swept away the US (and Aussie) cruisers, they had a free hand to wipe out the invasion force still anchored offshore, just 30 minutes of steaming time away. What did the IJN admiral do? He sailed away happy with what he did, not with what he could accomplish. The idiot!

Had he took out the transports, the US would have lost Guadalcanal before it even started.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2005)

Thats kind of my point, the Japanese gave up and retreated a number of times when, had they continued they would have won. The Americans were lucky the Japanese quit, not good in that we beat them, in those situations - not that I'm questioning their courage or ability they didn't give up, the Japanese did, and thats what won the day. Had the Japanese pushed on those occasions we would have been fighting there for another 5 years.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2005)

The Japanese had great battles early and then bad later. They were very hot and cold, lol.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2005)

Hunter368 said:


> The Japanese had great battles early and then bad later. They were very hot and cold, lol.



Like I pointed out earlier even at Pearl they cut and ran. Had the third strike been launched we would have been so limited we would have lost Coral Sea (no fuel/support for the early missions), Midway (no Yorktown minimum support from Pearl) The possible loss of Austrailia too.

They did the perfect job at Pearl to make sure they lost - they riled us up and left us operational.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > The Japanese had great battles early and then bad later. They were very hot and cold, lol.
> ...



True true but hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 20, 2005)

Japan had the capacity to hold us off till late 1943. After that time, the Allied forces would have had the quantatative and qualitative edge and Japan would be on borrowed time.

Once the B29's were available in quantity in summer of 1944, then we had the ways of striking any Japanese force/base in the PTO with impunity.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Japan had the capacity to hold us off till late 1943. After that time, the Allied forces would have had the quantatative and qualitative edge and Japan would be on borrowed time.
> 
> Once the B29's were available in quantity in summer of 1944, then we had the ways of striking any Japanese force/base in the PTO with impunity.



Totally agree. The writing was on the wall for the Japanese.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > The Japanese had great battles early and then bad later. They were very hot and cold, lol.
> ...



Isnt the reason for them pulling off bad intelligence though? At Pearl they did not know where the Carriers were so they had get out before they could theoretically strike back.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2005)

Given the state of the art recon abilities for both the US and the IJN at the time, it would have been impossible for them to keep track of the carriers without giving up their planned element of surprise.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 21, 2005)

I don't think it mattered we only had 3 carriers in the Pacific, and only one that was closely based at Pearl, so at the worst its 1 or two to 6. Our main fleet was sunk at Pearl it was criminal (from the Japanese POV) on Nagumo's part to leave with the job only partialy complete and little real chance of a US counter attack.

My point is that the Japanese could have made it Much Much more difficult if not barely possible for us to retake the Pacific if only, they had just completed their planed operations. We didn't win many/most of the major critical battles the Japanese just quit and gave them to us.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 22, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > The Japanese had great battles early and then bad later. They were very hot and cold, lol.
> ...



One thing we have to all keep in mind also is that still the world was still thinking (for the most part anyway) that the battleship ruled the sea, it did not. The Japanese although were very disappointed that they missed the carriers (and would of made it a clean sweep), they were very very happy with the heavily damage to the surface fleet. They heavily damaged it at almost no cost, big win they were thinking. Now if they had to do it again with say another 6-12 month carrier experence under their belts, they would of realized that the real prizes were the carriers. The surface fleet was very much the secondary target.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2005)

For the record, here are the locations of all six of the US carriers.

Lexington At sea enroute to Midway Island

Enterprise At sea near Oahu

Saratoga In port at San Diego

Wasp In Atlantic

Hornet In Atlantic

Yorktown In Atlantic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

I still stand by the firm belief that I have stated before that even if they had gotten the Carriers and all the Oil stocks at Pearl it would not have mattered one bit when it comes to the outcome of the war. The US soon showed the world what its production capabilities were (All laid down or completed after Pearl Harbor:

Battleships: 8
Battlecruisers: 3
Aircraft Carriers: 27
Light Fleet Carriers: 56
Heavy Cruisers: 17
Light Cruisers: 40
Destroyers: 319
Destroyers Escort Type: 332
Submarines: 193
Mine Sweepers: 378
Frigates: 112

Not included are the Fleet Auxillaries, Patrol Boats, Transports, etc...

All of this info taken from Janes Fighting ships 1946 edition.

Basically what I am getting at is, no matter what the outcome of Pearl Harbor the US was only slightly hurt and would recover faster and quicker than anyone. Even if the Carriers and the Oil Reserves there had been hit, it would not have changed the outcome.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 26, 2005)

Agreed Alder, once the US war machine got started there was very little that could stop it.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 26, 2005)

The only difference in the course of events is what would have happened in 1942 and 1943.

Strategy would be way different. If anything, the three Atlantic carriers would have been sent to the Pacific immediatly early in 1942 rather than soread out over several months.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

I agree. The Carriers would have been sent over sooner. The British allready had Carriers in the Atlantic so that would free up the US Carriers to go to the PTO.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still stand by the firm belief that I have stated before that even if they had gotten the Carriers and all the Oil stocks at Pearl it would not have mattered one bit when it comes to the outcome of the war. The US soon showed the world what its production capabilities were (All laid down or completed after Pearl Harbor:
> 
> Battleships: 8
> Battlecruisers: 3
> ...



100% agree


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

Just trivia..... One of the reasons the Japanese attacked in late 1941 through early 1942 was that the IJN knew that in 1943, the USN would be receiving the new warships that were begun to have been built in 1940/41.

The IJN knew that they had to have all possible gains consolidated by then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2005)

Yeap but I still beleive that they would have rather attacked at a time more of there choosing.


----------

