Could the IJN have launched a "Third wave" at Pearl Harbour?

What would have been the result of a "Third Wave" at Pearl Harbour

  • The attack would succeed with moderate aircraft losses {15 - 35 aircraft lost}

    Votes: 58 64.4%

  • The attack would succeed with heavy losses {50+ IJN aircraft lost}

    Votes: 17 18.9%

  • The attack would not be very successful with very heavy aircraft losses

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • The Japanese couldn't have managed a "Third Wave" {explain}

    Votes: 7 7.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Total voters
    90

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Very similar circumstances between Singapore and PH. The Moorer story goes on. His PatWing was sent to Australia where they were stationed at Darwin. During one of the air raids there he was trying to get his PBY out of the area and was shot down by the Nips. He was wounded but survived. Life was interesting for him in those days. Moorer got on my bad side a while back as I heard him being quoted(after his retirement from the Navy) as saying that civilians in this country had no business owning guns or something to that effect. He may have been misquoted or he may be senile but I crossed him off my list. I am sure that if he knew that he would be distressed. LOL
 
Sys that idea of small picket ships was and is a good one. If you recall the Japanese did that and that was why the Doolittle raid had to launch prematurely. It is surprising no one in command thought of that. Part of the peacetime mentality.
 
TO, an excellent book on the PH attack is "Air Raid: Pearl Harbor!" It is a collection of recollections by participants edited by Paul Stillwell. It was published by The Naval Institute Press and copywrited in 1981. One article in it is by a Captain Taussig(ret) who was a young officer in Nevada during the attack. He was badly wounded and watched most of the attack from a litter. His article is a technical discussion of the inadequancies of the AA batteries and their fire control systems on the USN ships of that day. I have outlined on this forum before how the 5 inch dual purpose batteries were operated during that time frame based on conversations with an uncle who was a CGM on CA25 and was responsible for the 5 inchers on that ship. Taussig"s article verifys my uncle's explanations and reinforces my opinion which is that I wonder how they ever hit an airplane making an attack.
 

Is the 5 inch gun unsuitable for AA or is it just that particular model? I've been meaning to ask this for awhile. The British cruisers all used 4" AA guns as their secondary battery, but in 1939 the new class of "Dido" cruisers switched to 5.25" dual-purpose guns, replacing both the 6" 4" AA guns of earlier cruisers. Were the 5.25" guns effective? I notice that the next group of Colony class cruisers went back to the 4" AA.
 
i wonder what would happen to japan planes if we had p-51d's flying at the time and fully loaded
 
There wasn't anything wrong with the 5 inch38 or 5 inch 25. An experienced crew could get off 20 rounds per minute. The ammunition and the fire control was the problem. Once they got proximity fuses that helped a lot. The British fire control was even more hopeless than the American. Think about Repulse and POW. POW was practically brand new and they could not defend themselves against level and torpedo bombers. Shooting down attackers with the ammo and fire control systems of the 3 inch, 4 inch and 5 inch cannons of that time was almost as hard as shooting pigeons on the fly with a breech loading 22 rifle.
 

He wasn't mis quoted. His son, Tom,Jr was stockbroker that lived next door to me in Dallas. Tom voted for Reagan and Bush - his dad was left of Clinton and Mondale in many ways. Gun 'control' is one of them.

I asked him w/o going ballistic whether he thought the placement of the 2nd Amendment meant it was a Collective Right or an individual right and he responded 'it had a purpose where there were no police and we had a small standing army.

When I reminded him that our founders, Washington included, said 'beware of a large standing army' he was irritated but actually listened to my next point when I asked him how many police authorities were on standby to protect him from 'gand bangers' who didn't need no stinkin' license to purchase one?

This was during the Texas Right to carry law introduction - anyway I respected him and his service to the country - but, no he doesn't believe you and I should own a weapon. Remember, on a military post all the issue weapons are in lock up..so its a long way of life for him.
 
Interesting Bill, I think that us ordinary people sometimes have a vision that all military members tend to be conservative in their politics. However, people who spend a lifetime in the military certainly have a different outlook on life than we do. To begin with, in our lifetimes, an individual in the military who followed the rules pretty much had a job guaranteed with a decent retirement at the end. That has not been true of those of us in private enterprise. They always had a form of socialised medicine and if they spent much time in the DC area they came into contact with many left leaning government employees. I like the advantages conferred by a volunteer professional military but maybe our founding fathers were prescient in more ways than they knew in their fear of a standing army. I have a cousin, lives in the DC area, was in the first graduating class of the AF Academy, now retired and he mirrors some of the same views as Moorer.
 
It would have to be barrage fire, not aiming at a specific target unless a gun got lucky.The Nevada at PH mounted 8-5 inch 25s in single mounts, 4- 3inch 50s and 8-50 cal mgs. At the end of the war she mounted 16- 5 inch 38s in twin mounts, 8- 40mm quads and so many 20 mms I can't count them. If you are having a hard time hitting just add more guns. Somebody will get lucky. I went aboard Alabama at Mobile and it looked as if they put a 20 mm anywhere there was room. They may have said OK at battle stations if you have nothing to do, go grab a 20mm and shoot something down. Try not to hit the guys with white stars. Just kidding but they had them everywhere and lots of 40mm quads.
 
The "Kates" were notoriously vulnerable to damage. Thats why a 3rd strike at Pearl would not be a cake walk. Just having a barrage means youre going to hit something, and hopefully it would be in the fuel tanks which would doom the aircrew to running out of fuel.
 

What would be the difference in effective US AA if the Kates were flying high level bombing. not torpedoes? {since the BB's CV's would already have been hit, the third wave would be almost all bombs} vs. tank farm, CA's DD's at dock, repair shops, etc.
 

To hit the shipyard and tank farm, they would have to mass together. Flying around at 10,000 or so feet, the AA arcs would be perfect.

And remember, the torpedo effects were devestating because they hit the ships before there was any organized defensive fire.
 

OK but what about managing the first wave landings so that they were on 3 or 4 carriers only, then at about 11:15 stop landing aircraft on those carriers, to prepare for launch. 3 carriers would prepare the third wave, while the other 3 carriers would then land the second wave without it interfering with the re-arming. I realize that using say the 3 carriers to recover the second wave would lengthen the time needed, but I believe the "Kate's" had longer endurance so they could probably stay in the air for an extra 15 - 20 min without great trouble.

Once that the first wave reports the destrucyion of the carriers, airfields sinking of battleships the Japanese won't be expecting a Naval battle, couldn't they draft some sailors to help spot aircraft more quickly?

Also I checked the time for sunset in Hawaii, its about 5:50 pm, so even if the could launch at 1 pm, 75 - 80 min flight, 1 hour of attacks 75 min return still gives you over an hour to recover before sunset.
 
The IJN had plenty of time for a 3rd wave. But not a 4th wave.

The losses they would take on the 3rd wave would be enough to take the fight out of them.

As for "splitting" up the carriers for different duties, it was possible. But that would not be to IJN doctrine at the time, so the probability of that happening is nil.
 
I think that they could have done a third attack but it would have been a kamikaze attack on a large scale, we had a few P-40s up bringing hurt on the 2nd wave, so a 3rd would have had to deal with more Warhawks, more AAA and POSSIBLY the nearby carrier group's F4Fs and AAA if they could get within range fast enough. Basically, if the Japanese ships stuck around much longer, they wouldn't have had a chance to get home.
 
I'm not sure there were many Warhawks left for the third wave.
A lot were destroyed in the first wave's strike on Wheeler Field, lined up in neat rows.
Most that managed to get up for the second wave had been at the few dispersed fields.
 
Tyrod, that's probably true, but I forgot to mention, surviving ships would probably want to get out of the harbor, and probably towards the carriers which, as you may know, have little defensive armament, also, the USS Enterprise was very close at the time, in fact, a flight of 18 SBDs just happened to be on patrol from the Enterprise, which should have been there if it weren't for a storm, and they attacked the bombers, also, 5 P-36 Hawks and 3 P-40 Warhawks got up if I remember rightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
28K
Dimlee
Favorite Ace
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Juha3
J
Menu
Log in
Register