Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They lacked the training and armament to create any significant destruction of the naval fuel farms that contained heavy viscous and nearly inflammable bunker fuel. Aircraft 7.7mm and 20mm rounds could not ignite the fuel even if they managed to hit and penetrate the tanks. If a few GP bombs managed to hit, a gooey mess would ensue, not a firestorm. Naval bunker fuel needed to be preheated to get it to burn properly in ship powerplants, and it wasn't going to explode and burn in a chain conflagration, particularly given tank farm spacing and containment walls. The Kido Butai would need special training and specially developed incendiary munitions to attack the fuel farm. Heavy fuel oil - Wikipedia
More effective too would be cluster-bombs deploying submunitions to wreck the pumps and piping moving all that oil around the farms, but again, to your point about Japanese ammo, they had none available for the task aboard KdB.
Arguably, going after the important support vessels at Pearl such as the repair ships, oilers, and the destroyer and seaplane tenders, would pay a bigger dividend. Wrecking the drydocks, cranes, and similar infrastructure would have made the salvage and repair efforts in the aftermath of the attack much more lengthy and difficult.
Historically, air attacks intending to destroy fuel tank farms didn't produce the predicted easy results. Individual tanks, while some offered quite large targets, proved hard to hit and set alight. The fuel stocks didn't just spontaneously combust. Examples are the Kido Butai's raid on Trincomalee, Sri Lanka in April, 1942, where only one of 101 12,000 ton fuel tanks was destroyed, and that was by what may have been a suicide attack when one aircraft crashed into Tank #91. There's also the allied "Oil Campaign" of which Operation Tidal Wave (Ploiești oilfields) was a part of. There are many reasons why the anti-oil campaign only achieved success after a multi-year series of prolonged and very costly missions (for the attackers), but oil wasn't ever an easy target.
I think the idea of putting the docks out of action with bombs and torpedoes hugely underestimates the problem.No argument here. The KdB carriers already had torpedoes for shallow waters. Hitting the doors for the drydocks would have added thousands of miles (round-trip) for any potential battle-damaged ships as they would have had to go to Bremerton or San Diego. And as noted above, the presence of repair ships in PH also meant that the base itself was able to reconstitute quicker, perhaps. I hadn't given much thought to cranes, but that's a good point as well. they're needed to lift and remove armor-plate, turrets, etc, and without them -- especially with drydocks that must themselves be repaired -- it further turns PH less effective and would slow down things like repairing Yorktown for Midway and so on.
Lots of knock-on effects from your point here.
Neosho, near California on the morning of the attack, was a mighty valuable target as one of the few fast fleet oilers in PacFleet. A lucky, random hit on her here could have compromised the American response to Operation MO, to present another example.
So yeah, the hypothetical about attacking the tank-farms seems interesting, but other infrastructure or targets as well presented bottlenecks that might have hamstrung the Americans for a while.
The New Mexico class BBs (which were the most updated of the old battleships still in active service in mid-1942) were also left behind for the Guadalcanal landings... only the new fast battleships, with their modern heavy & light AA suites, were there... and only as carrier protection, not as fire support/protection for the landing force.I think CinCPac would have had to pivot to carriers anyway. There weren't enough escorts for both the carriers and the battleships unless you grouped them together and robbed the carriers of their speed asset. Further, iirc USN only had eight fleet oilers (i.e. capable of keeping up with fleet at the latter's cruise speed), so fueling those gashogs is going to be a challenge.
When Nimitz did have the opportunity to use them in battle, at Midway in Jun 42, he instead kept TF 1 on the West Coast.
... and only as carrier protection, not as fire support/protection for the landing force.
In all fairness, Scott was riding in Atlanta and Callaghan was put in charge almost at the last moment.... until Scott's cruisers got shot to Hell and gone, forcing Halsey to deploy Washington and South Dakota into Ironbottom Sound.
And to add to that, if I'm not mistaken, the old standards were fuel hogs, couple that with the shortage of both fuel and fleet tankers and it's no surprise the old BB's were kept at home, so to speak.The New Mexico class BBs (which were the most updated of the old battleships still in active service in mid-1942) were also left behind for the Guadalcanal landings... only the new fast battleships, with their modern heavy & light AA suites, were there... and only as carrier protection, not as fire support/protection for the landing force.
In all fairness, Scott was riding in Atlanta and Callaghan was put in charge almost at the last moment.
Don't get me started on the idiocy of that change of command move.
Had Scott been commanding, I have no doubt the November 12 knife fight would have not only been totally different, I think Scott would have handed Abe his ass.
What I found ironic, is that history's last great battleship versus battleship brawl was conducted by not only older U.S. battlewagons, but by five Pearl Harbor ghosts (out of six present) at Surigao.
Agreed, I didn't think you were critical of Norman Scott.Oh, I wasn't criticizing Admiral Scott at all.
Callaghan certainly screwed the pooch in that battle with his delayed torpedo launch and early salvos. Even without those errors, we were up against two battlecruisers and numerous Long Lance-armed escorts. So the American cruisers were going to get shot up no matter what, and Halsey still would have been forced to put BBs in close waters, in my opinion.
Agreed. When the USN lost Scott, we lost a great officer who had both brains and courage.
Agreed, I didn't think you were critical of Norman Scott.
My "What if" for November 12 is what if Scott had retained command and was riding in Helena, which, as memory serves had excellent radar as well as those 15 six inchers. However I doubt he would have chosen her as he was more familiar with Atlanta and her personnel and may have chosen her. However (again), there was a certain thought that the "big" cruisers were supposed to be flagships so he may well have ridden in San Francisco like Callaghan did.
Again, we'll never know for sure but I don't see him closing in to near collision distance before opening fire, hell, Hoover on Helena was begging to unleash the 15 gun firestorm when the IJN was still 20,000+ yards out.
I digress, back to December 7 and the USN not being at Pearl Harbor.