Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2011, 09:59 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,497,497 times
Reputation: 14621

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Perhaps if you were willing to drop the word "entire" we would be more in harmony.

The plan of which you speak was a pre war strategy and Japan lacked the industrial flexibility to produce a fleet which was more suited to the actual circumstances which materialized. Japan was incapable of producing a sufficient number of carriers to replace the ones which they lost, or come remotely close to matching the carrier arm of the US Navy. They were stuck with the surface fleet hope because that was their only option, not because they continued to believe that battleships were still supreme and decisive.
I can concede the "entire" part. On the rest they were obviously stuck with the ships they had which forced them to attempt to execute a strategy that was no longer realistic. I would continue to argue the decisive role of the battleship part as there is plenty of evidence that the IJN's senior commanders still believed throughout the war that the decisive battle would still be a surface action between battleships. Leyte was obviously a desperation move, but the strategy employed at the Mariana's, when they did still field a decent carrier force still attempted to setup the decisive surface battle that they sought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2011, 04:36 PM
 
25,744 posts, read 16,362,928 times
Reputation: 15926
The Japanese should have had troop carrier ships following the attack force and took control of the Hawaiian Islands. It would have lengthened the war by years, not months. They were too frightened to do what they should have done in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,605,742 times
Reputation: 9975
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
A new book reports that two days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that officially brought the United States into World War II, President Roosevelt was warned about such a possible attack in a memo from naval intelligence.

FDR warned of Pearl Harbor attack days in advance | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News
Answers the question Why were there no Carriers at Pearl when the attack came?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 08:46 PM
 
4,409 posts, read 9,093,963 times
Reputation: 4302
FDR probably knew about the possibility of an attack, just like Bush and his cronies were informed in advance about Muslims hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,717 posts, read 18,786,427 times
Reputation: 11222
Quote:
Answers the question Why were there no Carriers at Pearl when the attack came?
Not even close. The carriers were doing missions, not scrambled out of Pearl Harbor to avoid any damages. FDR would have had to known about the plan months ahead of it happening.

Carrioer Locations, 7 December 1941

If you have the interest, you might read Alan D Zimms new book Attack on Pearl Harbor, Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deception. It explains that the attack was a major failure on the part of the Japanese and he gives the reasons. There were no plans to take out the ship yards or fuel depots. The plan was to destroy carriers only and the planes were armed accordingly which is why they only managed to sink few ships. Did you know that the attacking forces did not sink the Nevada? The Nevada sunk due to stupidity on the part of the crew who flooded the forward magazine from a possible fire danger but also flooded the rear magazine and the ship settled deeper in the water until it got into the ventilation system and then it was beyond any control to stop it. The Japanese brought enough torpedoes and bombs to sink 14 ships but because of confusion on their part and lousy execution, they failed miserably. The torpedo bombers were suppose to be the first attacking airplanes because they had to fly at near stall speed to drop their torpedoes which otherwise would have been buried in the mud. The torpedo bombers, according to plan, was to happen at 500 yd intervals and be complete in 90 seconds. Yet the torpedo bombers were still dropping their loads 11 minutes later into a sun they had never practiced running into. That's just the premise and a taste of this book. Interesting read and for once, I think somebody finally figured out that while we lost a lot of good men at Pearl, the ultimate blunder belongs to the Japanese.
Review: Attack on Pearl Harbor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2011, 07:00 PM
 
827 posts, read 1,666,488 times
Reputation: 1038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Answers the question Why were there no Carriers at Pearl when the attack came?
As answered above they were out doing missions. In fact IF the USS Enterprise had NOT slowed down so the destroyers could refuel it would have been in on Sat. night and nthus destroyed. As it was some of her planes WERE caught by the Japs and shot down. She came into Pearl later that night under cover of darkness refueled and resupplied and pulled out before dawn and continued looking for the enemy fleet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2011, 10:04 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,497,497 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
The Japanese should have had troop carrier ships following the attack force and took control of the Hawaiian Islands. It would have lengthened the war by years, not months. They were too frightened to do what they should have done in the end.
That's something a lot of people mention and was pushed for at one point by Minoru Genda who actually planned the entire attack, but there are a couple reasons why that was unfeasible for the Japanese to do and the senior commanders overruled Genda for an all out invasion:

1. The Japanese had extremely limited troop and supply transports, this fact is one of the main reasons that contributed to their poor performance later in the war and why US submarines were so devastating. These assets were also controlled by different branches so the Army had their own transport assets and the Navy had their own as well. Given the inter-service rivalries there was very little sharing.

The main thrust of the Japanese attacks was the southern strategy to seize control of places like Singapore, Dutch East Indies and the Phillipines. They simply did not have enough troops and transports to do both and keeping Hawaii supplied and defended would have been a monumental task so far from the Japanese mainland. The oil in the Dutch East Indies was the number one target and any delay in taking it would be disasterous for the Japanese war effort.

2. Troop transports are slow and do not have great range. The entire key to the Pearl Harbor attack was surprise and that required the fleet used to move swiftly and refuel underway. The Japanese were essentially operating at the maximum extant of their operating range and taking troop transports along would have greatly slowed the fleet down increasing its odds of detection and would have also required additional refueling at sea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,980,005 times
Reputation: 21237
My understanding is that a major factor in the decision by the Japanese to not try to capture and occupy Hawaii, was the distance it lay outside of their defense perimeter. The problems of keeping a sufficiently large garrison supplied and defended would have taxed the Navy beyond its capabilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2011, 12:10 PM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,497,497 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
My understanding is that a major factor in the decision by the Japanese to not try to capture and occupy Hawaii, was the distance it lay outside of their defense perimeter. The problems of keeping a sufficiently large garrison supplied and defended would have taxed the Navy beyond its capabilities.
I mentioned it briefly in my first point, but that was certainly a major reason that deserves more attention. Taking Hawaii and defending it would have simply turned it into a major drain on Japanese resources. It would be a logistical nightmare to supply and would have basically become a trap for the Japanese navy as they tried to maintain the supply lines and defend against a US push to retake it. Ultimately, the US would have thrown everything they had at Hawaii and the Japanese would have had little chance of stopping them. Meanwhile the commitment of troops to the taking and defense of Hawaii would have meant giving up on other more pressing and strategically important goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2011, 05:10 PM
 
Location: home...finally, home .
8,798 posts, read 21,204,136 times
Reputation: 20050
new book reports that two days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that officially brought the United States into World War II, President Roosevelt was warned about such a possible attack in a memo from naval intelligence.


"The evil that men do lives long after them. The good is oft interred with their bones."

Men like Churchill and Roosevelt probably saved the entire world from a terrible fate by making the decisions that they did. Where are their counterparts for today?
__________________
******************


People may not recall what you said to them, but they will always remember how you made them feel .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top