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.
That said, I think they did make a major blunder in that they could have done a lot more damage during their attack on Pearl Harbor but instead chose to retreat. Specifically, they did not destroy the navy yard, the fuel tanks, the submarine pens, and much of the other infrastructure on Oahu.
Did the Japanese airfleet, several thousand miles from it's bases and with no logistical structure in place even have the capabilty to do such things? I doubt it.
And they had the American carriers to worry about and they didn't know where they were or what they, now knowing a state of war existed, could've been capable of.
Did the Japanese airfleet, several thousand miles from it's bases and with no logistical structure in place even have the capabilty to do such things? I doubt it.
And they had the American carriers to worry about and they didn't know where they were or what they, now knowing a state of war existed, could've been capable of.
They could have at least launched another, third wave. With all the airfields and the battleships already hit, the only thing left for them to bomb would have been the infrastructure. Not saying they would have been able to destroy everything but certainly they could have done a lot more damage.
The threat of the American carriers was there to some extent but at the same time I don't think the Japanese fleet was ever sighted by the Americans.
They could have at least launched another, third wave.
Given that Pearl Harbor was basically a diversionary tactic, do you think it would have made sense for another wave? Especially since, as has already been pointed out, Japan was already involved in extensive military operations throughout southeast Asia and China.
Didn't the Japanese mess up by NOT taking out some of our ships? I read somewhere several big ones; not sure if they were carriers or destroyers, were out to sea.
I agree with the others here that taking down Hawaii would've been a very nasty fight for Japan at best and a total defeat more like it.
They could have at least launched another, third wave. With all the airfields and the battleships already hit, the only thing left for them to bomb would have been the infrastructure. Not saying they would have been able to destroy everything but certainly they could have done a lot more damage.
Lacking surprise a third wave would've faced much stiffer AA fire. I think that as it was the second wave faced much stiffer resistance and suffered considerably heavier losses than the first. Something the Japanese had to carefully consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles
The threat of the American carriers was there to some extent but at the same time I don't think the Japanese fleet was ever sighted by the Americans.
Yes, but the known existence of the American carriers and their unknown whereabouts was something the Japanese had to carefully consider. It was reasonable for the Japanese to consider their fleet in a precarious situation.
Didn't the Japanese mess up by NOT taking out some of our ships? I read somewhere several big ones; not sure if they were carriers or destroyers, were out to sea.
I agree with the others here that taking down Hawaii would've been a very nasty fight for Japan at best and a total defeat more like it.
They missed the carriers and the submarines...the two ship classes that were instrumental in winning the war in the Pacific.
Many of the other ships were salvaged too... the Pennsylvania (the Arizona's nearly identical sister ship) was repaired and saw more action than just about any other battleship the war, for example.
Because, strategically, Pearl Harbor was a diversion. It's only purpose was to buy time against the United States while crippling the American navy.
The Japanese were already undertaking a huge operation by overrunning the Philippines, Indonesia, Guam, Wake, Indochina, Siam, Burma, Malaysia, New Guinea, and Singapore all at once. All while keeping their armies supplied and fighting in China. For them to invade an archipelago 3,500 miles from the home islands across open ocean and keep their troops supplied would have been a mammoth undertaking.
Instead, their strategy was to seize a defensive perimeter while consolidating their conquests. Hawaii simply had no place in any of that.
pretty much this.
Also Hawaii had the the right to hold and bare arms like the rest of the united states. It would be almost impossible to occupy any part of the united states with any population because of this. The casualties envolved in any kind of a land invasion on U.S. soil would be not be worth it.
Given that Pearl Harbor was basically a diversionary tactic, do you think it would have made sense for another wave? Especially since, as has already been pointed out, Japan was already involved in extensive military operations throughout southeast Asia and China.
By another wave, I mean just another airstrike a few hours after their initial attack on Pearl Harbor. All this means is that the Japanese fleet would have had to stay at its position northwest of Hawaii for just another day at most longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
Lacking surprise a third wave would've faced much stiffer AA fire. I think that as it was the second wave faced much stiffer resistance and suffered considerably heavier losses than the first. Something the Japanese had to carefully consider.
They already faced a much stiffer AA fire during the second wave. That did not prevent them from doing damage. Losing a few planes, even with pilots, is relatively insignificant compared to destroying fuel and ammunition depots, maintenance and repair facilities, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
Yes, but the known existence of the American carriers and their unknown whereabouts was something the Japanese had to carefully consider. It was reasonable for the Japanese to consider their fleet in a precarious situation.
It would have been a calculated risk. Also the fleet was not exactly defenseless. As the Battle of Midway showed, the Japanese were capable of successfully fending off several American attacks. Only a very fortuitous for the Americans turn of events decided the battle.
I think it was simply not their priority. They were not looking for a war, but for domination of the western Pacific. Hawaii is not in the western Pacific, so was of no interest to them, except as a potential staging location for extra-regional enemies interfering with their Asian aspirations. Accordingly, their attack on Pearl was simply a pre-emptive attack in their defensive strategy. As for their imperial objectives, they were no more interested in the USA than in Peru, except to the degree that they saw it as a threat.
Given that Pearl Harbor was basically a diversionary tactic,
A diversion from what?
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.
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.
