User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 6:46:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Wondered that myself as I walked the grounds end of last year. The museum didn't mention it during any of the tours
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 6:49:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Third attack wave never came off. That was targeted at the fuel storage and maintenance areas. If they had succeeded, then it would have probably set us way back and maybe even taken us out of the war in the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 6:51:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Fuel could be replenished much faster than building ships and training warriors.
Take away my bullets... I can get more. Destroy my rifles and magazines and the bullets are useless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 6:55:16 PM EDT
[#4]
I think it was the sense of euphoria seeing all the battleships lined up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:01:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chuckg413: Third attack wave never came off. That was targeted at the fuel storage and maintenance areas. If they had succeeded, then it would have probably set us way back and maybe even taken us out of the war in the Pacific. Maybe delayed us by 6 months, but there was Zero chance of America being “taken out” of the war in the Pacific. The Japanese were motivated by their previous big win over the Russian fleet which forced Russia into a concessionary armistice. However, they 100% misjudged America’s willingness to wage Total War. Absolutely crazy, when you think of it, but the Germans also did it with respect to France and Britain. Not once, but twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:23:40 PM EDT
[#6]
They were after the carriers, but the carriers weren't there, so they concentrated on the battleships and cruisers, secondary to that were parked aircraft etc. BTW they knew hitting the ships in the harbor, while damaging, would not actually completely sink them since the harbor was so shallow, and in fact the US were able to raise and return to service most of the damaged ships.
While the first wave came in and caught the US by surprise, the second wave came in, and even achieving most of their mission, they had a much tougher time with US anti-aircraft. By the time the third wave could launch, there was no longer any chance of surprise, the Japanese had lost a number of planes, they feared losing many more to improved AA fire, and most importantly, they didn't know where the US carriers were, and that caused the Japanese admiral (who believed that the war would be short lived; they didn't think the US had the stomach to fight), to make the decision retire from the fight rather than risk being hit by an unaccounted for US carrier fleet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:33:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe delayed us by 6 months, but there was Zero chance of America being "taken out" of the war in the Pacific. The Japanese were motivated by their previous big win over the Russian fleet which forced Russia into a concessionary armistice. However, they 100% misjudged America's willingness to wage Total War. Absolutely crazy, when you think of it, but the Germans also did it with respect to France and Britain. Not once, but twice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Third attack wave never came off. That was targeted at the fuel storage and maintenance areas. If they had succeeded, then it would have probably set us way back and maybe even taken us out of the war in the Pacific. Maybe delayed us by 6 months, but there was Zero chance of America being "taken out" of the war in the Pacific. The Japanese were motivated by their previous big win over the Russian fleet which forced Russia into a concessionary armistice. However, they 100% misjudged America's willingness to wage Total War. Absolutely crazy, when you think of it, but the Germans also did it with respect to France and Britain. Not once, but twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:39:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Would have been an interesting development had they further delayed us. Would we have wound up then dropping the A bombs with fewer of the island hopping campaigns that cost us so many casualties? Would the war in the Pacific be simply delayed until we won Europe, and then Russia would have had to support a multi front war against the Japanese? Ultimately, think the outcome for Japan would have been the same, as the chance of them mounting a viable campaign against our west coast would have still been zero.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:52:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would have been an interesting development had they further delayed us. Would we have wound up then dropping the A bombs with fewer of the island hopping campaigns that cost us so many casualties? Would the war in the Pacific be simply delayed until we won Europe, and then Russia would have had to support a multi front war against the Japanese? Ultimately, think the outcome for Japan would have been the same, as the chance of them mounting a viable campaign against our west coast would have still been zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 7:59:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Didnt a Japanese sub try to shoot a fuel storage facility from their deck cannon?
I must admit that my less known WW2 history has been from Mark Felton and his awesome youtube vids. Sorry guys. A quick read and totally blanked on the Pearl Harbor. I believe the attack that I was talking about was in CA not HI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 10:31:26 PM EDT
[#11]
I remember a teacher in school, around 1975, mentioning that years before the AAC did practice runs on Pearl Harbor during war games, and were directed to avoid the fuel storage areas just in case a pilot messed up and crashed. There were Japanese fishing boats in the area observing the training and reported back so accurately without inside information, that the Japanese war plan didn’t even consider the fuel dump.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 5:06:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chuckg413: They were after the carriers, but the carriers weren't there, so they concentrated on the battleships and cruisers, secondary to that were parked aircraft etc. BTW they knew hitting the ships in the harbor, while damaging, would not actually completely sink them since the harbor was so shallow, and in fact the US were able to raise and return to service most of the damaged ships. While the first wave came in and caught the US by surprise, the second wave came in, and even achieving most of their mission, they had a much tougher time with US anti-aircraft. By the time the third wave could launch, there was no longer any chance of surprise, the Japanese had lost a number of planes, they feared losing many more to improved AA fire, and most importantly, they didn't know where the US carriers were, and that caused the Japanese admiral (who believed that the war would be short lived; they didn't think the US had the stomach to fight), to make the decision retire from the fight rather than risk being hit by an unaccounted for US carrier fleet. Yeah Nagumo got cold feet. The rapid response of US AA was an unpleasant surprise for the Japanese. They did plan to send a third strike, but Nagumo lost his nerve. The Japanese had no idea where the US carriers were and he was convinced they might surprise him while his planes were away at Pearl Harbor. Fuchida was pissed IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 6:24:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the sense of euphoria seeing all the battleships lined up. One other mistake in planning was in disregarding the US submarines. That came back to haunt them and their logistic support in a big way.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 10:53:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Subs - Japan viewed subs as scouts and anti-warship role, not anti-commerce, so they were low priority vs carriers and surface combatants. Besides there were what... 4 subs in PH on 7/12/41? The US had 100+ subs in 1941 and built over 200 more.
Fuel We were fuel restricted in Pacific from 42 into 43 when it came to gas guzzlers (fuel oil gulpers?) like BBs and that kept our remaining battleship actions limited in the Solomons. We kept our capable but older BBs on the West Coast to "protect cities from Japanese attack" which was a cover for "limited fuel oil is reserved for cruisers, carriers, and 2 faster newer BBs." Had we further fuel restriction it might have pushed things back for us a few months more. Had we better early logistics, the early naval battles around Guadalcanal would not have been as favorable for Japan. Striking one target to cause a few months delay in war aims is a pretty big deal even if it would not have changed the ultimate course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2020 7:20:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Any body think why the japs didn't light off the tank farms? Was it just oversight or did their future plans include invading Pearl and they wanted it for their future fuel needs. Skipping over the tanks and the sub base and repair area cost them in a big way as the war went on. I guess completely destroying the sub base would have taken lots of ordinance but fuel tanks pretty much just need to be torched off Well, 3,000 miles is quite a long combat radius for a WWII aircraft, either carrier based or land based. No air-to-air refueling back then either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2020 6:28:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Landing on Hawaii was never a serious option for the Japanese. It would have required the continuous commitment of over 100 cargo ships that they simply did not have to take and hold them.
Edit to add - weird how WWII was such a close thing. How many tanks does it take to capture Moscow? Answer - about 500 more than Germany had. How many Marus does it take for Japan to win in the Pacific? About 120 more than they had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2020 5:13:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga were lurking around. 6 squadrons of SBDs would have ruined their day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2020 5:25:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could we have even got the A-bomb to Japan without the island airfields, and with Japan still having an effective air arm? I'm guessing not. I'm think the progress of the Pacific campaign would have been vastly different. Take a look at what the U.S. did at Ulithi in the west Pacific. By 1944 it was a larger anchorage for the U.S. Navy, than Pearl Harbor. The simple fact that the United States could build a massive naval base out in the middle of nowhere, with full refueling, reprovisioning, and dry dock capability, meant that the end result of the war was going to be the same. Just a matter of timing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2020 11:48:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Take a look at what the U.S. did at Ulithi in the west Pacific. By 1944 it was a larger anchorage for the U.S. Navy, than Pearl Harbor. The simple fact that the United States could build a massive naval base out in the middle of nowhere, with full refueling, reprovisioning, and dry dock capability, meant that the end result of the war was going to be the same. Just a matter of timing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Could we have even got the A-bomb to Japan without the island airfields, and with Japan still having an effective air arm? I'm guessing not. I'm think the progress of the Pacific campaign would have been vastly different. Take a look at what the U.S. did at Ulithi in the west Pacific. By 1944 it was a larger anchorage for the U.S. Navy, than Pearl Harbor. The simple fact that the United States could build a massive naval base out in the middle of nowhere, with full refueling, reprovisioning, and dry dock capability, meant that the end result of the war was going to be the same. Just a matter of timing. Not to mention that a lot more emphasis would have been put on the B-36 program, which could probably hit Japan from bases in Alaska, or maybe even Pearl Harbor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2020 6:50:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Third attack wave never came off. That was targeted at the fuel storage and maintenance areas. If they had succeeded, then it would have probably set us way back and maybe even taken us out of the war in the Pacific. This. The goal of crippling the Pacific Fleet was met. The fuel tanks storage at Pearl was expanded into the Red Hill area by building into Red Hill itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 2:02:03 AM EDT
[#21]
The Japanese were studying maps of Pearl Harbor made in 1933, before a lot of the tank farms had been built.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 2:16:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. The goal of crippling the Pacific Fleet was met. The fuel tanks storage at Pearl was expanded into the Red Hill area by building into Red Hill itself. Still under construction at the time of the attack. Red Hill is an engineering marvel, I got to take one of the tours several years ago. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
