World War II Discussion Thread

First, the battle of Britain is nothing like Pearl Harbor.

BoB was air versus air, or air versus ground. Not air versus sea.

Second, yes, I've heard of Taranto. However, it was done with such a low key scale that it was relatively ignored. And another big difference is that the Italian fleet was isolated within 3,000 miles. It would have been easy just to launch from Africa, Spain, Egypt, the Middle East, or almost anywhere in Europe and make that raid.

Japan was considerably a great distance away from Pearl Harbor. That's what I refer to.

 

First, the battle of Britain is nothing like Pearl Harbor.

BoB was air versus air, or air versus ground. Not air versus sea.

You didn't specify either, you said Pearl Harbor was the first Air Raid, I merely corrected you. Had you said Pearl Harbor was the first Air to Sea air raid from a distant foe I couldnt have said anything.

 

In retrospect, I probably should have mentioned this. I have this horrible little characteristic in which that I assume everyone knows what I mean to say because somehow, they can read that...

I'll try to be more specific in the future

 

This is so cool... WW2 veterans are at my school today... I love talking to them... they're so willing to share information

 

I decided to up the thread

 

Hello All

I would like to hear your opinions on the attack on Pearl Harbour and the events that led to the attack.

A sense familiarity is present regarding the events that led to the attack on Pearl Harbour and the attack on the US on September 11 2001.

Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

Master-Aries
(MA)

 

Pearl Harbour eh?

Well, the big difference is it was a military attack, and they weren't going out of their way to kill civilians.

On another note, I'm reading a really good book about The Battle of Britain in which on the chapter that covers September 4th-11th, a bomb is dropped accidently by a Luftwaffe plane into a school where people are sheltering, killing 200 people. De ja vu huh

 

Wow... a little heavier than I've seen on the 'SW forums' before so forgive me if I'm a little behind...

Curious to know if the Commonwealth Air Traing Plan has been discussed at any leantgh here?

My dad was a Lancaster pilot during the war so I have an intrest in such matters...


"Strike Hard, Strike Sure"

 

The day one can tell me that war does not afflict citizens is day I shall surrender, there are no victors in war we are looses as a result of death and destruction.

Now back to the issue, I agree that at the time of Pearl Harbour?s attack, one can see it as an attack on a military installation.

A city on the other hand is difficult to distinguish as purely a citizen based installation; I am out here on a limb because that in itself is controversial.

Herein lies the question, do you think that at the time the Americans had capacity to take on the Japanees with the current fleet prior to the attack.

Secondly do you think the Japanees saw the Americans as a threat if they engaged the Americans in the Pacific?

If so why?

Sincerely

Master-Aries

 

I think what he meant was that civilians were not the primary targets of the attack on Pearl Harbor, whereas the 9/11 attack's primary target was civilians - even though there were police and other non-civilians in the buildings/area (Port Authority, FBI office, etc.).

It's hard to say, because I don't think it would have happened had the US military known the size of the Japanese air fleet. I think someone posted previously that the anticipated attack was thought to be sabatage, not military assault. I think, had our military known and were prepared, they could have defeated the Japanese.

I think the Japanese knew when they attacked Pearl Harbor that the US would be a huge threat to them and the rest of the Axis. I believe that the Japanese General has been quoted as saying "Today we have awakened a sleeping giant" (or something to that effect). It seems that statement would imply that they knew they were messing with a dangerous foe. Someone also previously posted that they calculated the repair time (or building time) for our fleet and wanted that extra time to try to get a firmer hold on the Pacific.

Just my 2 cents.

 

The war in the Pacific was an inevitability, because Japan represented a direct and growing threat to US hegemony in that area. The US implicitly recognised the danger from Japan when they imposed an oil embargo on the Japanese, due to concern over Japanese expansionism in the Pacific. Japan being totally dependent on the importation of oil was always likely to be put under serious pressure by this move, for without the constant flow of oil to fuel their war economy the conquest of China and south east asia would have been an impossibility. The US quite rightly attempted to squeeze the economy of japan, but made the mistake of believing that it would halt them in their tracks, when instead it merely made them desperate.
The Pearl Harbour tactics had been used by Japan before. When they decimated the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war they used a similar, if low tech variant, a surprise attack on Russia's main naval base which destroyed the fleet and ended the war before it had even began. They clearly overestimated the damage an attack on Pearl Harbour would inflict on the US fleet, erroneously assuming that a short, sharp attack would so impair the US that it would leave the field open for the Japanese to conquer Asia unhindered. However their surprise attack on the US was as misjudged as Hitler's Barbarossa offensive, both of which ultimately lead to the destruction of the Axis, beginning for Japan at Midway and for the Germans at Stalingrad and then Kursk.

 

SCOTSSITHLORD:

They clearly overestimated the damage an attack on Pearl Harbour would inflict on the US fleet, erroneously assuming that a short, sharp attack would so impair the US that it would leave the field open for the Japanese to conquer Asia unhindered.

I agree here. But I think there's a bit of luck (for the US) involved here: had the US carriers been in Pearl Harbour this day, the US fleet would have suffered a lot more and the tide may well have turned in favor of Japan, at least for a time.

Also, I think that what Japan underestimated is not really the US strength in 1941, but rather the US capacity to fully use its industrial resources in times of war. (Although it seems that a few generals were aware of this, but were not listen to by the emperor)

 

The question as to if the American fleet a Pearl Harbour was able to affectively attack and disable the Japanese fleet has not been answered.

97 ships were stationed at Pearl Harbour, a third of the American fleet was either protecting shipping convoys to Europe or searching for U-Boats or trying to keep an eye on Japanese movements.

So as is stood the bulk of the American fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbour, America had 3 aircraft Carriers, the Japanese had 6 Aircraft carriers, there destroyer fleet was superiorly efficient as a result that their fleet was new or had been upgraded, the American fleet at Pearl Harbour consisted mainly of 27 year old relics, that was half the speed of Japanese and had limited firing range, the usage of U-boats by the Japanese was also to their advantage, granted that Americans were slowly getting the upper hand on U-boat movements, but in a battle I believe the U-boat with the Japanese fleet would have annihilated the fleet at Pearl Harbour, with little or no support forth coming as their ships were else where.

So I put forth this question, the latest and best of the American fleet had left on the 25 and 28 November 1941, to escort the three aircraft carriers. Leaving behind a defunct fleet, that desperately needed to be replaced; the deliberate moving of the fleet from San Diego and other ports to Pearl Harbour was tactically flawed. Pearl Harbour as it stood was a honey pot ready for the taking, no adequate measures were taken to protect the port, The admiral at the time strongly objected to the lack of patrols that Roosevelt failed to implement, Kimmel tried to protect the fleet by ordering the USS Arizona and other vessels in a patrol but was ordered to stand down and return those vessels to port.

With the Japanese codes broken by the Americans and knowledge of the impending attack was known by Roosevelt, is it not safe to say Roosevelt and others allowed, if not baited the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, not only to get their fleet replaced, which by the way was in the pipe line because, June and July 1940 acts were passed to significantly increase the outdated fleet, and of course was a back door into the war.

Their objective to entering the war was the securing of key positions in Europe which offered at tactical advantage resulting in the securing of Berlin later in the war.

Remember even if Roosevelt lived or not the Atom bomb was the Ace on the hole, and if it did not work the new fleet and assistance from Britain, would have made short work of the Japanese fleet.

So is History repeating itself, just a question not an accusation!

Sincerely

Master-Aries
(MA)

 

The only potentially crippling loss at Pearl Harbour was the sinking of the battleships. In December 1941, battleships were still regarded as the most powerful ship available to a navy. By then, the HMS Hood had been blown to pieces by the Bismarck, and the possibility existed for more of the same. As history revealed, aircraft carriers proved to be the most valuable warships, so the point is moot.

The crippling loss that was avoided was the failure by the Japanese to destroy the oil storage facilities at Pearl Harbour. If those tanks had been bombed, the remains of the fleet at Pearl Harbour would have had to retreat to the west coast of the US.

 

Pearl Harbour was a tactical mistake by the Japs.They didn´t destroyed their most valuable targets:aircraf carriers.The carriers meant the victory of the US.The Japs lost the war in just 4 minutes-in Midway-4 carriers were sunk by US carrier-based airplanes(devastators I think our maybe dauntless)

 

Field Marshall Erwin Rommell

Isn't he a General? Maybe I just heard wrong in High School and read wrong in my history books. The only time I actually heard the rank "Field Marshal" was in a movie about Rommell and the assassination attempt on Hitler at "The Wolf's Lair".

Did you know that Hitler was obsessed with wolves and werewolves? Called himself Herr Wolf and hummed the notes to "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" when he was in a good mood? Oh and he changed the city name where the Volkswagon is made to something that has "wolf" in it. I forgot what he changed it too. Hence why several of his escapes and lairs have "wolf" in the names.

 

Isn't he a General?

Excellent question, CmdrMitthrawnuruodo.

Rommel was promoted to the rank of Reichsmarschall (Field Marshall) when he assumed command of the Afrika Korps in June 1942; at the time, he was the youngest Reichsmarschall in the entire Wehrmacht.

 

Incorrect. There was only one Reichsmarschall - that being Hermann Goering. This was a political appointment with no military power. That Goering was head of the Luftwaffe is irrelevant.

Erwin Rommel earned his promotion to Generalfeldmarschall in June 1942 during his tenure as commander of the Duetche Afrika Korps.

 

Thank you for correcting me on my rather unsightly mistake, General Cargin.

"...Reichsmarschall - that being Hermann Goering. This was a political appointment with no military power."

Nonetheless, I do though, respectfully disagree with statement of yours. Even though Göring received his rank through a political appointment, he did exercise real military power (in terms of the Luftwaffe); case in point, the Adlertag.

 

Goering's appointment as Reichsmarschall was seperate to his appointment as head of the Luftwaffe. It is correct that he was head of the air forces, but the appointment was seperate from the military chain of command. The appointment of Reichsmarschall was equivalent to deputy Fuhrer, and he was indeed referred to in that capacity.

 

Darthbreezy


My Uncle was a Lancaster flight Engineer during the war.

 

(back to the Pacific War topic)

The Japs intended primarily to strike the Aircraft carriers at Pearl harbor, and were pretty disappointed to discover that their primary target weren't there. One full wave of bombers did not strike because of that.

 

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that Goring was incompetant?

 

Compared to Hitler? No

 

I wouldn't call Hitler incompetant. Isane and deranged, yes. He proved his competancy during the 1930's and early 1940's.