Pearl Harbor ? A well used literary tool

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Pearl Harbor ? A well used literary tool

Postby Roger » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:37 pm

MSimon wrote:
I recall that on 7 Dec 1941 we were short more than a few war toys. We spent the next 3 years and some paying for a lack of war toys.


JohnSmith wrote:Yes, having more ships probably would have sped WWII up. Maybe prevented it altogether. Who can say?

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtop ... 8&start=30



The premise is full of crap.

The real question is why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, it was the most freakin stupid thing the Japanese have ever done. After the Fall of France (June 1940) FDR ordered up over 200 ships, 100 of them carriers. And the Japs knew this over a year later and they still attacked Pearl.


If the Japs Bombed onshore Naval fuel tanks, the US Navy wouldn't have had fuel for any maneuvers in the Pacific for 1-2 years. SO the 3 carriers that came back to Pearl after Dec 7th would have had no fuel to sorte out with.

Or if the 3 US carriers find the Jap task Force and sink it on Saturday Dec 6th.

Or if the first radar reports cause the CO at Pearl to go to DEFCON One, and we have 100's of planes in the air when the Japs show up.

Or what do the Japs do if we have 6 carriers at Pearl instead of 3? We dont want to be short a few toys.... 6 carriers at Pearl is still a target, an even more tempting target.

I mean come on, that Pearl Harbor ploy is pretty well worn out. What if we had a few more toys? Thats something said by somebody who has little or no tactical or strategic experience or knowledge.

When it come to the Toys of War, very often its not the toys, its the men that get it done. No Capital Ship authorized after Dec 7th was completed in time to see war time service.

On Dec 6th, the Japanese had 10 Carriers and 10 Battleships, we had 8 & 3.

Admiral Fletcher fared rather well at Coral Sea, with basically the remnants of a Depression era fleet.


IF not for Halsey and Fletcher the Japanese might have been able to take advantage of being the Pre-eminent Pacific Naval Power. But the US brain trust in the Pacific was incredibly good and incredibly lucky, and that is what trumped the Japs 10 Carriers and 10 Battleships, to our 3 carriers.


History has shown that it wasn't the US that got caught flatfooted & short handed on Dec., 7th. The US lost 2000 people on Dec 7th, while Japan lost WW2.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Pearl Harbor ? A well used literary tool

Postby djolds1 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:11 am

Roger wrote:The premise is full of crap.

The real question is why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, it was the most freakin stupid thing the Japanese have ever done. After the Fall of France (June 1940) FDR ordered up over 200 ships, 100 of them carriers. And the Japs knew this over a year later and they still attacked Pearl.


If the Japs Bombed onshore Naval fuel tanks, the US Navy wouldn't have had fuel for any maneuvers in the Pacific for 1-2 years. SO the 3 carriers that came back to Pearl after Dec 7th would have had no fuel to sorte out with.

A good review of the basics:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Vae Victis

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Pearl Harbor ? A well used literary tool

Postby Roger » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:29 am

djolds1 wrote:A good review of the basics:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm


Right, GDP of oh say 120 billion vs 7 billion. Like I said Japan lost the war on Dec 7th.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:35 am

I have studied WW2 ops Roger and from what I learned the Admirals would really have liked to have about 2 or 3 more CVs in the Pacific early on.

The fact (if it is so) that no units authorized post 7 Dec entered war service before the end underscores the potential of starting the re-armament a half a decade earlier.

The imbalance on 7 Dec gave the Japanese some small hope. Their plan was for a military victory (the all out fleet battle) followed by a political settlement (because the Americans don't have the heart for a fight).

The key to winning the war in the time it took was sigint. Without that the estimates were that 1 to 2 more years would have been required (due to the requirement for more ships etc. that would have been needed to compensate for inefficient dispositions.)

Since the Japanese didn't know about our sigint proficiency there reckoning that their superior numbers initially might give them the margin for an early knock out punch was not wholly a pipe dream.

And the fact that Americans might not have the stomach for a prolonged fight was not without foundation either. The outcry at the deaths taking Tarawa caused is a case in point. Or the outcry in the North when the Civil War was going badly (the NY draft riots and the Copperhead movement). Or our recent efforts in Iraq. Americans don't like long drawn out fights. The way you defeat Americans is political not military. You just stay in the field until the Americans give up. That was the plan of the South in the Civil War. Vietnam is another case. As Giap said when confronted with the fact that the North Vietnamese never won a major battle against the Americans. "It didn't matter." The center of gravity in America is politics. It has been for at least 150 years.

I always liked what Ghelen (I think. I'd have to look it up) said when he learned postwar that the Brits and Americans were reading the Axis mail. "We didn't have a Chinaman's chance". In a "fair" fight the Axis might have prevailed.

As to the tank farms - absolutely. The Japanese never got strategic logistics. OTOH American subs targeted Japanese logistics (oil etc.) preferentially over Japanese warships. The Japanese saw no "honor" in targeting logistics. Their concept was the destruction of warships. Reading the Japanese codes was a great help in targeting Japanese logistics. We knew where their convoys were located.

Superior intel more than made up for the initial lack of numerical superiority.

Which brings us back to the point. If the Allies had had numerical parity the Axis powers might have made different calculations. Re: the advisability of taking on the Americans. Of course it is all hypothetical.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:41 pm

Roger,

The real question is why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor,


Because we put on oil embargo on a country with no oil, and appeared weak enough to defeat. A few more toys and they might not have risked it.

War is full of tiny pivot points, and ask Xerxes if numbers always win once the metal is flying. It's interesting to ask what if we had lost at Midway (which easily could have happened) and a few weeks later the Japs were threateing to shell/bomb Los Angeles, San Diego, San Fancisco and Seattle?

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:02 am

MSimon wrote:I have studied WW2 ops Roger and from what I learned the Admirals would really have liked to have about 2 or 3 more CVs in the Pacific early on.


What Admiral wouldn't say that? Gimme a break. Plus so much of the fleet had been moved to the Atlantic, of course those Admirals want their boats back.[/quote]


And it was way more than Sigint, our vacuum tubes were made mass production, those shaped discs/rings inside were punched out, than stacked up in the glass. In Japan they made them by hand. Our radio, sonar & radar tubes were better and a spare was sitting in the closet most times. Pumping inert gas into all carrier fuel lines after aircraft refueling was state of the art at the time, When carriers got bombed, we put the fire out and got back to air ops. PT Boats were a great idea, as was the top gun idea.

Anyway I stand by the idea the Japs were nuts to attack us with 3 carriers. As I said before, with 6 Carriers in the Pacific I think Japan would have still attacked, A blunder is a blunder, regardless the CVs in theater.

TallDave wrote:Roger,

It's interesting to ask what if we had lost at Midway


I dont think its interesting because

1) Our CV production would have been even with Japan in 6-7 months and at the and of a year its like 20 to 3 new builds.

2)And the reason they lost 4 to 1 at Midway, when they threw their elite at us, well... as MSimon noted sigint. That told us when and where, but we still had to go there and fight them.

3)And neat things like.... the Japs left aircraft refueling lines unpurged all over their carriers, so when we bombed them the burnt vigorously. Our fuel lines were purged with inert gas. WE had no such problem, many of our CV;s took hits, put the fires out and pushed the wrecked planes overboard and restarted air ops.

Plus, we learned on thing for sure at Coral Sea and Midway, the Japanese couldn't count carriers.

Midway becomes a non issue, almost, after Coral Sea, we lose Coral Sea & Midway is an issue.

The beginning of the end was Doolittle's raid, its quite clear who was going to win,

MSimon wrote:Superior intel more than made up for the initial lack of numerical superiority.

l.


Are you talking about
Last edited by Roger on Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:26 am

Roger wrote:
MSimon wrote:I have studied WW2 ops Roger and from what I learned the Admirals would really have liked to have about 2 or 3 more CVs in the Pacific early on.


What Admiral wouldn't say that? Gimme a break. Plus so much of the fleet had been moved to the Atlantic, of course those Admirals want their boats back.



And it was way more than Sigint, our vacuum tubes were made mass production, those shaped discs/rings inside were punched out, than stacked up in the glass. In Japan they made them by hand. Our radio, sonar & radar tubes were better and a spare was sitting in the closet most times. Pumping inert gas into all carrier fuel lines after aircraft refueling was state of the art at the time, When carriers got bombed, we put the fire out and got back to air ops. PT Boats were a great idea, as was the top gun idea.

Anyway I stand by the idea the Japs were nuts to attack us with 3 carriers. As I said before, with 6 Carriers in the Pacific I think Japan would have still attacked, A blunder is a blunder, regardless the CVs in theater.[/quote]

You also have to take what was going on inside Japan at the time. The Imperial Navy was reluctant to start a war with us. The Imperial Army wanted us out of the way and off their backs. The Imperial Army had already tested th Russians and decided that Zukof (SP?) and his tanks would bury them in Siberia. To take on the Russians they needed more resources. To acquire the needed resources unhampered, they had to spank us so that we would go away. The Imperial Navy thought that we were likely too big to spank. Absent conclusive evidence to the contrary, the view of the Imperial Army prevailed.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:42 am

Billy Catringer wrote:
You also have to take what was going on inside Japan at the time. The Imperial Navy was reluctant to start a war with us. The Imperial Army wanted us out of the way and off their backs. The Imperial Army had already tested th Russians and decided that Zukof (SP?) and his tanks would bury them in Siberia. To take on the Russians they needed more resources. To acquire the needed resources unhampered, they had to spank us so that we would go away. The Imperial Navy thought that we were likely too big to spank. Absent conclusive evidence to the contrary, the view of the Imperial Army prevailed.


Zukof was one bad assed dude.

Yeah the Imp Army wanted all those resources and asked the Imp Navy to do it for them..... LOL. The Imp Army view forgets, our carriers were bigger, badder, had better radar, faster, better protected, had more planes. ANd we had Ice Cream.

Billy, you make it sound like the Japanese Imp Army got a bloody nose in Russia, and then passed the fight off to the Navy.



When we bombed Tokyo with carrier based B-25's, that was it, it was over. WE bombed their Capitol City.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:05 am

Roger wrote:Billy, you make it sound like the Japanese Imp Army got a bloody nose in Russia, and then passed the fight off to the Navy.


Because that is exactly what happened. Zukoff..er...Zuhkov?...was still in Siberia at the time and he gave the Imperial Army a right smart butt-kickin' so they retreated back across the Manchurian border.

Roger wrote:When we bombed Tokyo with carrier based B-25's, that was it, it was over. WE bombed their Capitol City.


It certainly gave them a start, that's for sure. Well before the war was over, the United States was producing more war material than the other Allied Countries and the Axis powers combined. We won because our production capacity was well out of Axis reach and it was capacious.

It is a mistake to think we have those advantages now. We don't.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:55 am

I think Norman Rockwell said it all in one painting.

Image

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:56 am

Quite the guns on that one..

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:05 am

Betruger wrote:Quite the guns on that one..


Sturdy Mid-Western girl.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:05 am

2)And the reason they lost 4 to 1 at Midway, when they threw their elite at us, well... as MSimon noted sigint.


That helped, but we were also very lucky. Our dive-bombers happened to catch the Japanese carriers refueling/rearming, with their bombs and fuel exposed on the decks of their carriers. In six minutes four carriers were destroyed and the balance of power in the Pacific was drastically altered.

Their success was far from a given. Before the successful attack, three waves of our obsolete Devastators were wiped out without landing a single hit. Midway was the first decisive defeat of the Japanese navy in 350 years.

1) Our CV production would have been even with Japan in 6-7 months


Heh. 6-7 months of an undefended US West Coast, with tens of millions of U.S. lives in danger? San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle being bombed daily? The Japanese were betting that we would sue for peace under those conditions. It wasn't a terribly unreasonable bet, given their untenable position otherwise.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:36 am

TallDave wrote:
1) Our CV production would have been even with Japan in 6-7 months
Heh. 6-7 months of an undefended US West Coast, with tens of millions of U.S. lives in danger? San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle being bombed daily? The Japanese were betting that we would sue for peace under those conditions. It wasn't a terribly unreasonable bet, given their untenable position otherwise.

Dave, what illegal chemical substances were you using today, pray tell? :twisted:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Defending the West coast in that scenario is no problem. Some aircraft get diverted from Europe. So what?

Our ancestors were not as squeamish as we are. The Japanese people are very lucky that their language is not spoken only in hell. Midway was barely 6 months after Pearl. Commitment would not droop; one or two more Admiral Kimmels would instead be offered as human sacrifices to the body politic.
Vae Victis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:17 am

Defending the West coast in that scenario is no problem.


No. You can't defend anything with a potential warmaking capability.

Anyways, productive capacity often falls to tactical superiority. You could have used this same reasoning to determine that the Persian invasion of Greece would inevitably prevail.

Some aircraft get diverted from Europe. So what?


Heh. Do you have any idea what the logistical challenges of defending the entire West Coast would entail? And if we lost the West Coast, a big chunk of that productive capacity could have been damaged or even in Japanese hands. Unlikely, but far from impossible.

Yes, it's very likely we would have prevailed in a protracted war regardless of what happened at Midway. But the Japanese knew that and their strategy was built around avoiding a protracted war. Had we lost at Midway, we could have been under tremendous pressure to negotiate an end to the conflict on terms favorable to the Japanese.

And the Japs arguably had good reason to believe this: just before Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was extremely against getting involved in the war, by 90%-10% in some polls. The Japanese may have been wrong that they could obtain a negotiated peace (or maybe not, given the unpopularity of later wars), but it's easy to see why they thought it was their best chance.
Last edited by TallDave on Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:32 am, edited 5 times in total.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests