Day of Infamy

[Sarevok]

Sunday, December 7th, 1941...

We all know what happened, the suprise attack on pearl harbor that brought the USA into WW2. over 3,000 sailors died while Japan lost only 29 aircraft. Despite images and beliefs, the day of infamy severely damaged, but did not eliminate the US fleet, in additon the Aircraft Carriers and Submarines were not hit.

"We have awakened a sleeping giant and we have instilled within him a great and terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto.

 

[Kryten]

Yes, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Empire of Japan for dragging the United States into WW2….for without this unprovoked attack, the Americans were quite prepared to just sit back and watch the whole of Western Europe, Scandinavia, the Mediterranean, and Western Russia, fall under the evil dominion of the Nazis.

(“That’s bit harsh Kryten!”. Yes, it is a little bit. After all, president Roosevelt, one of the best presidents that America has ever had, was bending over backwards trying to get America into the war. And who knows, maybe even without the attack on Pearl Harbour he might have succeeded....but it would have taken several years, making the war last several years longer, by which time the Nazis would have jet aircraft, long ranged missiles, super tanks, super submarines, and possibly even atomic bombs, making their defeat far from inevitable)

 

[rilnator]

I'm still amazed today that the Japanese were able to accomplish such a surprise attack.
The movie Pearl Harbour had some good scenes in it when the Japanese attacked.
If the Japanese were able to turn back time and have a second go (like saving a civ game) I wonder what they would have done differently?

 

[YNCS]

The most enduring World War II conspiracy theory contends that President Roosevelt and sundry other national political and military leaders "knew" that the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor and, indeed, even provoked the attack. There are numerous variations on the theme. For example, one suggests that Winston Churchill "knew" but refused to tell, so that the U.S. would come to Britain's rescue against Germany. These theories all all based on "evidence," often "new" evidence which has "just come to light." Unfortunately, when all this "new" evidence is examined (which always turns out to be information of little value or relevance long available to the public, if it cared to inquire), the most charitable thing that can be said is "not proven."

Some of the theories about the attack rank with Elvis sightings. There's one contention that the attack was actually carried out by British aircraft based on one of the outlying islands of the Hawaii group!

In fact, the disaster at Pearl Harbor was the result of a lot of audacity, planning and luck on the part of the Japanese and numerous blunders by many American political and military leaders, with no particular person being criminally responsible. As historian Gordon Prange said, "There's enough blame for everyone."

 

[privatehudson]

Sarevok, the reason why the carriers weren't hit was because they weren't there

As for the mistakes.... I tend to think someone had an inkling something was up, I did see a documentary on British TV which claimed the British knew through Ultra that there was an attack planned, just not the day or location. You would assume that if they passed this information to the US the people in Pearl and other locations might get mighty suspicous of marauding midget submarines and early B17 flights, but anyway, given the nature of Ultra it's hard to say whether they knew and if so what they could do without blowing the cover.

Another rumour I heard was that the Japanese had actually declared war prior to the attack, sending a document the previous day outlining a number of issues they had with the US government, but not declaring war. The declaration came within a short time of the attack, but no-one was available to decode and translate the document in time and it was not felt important as the Japanese routinely sent such complaint documents. Not sure how accurate that one is though.

One things for sure, had the carriers all been home in Pearl and sunk, the US would have been up a certain creek without a paddle.

 

[pawpaw]

the u.s.had broken some japanese codes ( not all ) and knew " something " was up but not who,what, where and why.

on a side note-my mom was born this day in 1941--one of TWO disasters that day

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Only momentarily, whilst newer carriers and battleships were constructed; there were others very much into the building process. It would have changed tactics, but not the overall strategic outcome. Even the battlewagons that were attacked were repaired and back into service before too long, save for the Arizona and the Utah.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Only momentarily, whilst newer carriers and battleships were constructed; there were others very much into the building process. It would have changed tactics, but not the overall strategic outcome. Even the battlewagons that were attacked were repaired and back into service before too long, save for the Arizona and the Utah.

From what I've read this would have taken until mid 1942, that's a long time for the Japanese to dominate the Pacific, time in which they could hurt the US. One suggestion was to take this time to occupy Pearl and the islands around it, which if possible would have severely harmed US interests. Any problems caused during that period might have forced a change in emphasis to the Pacific rather than europe. Either way one or both theatres would have been drawn out longer.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Mid 1942 for the Essex class to enter service maybe, but the USN had other carriers besides those operating out of Pearl Harbour.
The worst case scenario is that the war would be longer, but not change US victory.

 

[privatehudson]

Something close to half did operate from that base though (3 out of the 7 main fleet carriers in existence in 1941), had they all been sunk it's hard to work out how the US could have stopped such actions in the immdediate future. Of the remainder 3 were all based out of Norfolk Virginia and one in Bermuda and would have taken time to reach the area also, though obviously not as long as mid 1942, this could have affected any Japanese operations against Pearl or other locations.

And I never intended to state it would have stopped US victory, as I stated in my second post, the consequence of such an action would be to draw out the war much longer in both theatres with any added consequence this may have.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

A Japanese operation against Pearl Harbour or Hawaii with the aim of taking it would have needed a lot more planning, resources and troops than a sneak air attack; as such, it would have to be planned before the actual raid on the chance that the carriers were removed from the equation. Difficult in all considerations.

It would have put America more on the defensive/backfoot, and may have made it necessary to borrow some carriers from the Royal Navy in the interim. We are certainly in agreement that it would have very possibly extended the war; the extent of this lengthening is something that we'll differ on, but alls fair in love, war and naval gunfire.

 

[Godwynn]

Originally posted by pawpaw
on a side note-my mom was born this day in 1941--one of TWO disasters that day

Had she not have been born, you wouldnt have either. and then you wouldnt be here to help me defeat the backstabbing Isabella

 

[privatehudson]

Interesting thought on the RN carriers, perhaps though their quality would be a thought against this, most RN carriers had somewhat less capacity than their US allies with the exception of the newer ones, and to my knowledge the planes in such carriers were inferior to their opponents also. They did have greater survivability IIRC though as they had armoured decks, hence their superiority when facing kamikazee attacks, but they didn't happen until later.

Agreed on the operation thing though, but I imagine had by sheer bad luck said 3 carriers been sunk at Pearl, knocking out the main US base in the Pacific could have been a major priority had it ever been possible. On the time period, from what I have read estimations based solely on the loss of the 3 carriers vary between 6 months and 1 year, but it doesn't say what affect this would have on the European war if any.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

They did not have the capacity of US fleet carriers, and US planes would have been used, as was later done by the RN. The armoured decks did prevent immediate damage, but I recall that they did hide longer term damage/stress in some cases.

If 3 carriers had been knocked out, then the focus of the 4 remaining, and all other naval units, would have been to defend, and hold Hawaii. There would have been no carrier raiding campaigns, probably no Doolittle Raid, and a more conservative approach to strategy before resources allowed them to go on the offensive. There would not have been a significant drain on European operations, IMO, as the US naval role in the Atlantic was secondary in those early stages of the war. Perhaps bombers would have been diverted to defensive groups on the West Coast, along the pre war plans for using patrol bombers, and not been deployed to England in as great numbers.

 

[YNCS]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Even the battlewagons that were attacked were repaired and back into service before too long, save for the Arizona and the Utah.

While the Arizona was sunk at Pearl Harbor, the other battleship sunk there was the Oklahoma (BB 37), not the Utah. USS Utah (AG 16) had been built in 1909 as a battleship (BB 31). In 1931, as a consequence of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was disarmed and converted into a mobile target ship. She was sunk at Pearl Harbor, but hadn't been a battleship for 10 years when she went down.

 

[Constantine]

Wasn't a warning sent to the Philipines that Japanese attacks were expected there not at Pearl?

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Constantine
Wasn't a warning sent to the Philipines that Japanese attacks were expected there not at Pearl?

through broken codes the u.s. knew the japanese fleet was at sea, but not where it was going-singapore?, dutch east indies? or what its intentions were.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by privatehudson

One things for sure, had the carriers all been home in Pearl and sunk, the US would have been up a certain creek without a paddle.

Dunno, I reckon the Americans could have evened up the balance a bit with their submarine fleet.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by YNCS

While the Arizona was sunk at Pearl Harbor, the other battleship sunk there was the Oklahoma (BB 37), not the Utah. USS Utah (AG 16) had been built in 1909 as a battleship (BB 31). In 1931, as a consequence of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was disarmed and converted into a mobile target ship. She was sunk at Pearl Harbor, but hadn't been a battleship for 10 years when she went down.

Yep, saw that one shortly after I typed it, but didn't get around to changing it due to getting sidetracked by Operation Crossroads, of all things. The Japanese did expend a few attacks on her, thinking otherwise.

As an interesting side note, the timbers placed on her deck as part of her role, to cushion the impact of practice bombs used in her target stint, did hamper some escape attempts of her crew because of shifting as she listed and eventually rolled.

In regards to the sub fleet, they needed to change their torpedos over first, as the newer ones weren't working all that well off the Phillipines, as I recall.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


In regards to the sub fleet, they needed to change their torpedos over first, as the newer ones weren't working all that well off the Phillipines, as I recall.

yes, the torpedeo firing pin was too brittle, when it struck the target it did not set the charge off--it broke!!!