We did focus on the Germans. We crushed Japan as an afterthought.

Not to detail, but this is F16 and I was told by my representatives in DC that JAN 6 was worse (which is truly sickening btw)

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

Would the attack been as effective when then fleet was fully manned and loaded, with the understanding that they were going to war?

Seems like you trade the shallow port problem for significantly more strategic disadvantages. Just my opinion, but is that something considered in this theoretical scenario?

---

I'll look up Nimitz comments when I get home. Shower answer, they didn't destroy our dry docks, they didn't get our fuel supplies, the fleet was in shallow water. The kids of those ships at sea would have cost us 10s of thousands of well trained sailors.

LMCane said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

The aircraft carriers not being present at Pearl and the failure of the Japanese to bomb the massive fuel farms located around Pear Harbor doomed the attack. While Dec 7 was a huge setback for the US it was not close to being the knock out blow the Japanese had hoped for.

---

Japan was never going to defeat us in any protracted conflict. They knew this.

Their highest hope was to bloody us enough to let them keep a bunch of territory on the other side of the world that Americans had never heard of. They wanted to run their hemisphere.

It didn't work out for them.

---

Which dovetails with my contention- if the Japanese would have struck British bases in Malaya, Hong Kong, and US bases in Guam and the Marianas and the Phillipines

no one in the USA would have much cared about it. sure we would have gone to war, but the main effort would have been against the Germans and basically would have ignored the Pacific.

the Japanese could have stalled in the Pacific for a few years and there would have been a negotiated settlement. by bombing Oahu, they doomed themselves to the atomic bomb.

---

Hard to say once they hit actual U.S. territories and bases. They should have stuck with the oil producing areas in Indonesia.

Squadron7 said:

---

If you don't know who Dorie Miller is then you need to read this today:

Doris "Dorie" Miller - Pearl Harbor

He is getting a Gerald Ford class carrier named after him.

---

A fine Texan. Able to shoot a 50 caliber machine gun with no training at all.

techno-ag said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

If you don't know who Dorie Miller is then you need to read this today:

Doris "Dorie" Miller - Pearl Harbor

He is getting a Gerald Ford class carrier named after him.

---

A fine Texan. Able to shoot a 50 caliber machine gun with no training at all.

---

About 10 years ago I was stationed at Fort Stewart, home of the 3rd Infantry Division. The division hosted a reunion of 3ID vets that had landed at Anzio in WWII. Roughly 100 to 150 showed up. My battalion was tasked with putting on a live fire display involving Abrams, Bradleys and a handful of Humvees with .50 cals.

We had one of the Hummers set aside so that the vets could live fire a .50 cal if they wanted. Given their age we assumed a handful would take part thus we only had a few cans of ammo. We were so damn wrong. At least half the vest lined up to fire. We had to bring in extra .50 cals and a **** ton of extra ammo. These old dude were tearing things up and having a blast. I was tasked with giving a quick demo to each vet prior to them firing. One of the more crustier vets literally told me to shut up and said, "kid I was killing Nazis with this thing decades before your dad mounted your mom". I just shut up and watch him own that ma deuce like a champ. It was one of my most memorable days in the Army.

I went to the Arizona memorial as young teen with the family. It was very emotional, even as a youngster. My grandparents fought in the war and I had plenty of stories at that point.

As an adult I found the Vietnam Memorial the same. I challenge you to walk slowly along that wall reading the names that where killed by date. No way you'll have a dry eye at the end.

Cheers to the greatest generation. My grandpa took a bullet by a German and survived to tell his grand kid about blowing the nazi's head off after he got up. Uncle shot on Iwo Jima and survived to tell a great story. Youngest of the brothers got there late as he was 18. All his stories were about violating the no fraternization rules with German girls.

Let's all hope we never do this again.

These men gave so much so willingly for this country.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

Would the attack been as effective when then fleet was fully manned and loaded, with the understanding that they were going to war?

Seems like you trade the shallow port problem for significantly more strategic disadvantages. Just my opinion, but is that something considered in this theoretical scenario?

---

I'll look up Nimitz comments when I get home. Shower answer, they didn't destroy our dry docks, they didn't get our fuel supplies, the fleet was in shallow water. The kids of those ships at sea would have cost us 10s of thousands of week trained sailors.

---

Great comment here.

having 6 battleships sink in the northwest Pacific ocean would have killed alot more than the number of sailors on a sunday morning in Pearl Harbor.

still, it's the psychological effect of attacking before war was declared when it could be caught on video and attacking US home islands versus someplace no one had ever even heard of before close to Japan

Never forget December 7th!

LMCane said:

---

---

Interesting film that I'd never seen previously. A bit off regarding the casualties count, not sure we had that many airplanes on Pearl to be destroyed.

I think a good description of Pearl Harbor, at least for Japan, is a tactical victory but a strategic disaster. I do agree with the earlier assertion that had Japan attacked the Philippines first, they likely would not have faced a 100% wound-up American enemy intent on removing their island nation from the face of the earth. We as Americans had seen American casualties up to this point vis-a-vis Nazi U-boat attacks against passenger liners but none of that had lit a fire under the collective ass of the American public to go to war against the Nazis. I suspect a similar non-reaction to less numerous casualties in the western Pacific rather than the in-your-face ~2200 killed at Pearl Harbor.

Squadron7 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

America was a great nation. RIP

---

We still produce plenty of these guys....the ProgLeft's attempts to brand them as toxic notwithstanding.

---

I don't really see it. just to be real honest...

I worked the summer of '73 after high school in the machine shop of a gasket factory. My job was to keep the shop clean and cut large metal bars to length for the machinists.

The exotic metals were housed in a locked cage that was manned by a WW2 veteran. Every now and then I would have to check out one of the exotic bars for one of the machinist.

As I was talking to the WW2 veteran one day, somehow we started talking about the war. He said he was at Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. He was down below the deck getting ready to go to church when he heard loud explosions. He got to the top and quickly realized they were under attack. He went to one of the .50 caliber guns and returned fire. He didn't mention about hitting any enemy planes.

I don't remember him saying which ship he was on, but I should have asked. If that conversation was today, I would have asked him a lot of questions. I visited Pearl Harbor in 2016, and wished I remembered his name to determine which ship he served on.

The Battalion December 9, 1941: Aggies are Ready!

Best video on YT also integrates live video and the photos into the attack.

Could you direct me to one of these experts/authors who really follow the history? That's a pretty bold theory, and though I'm skeptical I'd be interested in reading about it.

It's much harder to destroy a fleet at sea.

Great uncle who was a Sgt. in the Marine Corps, was to report to Pearl on the 5th of December. He asked his commanding officer if he could report on Monday the 8th, so he could spend one last weekend with his family. Major told him "why not", its not like we are going to be attacked or anything.

Coming home from church that afternoon on the 7th of December with his sister "my grandmother", my great uncle's wife and brother-in-law "my grandfather", uncle heard the news about Pearl being attacked. My grandmother told me, he grabbed all his uniforms and took the first train to San Diego.

Uncle was part of the second wave on Guadalcanal, never left the island till 44, he died in 87 from eating paper.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

The aircraft carriers not being present at Pearl and the failure of the Japanese to bomb the massive fuel farms located around Pear Harbor doomed the attack. While Dec 7 was a huge setback for the US it was not close to being the knock out blow the Japanese had hoped for.

---

Yes, from all I've read as soon as Yamamoto learned that the US carriers weren't in port that day he knew they had lost their chance. But failing to take out the fuel depot truly was an error that cost them dearly. Instead of focusing entirely on the US fleet one pilot probably could have set the tank farm ablaze and set the US Navy back a lot further than they did.

AirborneAg04 said:

---

Could you direct me to one of these experts/authors who really follow the history? That's a pretty bold theory, and though I'm skeptical I'd be interested in reading about it.

It's much harder to destroy a fleet at sea.

---

We have a foremost expert that posts here. Maybe he will stop by and educate us on this.

I didn't know about this well done memorial until a few years ago. Thought I would share.

https://localwiki.org/tucson/USS_Arizona_Mall_Memorial_at_the_University_of_Arizona

I have had the honor to visit the memorial 3 times and I've noticed that that about half of the visitors are Japanese visitors. I have always wondered what was going through their minds while visiting.

My dad enlisted in the Navy right out of high school in May of 1941. He was a medic and was stationed in San Diego awaiting his orders to report to Pearl when he had an appendectomy. If not for this he would have been there.

Drachinfel's series is worth a watch too.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

I have had the honor to visit the memorial 3 times and I've noticed that that about half of the visitors are Japanese visitors. I have always wondered what was going through their minds while visiting.

My dad enlisted in the Navy right out of high school in May of 1941. He was a medic and was stationed in San Diego awaiting his orders to report to Pearl when he had an appendectomy. If not for this he would have been there.

---

I had the exact opposite occurrence when I visited the Hiroshima Museum and Memorial when I was stationed in Japan. It was odd being there surrounded by hundreds of Japanese at the site of such destruction. I was very surprised at how balanced the displays were that outlined why the war took place.

On a side note I had a friend there who was an officer in the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force (Japanese Army). He stated that the typical Japanese citizen views the two bombings in a very negative way (not surprising) but that there tends to be an attitude of, "well, we weren't exactly saints either and the US did what it had to do.".

Is this REAL?
For her sake, I hope not.

pic.twitter.com/Tosw3btZak

— DaneG (@Dane__Garcia) December 7, 2022

AirborneAg04 said:

---

Could you direct me to one of these experts/authors who really follow the history? That's a pretty bold theory, and though I'm skeptical I'd be interested in reading about it.

It's much harder to destroy a fleet at sea.

---

It's a harebrained theory. Americans were plenty pissed about losing the Philippines and the massive surrender and the Bataan death march and other atrocities. Hawaii was a territory not a state, so implying that Americans wouldn't be polarized to war is tenuous at best. Also yeah a fleet at sea would almost certainly not have taken the losses that the fleet at anchor took. While the US Navy had a steep learning curve, they mostly acquitted themselves well through the first year of the war. Japan's actual strategy was to strike, take as much territory and resources as possible, then make the prospect of retaking them too costly and painful as the hardest working man in military history suggests. It… didn't work.

The mistake of attacking Pearl Harbor was that the US utterly outclassed Japan in resources and industrial capacity. Plus the fact that losing the bulk of the pacific fleet's old battleships wasn't nearly as important as it seemed at the time.

Check out The Fleet at Flood Tide by Hornfischer. It was settled as soon as the US decided to crush Japan.

Mom and Dad were married on April 29, 1944.

Dad entered active duty in the USN on May 2, 1944. Yep. Three days later.

Dad served on the USS Burias and the USS Cascade in the South Pacific until his honorable discharge on February 16, 1946. He attained the rank of Shipfitter 2nd Class in his twenty-two months on active duty.

My Dad passed away this past Monday, December 5, 2022 at the age of 98+ years. He took memories of the war with him that I never could get him to share.

He was one heckuva man. Glad to have been able to call him Dad.

Quote:

---

Several times in recent weeks I have been quoted -correctly that as bas as our losses were at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 - they could have been devastatingly worse - had the Japanese returned for more strikes against our naval installations, surface oil storage, and our submarine base installations. Such attacks could have been with impunity as we had little left to oppose them. Furthermore - I have been correctly quoted in saying that it was with God's divine will that Kimmel did not have his fleet at sea to intercept the Japanese Carrier Task Force that attacked P.H. on 7 December 1941. That task force had a fleet speed of at least 2 knots superior to our speed - and Kimmel coul dhanot have brought the Japanese to a gun action unless they wanted it. We might have had one carrier but I doubt if LEXINGTON could have joined in time - picture if you can - 6 Japanese carriers working on our old ships which would be without air cover - or -had the Japanese wanted to avoid American air attacks from shore - they could have delayed the action until out of range of shore based air. Instead of having our ships sunk in the shallow protected waters of P.H. they could have been sunk in deep water - and we could have lost ALL of our trained men instead of the 3,800 approx. lost at P.H. There would have been few trained men to form the nucleus of the crews for the new ships nearing completion. Not only were the ships of the enemy task force faster - they were more modern - and the Japanese main fleet under Yamamoto was in the rear - in support - if needed. Nagumo - the commander of the P.H. Attack Force -- missed a great change not following up his attack...

Warmest regards and best wishes -
C.W. Nimitz

---

The Japanese shortfalls on 7 December and Nimitz's thoughts were mentioned earlier. I have been waiting to get home all day to type up this letter I'd seen in a book im currently reading.

This is an extract from a letter written to Admiral McDonald CNO 3 April 1965.

Just left the VFW where they had a big chicken dinner.

Random personal note: a man who served on the West Virginia is a family friend of my wife's family. The West Virginia was sunk at Pearl but salvaged, refitted, and took part in the Battle of Surigao Strait, the last battleship vs battleship action in history. The West Virginia hit Yamashiro with her first radar aided salvo at 22,800 yards, at night. A fitting synopsis of WWII, a battleship sunk at Pearl Harbor took part in destroying the IJN's last gasp, with overwhelming numerical and technological superiority.

Little Rock Ag said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

Would the attack been as effective when then fleet was fully manned and loaded, with the understanding that they were going to war?

Seems like you trade the shallow port problem for significantly more strategic disadvantages. Just my opinion, but is that something considered in this theoretical scenario?

---

I think the theory is that our Battleships were not as good as the Japanese battleships, and our carrier flight crews were not as good as the enemy

so the Japanese could have done to us in late 1941 what we did to them in June 1942 at Midway-

wait with their carriers to the northeast of the Philipines and ambush our fleet as it steamed north from Pearl Harbor

---

I think Titan might weigh-in on this one.

---

How about another tard.

Jap BB's and Carriers were our equals in late 1941 with better aircraft especially fighter cap. Problem for Japan was poor ship board fire fighting and damage control. If a Jap carrier or even heavy cruiser took a hit it would often burn even with a single bomb hit but an American Carrier was a much tougher customer because we often got the fires under control. Relatively speaking Japan sucked at damage control and it cost them dearly.

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

Would the attack been as effective when then fleet was fully manned and loaded, with the understanding that they were going to war?

Seems like you trade the shallow port problem for significantly more strategic disadvantages. Just my opinion, but is that something considered in this theoretical scenario?

---

We would have gotten our rear ends kicked so bad we wouldn't have sniffed the Pacific for another decade. Most of our ships at the time were extremely old. We were significantly behind the Japanese in modernizing. Ships like Texas and the classes between the dreadnaughts and the fast battleships were all over 20 years old when PH was attacked. Texas (not in the Pacific at the time) was already pushing 30 years old, though she was upgraded in the 20s).

When PH was attacked we had only commissioned 2 of the so-called "Fast Battleships" with 4 more of the South Dakota Class launched (or soon to launch) and none commissioned until spring 42. The 6 Iowa Class battleships (includes ships like the Missouri) were under construction (well 4 of them had been started) but none of them would even be launched until late 1942 and wouldn't enter service until Spring 43 at the earliest.

As old as those ships were, getting them salvaged and refit allowed us to pester the Japanese. Without the support of the ships from PH our carriers would have most likely been picked off with ease. The Japanese would have had unrestrained rule over any part of the Pacific they desired and would have secured the oil supplies they badly needed for their ongoing empire building campaign.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Currently reading raising the fleet

Goes into the details that went into the salvage operations to get the fleet back to sea.

---

an interesting theory has been around for those experts who really follow history:

that perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor was the worst possible mistake the Japanese could have made. Not because it angered the Americans, but because it allowed the US Navy to recover and repair most of the ships in the shallow port.

if the Japanese would have invaded the Phillipines after declaring war, they likely could have bombed our entire Pacific fleet as they rushed north, and they would have sunk into 1,000 foot pacific waters.

---

Would the attack been as effective when then fleet was fully manned and loaded, with the understanding that they were going to war?

Seems like you trade the shallow port problem for significantly more strategic disadvantages. Just my opinion, but is that something considered in this theoretical scenario?

---

We would have gotten our rear ends kicked so bad we wouldn't have sniffed the Pacific for another decade. Most of our ships at the time were extremely old. We were significantly behind the Japanese in modernizing. Ships like Texas and the classes between the dreadnaughts and the fast battleships were all over 20 years old when PH was attacked. Texas (not in the Pacific at the time) was already pushing 30 years old, though she was upgraded in the 20s).

When PH was attacked we had only commissioned 2 of the so-called "Fast Battleships" with 4 more of the South Dakota Class launched (or soon to launch) and none commissioned until spring 42. The 6 Iowa Class battleships (includes ships like the Missouri) were under construction (well 4 of them had been started) but none of them would even be launched until late 1942 and wouldn't enter service until Spring 43 at the earliest.

As old as those ships were, getting them salvaged and refit allowed us to pester the Japanese. Without the support of the ships from PH our carriers would have most likely been picked off with ease. The Japanese would have had unrestrained rule over any part of the Pacific they desired and would have secured the oil supplies they badly needed for their ongoing empire building campaign.

---

Way, way off. Our fleet was every bit as "new" as the Japanese, and much more numerous, an advantage that accelerated rapidly. The ships salvaged at Pearl largely didn't take part in the competitive part of the war. By the time the old battleships were salvaged and refitted, the IJN had already been defeated.

The Japanese took the Dutch East Indies and almost everything they thought they needed. We fought them at the Coral Sea and the Solomon Islands campaign without the old battleships at at times with only one operational fleet carrier.

Just over four years removed from Pearl Harbor, where losing four battleships sunk and four damaged seemed like a crippling blow:

Off Okinawa the US Navy had 11 fleet carriers, 6 light carriers, 22 escort carriers, 8 fast battleships, 10 old battleships, plus numerous British capital ships, plus hundreds of other ships. A stunning victory like Midway wasn't the turning point, it was one step in the inexorable defeat of Japan. The only reason the numbers weren't even more lopsided is we had many ships being refitted or cancelled while still in production since the war was already in hand

US Navy ships

Dec 7 1941 vs 14 May 1945

Battleships: 17 vs 23
Fleet carriers: 7 vs 28
Escort carriers: 1 vs 71
Cruisers: 37 vs 72
Destroyers: 172 vs 377
Submarines: 112 vs 232
Amphibious warfare: 0 vs 2,547
Total: 790 vs 6,768

Even if Japan had won additional stunning victories, the outcome was never in doubt.

GAC06 said:

---

US Navy ships

Dec 7 1941 vs 14 May 1945

Battleships: 17 vs 23
Fleet carriers: 7 vs 28
Escort carriers: 1 vs 71
Cruisers: 37 vs 72
Destroyers: 172 vs 377
Submarines: 112 vs 232
Amphibious warfare: 0 vs 2,547
Total: 790 vs 6,768

---

The one thing Admiral Yamamoto was afraid of. He knew America was a force to reckon with and had a huge advantage with it's industrial might.

I went to Pearl Harbor in 1981 and still remember every minute of it. I hope to go back someday.