From a military standpoint did Japan make a mistake by not pursuing the attack? Pros and cons as they could have cause significant more damage but their supply was severely stretched.

Japan made two critical mistakes. #1 they attacked when all our carriers (the real targets) were at Sea. #2 they did not attack the submarine pens.

The more one looks at it, i think it's obvious that it was a strategic disaster for the Japanese. Seems that they knocked out a bunch of slow battleships that likely wouldn't have played a big role in the months following the onset of war anyway.

Spore Ag said:

---

From a military standpoint did Japan make a mistake by not pursuing the attack? Pros and cons as they could have cause significant more damage but their supply was severely stretched.

---

It was part of a larger strategy targeting American possessions closer to the Philippines. In that regard it succeeded. Long term it was a failure.

Spore Ag said:

---

From a military standpoint did Japan make a mistake by not pursuing the attack? Pros and cons as they could have cause significant more damage but their supply was severely stretched.

---

Speaking from hindsight, yes.

A third wave dedicated to attacking the critical fleet infrastructure would have crippled the Pacific fleet to a point of inoperability. Granted, the potential losses could have been much higher for Japan but the payout could have been enormous.

It has even been posited that losing all the battlewagons may in fact have helped our cause and fighting capability as it dictated major doctrine and tactics changes. The shoot and scoot (which would not have been as effective with the battlewagons) may be what kept the Navy alive during that first year. Some might say it catapulted us into the modern navy fighting style. Pure conjecture of course but an interesting thought experiment and "what-if?"

Interesting question. I have read analyses similar to what Eliminatus mentioned about the critical fleet infrastructure that was left standing was in some ways more important to pursuing the war than the ships that we lost in the attack.

If I also remember correctly, I believe that Japan's rulers believed that by winning quickly and dominating the western Pacific that the US would pursue peace that basically left the Western Pacific to Japan and the eastern Pacific (including Hawaii) to the US. They believed that the US was decadent and would not have the stomach for a long war.

Another interesting tidbit along those lines all the way across the world is that supposedly Hitler got some of his views on the US from watching "The Grapes of Wrath". He believed the US was too poor to resist Germany to any great extent. I honestly don't know if that is true or is just apocryphal.

A recently published article I read on the Pearl Harbor attack mentioned that the Japanese made a huge mistake by not attacking the vast stores of POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants) that the military had in Hawaii. That probably falls in the "infrastructure" category you mentioned.

Nice post JJ

Great post! I lived in Las Cruces, NM for several years. Albert Fall was from Las Cruces, so his story is somewhat well known there.

Albert Fall was as corrupt as they come and was right at home in the rough and tumble of the New Mexico Territory - which was not far removed from the wild west times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_B._Fall

Quote:

---

Albert Jennings Fountain murder case:

Fall and his neighbor, Oliver M. Lee, were land owners in the area and were rivals to attorney Albert Jennings Fountain. Fall's association with Lee began when Fall helped Lee in a criminal case. Lee employed Billy McNew and Jim Gilliland, both known as gunmen. "In return for the legal services of Fall, Lee and his men terrorized men and voters on the lawyer's behalf."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_B._Fall#cite_note-desertusa.com-1][1][/url] By the late 1890s, Lee was rustling cattle from other ranches in the area, altering the brands to resemble his own. When Lee and his gunmen were arrested, Fall handled the legal issues.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_B._Fall#cite_note-desertusa.com-1][1]
[/url]
Fall disliked Fountain, who showed little fear of the Fall-Lee faction, and challenged them openly in the courts and political arena. On February 1, 1896, Fountain and his eight-year-old son Henry disappeared near the White Sands on the way from Fall's Three Rivers Ranch north of Tularosa to their home in Mesilla. Fall successfully defended the men accused of the murderOliver Lee, Jim Gilliland and Billy McNewat a trial in Hillsboro.

Evidence at the trial suggested Lee was involved in Fountain's murder and disappearance, but investigators had to deal with a corrupt court system and Fall's legal skill. The bodies of Fountain and his son and their horse were never found, which hampered the prosecution. The charges against McNew were dismissed by the court, while Lee and Gilliland were acquitted.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_B._Fall#cite_note-desertusa.com-1][1][/url]

---

Quote:

---

Pat Garrett case:

In 1908 Fall successfully defended the accused killer of former Sheriff Pat Garrett. Garrett, famous for killing outlaw Billy the Kid in 1881, had pursued the suspects in the Fountain murders.

---

A recently published article I read on the Pearl Harbor attack mentioned that the Japanese made a huge mistake by not attacking the vast stores of POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants) that the military had in Hawaii.

Not having the carriers in port was a stroke of bad luck for the Japanese, but not even trying to hit the fuel depots and storage facilities was blatant stupidity, and for the Japanese way of doing things, that is saying a lot. Without fuel, there wouldn't have been a Coral Sea, a Midway or for that matter an air attack on Japan. In my opinion, while the Japanese did experience success through 1942 in some areas, the war started to turn after Coral Sea and then a short time later, Midway.