PDA

View Full Version : Students of History: Re- the United States



Chuck_Older
09-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Man I wish I got into some of the other discussions here! I was stuck in a meeting.

I don't want to start a discussion about this, so this really should be locked right away (hint). I'm not starting a flame war, and I would use the Personal Topic option if everyone could use it all the time and if it was easier to use, but:

In case anyone is really interested in what the US does in Wartime, I suggest that the interested Student of Martial History look at ALL wars fought by the US, not just famous ones that a lot of people seem to be "experts" on. For instance- it is common knowledge that the US formally declared war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but is it common knowledge that the US had performed acts of War before that, against Germany? Nope.

Not saying that anyone should learn what the Heck they are talking about, but the History of the Armed Forces of the United States is well documented and very interesting. And you may learn a thing or two that might make you stop inciting other members from going berserk http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif or getting your topics locked.

All this is, if I can borrow a line from the Clash, is just a Public Service Announcement, not an invite to debate, which unfortunately, will be counter-productive given how touchy tempers tend to be here. This isn't Political, it's just Informative

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Chuck_Older
09-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Man I wish I got into some of the other discussions here! I was stuck in a meeting.

I don't want to start a discussion about this, so this really should be locked right away (hint). I'm not starting a flame war, and I would use the Personal Topic option if everyone could use it all the time and if it was easier to use, but:

In case anyone is really interested in what the US does in Wartime, I suggest that the interested Student of Martial History look at ALL wars fought by the US, not just famous ones that a lot of people seem to be "experts" on. For instance- it is common knowledge that the US formally declared war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but is it common knowledge that the US had performed acts of War before that, against Germany? Nope.

Not saying that anyone should learn what the Heck they are talking about, but the History of the Armed Forces of the United States is well documented and very interesting. And you may learn a thing or two that might make you stop inciting other members from going berserk http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif or getting your topics locked.

All this is, if I can borrow a line from the Clash, is just a Public Service Announcement, not an invite to debate, which unfortunately, will be counter-productive given how touchy tempers tend to be here. This isn't Political, it's just Informative

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

MEGILE
09-08-2004, 05:13 PM
Half life 2 is gonna roxor, I can't wait.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51purplej.jpg
"Copper, you're smoking crack" - VF-11 Vadge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fliger747
09-08-2004, 05:23 PM
The USN 'neutrality patrol' in the Atlantic was a probable violation of the neutrality act and deffnitly a great aid to England. The Bismark was 'found' by a USN pilot flying a British PBY.

Interesting though, Hitler declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. It was not necessarilly a done deal that we would have declaired war on him any time in the immediate future.

TX-WarHawk
09-08-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Half life 2 is gonna roxor, I can't wait.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51purplej.jpg
"Megile, you're smoking crack" - VF-11 Vadge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF

Cajun76
09-08-2004, 05:39 PM
These things are always one-sided. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif This was supposed to be submitted to the US by the Empire of Japan on Dec. 7, 1941, just as the Pearl Habour attack was to take place. Interesting 'facts' and 'information', don't ya'll think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411206d.html

Good hunting,
Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

Cajun76
09-08-2004, 05:40 PM
Oh, and I think PF will roxor more. It will pwn HL2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

huggy87
09-08-2004, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Half life 2 is gonna roxor, I can't wait.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51purplej.jpg
"Copper, you're smoking crack" - VF-11 Vadge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't that the truth. There are a lot of good games coming down the pipe. Rome: Total War, PF, the Call of Duty expansion, the Pirates remake (for you old folks here). What is a computer dork to do?

Chuck_Older
09-08-2004, 08:35 PM
Pirates! is being remade?!?!

By who? Microprose? Sid Meier?

I loved that game

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

p1ngu666
09-08-2004, 09:30 PM
i think a certain piece of american shrubbery wants to make more history http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

lbhskier37
09-08-2004, 09:37 PM
I suggest reading Flyboys by James Bradley Not only is it a good account of fighting there, but it really puts the "enemys" side in perspective. In war no ones hands are clean.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 11:36 PM
Yes the US was pushing itself to war or being pulled into it. What ever way you want to read it.
Do some reading on F.D.R. and read Churchills I think 5-6 volume set . One of the titles is Their Finest Hour. Some thing like that.
The oil and steel embargo pushed Japan to war.
USN 'neutrality patrol' in the Atlantic was getting in harms way.
Start the reading from 1937.
The world war had already been going on it was just when would the US stepin.
ON Dec. 7 1941 the Germans were at the Gates of Moscow.
The US should have been doing something, legal or not.
The Arms of Krupp. Is another good book ,interesting view of the Wars.
Follow the history of the P-40.
The plane follows the road to war well. Starting off in China.
The reason for importance is it was only plane ready for mass production when the war broke out. So it started the ball rolling into war.
Then read about the design and develoment of the Zero.Note the dates and time.
Hitler was pushing buttons that was starting a world war and so were others. The world as a whole was not nice time and place in 1937-39.
Boy ,thats some reading?!?!

Blackdog5555
09-09-2004, 02:20 AM
Love all the pinheads in the forum and the historical revisionist views. You idiots want to kiss some NAZI ***, go ahead. you make me sick.

The_Ant
09-09-2004, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Pirates! is being remade?!?!

By who? Microprose? Sid Meier?

I loved that game

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sid meier is rebuilding it, its too be realesed in okt-nov 2004.

[Si Vis Pacem,Para Bellum = If you wish for peace, prepare for war.]

RAAF_Edin
09-09-2004, 02:42 AM
Thanks for the post... I did not know this, and I can only wonder how many other things "slipped" history leasons http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blackdog5555... no words for you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

Dammerung
09-09-2004, 02:50 AM
Lots of things slip history lessons. Namely anything about war.

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

MEGILE
09-09-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-WarHawk:


WTF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said Don't debate, so I didn't.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51purplej.jpg
"Copper, you're smoking crack" - VF-11 Vadge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Biloxi72
09-09-2004, 07:06 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gifMegs GOOD ONE BUD! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

kaa303
09-09-2004, 08:24 AM
Of course it wasn't that evil Japan attacked poor US. The war in the Pacific was a clash of two imperialist powers struggling for domination in the region. (Of course it WAS Japan who attacked without declaring war on 7th Dec 1941, but both sides probably had a cassus belli by then.) Just think of all the US bases on Philipines or Hawaii for example... pretty far from North America, ain't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

----------------------------
my site: http://www.kaa303.republika.pl/

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Yes the US was pushing itself to war or being pulled into it. What ever way you want to read it.
Do some reading on F.D.R. and read Churchills I think 5-6 volume set . One of the titles is Their Finest Hour. Some thing like that.
The oil and steel embargo pushed Japan to war.
USN 'neutrality patrol' in the Atlantic was getting in harms way.
Start the reading from 1937.
The world war had already been going on it was just when would the US stepin.
ON Dec. 7 1941 the Germans were at the Gates of Moscow.
The US should have been doing something, legal or not.
The Arms of Krupp. Is another good book ,interesting view of the Wars.
Follow the history of the P-40.
The plane follows the road to war well. Starting off in China.
The reason for importance is it was only plane ready for mass production when the war broke out. So it started the ball rolling into war.
Then read about the design and develoment of the Zero.Note the dates and time.
Hitler was pushing buttons that was starting a world war and so were others. The world as a whole was not nice time and place in 1937-39.
Boy ,thats some reading?!?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The US remained in an isolationist frame of mind before 7 Dec 1941. It was Roosevelt IMO who was essentially rsponsible for leading the US into WW2. Roosevelt played the role of political provocateur in this sense. Under his aegis, the US was hardly playing a neutral role in world affairs prior to Pearl Harbor -

The oil and steel embargo upon Japan was an overtly unfriendly act, which, so far as I have been able to discern, had no real connection to US national interests.

The Flying Tigers were covertly authorized and supported by the US govt.

The "Neutrality Patrol" was by no means neutral.

The first Lend-Lease deal sent 50 destroyers to Britain - hardly a neutral act.

Large amounts of war materiel were being shipped to Britain long before US entry into the war.

Events ultimately confirmed the wisdom of Roosevelt's actions, but political morality in the strict sense was unquestionably violated - not an uncommon occurence in the halls of power.

BLUTARSKI

darkhorizon11
09-09-2004, 10:05 AM
Yeah. Then again look at it this way... name a country that isn't guilty of commiting war crimes at one point or another in history. The US isn't any better or worse.
Since WWII the world has changed and this is obviously why now we get involved in most situations. I'll go no further as I don't want to turn this to a current events thread.

owlwatcher
09-09-2004, 10:45 AM
Life in the late thirtys
China and Japan ...
Stalin and the purges...
Hitler and the jews...
Mussolini in Afrika alittle gas you say...

Life in the USA
My grandfather use to get food instead of pay for his work
He was lucky he had a steady job.

My mother From the mining fields of PA..
She was lucky, she liked school and a teacher guided her .One room school house!
Housing food and work was a real struggle for her while growing up.
Was told to leave the hills of PA, and find work in Baltimore MD.
The war orders were bringing real jobs back.

The radio was making its way into house holds.

horseback
09-09-2004, 11:01 AM
Put me in the camp that places responsibility for lack of neutrality on Roosevelt. Ultimately, though, I have to say that he did the right thing. His obligation was to do the things that were best for his country, and he literally led the popular sentiment into the proper pre-war mode.

Americans have long had a certain distaste for European conflicts; most of our ancestors crossed the Atlantic to avoid them. The assumption was that we were sufficiently distant that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for European powers to impose their will on the North American continent without our compliance.

However, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco's rises to power, along with their apparently common political philosophy, made citizens in stable democracies more than uneasy, and the advances in technology made the shores of Europe a lot closer than they had been just twenty years before.

Roosevelt had to take a long and tortuous path to get the United States into a position to first, protect itself, and second, to defeat these potential threats to democracy as far from America's shores as possible.


I'd say he was successful on both counts.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Chuck_Older
09-09-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kaa303:
Of course it wasn't that evil Japan attacked poor US. The war in the Pacific was a clash of two imperialist powers struggling for domination in the region. (Of course it WAS Japan who attacked without declaring war on 7th Dec 1941, but both sides probably had a cassus belli by then.) Just think of all the US bases on Philipines or Hawaii for example... pretty far from North America, ain't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

----------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a political comment, an historical one:

The US more or less forced Japan into war, and knew it. One of the reasons Kimmel and Short were fired (they were the military head honchos at Pearl Harbor) was becasue even though they didn't have all of the info they should have had, they didn't prepare themselves adequately for the inevitable attack. true it was assumed to be happening in say the Phillipines, but if they had put patrols out, things would have been different on Dec 7th. Duty at Pearl was famously easy, and they both knew that blows would probably be struck soon, somewhere- but they thought "it can't happen here". So they took the blame and got sacked.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kaa303:
Of course it wasn't that evil Japan attacked poor US. The war in the Pacific was a clash of two imperialist powers struggling for domination in the region. (Of course it WAS Japan who attacked without declaring war on 7th Dec 1941, but both sides probably had a cassus belli by then.) Just think of all the US bases on Philipines or Hawaii for example... pretty far from North America, ain't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

----------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a political comment, an historical one:

The US more or less forced Japan into war, and knew it. One of the reasons Kimmel and Short were fired (they were the military head honchos at Pearl Harbor) was becasue even though they didn't have all of the info they should have had, they didn't prepare themselves adequately for the inevitable attack. true it was assumed to be happening in say the Phillipines, but if they had put patrols out, things would have been different on Dec 7th. Duty at Pearl was famously easy, and they both knew that blows would probably be struck soon, somewhere- but they thought "it can't happen here". So they took the blame and got sacked.Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Chuck,

The Kimmel/Short saga is a lot more complicated (and unfavorable to Washington DC) than the popular tales go. Kimmel was acutely aware of his exposure at Pearl Harbor, to the extent that he had his staff draw up an analysis (which basically forecast the exact Japanese plan) and forwarded it to DC. He had continuously requested/begged/demanded additional resources (AA, recon a/c, fighters) only to be ignored by Washington. In addition, Kimmel was not kept in the loop about any of the ongoing diplomatic difficulties, never received any "imminent hostilities" cautionary alert, and was not even informed of the final and most critical Purple decrypt until Sunday AM 7 Dec due to inexplicably lax signal/comms procedures on the part of his superior HQ in Washington - it was actually sent to him via Western Union civilian telegram service with no priority alert attached.

Kimmel and Short were sacrificed as convenient scapegoats to satisfy outraged post 7 Dec public opinion. The real culprits in the Pearl Harbor debacle were in Washington DC. We will never know whether their behavior was the result of typical peacetime military lassitude or calculated political premeditation.

Another interesting sidelight is that the naval base at Pearl Harbor was quite new (only about 8 months old as of 7 Dec IIRC). Shore personnel were still living in tents and the crews of the ships based there were living aboard instead of in shore barracks which would have been customary. None had been built yet. The reason NEVADA was able to get under way so soon after the start of the attack was that she, like the other ships berthed at Ford Island, had steam up in some boilers to provide electrical power and lighting. None of the customary shore-based utilities for berthed ships had been provided for either.

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu September 09 2004 at 12:05 PM.]

Chuck_Older
09-09-2004, 12:58 PM
Bluto-
Didn't know some of that.

Would you say though, that both Short and Kimmel were aware that the US trade sanctions would make Japan's choices limited to: run out of oil (and therefore halt it's Navy) in 18 months to two years, gain new sources of oil production immediately, or attack the US and when they dealt a knock-out blow to the US Navy, have a bargaining chip to have the restrictions removed?

It seems to me that even the idea that a US installation could be attacked as a result of trade sanctions against Japan should have, at the least, prodded Army and Navy leadership on Hawaii to break up their routine of lax vigilance, especially on the weekends. Any tourist visiting Hawaii could have told Japan that on sundays, the Navy was lazy.

I didn't realise how new the installations were, but the decision to park the planes so close together was borne from fear of sabotage, so some sort of inkling of trouble should have already been present. It still seems to me that Kimmel and Short should have done more. Maybe there was a little inter-service rivalry?

I also wonder that if the US Navy was so ill-informed, how was it that a midget sub was spotted, attacked, and sunk before the air attack?

Also it makes me think that since the Navy in Hawaii should have been at least alert, how could reports of the midget sub and the attack on it get ignored so completely? that goes straight back to the Admiral, in my opinion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 01:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Bluto-
Didn't know some of that.

Would you say though, that both Short and Kimmel were aware that the US trade sanctions would make Japan's choices limited to: run out of oil (and therefore halt it's Navy) in 18 months to two years, gain new sources of oil production immediately, or attack the US and when they dealt a knock-out blow to the US Navy, have a bargaining chip to have the restrictions removed?


..... Any reasonable observer of the US-Japanese diplomatic situation had to be aware of the risk of war. But without full awareness of the true diplomatic situation (which Kimmel & Short were denied) judging the degree of risk was no easy task. Going to a high alert state without higher up approval was also a difficult proposition. How long does one keep up such an alert in the absence of clear proof of hostile intent? a week? a month? longer? At some point HQ starts to question the wisdom of straining the personnel. Also, it must be considered that going to a high war alert status might have been considered diplomatically provocative and an unwelcome intrusion upon the foreign policy domain of the State Dept.


It seems to me that even the idea that a US installation could be attacked as a result of trade sanctions against Japan should have, at the least, prodded Army and Navy leadership on Hawaii to break up their routine of lax vigilance, especially on the weekends. Any tourist visiting Hawaii could have told Japan that on sundays, the Navy was lazy.


..... I think it is dangerous to critique the decision processes of the respective commanders from our position of hindsight. On the other hand, the military was certainly showing the laxity brought on by 25 years of peace.


I didn't realise how new the installations were, but the decision to park the planes so close together was borne from fear of sabotage, so some sort of inkling of trouble should have already been present. It still seems to me that Kimmel and Short should have done more. Maybe there was a little inter-service rivalry?


..... I can't speak to the extent of any inter-service rivalry. but apparently there was no communication between the HQ's of the Army and the Navy. Kimmel's HQ was not informed of the US Army radar detection (which was in any case discounted and ignored by the immediate US Army officer in charge).

An interesting aside is that while Short was trashed for "lack of preparedness", Douglas MacArthur, acting in precisely the same manner in the Philippines (and likewise losing most of his air strength on the ground), ended up a five-star general.


I also wonder that if the US Navy was so ill-informed, how was it that a midget sub was spotted, attacked, and sunk before the air attack?

Also it makes me think that since the Navy in Hawaii should have been at least alert, how could reports of the midget sub and the attack on it get ignored so completely? that goes straight back to the Admiral, in my opinion


..... I'm guessing that you refer to the attack of the USS WARD on the Japanese midget sub in the entrance channel to Pearl Harbor. That's an interesting case. WARD's report did not reach Kimmel's HQ until after the air attack. And the idea that WARD had actually engaged a real submarine was officially disbelieved for over sixty years until the sunken remains of the sub were finally discovered a few years ago.

BTW, don't credit me for all this research. I'm merely passing along details which I learned from a most informative lecture given by Chris Carlson this summer.


BLUTARSKI

Chuck_Older
09-09-2004, 02:04 PM
Just goes to show you can always learn something new http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Just goes to show you can always learn something new http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Ain't that the truth.

BLUTARSKI

horseback
09-09-2004, 02:15 PM
Hindsight being what it is, we may not appreciate the basic cultural misunderstandings that led to the Japanese attack on Pearl. Having read John Toland's 'Rising Sun' a couple of times, I am convinced that both sides 'knew' that the other guy knew that doing this or that would inevitably lead to...

The Japanese were constantly misjudged on the basis of a Eurocentrist mindset, and the Japanese were at least as guilty of similar levels of chauvinism, although they actually had a better understanding of the West. That did not keep their leadership from assuming that the Western Powers would react just as they would if the roles were reversed. Having spent a little time in Japan, Europe, and the Middle East, I can assure you that it is easily the most alien culture I've seen.

They are very different from Americans in many ways. In the late 1930s, understanding of Japanese culture (as opposed to it's language) was pretty much the province of a few ivory tower types.

Also, Blutarski, Pearl Harbor was a major US Navy base at least as early as the 1920s. Looking at pictures of the Pearl Harbor attack, it is obvious that it was a major facility, much too extensive to have been put up within 8 months. Certainly, the shipyard facility alone would not be capable of the work done on the Yorktown post Coral Sea just six months later if much of the materials necessary were shipped after the declaration of war, under submarine threat.

I believe that Pacific Fleet Headquarters were moved from California (San Francisco?) to Pearl Harbor in early 1941, and the west coast BBs' homeports were changed to Pearl.

Finally, as a former destroyerman, I can tell you that sailors assigned to a ship were not provided barracks ashore unless the ship was undergoing a yard period. You lived aboard your ship, at sea and ashore. Married personnel, and in that time, that meant senior enlisted and officers only, were provided with housing only if their brides accompanied them overseas (anything not CONUS was considered overseas as recently as 1980). The reason so few of the ships' crews were not onboard was that it was a weekend, and hotel rooms in Honolulu were much cheaper then.

Weekend liberty in Pearl, according to the two uncles I have who were prewar enlistees in the Navy, was cheap and very good. My own experiences lead me to believe that anyone who could afford a hotel room on Saturday night the weekend after payday would get one.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Hindsight being what it is, we may not appreciate the basic cultural misunderstandings that led to the Japanese attack on Pearl. Having read John Toland's 'Rising Sun' a couple of times, I am convinced that both sides 'knew' that the other guy knew that doing this or that would inevitably lead to...


The Japanese were constantly misjudged on the basis of a Eurocentrist mindset, and the Japanese were at least as guilty of similar levels of chauvinism, although they actually had a better understanding of the West. That did not keep their leadership from assuming that the Western Powers would react just as they would if the roles were reversed. Having spent a little time in Japan, Europe, and the Middle East, I can assure you that it is easily the most alien culture I've seen.

They are very different from Americans in many ways. In the late 1930s, understanding of Japanese culture (as opposed to it's language) was pretty much the province of a few ivory tower types.

Also, Blutarski, Pearl Harbor was a major US Navy base at least as early as the 1920s. Looking at pictures of the Pearl Harbor attack, it is obvious that it was a major facility, much too extensive to have been put up within 8 months. Certainly, the shipyard facility alone would not be capable of the work done on the Yorktown post Coral Sea just six months later if much of the materials necessary were shipped after the declaration of war, under submarine threat.

I believe that Pacific Fleet Headquarters were moved from California (San Francisco?) to Pearl Harbor in early 1941, and the west coast BBs' homeports were changed to Pearl.

Finally, as a former destroyerman, I can tell you that sailors assigned to a ship were not provided barracks ashore unless the ship was undergoing a yard period. You lived aboard your ship, at sea and ashore. Married personnel, and in that time, that meant senior enlisted and officers only, were provided with housing only if their brides accompanied them overseas (anything not CONUS was considered overseas as recently as 1980). The reason so few of the ships' crews were not onboard was that it was a weekend, and hotel rooms in Honolulu were _much_ cheaper then.

Weekend liberty in Pearl, according to the two uncles I have who were prewar enlistees in the Navy, was cheap and very good. My own experiences lead me to believe that anyone who could afford a hotel room on Saturday night the weekend after payday would get one.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... As regards the condition/status of Pearl Harbor as a naval base circa 1941, this information came from Chris Carlson - Annapolis grad (engineer), currently @ DoD as an analyst specializing in naval technology. Chris is a pretty thorough and meticulous researcher. A quick Google search found this -

"After the United States annexed Hawaii in 1900, Pearl Harbor was made a naval base. Harbor improvements and fortifications were later added, especially after the signing of the Berlin Pact in 1940 by the Axis nations."

It's possible that Chris was referring to an incomplete expansion program from a fleet anchorage to a full-fledged operational base (a la Norfolk).

..... As regards Japanese assumptions and expectations regarding a potential conflict with the US, it is my theory that they viewed the situation as analogous to their earlier experience with Russia in 1904. There were many parallels to be seen when viewed from a 1930's perspective. And certainly the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was basically a repeat of their surprise attack on Port Arthur to commence the Russo-Japanese War.

BLUTARSKI

Bearcat99
09-10-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I suggest reading _Flyboys_ by James Bradley Not only is it a good account of fighting there, but it really puts the "enemys" side in perspective. In war no ones hands are clean.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That book is on my shelf waiting for me to get to it........ Im looking forward to it.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

Cajun76
09-10-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:


An interesting aside is that while Short was trashed for "lack of preparedness", Douglas MacArthur, acting in precisely the same manner in the Philippines (and likewise losing most of his air strength on the ground), ended up a five-star general.


BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a blurb, this is something I just saw/read recently.

Unlike Pearl, an attack on the Philippines was considered rather probable. Upon hearing about the Pearl Harbour attack, MacArthur launched his planes in anticipation of a Japanese suprise attack. Meanwhile, the initial strike of the Japanese was delayed by several hours by bad weather. The Japanese commanders were worried that suprise was lost, but the delay helped the J strike when MacArthur's planes had to land and refuel. They were caught on the ground and the bulk of Filipino/American airpower was destroyed.

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

Blutarski2004
09-10-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Just a blurb, this is something I just saw/read recently.

Unlike Pearl, an attack on the Philippines was considered rather probable. Upon hearing about the Pearl Harbour attack, MacArthur launched his planes in anticipation of a Japanese suprise attack. Meanwhile, the initial strike of the Japanese was delayed by several hours by bad weather. The Japanese commanders were worried that suprise was lost, but the delay helped the J strike when MacArthur's planes had to land and refuel. They were caught on the ground and the bulk of Filipino/American airpower was destroyed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Very interesting, Cajun! I was not aware of this. If so, it changes my impression of MacArthur's conduct in the Phillipines. Do you recall where you found the information?

BLUTARSKI

stubby
09-10-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The US more or less forced Japan into war, and knew it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hearing some of you talk about history is disturbing. My neighbors are Chinese and can tell you horror stories about what the nice Imerperial Japanese marines do to folks in Manchuria or Nang King - oh, this was long before 1941. Wow - some of you have twisted the historical to such a point that the US has now become the aggressor and the reason for WWII. Cutting off Japan's resources was just considering that they were doing to do the Chinese made the Nazi holocaust look like a walk in the park. Just remember who the evil bastards were and stop reading revisionist fecis that's been churned out these days.

Chuck_Older
09-10-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stubby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The US more or less forced Japan into war, and knew it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hearing some of you talk about history is disturbing. My neighbors are Chinese and can tell you horror stories about what the nice Imerperial Japanese marines do to folks in Manchuria or Nang King - oh, this was long before 1941. Wow - some of you have twisted the historical to such a point that the US has now become the aggressor and the reason for WWII. Cutting off Japan's resources was just considering that they were doing to do the Chinese made the Nazi holocaust look like a walk in the park. Just remember who the evil bastards were and stop reading revisionist fecis that's been churned out these days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHOA!WHOA! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Hold on there. That's MY quote, and I remember why I posted it, and when. You seem not to.

You are taking me WAY out of context, and also putting words in my mouth. Sorry, actually, you're pushing words down my throat.

I am not talking about China, Manchouko, or Manchuria here. I am talking about the reason that the US was attacked by Japan, not why the Japanese decided on a rampage of aggresion against it's Asian neighbor. When I talk about the attack on Pearl Harbor and cite reasons Japan did it, trade sanctions are among the causes. By the way, my name's not Chuck Older. He was an American Volunteer Group pilot who flew in the 3rd Squadron and was an ace. I know a teensy bit about what happened in China before WWII.

If you think I am painting the US as aggressor and Japan as an innocent then you have really got to go read what I posted, not what you think I posted. You show me where I said that the US caused WWII. If you don't understand what someone posts, ask for clarification before you start labelling folks.

Your assumptions revolt me to say the least

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Villicus
09-11-2004, 01:28 AM
Saying that the U.S. pushed the Japanese into war with the embargo is like saying we invited the attacks of 9/11 because of our support of Israel. The Japanese empire was butchering people by the thousands all over Asia. Somebody needed to give them as incentive to stop. They chose war, not the U.S.

DEO VINDICE

P4 2.4G 768M RDRAM
Asus P4T533-C
ATI 9800 128M
onboard sound
Saitek X45

darkhorizon11
09-11-2004, 02:20 AM
Well obviously boys hindsight is 20/20. Its easy to say I would've done this or that because of this if I was in that position. This especially holds true for poor Roosevelt who sometimes seems to be a target in this forum. Remember that at the time everything was happening very quickly. Complete and detailed information about every situation that is available now wasn't available to those who needed it most back them.


My point being ignorance is almost as bad as committing and evil act itself. Hitler and Hiro Hito were both sick men that brainwashed their people through propaganda and convinced them that they were supermen who deserved to rule the world. As has been previously established not every Japanese or German was evil but was being influenced by many who were. The U.S., although good at heart, was too ignorant to get involved, still holding the isolationist belief that "if we ignore it, it will go away and not bother us". This indifference of tyranny led to the deaths of countless more innocents. Although the U.S. has never been known to commit any genocide or hate-crimes on a holocuast scale (except for may the treatment of Native Americans although NA were generally re-located not slaughtered), the US in my opinion holds some slight responsibility for not at least publically questioning the intentions of the Nazi's and Japanese in the early 30's.


On the Pearl Harbor note: IIRC I believe the Japanese intended to cripple PH by sinking a ship in the mouth of the channel so taking the base out of action. They failed to do so and so PH remained operational throughout the war. So Pearl Harbor wasn't a total victory for the Japanese afterall.

IV|JG51Flatspin
09-12-2004, 02:07 AM
This was actually a pretty good read until tempers flared (as predicted). Actually can't believe it made it to page 2 before it really got bad.

One thing everyone has ommitted though: The Overlord Alien Lizard Conspiracy to control us all. That's why wars start. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

.- .- .-.- .- .-
IV/JG51_Fl@spin (http://www.jg51.net)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/Flatspin/FSbanner.bmp (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)

Chuck_Older
09-12-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Villicus:
Saying that the U.S. pushed the Japanese into war with the embargo is like saying we invited the attacks of 9/11 because of our support of Israel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, no. No it's not, and I'm surprised at you. The world situation is very diffenrent today than it was in the '40s. Leave 9/11 out of it. It's becoming a convenient reply to any Historical senario for the US and it's plain silly. 9/11 has no parallel with Pearl harbor. None at all. The recognized military establishment of the Imperial Japanese conducted the 12/7/41 attack, not criminals. It was a military operation. To give a little meaning to that, please read an account of the Indian Wars conducted by the US Army circa 1880. Surprise attack was key for the US Army, especially at night. Surprise attack against an unaware foe is a time honored military tactic, which I am sure you well know, and the US did it too, against foes declared and undeclared. Might I also remind that niether Korea nor VietNam were declared wars for the US- but our MILITARY undertook those operations, not a religious fundamentalist group. Your 9/11 comment is simply a buzzword response as far as I am concerned. Let's talk about the '30s and '40s here, OK?

Since you seem to think I am way off base, maybe you can give input on why I'm wrong instead of just saying I'm wrong?

Since you display the Ball and Anchor, let me ask you two questions:

What is the likely reaction of a potential enemy when you do something he doesn't like, and he both has the means to attack and has shown he will attack people he doesn't like? And if you give that same person an incentive to stop his agression, will he? As a parallel to that last question, I would like to point out that appeasement and incentive had recently been tried in Europe at the time, against Adolf Hitler. Correct me if I'm wrong, but giving Hitler an incentive to stop encouraged him to feel he had no opposition and continue his attacks.

I'd like to hear your explanation on why Japan attacked Peal Harbor. My reason is that they wanted a free hand in Asia and the Pacific. The US took away what their Navy needed in the long term- oil. Japan attacked the US to secure breathing room in the Pacific. Their plan for a long long time for war with the US had been to draw the US Navy into a serious of costly battles as the IJN moved back to the Home Islands, and then, when the USN was depleted and vulnerable, to have a climactic Battleship engagement. The plan was modified somewhat, to cripple the USN in one blow instead. That's one of the reasons that the attack on Pearl was planned out so minutely. They even had a giant releif map of Pearl, so big you had to walk on it, for training.

It seems to me that the US is commonly accepted as an innocent little lambykins. We knew what we were doing. That doesn't make us the aggressors in WWII. We had obviously performed acts of war against Germany bfore December 7th 1941. We had given Japan a situation that was like pulling a knife on them- and you think I'm saying we were WRONG to do it, don't you? We were RIGHT to send US Naval warships out to escort English bound convoys. We were RIGHT to sanction Japanese trade. We knew what we were doing, too. Jeez, my mind is exploding here! And why do you think that although we were mad at the Japanese more that the Germans, we worked for victory in Europe FIRST? Huh? God, when I think of all the questions I want to ask you...

**Oh, an edit about China.**
The AVG was in training over there before 12/7/41. Officially opposed by the US gov't. Officially. One of their pilots, Albert Baumler, resigned his Commision TWICE- once to fight in Spain, once to fight in China.

Also- do you think for a second that the situation in China at the time was as well known now as it was in 1941? Do you think the Chinese Press got the story out? Or that the Japanese Press exposed their own atrocities? There was no CNN back then. Your response banks more than a little on the extent of the situation being known in Washington. Explain to me how this happened, please, I'd love to hear how we knew.


Darkhorizon-
I have never heard that the idea was to sink a ship in the mouth of the harbor. that relies on chance a little, doesn't it? Seems very unlikely to me, especially since individual BBs were known to various attack pilots as targets. the IJN had intended to catch the carriers there as well and were disappointed they weren't there. There were also an advocate or two in the IJN to occupy Hawaii. I really doubt that the plan was to simply cripple Pearl by blocking the Harbor. The IJN would have known that US Navy Salvage was active and competent and that the harbor would not have been shut down for any length of time

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Sun September 12 2004 at 07:13 AM.]

Chuck_Older
09-12-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV|JG51Flatspin:
This was actually a pretty good read until tempers flared (as predicted). Actually can't believe it made it to page 2 before it really got bad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
resolved elsewhere by me and stubby

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Penguin_PFF
09-12-2004, 12:48 PM
Much respect to Chuck Older for keeping a few ignorant comments in check. Lots of stuff I didn't know here, thanks for rewarding my once-weekly check of this forum. :P

I wish we could know what a 9/11 Panel-style inquest into Pearl Harbor would have uncovered, though... I think they are similar in that they are events that result from long chains of policy decisions, bad management, ignorance, and human error combined. And they were both effective surprise attacks... The similarity ends there, though.

You folks who can't see anything in other than black and white... Please, read some books, or read this thread and THINK. Outside the box, preferably. It is possible for countries, ANY country really, to do things that are neither bad NOR good, at any time. History is complex, which is why this thread is into its second page.

Atomic_Marten
09-12-2004, 03:08 PM
Penguin_PFF good words. But I'm afraid effect - less.

Cajun76
09-12-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Just a blurb, this is something I just saw/read recently.

Unlike Pearl, an attack on the Philippines was considered rather probable. Upon hearing about the Pearl Harbour attack, MacArthur launched his planes in anticipation of a Japanese suprise attack. Meanwhile, the initial strike of the Japanese was delayed by several hours by bad weather. The Japanese commanders were worried that suprise was lost, but the delay helped the J strike when MacArthur's planes had to land and refuel. They were caught on the ground and the bulk of Filipino/American airpower was destroyed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Very interesting, Cajun! I was not aware of this. If so, it changes my impression of MacArthur's conduct in the Phillipines. Do you recall where you found the information?

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for the delay, Blutarski, I went to the beach for two days and I'm now being hunted by an angry chef who's under the impression I'm a lobster. Oooooo Ouch! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I'm trying not to move..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

What had the info I saw was WWII Road to Victory by Lions Gate Entertainment. 5 DVD set in color spanning 20 odd events/battles. As far as I could tell, good info and background, but some of the color footage didn't always match the battle being fought. That's rather typical in my experiance. It does go into some little known things like German commerce raiders, which usually just recieve a blurb in most mentionings. Overall it's a good series imo, and it lets friends and family see the war in color, so they can realize it's not ancient history, it's recent, relevent, and the concequences of it affect the world today and our daily lives. I'm probably preaching to the choir around here though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Anyway, I don't remember seeing anything blatently wrong in the series, but they might have snuck some things by me that I either didn't have info on or I missed completely. I'm sure some more in-depth info on the early Philippine campaign can confirm or deny the section I'm metioning. In hindsight, with the info I have, he should have launched half his planes and had the other half on standby, instead of launching everything immediatly.

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-12-2004, 08:16 PM
hindsight is always 20/20

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

Cajun76
09-13-2004, 12:37 AM
Yep, but the irony is that if the Japanese had attacked on schedule, MacArthurs planes would have been ready and waiting. Interesting what-if scenario, eh?

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

horseback
09-13-2004, 08:48 AM
Saburo Sakai was part of the Taiwan strike group's escort on the first raid on the Phillippines. He writes of sitting there and waiting in the fog, expecting the B-17s from Clark to come in at any minute and wipe them out.

They all knew that the Americans would be aware that the Japanese had struck at Pearl Harbor by that time, and couldn't imagine why the Yanks wouldn't respond aggressively. Meanwhile, over Clark Field, those bombers and the fighters assigned there were orbiting and waiting to catch the expected Japanese strike group, wondering what the hell was keeping them...

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Scarn3
09-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Wow,

I didn't know MacArthur was basically ready for the attack too. This changes some of my concepts on him as well.

Seems like some parallels here, in the Phillipines, the Japanese caught us on the ground refueling, thus wiping us out.
In Midway, we caught the Japanese on the Carriers rearming/refuling, thus wipeing them out.

horseback
09-13-2004, 01:13 PM
MacArthur wasn't as ready as you might think. His Air Force commander wanted to mount a bombing raid on Formosa (Taiwan), but MacArthur wasn't convinced that the initial reports (which were pretty sketchy) were accurate-taking off and having the fighters waiting for a possible strike was a compromise.

MacArthur's attitude reminds me of the RAF air raids on German Naval units and docks early in the war-aircrew were told not to bomb if they thought they might hit civilian property! Apparently, they got over their concerns about 'collateral damage.'

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

ploughman
09-13-2004, 02:56 PM
Hi,

I just this minute finished watching "The Fog of War" a doco about the life of US SecDef McNamara based almost solely on his testimony, from his days in the USAAC office of statistics during World War Two, to the day he resigned as Secretary of Defense. As a guy with an MA in Modern History this sort of thing is wonderful, actual horses mouth source material. There's nothing earth shattering but you'll get a proper insight into what it mus be like to be the man on point when it comes to making the big decisions. Love him or hate him, this bloke has had to make a lot of tough calls in a life time. There's a good amount on McNamara and Curtiss LeMay and Lemay's attitudes to Europe and Japan. Curtiss was a solid gold ****** but I'm glad he was on our side, you don't want people like that fighting for the enemy. LeMay was full on for levelling Cuba, just the kind of war-dog you want taking orders, but maybe not making decisions. Well worth the 90 odd minutes of your life you'll spend if you like this sort of thing and want to waste it in front of a TV.

BfHeFwMe
09-13-2004, 03:38 PM
MacArthur bobbled the ball in the PI big time, came very near to being sacked. His Air Commander launched the raid and he recalled it. If that wasn't bad enough he refused to take his advice and disperse aircraft.

Above that he mounts a full scale retreat and refuses to oppose the Japanese beach landings or halt the advance across Luzon with any serious effort. He had the home field advantage and numerical troop superiority. So he left his subordinates holding the bag and flees. The only reason he remained in the army was the Pearl Harbor disaster absorbed the greatest heat, they simply couldn't fire everbody at the top.

Hense his image rebuilding efforts throughout the rest of the war. Kept himself constantly in the camera and headlines, very calculated publicity campaign.

horseback
09-13-2004, 04:47 PM
Given the lack of decent transportation lines to whichever beach the Japanese might try to land on in just the major islands of the Phillippines, I think you may be overestimating US resources there at the time. Having a numerical advantage is fine, but moving the troops and equipment across dozens, if not hundreds, of miles of steep hills & dense jungle (I've been there, I know first hand) is just begging your opponent to hit you while you're all strung out on a jungle trail with nowhere to disperse to. The bulk of heavy transportation would have come in the form of horses and mules, not exactly the swift moving trucks and jeeps you may have pictured.

Simply put, the Japanese had the initiative, control of the air, control of the sea lanes, and a much shorter logistical line. MacArthur knew he couldn't afford to rush to a beachhead based on rumor (Army pilots & civilians being notorious for misidentifying ship types and numbers) only to be caught out of position by a feint. He tried to make the enemy come to him, at a place of his choosing, and hold until he could be relieved. That had been the strategy from the beginning, based on the original supposition that the Japanese would strike at the Phillippines first, since that was where the bulk of US troops in the Pacific were.

Destruction of a large portion of the Fleet at Pearl Harbor made large scale operations halfway around the world in time to save the units in the Phillippines impossible. MacArthur's showboating may seem to be phony to us, removed by 60 years and however many thousands of miles, but he inspired the Filipino people and gave them hope that they were not completely abandoned, and he kept his promises. His post war administration of Japan was solid work as well. I cannot imagine anyone with the necessary prestige who could have done as well there.

MacArthur was a horse's patoot (something I am eminently qualified to comment upon), but he usually displayed that facet of his personality only when he thought he could get away with it (being a General, that could be most of the time). He comes under the heading of 'Great Men With Great Flaws.'

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Chuck_Older
09-13-2004, 05:57 PM
glad to see this back on track http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

heywooood
09-13-2004, 09:20 PM
Chuck -

Very interesting thread and I agree with Penguin - you have indeed kept it on track.

Thanks to horseback as well for some extra insights with regard to MacArthurs' quirky command.


http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"check your puns"

owlwatcher
09-13-2004, 09:58 PM
In the openning day of war it seemed to be no planning as to what to do with the Army air. With hindsight , Launching the B-17 on seach patterns would have been the best course of action. Getting them in the air and off the ground till futher information could be gathered.
Even with a early warning they faired no better then the planes at PH.
Overall the US Army was not ready for war.
The Navy seemed to be better prepared and alert.

BfHeFwMe
09-13-2004, 10:01 PM
If travel was so difficult, how'd the Japanese manage it. Why pick the only malaria infested swamp with no one in it to make a stand? More men succomed to hunger and disease than Japanese bullets, the very last mule was consumed by the men, never used to stop the Japanese. Even less for roads where they chose to make the stand. I too have been there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yeah, MacAurthor was one sick puppy, doing a bayonet march against and burning the WWI Veterans camp down in DC was a disgrace, even congress was schocked at the brutality. The very men who had served with him in war, and they were right with their claims. Why Eisenhower eventually rose to command and he was shoved off to the PI, to the furthest corner they could possibly find.

Was good practice I guess, setting up his own little kingdom, would serve handy in Japan later.

owlwatcher
09-13-2004, 10:41 PM
The whole battle of the Phillippines was a mess for both sides.
The attack forces were very limited both in number ans supply,Saburo Sakai flight should be noted allowed the attack on the Phillippines to go forth without the use of a CV. The range of which only the europeans could dream of.The IJN CVs were needed else where.
At the end of the fighting, Cultural shock with unprepared and under supplied IJ forces having to cope with thousands of sick and straving prisiners. Which they were not expecting or prepared for.
This is not an excuse for the death marches, but something to keep in mind .
As for MacAurthor, never liked him. The people who severed under him are worth lookng at.

Giganoni
09-13-2004, 11:46 PM
Well, as I remember it, defending Bataan was the standard battle plan in case of invasion. I think it had the word Orange in it or something. That plan was overrun, Macarthur favoring, or those who pursuaded him favoring a landing beach defense. He went to Bataan too late. Had he simply went with the original plan as soon as he was attacked he would have had weeks to fortify and stockpile supplies, turning Bataan into a fortress.

That was the major blunder. Not really the whole air war, since Clark field just did not "get" the message that the Japanese were coming after they landed their fortresses and fighter cover to refuel.

I also think that the higher ups were too confident in the B-17, like it was some sort of super weapon. Too much importance was placed on that bomber in those early days at PI.

Also I have read one source that the appearence of the M3 Stuart surprised the Japanese and they quickly brought the Shinhoto Chi-ha into action which had enough firepower to deal with the Stuart.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

owlwatcher
09-14-2004, 01:12 AM
The Phillippines was gonna fall. It was just how long they could hold out. What ever plan. Did it matter.
The time the US held out really depended on the air power.
The B-17 could have been put to better use. No wonder weapon but some thing to strike back with.
The loss of the B-17s and the dud torpedos of the USN subs. An active defence was never possiable.
M3 Stuart Got books on their use.
The US military was starved for men and equipment.
Overall still poor planning by MacAurthor, BoB had played out. Some things should have been learned and applied.

Copperhead310th
09-14-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I suggest reading _Flyboys_ by James Bradley Not only is it a good account of fighting there, but it really puts the "enemys" side in perspective. In war no ones hands are clean.

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

have it right here on my desk. I now have the time to actually finnish it.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

Copperhead310th
09-14-2004, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kaa303:
Of course it wasn't that evil Japan attacked poor US. The war in the Pacific was a clash of two imperialist powers struggling for domination in the region. (Of course it WAS Japan who attacked without declaring war on 7th Dec 1941, but both sides probably had a cassus belli by then.) Just think of all the US bases on Philipines or Hawaii for example... pretty far from North America, ain't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

----------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a political comment, an historical one:

The US more or less forced Japan into war, and knew it. One of the reasons Kimmel and Short were fired (they were the military head honchos at Pearl Harbor) was becasue even though they didn't have all of the info they should have had, they didn't prepare themselves adequately for the inevitable attack. true it was assumed to be happening in say the Phillipines, but if they had put patrols out, things would have been different on Dec 7th. Duty at Pearl was famously easy, and they both knew that blows would probably be struck soon, somewhere- but they thought "it can't happen here". So they took the blame and got sacked.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's a fact that both the US Army Commander & the Us Naval Commander in Hawaii were at ods and as such unprepaird to drfend thier posts. and this followed down rank & file as well. So mush so that Army & Navy officers would'nt even attend the same social functions.

Billy Mitchell saw the attck on Perl years before it even happend and openly predicted such an attack from japan and warned against it.
But at the time no one listined to Gen Mitchell since they all thought he was crazy for beliving that aircraft were going to change the entire face of modern warefare. lol
(boy were they wrong. & thank God he was right)

In the end there could be only one outcome to a war with the US by Japan. total loss on the part of Japan. While it was a hard fought war on both sides the US just overwhelmed Japan with it's industiral might. Consider that at the end of the war the japanese haed only produced 20 aircraft carriers compaierd to the uninted states's over 700. In the end the war innthe pacifc was won not just by the battle ships, carriers, aircraft, an the army & marine corps rifflemen on the ground. but more so by the Quartermasters that supplied them. it is estemated that for ever us infantry men on the line it took 7 men to keep him suppiled & fed.
Each us infantryman on the front line required over 17,000 lbs of supplies, amunition,medicine & food a year.

In the end the japanese at best could have held on and prlonged the war another year or so in the PTO. But with the colpse of the other Axis nations, and the inablity to resupply at the same rate and quality equipment as the US military, there was little hope for the Japanese of victory in the Pacifc.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

owlwatcher
09-14-2004, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
If travel was so difficult, how'd the Japanese manage it. Why pick the only malaria infested swamp with no one in it to make a stand? More men succomed to hunger and disease than Japanese bullets, the very last mule was consumed by the men, never used to stop the Japanese. Even less for roads where they chose to make the stand. I too have been there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They used bicycles. No joke.

Cajun76
09-14-2004, 05:03 AM
Yep, the vid I metioned earlier showed J troops on the move on bicycles..... in formation. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


On the one hand, I have to agree with Copperhead, as that's how it played out. However, had J plans gone as they wanted, they would have had nearly a billion Chinese workers to form a huge industrial base, and the resources of the entire theater. Of course Japan, by itself, could not hope to win. But with huge numbers of workers and material at thier disposal, things might have been different. The China campaign took too long (not saying i wish they succeeded). The Chinese retreated en mass, by the millions and survived as long as they could.

Much the same happaned with Germany. Had Russia fallen to the Germans, the Germans would have had millions of workers, huge natural and industrial resources, and lots of oil. A much different scenario would have played out.

Some may look back and think that the Allied victory was inevitable, but there's a reason the Allies fought so hard. There was a real danger of these events taking place. With Germany controlling Russia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe, and Japan controlling CBI theater, combined they would have 2/3 of the world's landmass and resouces, and 7/8 of the world population. Not even the Allies could have stood up to all that, imo. We fought hard for a reason, the situation was grim in '41 and '42.

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

Blutarski2004
09-14-2004, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
MacArthur bobbled the ball in the PI big time, came very near to being sacked. His Air Commander launched the raid and he recalled it. If that wasn't bad enough he refused to take his advice and disperse aircraft.

Above that he mounts a full scale retreat and refuses to oppose the Japanese beach landings or halt the advance across Luzon with any serious effort. He had the home field advantage and numerical troop superiority. So he left his subordinates holding the bag and flees. The only reason he remained in the army was the Pearl Harbor disaster absorbed the greatest heat, they simply couldn't fire everbody at the top.

Hense his image rebuilding efforts throughout the rest of the war. Kept himself constantly in the camera and headlines, very calculated publicity campaign.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Dwight Eisenhower was MacArthur's pre-war chief of staff in the Phillipines. I recall reading that a defence of the entire Phillipines was considered unfeasible. Eisenhower and MacArthur then crafted a "redoubt" strategy, i.e. - to hold out on the well fortified Bataan Peninsula until the USN arrived. By holding Bataan and Corregidor, the American could deny to the Japanese use of the major port of Manila. IIRC, Eisenhower prepared detailed logistical and mobilization plans in this direction, but MacArthur never got around to authorizing the necessary action. Hence, sufficient supplies for a lengthy resistance were not pre-positioned on Bataan.

I do agree that MacArthur owes much of his legacy to his incessant public relations efforts. IMO he was as much a political animal as he was a soldier. MacArthur was a complex man - egotistical, political, buffoonish to some, conummately brave (check out his WW1 service).

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Tue September 14 2004 at 07:21 AM.]

horseback
09-14-2004, 12:06 PM
On the MacArthur issue, we have to consider that US planners did not believe that the Japanese could possibly attack before April or May of 1942, and supply schedules for the Phillippines reflected this; much of the planned reinforcements & modern equipment had not arrived by the outbreak of hostilities.

The Japanese, having the initiative by default, could plan. MacArthur could only react, with poorly trained and marginally equipped Filipino troops making up the bulk of his forces. The between wars garrison American troops were no great shakes either, in terms of training or motovation. The Japanese, by contrast, had comparatively well equipped and superbly trained and motivated combat hardened troops.

You are limited in combat by what (you think) your soldiers are capable of. MacArthur was not able to get his troops to the beaches being invaded in useful numbers due to the physical conditions I've already iterated. He simply couldn't get there in time, he didn't have the resources to fortify the entire coastline, and he didn't have a reliable reconnaissance system to tell him where the enemy actually was in anything like real time.

The retreat to Bataan and Corrigedor was complicated by the fact that there were more people making demands on the supplies laid away for that eventuality than were expected (for some reason, US Army planners, under the watchful eye of an anti-war Congress, could not openly plan for supplying Filipino forces in the late years of the Great Depression). Adding to their woes was the simple fact that the corruption of the prewar system led to a great deal of pilferage of the food and medical supplies that were supposed to be there.

Finally, there is the issue of MacArthur's status. He was semi-retired to Army Reserve status, and was actually the Commander of the provisional Phillippine armed forces, in cooperation with US forces. The Phillippines were scheduled for independence from the US in 1942 or '43, and MacArthur was supposed to organize their military.

He was officially working for the provisional government of the P.I. Where do you think he got that comic-opera hat he was always wearing? It wasn't regulation US Army, it was something he designed for himself. Were it not for the traditional US Army's contempt for pseudo-Roman trappings of office, he'd have had one hell of a Field Marshall's baton.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

owlwatcher
09-14-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
On the MacArthur issue, we have to consider that US planners did not believe that the Japanese could possibly attack before April or May of 1942, and supply schedules for the Phillippines reflected this; much of the planned reinforcements & modern equipment had not arrived by the outbreak of hostilities.
, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you pick up this information on April may 1942?
Looking at the equipment , any idea when the radar was deployed in the pacfic theater?

horseback
09-14-2004, 01:16 PM
I read this a long time ago; some my have come from one of the bios of MacArthur I read over 20 years ago, some from 'Rising Sun' by John Toland, and some from 'Stillwell and the American Experience in China' by Barbara Tuchman. I do remember that Roosevelt was supposed to have told Churchill that he could keep the Japanese dangling until Spring of 1942 during their meeting at sea off Newfoundland in late summer/early fall of 1941.

But I am sure that the US and British were both expecting the Japanese to enter hostilities in the spring of 1942, and were caught badly short when the Pearl Harbor and Indochinese operations began.

As for radar, the technology was a gift from the British (or part of the pay-off for Lend lease). As far as I know, the Army had no radar in the PI at the outbreak of the war.

There may have been a few Navy ships equipped with radar in the area, but the stories I've read indicate that the shipboard systems in the early war were cranky and hard to interpret properly. As it existed then (at least in American hands)radar would have not made a difference in the PI, and if some of that equipment had fallen into Japanese hands, might well have prolonged the war (Japanese radar systems being pretty poor well into the war, British/American technology might have given them a jump start).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Copperhead310th
09-14-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Yep, the vid I metioned earlier showed J troops on the move on bicycles..... in formation. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


On the one hand, I have to agree with Copperhead, as that's how it played out. However, had J plans gone as they wanted, they would have had nearly a billion Chinese workers to form a huge industrial base, and the resources of the entire theater. Of course Japan, by itself, could not hope to win. But with huge numbers of workers and material at thier disposal, things might have been different. The China campaign took too long (not saying i wish they succeeded). The Chinese retreated en mass, by the millions and survived as long as they could.

Much the same happaned with Germany. Had Russia fallen to the Germans, the Germans would have had millions of workers, huge natural and industrial resources, and lots of oil. A much different scenario would have played out.

Some may look back and think that the Allied victory was inevitable, but there's a reason the Allies fought so hard. There was a real danger of these events taking place. With Germany controlling Russia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe, and Japan controlling CBI theater, combined they would have 2/3 of the world's landmass and resouces, and 7/8 of the world population. Not even the Allies could have stood up to all that, imo. We fought hard for a reason, the situation was grim in '41 and '42.

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://www.airwarfare.com/&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are _here_ and _here_,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson _Hot Shots_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as for the Germans, i have always believed that Hitlers fatal mistake of the war was trying to fight a war on 2 fronts. Germany was not logistically capable of sustaining hereself in such a position. Now had Hitler postponed invading Russia and carreid out an all out invation of the Brittish Iles then waited to reagin thier strengh and attcked Russia we would be in a very differant world today.
in either way Germany was doomed to fial as well. Hitler put the in a rock and a hard place by waging war on 2 fronts with enimies on either side there was little hope and in the end it spelled his downfall.

As for old' Dug-out-Doug, if They had let loose of MacAuthors leash in Korea who know what the world would be like today. he mostlikely wouldn't have stoped untill he reached Moscow.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

owlwatcher
09-14-2004, 03:42 PM
My latest reading give MacArthur radar in the
Phillippines. But that was all that was said about lt. Have to do some more reading.
Oh have rising sun, along time ago I I read 'Stillwell and the American Experience in China' .
Talk about some messed up politics. China was one big mess.It amazed me that the US even put troops in China. Way to many headaches.

SkyChimp
09-14-2004, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

As for radar, the technology was a gift from the British (or part of the pay-off for Lend lease). As far as I know, the Army had no radar in the PI at the outbreak of the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not picking on you, but I see this a lot, and it's reiterated in sources by authors that really ought to know better. Radar was not a gift to the US from the British. That's myth.

Some folks claim that the British invented the cavity magnetron, and thus radar. Some go so far as to claim that American radar could not have been developed without the British "gift" of the cavity magnetron.

But not so fast.

A German (Haban, iirc) is generally acknowledged as being the inventor of the magnetron. But the "cavity" magnetron was invented in the United States in the 1920s by A. W. Hull of General Electric. Hull further developed the theoretical research on the concept of a magnetron done in Germany years before. The British took the American cavity magnetron, and modified it to make it suitable for use it in their radar sets. The use of the cavity magentron allowed for the use of very high frequencies that could not really be practically achieved without it.

In 1940 the Englishman Henry Tizard and a team of fellow Brits came to the US to turn over technical "secrets" in hopes of, in part, securing quality mass production of the devices. This is often claimed as the moment at which the "gift" was given to the United States. But apparently Tizard was suprised to see that the United States already had radar that was equal in capability to those of the British. At the time of the Tizard mission the British did, indeed, have very capable radar that had seen actual service in wartime conditions. They also had them in quantity. But nevertheless, the United States had it as well, and Tizard apparently confirmed that the capability of US sets were equal to those of the British - only in fewer numbers.

The US Navy had been working with radar since 1934 and had sets in 1935. By the end of 1938, the US Navy had a ship-borne set that could detect aircraft up to 100 miles. By 1940, many US battleships, and all US fleet carriers had radar.

The US Army had been working on radar since 1930 and by August 1940 had a several sets in place for coastal defense. Shortly after that, the US Army had developed radar gun control and gun layering radar, as well as highly developed sets in aircraft.

Tizard did apparently did bring with him plans for their cavity magnetron that demostrated how the use of such device in radar sets allowed for higher frequencies. But the technology transfer at that moment was not a one-way street. Tizard took back with him equally important information on US duplexing devices, which the British did not have, that made airborne radar practical and significantly reduced the number of antennas required for operation.

Radar was developed concurrently by the British, Germans and Americans. I think there could be a lot of compelling argument as to who "invented" it. But there is no question the US had developed radar for itself long before the "gift" of radar was given to the US by the British.

I highly recommend reading:

History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy

It's availabe on-line here:
http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hw.htm

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

horseback
09-14-2004, 08:43 PM
I stand corrected. However, it is clear that however much radar was available to MacArthur's command, it was not used effectively. My readings of accounts of the carrier battles wherein US radar was a key player makes it clear to me, as a former USN ETR2 (Electronics Technician, Radar, 2nd Class) that the radars used in those battles was 2-D (range and bearing) with the contacts' altitudes determined from charts of the vertical sidelobe 'fingers'.

Having the technology clearly did not translate into having the practical ability to use it, or the tactical vision needed to exploit it in battle by US forces in the early months of the Pacific war.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

SkyChimp
09-14-2004, 09:07 PM
There were certainly instances of it being used improperly. The Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor was detected before it arrived, but inappropriate conclusions were drawn and no action was taken.
I'm not entirely familiar with the U.S. use of radar in the Philippines in the first days of the war. But the US Navy used shipborne radar effectely for aircraft detection from day-one. By the time of Guadalcanal, land based radar was being used to very effectively to detect incoming Japanese aircraft.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

ploughman
09-15-2004, 02:48 AM
Top stuff sky chimp. To elaborate furthere on your illuminating statement:

19 out of 20 Google hits came up with the British inventing the cavity magnetron in 1939-1940. But "Radar World" (there really is a magazine for everything) say this...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In June of 1940, Eric Stanley Megaw, based on experiments with Generel Electric Company E821 glass magnetron, had designed a cavity magnetron in England which worked on 10 cm and became available for aircraft interception. This magnetron was air cooled and J. Randall and H. Boot turned it into a water cooled unit. The magnetron became the heart of the H2S radar which also used a PPI CRT installed in British bombers. The cavity magnetron had a substantial increase in performance over other magnetrons of its time and it played a substantial role in the history of radar.


Because Randall and Boot built a cavity magnetron, the claim that the British invented radar is made. This is simply not true. The book "History of Communications-Electrics in the United States Navy", 1963, on pg. 447 claims, "British scientists took an American invention, the cavity magnetron, and improved it to where it was . . . ". "This device was invented by Dr. A.W. Hull, of the General Electric Co., in 1921." However, Dr. H.E. Hollmann's book Physik und Technik der ultrakurzen Wellen, Erster Band, 1935," Chapter 4 deals with the history of the magnetron in its many variations. Hollmann states that Greinacher in Germany first discussed the theory of the magnetron and then Hull further developed it. See the schematic of the Hull Magnetron transmitter taken from Hollmann's book. Also in 1921, a German physicist by the name of Habann developed a split tube magnetron generator working on a wavelength of 3 cm. Habann is generally given the credit of being the inventor of the magnetron from which the cavity magnetron evolved. Furthermore, in 1935, Dr. H.E. Hollmann filed a patent on the multicavity magnetron well ahead of Randall and Boot's work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As with most science, and just about everything else for that matter, we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

Blutarski2004
09-15-2004, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
There were certainly instances of it being used improperly. The Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor was detected before it arrived, but inappropriate conclusions were drawn and no action was taken.
I'm not entirely familiar with the U.S. use of radar in the Philippines in the first days of the war. But the US Navy used shipborne radar effectely for aircraft detection from day-one. By the time of Guadalcanal, land based radar was being used to very effectively to detect incoming Japanese aircraft.

_Regards,
SkyChimp_

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....The progress made in radar technology during WW2 was remarkable, akin in degree to the advances made in aviation during WW1. The improvements in USN surface search radar in three years was particularly noteworthy. The early models could basically tell the operator that something was out there with some reasonable range indication. By 1943, range discrimination had improved to the point that it was used for gunnery in preference to optical range finders. By 1944 bearing discrimination had improved to the point where visually blind gunnery was a practicality. The introduction of the PPI screen data display made radar into a useful battle management tool and was one of the principal reasons for the creation of the Combat Information Center aboard USN warships.

Many of the apparent problems in the early use of radar can be traced to inadequate or improper doctrine governing its use. Doctrine was always playing catch up to keep pace with constant technical progress.

BLUTARSKI

VF-3Thunderboy
09-15-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for radar, the technology was a gift from the British (or part of the pay-off for Lend lease). As far as I know, the Army had no radar in the PI at the outbreak of the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Britts "also" gave the gift of the jet engine to the Russians, who ended up using it in Mig 15's.Most or alot of U.S. kills during Korea were by RUSSIAN pilots flying Mig 15's~!There were alot of Russian (USSR)Aces in Korea! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

heywooood
09-15-2004, 06:20 PM
Brits not the only ones in history to have sold guns and liquor to the injuns, pardner.

Capitolists will sell anything to anyone anytime...all the customer needs is the $ and the need and you know it.

_____________________________________________-

okay...'virtually' anything to 'virtually' anyone.... but even with the caveat we have sold some scary sh1t to some scary people in OUR day, hmmmm?

[This message was edited by heywooood 'the dissillusioned one'on Wed September 15 2004 at 05:46 PM.]

...hey! wheres my sig?

[This message was edited by heywooood on Wed September 15 2004 at 05:48 PM.]

horseback
09-16-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
okay...'virtually' anything to 'virtually' anyone.... but even with the caveat we have sold some scary sh1t to some scary people in OUR day, hmmmm?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which brings us back to the embargo against the Japanese in 1941, doesn't it? Up to that point, a substantial portion of the materials (not just oil) the Japanese used in their military adventures in China was provided by American companies.

After repeated diplomatic warnings that the truly monstrous behavior there by the Imperial Japanese Army had to stop, the American government, being responsive to voters who read newspapers and watched newsreels, had to do something drastic. The unstated reality that the civilian 'government' of Japan had no real control over the military was irrelevent, whether it was recognized by Roosevelt and his circle of advisors or not.

The words and actions of the Japanese government were perceived as prevarications, because they said conciliatory things while still financially supporting the bureaucracy and military units in China that ran amok against the civilian population of China. To Western eyes, Japan was acting like a wilful and predatory teenaged boy who had physically matured ahead of his peers and was using his greater strength to abuse and exploit smaller and weaker neighbor kids.

Great Britain and the United States simply underestimated Japan's willingness to attack the 'grownups', to continue the analogy. Both countries had had a stream of Japanese students go through their universities and colleges, and believed that these people would exert a restraining influence, having absorbed 'civilized behavior' during their stays in the West.

The idea that these people, for the most part, disdained the Christian West (we're talking 65 years ago, when Christianity had a stronger grip on Western culture and philosophy) as being weak and decadent, never occurred to the British/American elites that had taught them, or the people who had hosted them. Few Westerners would have been able to mask or muzzle their personal opinions for years on end, and couldn't imagine a culture where this might be the norm.

Great mistakes often have their roots in people thinking that they know something that they had no evidence for.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Heavy_Weather
09-16-2004, 10:59 AM
Alex Jones......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/sonar.gif

"To fly a combat mission is not a trip under the moon. Every attack, every bombing is a dance with death."
- Serafima Amsova-Taranenko: Noggle, Ann (1994): A Dance with Death.

owlwatcher
09-16-2004, 01:02 PM
Thanks SkyChimp for that excellent link.

http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hw.htm

The interests of the allies in the Pacific had alot to do with Rubber.

As to the Empargo thing,
What devise was common in IJ planes at the out break of war that was american made?

Blutarski2004
09-17-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
okay...'virtually' anything to 'virtually' anyone.... but even with the caveat we have sold some scary sh1t to some scary people in OUR day, hmmmm?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which brings us back to the embargo against the Japanese in 1941, doesn't it? Up to that point, a substantial portion of the materials (not just oil) the Japanese used in their military adventures in China was provided by American companies.

After repeated diplomatic warnings that the truly _monstrous_ behavior there by the Imperial Japanese Army had to stop, the American government, being responsive to voters who read newspapers and watched newsreels, had to do something drastic. The unstated reality that the civilian 'government' of Japan had no real control over the military was irrelevent, whether it was recognized by Roosevelt and his circle of advisors or not.

The words and actions of the Japanese government were perceived as prevarications, because they said conciliatory things while still financially supporting the bureaucracy and military units in China that ran amok against the civilian population of China. To Western eyes, Japan was acting like a wilful and predatory teenaged boy who had physically matured ahead of his peers and was using his greater strength to abuse and exploit smaller and weaker neighbor kids.

Great Britain and the United States simply underestimated Japan's willingness to attack the 'grownups', to continue the analogy. Both countries had had a stream of Japanese students go through their universities and colleges, and believed that these people would exert a restraining influence, having absorbed 'civilized behavior' during their stays in the West.

The idea that these people, for the most part, disdained the Christian West (we're talking 65 years ago, when Christianity had a stronger grip on Western culture and philosophy) as being weak and decadent, never occurred to the British/American elites that had taught them, or the people who had hosted them. Few Westerners would have been able to mask or muzzle their personal opinions for years on end, and couldn't imagine a culture where this might be the norm.

Great mistakes often have their roots in people _thinking_ that they know something that they had no evidence for.

cheers

horseback

1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



.....There is a beautiful cosmic symmetry in all this.

If a capitalist nation sells war materiel to other nations, it is a cynical war profiteer. If it refuses to do so, it is a cynical warmonger.

You just gotta love this kind of logic .....

Just a general observation regarding some opinions offered on this thread. Not directed towards you, Horseback.

BLUTARSKI

horseback
09-17-2004, 04:54 PM
Maybe I should have said 'raw' materials. A large percentage of the 'war materiel' supplied to Japan was scrap metals-which led to the wartime jokes about getting Uncle Wilbur's Buick back in the form of Japanese bullets & shrapnel. There was very little American trade with Japan in the way of finished product with direct military applications.

Most of the people who started dealing in scrap with Imperial Japan were hardly sophisticates, and in the early 1920s, Japan was admired as an Ally in WWI, for her hardworking people and ambition to industrialize to Western standards. By the mid 1930s, the truth may have been out, but breaking profitable longterm contracts for a product no one else wanted in the middle of an economic Depression would have been very difficult on a number of levels. Can you say "penalty clause?"

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

GerritJ9
09-18-2004, 09:55 AM
Radar was being developed in several countries by 1939, not only in Britain. Germany had radar operational on the "Graf Spee" since 1938; Philips in the Netherlands were working on radar for the Dutch Navy when Germany invaded in May 1940, and the results of their research were sent to the U.K. before the Netherlands was overrun.

There is even more to the MacArthur/Philippines story than has been mentioned here so far. MacArthur received word of the Pearl Harbour attack when it was still dark in the Philippines. Gen. Brereton, the Air Corps commander in the Philippines, repeatedly asked MacArthur and McA.'s chief of staff Sutherland for permission for a B-17 strike on Formosa, but this was repeatedly refused. Eventually a small reconnaissance flight by three B-17s was permitted but by then the Japanese aircraft were well on their way to Luzon. The result of this delay was the virtual destruction of U.S. air power in the Philippines. It should be noted that Gen. George Marshall had ORDERED MacArthur to take offensive action, but MacA did nothing. Several weeks later, MacArthur and Sutherland received $500,000 from the Treasury of the Philippines, which they were never asked to explain. Manuel Quezon, the President of the Philippines at the time, wanted to keep the Philippines neutral, something which would have been impossible had the USAAC attacked Formosa as ordered by Marshall. Most likely is that Quezon bribed MacA and Sutherland to do nothing. Unfortunately for them the Japanese cared little for such arrangements.
If Kimmel and Short were fired for negligence, then MacArthur should have been thrown into the slammer and the key thrown away.

See John Costello's "Days of Infamy" for the full story.

horseback
09-18-2004, 11:56 AM
Given that there is, at most, a 6 hour time difference between the Phillippines and Honolulu, and the festivities in Pearl would not been accurately/reliably reported in Manila until maybe the middle of the second attack, cutting that to 3 or 4 hours, that is a very limited time for all that to happen, GerritJ9. Even assuming that all the principal players were in Manila at the time, and that there were reliable communications with Washington, there's a lot of supposition in Costello's theory.

MacArthur may have had his doubts about the efficacy of a B-17 strike on Formosa (Taiwan today), and all the evidence says that he would have been right. The early bombing raids of the AAF were generally pretty poorly executed, even when they were able to find and accurately identify their targets. He may have just wanted more information before he commited his best long-range reconnaissance assets to a bombing raid of questionable military value.

He certainly had no idea that the Japanese, unlike any other air force in the world at that time, could launch an escorted raid from that distance, and probably assumed that if his fighters were up and waiting, they could stave off any serious damage from the medium bombers the Japanese had. To quote Yogi Berra, "He didn't know what he didn't know."

Getting up at 4 or 5 AM to find out that you're at war, and that all your presuppositions about that war are already sunk or on fire 5,000 miles away tends to dampen one's aggressiveness in any case.

The bribe from Quezon, if there was such a bribe, could just as easily have been for arranging safe evacuation of family or government members to safety in Corrigedor or Australia.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

owlwatcher
09-18-2004, 04:11 PM
MacArthur did nothing with the Army air. That is the problem.
Those planes should have been loaded and in the air either to bomb or recon. Their effectivness Good or bad they should not have been on the ground.
It was liked he ignored the Army Air.
For this he should have gone the same road as Kimmel and Short.

IJN CVs might have been used to fly fighter cover.

horseback
09-18-2004, 07:05 PM
The aircraft had been up in the air most of the morning, while the Tainan strike group was waiting for the fog to lift. They were mostly on the ground refueling and getting worked on when the delayed Japanese strike did arrive. Once that occurred, MacArthur had little in the way of air assets at all.

The relatively few (and mostly obsolete) aircraft left in the Phillippines fought it out until there were something like two P-40s left. These apparently made their way to Java in time to join the final defense there. Some of the more accomplished veterans like Buzz Wagner were ordered to make their way to Australia, so that their experience wouldn't be lost, but a lot of pilots and aircrew either died in combat or fought the rest of the campaign on the ground.

For the first six months of the war, USAAF aviation suffered constant setbacks at the hands of the Japanese. Only the Flying Tigers in China, a group of private contractors, were enjoying any success against the Emperor's boys.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

owlwatcher
09-18-2004, 08:27 PM
The planes at Clark were airbrone because of a false air raid report.

VF-3Thunderboy
09-19-2004, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
posted 15-09-04 16:32
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for radar, the technology was a gift from the British (or part of the pay-off for Lend lease). As far as I know, the Army had no radar in the PI at the outbreak of the war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Britts "also" gave the gift of the jet engine to the Russians, who ended up using it in Mig 15's.Most or alot of U.S. kills during Korea were by RUSSIAN pilots flying Mig 15's~!There were alot of Russian (USSR)Aces in Korea!

heywooood
posted 15-09-04 18:20
Brits not the only ones in history to have sold guns and liquor to the injuns, pardner.

Capitolists will sell anything to anyone anytime...all the customer needs is the $ and the need and you know it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually the Britts gave it to the Reds, and Stalin was "quoted " as saying, "You never give yur BEST stuff away!"

It was not sold to the Russians. Im not sure if the U.S. got our $$ back from the Ruski lend lease (?????) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


Yes Capatilists DO give stuff away. We are sellin the US to the third world, as is W. Europe right now. I think the Ruskies have had enough though...after that school thing... ooopsi http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ploughman
09-19-2004, 02:56 AM
Yes, the Brits gave the filthy Commies their designs for jet engine, but the Russkis metallurgy sucked and the engines they made didn't work for very long. So a Russian trade delegation visiting a British jet engine factory stuck glue on their shoes and deliberately walked through the metal filings in the machine shop. They then analysed the filings to discover the alloys used and hey presto, jet engines that actually worked.

There was a lot of admiration in Britain for the sacrifice made by the Russians during World War Two, and as British politics is alot more socialist than American politics, the idea of sharing something with Russia didn't seem such a nutty thing to do, although in retrospect you've got to ask exactly how rose coloured the glasses they were wearing had to be to think that it was a good idea.

As far as US Lend Lease being paid back by the Russians, well they destroyed 314 Divisions of Axis combat power compare to the Western Allies 79, so you could say they repaid the loans in blood, blood that would otherwise have had to have been spilled by the US and the UK.

GerritJ9
09-20-2004, 01:27 PM
Ask yourself this question: is it normal for a soldier on active duty to receive such a huge sum of money for something that should be regarded as at the very least a common courtesy towards the head of a friendly state/government? No money was paid by King Haakon of Norway for his evacuation by the Royal Navy in 1940, nor did Queen Wilhelmina do so for the similar action carried out by the Royal Navy when she and the Dutch Royal Family were forced to leave the Netherlands. No doubt the senior RN officers involved in those evacuations were suitably decorated by the Norwegian and Dutch governments, which is as it should be. But $500, 000????? Even today, it is a sum not to be sneezed at. In today's terms, 500,000 1941 dollars easily translates to several million.
I suggest you read Costello's book first before you dismiss it- it is much more than a theory.

GerritJ9
09-20-2004, 01:35 PM
Whether the Soviets received something of lasting value with the gift or otherwise of the Rolls-Royce Nene is doubtful. The Nene, with its centrifugal compressor, was an evolutionary dead-end. The German BMW and Junkers jet engines, with their axial-flow compressors, pointed the way ahead- NO company produces turbojets with centrifugal compressors today.

k5054
09-20-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Whether the Soviets received something of lasting value with the gift or otherwise of the Rolls-Royce Nene is doubtful. The Nene, with its centrifugal compressor, was an evolutionary dead-end. The German BMW and Junkers jet engines, with their axial-flow compressors, pointed the way ahead- NO company produces turbojets with centrifugal compressors today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Russians powered literally thousands of MiGs 15 and 17, Il-28, Yaks etc. with Nene or Derwent derivations. The US F094 and F9F types had Nenes, or derivations, as did French types. The Nene was the best most powerful jet engine avaiable for a year or two. Both RR and Armstrong -siddeley, not to mention GE, had axial jets of their own in that time period, they were known to be the way of the future, but centrifugal technology was far better understood right then in 1945 as a way to get more powerful jets. (The RAF never had a Nene fighter).
The stupid gift of the Nenes to Russia was definitely of value to them.

No company produces turbojets at all today do they? As opposed to fans. There are centrifugal compressor engines to be found though, mostly turboprops. Sometimes mixed with axial stages. They do not scale up well, but they have their place.