lack of efficient recon at Pearl

no kidding? really? I guess I'm an idiot not to not know that??

#45--which is mine !!! wow!
''so, looks like I'm asking why not more/organized/etc recon? and all of you have given the reasons and answered the question.....I've always stated in other threads, it's not that easy to find an enemy task force''

you see I read Opana's posts....and others ....and after seeing the information that was given, I changed my original question/questions from recon being efficient to more/organized/etc---because I read the posts carefully

 

No, I never said you were. However, I cannot be called an idiot in turn by you for being confused when you referred me not reading/comprehending Opana's "previous" posts and then giving your previous two posts as reference.

As to the rest, yes, I SAW you changed your previous repetitive question from efficiency to more organized...which is just a change of words, not meaning. Greater efficiency implies more organization. That, I am afraid, is a "disconnect" in you thinking. Nor is my saying such rude or anything even approaching it - all of us engage in logical disconnects and they usually remain such until someone points them out to us. The Army Navy thinking WRT a Japanese attack was a logical disconnect for instance. It started with the premise the Japanese would not execute a conventional attack and then built the reasons for the assumption from there.

Then, of course, we get into the question of why you see a lack of efficiency/less organization, where there is none? The reports demonstrate quite a bit of organizational thinking, but 12 of 160 B-17 and 81 of 160 PBY actually available to do just a 180 degree sweep.

 

Weren't there a few PBYs - seven? - launched for search/patrol early on Dec 7? What were their orders? How far out and in what sectors did they operate?

 

now you are calling me a liar...it's right there !

I said
''I changed my original question/questions'' I changed my question after reading the posts--seeing that efficient recon would be hard to accomplish--regarding 100% finding the enemy either at dawn or day before... I also added the word more and importantly ''''etc''''.....more does not mean efficient.....does it?
you say
''which is just a change of words,''' let me translate what you said --''no, you did not change your question"' ''you just re-worded it''=''you are a liar''

yes, thank you.....exactly what I was thinking of.....

and some destroyed at K Bay...yes?

 

I try to give everyone more than one chance and the benefit of the doubt ....at being friendly, etc....please excuse me if I go overboard---but let's be reasonable

 

I wonder if part of the army's problem was Short was so obsessed with internal attack that he effectively booted his responsibility to the navy. I wonder if the army actually had any recon out that morning

 

I'm afraid I am trying to be as patient with you as I possibly can, but you seem to be taking offense at completely inoffensive statements on my part. I suggest you slow down and read what you wrote and what my reply was.

I have not called you a liar. You stated, "I changed my original question/questions from recon being efficient to more/organized/etc---because I read the posts carefully".

That is fine, but I simply pointed out to you why your statement was confusing to me. "Efficient" and "more/organized/etc" are synonyms. "Efficient" is "working in a well-organized and competent way" and synonyms for it are "organized" and "systematic". So if you say "more/organized" you are simply saying it is "more/efficient" or "more/organized".

That is what I meant by saying you simply changed the word. If you meant more than that, by changing from "efficient" to "more/efficient/etc", then I'm afraid all I can say is I am simply not a mind-reader, so if you did not write it out, then I cannot be at fault for not knowing what you meant.

 

If I read things right, there were 69 PBY on Oahu and 12 at Midway. 8 on Oahu and 1 on Midway were in repair. 7 aircraft from Oahu were in the air and 3 were at 30 minutes alert. 7 planes from Midway were in the air and 4 were at 30 minute alert.

 

this is how it works..a thread is posted, asking a question. members posts answers etc....we evaluate and re-analyse all questions and answers----then ''fine tune'', change and adjust questions and answers from reading the previous posts
it's plain as day you said I did not change the question--I just re-worded it ----it's right there for everyone to see ! there's no denying it ....

you say '''for not knowing what you meant.'''

here is what I posted '''to make my question more clear: they had some planes available....why not use them?'''
bold added..italics original.... much, much different than efficient ...you can see the posts have been read and analysed--and the new, clear, different question

 

At least to me it really doesn't look like you made a significant change in the question and furthermore the answers to the original question look to apply pretty well to the follow up one. Now perhaps I'm not reading into the questions what you intended but when a question has been as well answered as this one trying to "fine tune" it seams a bit off to me. I suggest you ask one of the posters here whose opinion you'll trust (via PM) to give you their opinion on this. I know I've done similar things in the past and it can be difficult to step back from the exchange and try to evaluate the whole thing logically and with minimal emotion.

 

If I may summarize (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) the problem at PH wasn't really with the recon. Given the constraints and the intel the recon effort was reasonable. A more energetic (for lack of a better term) command might have improved things a bit via inter service communication and combined planning and crediting the opposition with the potential of exceeding the intel estimates. Looking back on it with 20/20 hindsight a number of areas can be identified where better decisions could have been made but at the time nothing was all that unreasonable.

 

I don't wonder why you're crazy; I know why you're crazy; you have the same disease I do. I think its called wannaknowitis.