Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

lack of efficient recon at Pearl

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by bronk7, Apr 29, 2016.

  1. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    I agree. If anything, I think Kimmel acted slightly more reasonably than Short. Kimmel had to send off his air cover, so was depending on the Army to fulfill its obligations to protect the Fleet in it anchorage. The Fleet was actually at a reasonable state of readiness - witness the damage done by Bagley's single ready MG and the speed with which the Fleet AAA reacted. However, Short's decision to do a near complete stand-down of the Army because they had been on alert "in the field" was inexcusable. Furthermore, the AAF decision not to maintain and develop the air warning center after the November exercise and the refusal to man the five operational radar stations full-time was just as inexcusable.

    Because I understand why they did what they did doesn't mean it wasn't inexcusable; too many posters in this and the many other "what if" Pearl Harbor threads I have participated in seem to miss that salient point in my arguments - willfully I think. I am not sure why they don't get that understanding and forgiveness are not the same thing.
     
  2. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    many were destroyed on ground/sea/on ramps....

    http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/pby-catalinas-at-pearl-harbor

    ''7 Dec 1941: During the attack on Pearl Harbor the majority of the squadron’s aircraft at NAS Kaneohe were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. One witness to the carnage,''
     
  3. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,246
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    Whether they did a good/fair/poor job of getting ready depended, in the nine investigations, on what the inquisitors wanted to prove. So you can get "proof" for any of those three judgments. And we're all welcome to our own, of course.
     
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    negative negative.....
    the thread moved along as other threads...many aspects here to look at and fine tune......
    as you can see, I analysed the posts, and tried to make a list what I thought everyone was saying as seen in post # 32 so that things would be a little more clear. this was an 'end' / final post to that section of the thread. I was trying to organize, and tally what we had so far.....
    we have a limit on posts in a thread? I'm the one who tried to make a summary of what we had so far....


    I don't see you as fair-minded since you had the Chinese fighting the Russians in WW2, and that clown show....no matter what I say, you nit pick and want to turn blue to red, etc......
     
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    efficient recon ...what does this mean??
    1 a good chance----what's a good chance? [ 100%, 80% ? ] ---of finding the enemy the day before the attack?
    2. be able to find the enemy [ ships or planes? ] and give warning? [ but how much of a warning?--30 minutes/ 15?
    3. does recon include ground spotters, picket ships, etc?
    we have one thought of efficent recon as 160 B17s--but as Opana and many have stated, this was impossible
    we seem to have many recon aircraft available, but not used --

    for me , efficient recon would be finding the enemy with 45 minute warning

    as in a lot of these threads, there are many aspects, answers, questions, misunderstandings, etc ...and thanks for friendly replies.....and if you can't understand the above format---read it slowwwwwwly......it is no different from many books, articles, etc
     
  6. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    I am sorry, but all these questions have been asked and answered.

    No, "efficient" means "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense", "working in a well-organized and competent way", and "preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource". Your definitions actually apply to "success", not "efficiency". For you, "efficient recon would be finding the enemy with 45 minute warning", but to me, and I suspect others, what you describe is a "successful search" - they are two very different things.

    1. It was zero chance no matter how "efficient" the use of the resources they had was, since they were looking in the wrong direction. Being more efficient would not change that.
    2. This question and the answer to it are the same as for 1., above. Unless you are trying to ask a different question and haven't expressed it well?
    3. Yes.

    Your questions remain unclear. You still seem to miss that the "many recon aircraft available" were being used. There were 69 operational PBY on Oahu, 7 were in the air, 3 more were ready, and the others would have gone out during the day - in the wrong direction. However, all search plans were aircraft and crew labor intensive...to keep 10 to 25% available searching meant the rest were in the queue preparing to search.

    This and these are friendly replies, it only seems it if you who remains so hostile to opposing points of view and having facts pointed out to you.
     

Share This Page