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

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy?

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theories' started by broke91hatch, Apr 16, 2008.

Tags:
  1. mikebatzel

    mikebatzel Dreadnaught

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    406
    Well, Its funny you say that because the damage report for aircraft after the attack mentions this

    IIRC I read somewhere that one of them even got off some kind of a warning. I believe all of them where shot down.
     
  2. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Actually, most historians agree that Kimmel, at least, was sent out to Pearl Harbor to "shake up" the Pacific Fleet and upset the complacent mood there; he completely failed in that hope. But that doesn't address my point; there was absolutely nothing that Washington could have said to either Kimmel or Short that they hadn't already been told many times. And mention of the "fourteen part" message would have done absolutely zip to enlighten them as to Japanese intentions regarding Pearl Harbor/ The "fourteen part" message didn't have any meaning either diplomatically, or militarily, and only later gained any import within the context of the Japanese surprise attack.

    You keep shifting your position rather than addressing my arguments. Would you mind addressing why you think the "fourteen part" message would have made any difference if Kimmel and Short had been informed of it?


    Again, you're trying to shift the subject. The issue is whether Japan embraced technology and was technologically superior to the US. I contend it wasn't. The Zero design resulted from a technologically inferior aircraft engine industry which couldn't turn out high-powered, light-weight, advanced aircraft engines. I referenced a source for this statement (Eric Bergerud, "Fire In The Sky"). The fact that the Japanese had developed air fighting doctrine which temporarily put the inexperienced Allied pilots at a disadvantage does not mean that Japan technologically advanced over the US and certainly not in the aviation industry. Either cite some sources that claim otherwise or concede the point.

    BTW, the P-40 was inferior to the Zero only in some aspects of flight performance and could, and did, hold it's own after Allied pilots learned how to capitalize on the Zero's weaknesses. You are completely incorrect that the P-40 was "retired" after Pearl Harbor. "The Curtiss P-40 was an American single-engine, single-seat, all-metal fighter and ground attack aircraft that first flew in 1938. It was used by the air forces of 28 nations, including those of most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war. By November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built....In theaters where high-altitude performance was less important, the P-40 proved an effective fighter. Although it gained a post-war reputation as a mediocre design, suitable only for close air support, more recent research including scrutiny of the records of individual Allied squadrons, indicates that the P-40 performed surprisingly well as an air superiority fighter, at times suffering severe losses, but also taking a very heavy toll on enemy aircraft. The P-40 offered the additional advantage of low cost, which kept it in production as a ground attack fighter long after it was obsolete in air superiority."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40



    No, it was hindsight, because no one in the chain of command ever suggested that a constant combat air patrol over Oahu was appropriate. You are obviously uninformed about what an effective defense of that nature would have entailed in terms of cost and effort. Two planes circling Oahu would have been a ludicrous number with which to attempt to defend an island the size and extent of Oahu. Only a fully functional radar warning system linked to a central air defense command system could have made possible an effective defense of Oahu with the planes available. Having planes fly around at random at various altitudes would have been a waste of gas, time, and effort.


    Don't confuse good training and doctrine in one small area with technological superiority. In fact, when the Japanese Navy came into contact with the US Navy's first team in May and June, 1942, they suffered grievously; in two battles, Coral Sea and Midway, they not only lost the initiative, but five carriers to two. The skirmishes in Iron Bottom sound were just that, skirmishes in which better training and doctrine in night surface fighting was demonstrated by IJN light forces. Those fights in no way indicated the IJN possessed better naval technology. In fact, with few exceptions, the IJN possessed inferior technology and older ships throughout the Pacific War.



    Agreed, but again, that doesn't address my point, which was, it wasn't a lack of individual efficiency on the morning of December 7, that allowed the Japanese to achieve tactical surprise. It was the failure of Kimmel and Short to push preparations for war. Those preparations included the provision of a radar air warning/defense system, based on British practice, which was being developed, and which was within a week or two of fruition. Had the respective commanders given that project their undivided attention, it would have been ready and would have allowed the defenders to inflict losses which even the media coverage would have reckoned as disastrous.
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    The fellow must read this at least

    Fact Sheets : Curtiss P-40 Warhawk : Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

    The AVG (Flying Tigers) were greatly outnumbered in the air and operating under very adverse conditions (such as no replacement pilots and practically no spare parts for repairing aircraft) and only started flying against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. And yet they scored a very impressive record against the enemy: 286 Japanese planes shot down at a cost of 12 AVG pilots killed or missing in action.

    And then this as per the P-40:

    WW2 Warbirds: the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Frans Bonné

    And there was another "oddity" in those years, and really almost all through WW2, an inter-service rivalry which hindered if not crippled America's defense of self.

    At that time, Navy pilots were the only ones (land or sea based) allowed to fly beyond visual sight of land on patrol, i.e. USAAC (F) planes couldn't fly beyond 25 miles of the shore on patrol. This was a "hinky" due to Army Air pilots getting lost and having to be resuced by the USN when they ditched at sea!

    And the Navy didn't want to spend any money or time finding and returning those "incompetent" pilots who couldn't navigate over the sea! Unthinkable today, but in the thirties and early forties completely true.

    Another thing that many don't recall, the US radar emplacement was refused permission to place the "training unit" on the best position since it was inside of the Parks Service territory! The stinking Parks Service wouldn't give permission for the unit to be deployed on their land, and the US Army had to find a secondary place on which to put their test unit. No phones, and limited radio ability contact with the Pearl Harbor base due to mountains between the two. AM doesn't work all that well (at the time) at the VHF frequencies being used in "moist air". Guess the humitity of Hawaii at any given moment!
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    The Shore Patrol reports for that Saturday night showed there was not a noticeably higher incident of alcohol related incidents than any other night, allowing for the number of ships in port. Remember, that "battle of the bands" occurred on base, so there was limited amounts of beer available.

    This myth springs from claims that Japanese "fifth column" personnel had been buying beer for the Fleet and soldiers Saturday night. It's simply not true. Yoshikawa had other things to do. It's an attempt to say that "the only reason we lost was because the sneaky S.O.B.s got the GIs drunk the night before." :mad:
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    The Ward's report was not "taken lightly". When Capt. Outerbridge's message was delivered to Kimmel, he demanded that the ready destroyer get underway, the stand-by destroyer to light off all boilers, and aircraft prepare to take off for an area search. "A submarine in that close is a serious matter." H.E. Kimmel. He actually left Gen. Short waiting at home in his golf togs while the Adm. went to HQ to supervise the follow-up to the action report.
     
  6. Lias_Co_Pilot

    Lias_Co_Pilot Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    66
    Would you mind addressing why you think the "fourteen part" message would have made any difference if Kimmel and Short had been informed of it?It was the failure of Kimmel and Short to push preparations for war.

    The 1 p.m. deadline, to my thinking, would've been enough to say:"Gee, let's scramble some air crews", but like you said-Kimmel and Short were unprepared and no amount of warning would've changed that. Even if Yamamoto himself would've conference called those two knucklheads and told them he was going to attack from the north by carrier, I think those two would've laughed it off and still gone golfing.

    You are completely incorrect that the P-40 was "retired" after Pearl Harbor.

    Did P-40's escort B-17's into Europe? Nope. Did P-40's figure into the Marianas Turkey Shoot? Nope. Did P-40's escort B-29's to Japan? Nope. P-40's remained in production, yes, but mainly as trainers.

    Wikipedia?

    Kid: Rambo helped in the defense of oppressed people of New Orleans in the War of 1812 because Bush wouldn't send any help.

    Father: You've been reading Wikipedia again, haven't you?

    Opana Point wrote:
    The Shore Patrol reports for that Saturday night showed there was not a noticeably higher incident of alcohol related incidents than any other night, allowing for the number of ships in port. Remember, that "battle of the bands" occurred on base, so there was limited amounts of beer available.

    There's alcohol hangover, and emotional hangover. I put forth that much of the "hangover" was emotional. A good example of emtional hangover would be a guy, the morning after he loses his virginity. He's in a good mood, a pheromone high. Good music can also cause a pheromone high.
     
  7. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932

    Why? Rufus Bratton stated in his testimony before Congress that "as long as the message was in the Embassy safe nothing was going to happen." (Quoted from memory, my PHA volumes are stored.) As I pointed out above, Kimmel sprang into action when he heard Ward's report, so why do you think he would laugh off another war warning?


    How do you make this judgment? What sources do you use for it? Or is it just a W.A.G.? :coinflip:
     
  8. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Mainly as trainers? LOL I suggest you read up more on the actual combat history of the P-40. As your statement is still totally incorrect. It also seems that you chose to ignore the other sources listed beside Wiki. How about backing your statement up with the your sources stating that they were "Retired" after Pearl Harbour or that most were used for "training"? Funny how more aircraft were produced AFTER Pearl Harbor. And tell us too what USAAF aircraft could have participated in the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" the largest aircraft carrier battle in Naval history? P-40's were also used in combat missions in China as far as Jun 1945 .Certainly not as trainers. They were used by the RNZAF until 1944 and by the RAAF until the end of the war in addition to the USAAF.
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    The Lend-Lease tables show 5,492 p-40s exported during WWII, nearly 2,800 of those to England and over 2,000 to the USSR. Pretty good for an extinct bird. :confused:

    HyperWar: Lend-Lease Shipments, World War II (Army Air Forces), page 4.
     
  10. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Yes it is LOL. Especially for a "trainer". Just as an add on the P-40 was used alongside the P-51 on the same kind of missions in the CBI in 1945.
     
  11. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    Everyday one learns something new. I wasn't aware there were so many IJNavy Zero fighters inside China, to beat off all those P-40s. Can you tell exactly which carriers were being sent up which rivers, so we can have a general picture? I suppose the two main candidate rivers would be the Yang Tse and the Huang Ho, but as Wikipedia (shudder!) gives us a list of 81 main rivers I'm a bit at a loss, especially as I don't know what draft Japanese flattops used to have, which would be useful in picking navigable rivers!
     
    mikebatzel likes this.
  12. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    The 1:00 PM deadline for delivery to Secretary Hull could have meant anything or nothing. Washington was aware of the Japanese troop convoy movements toward Malaya and a reasonable presumption, based on their known location and speed of advance, could have been that the Japanese wanted the message delivered before the convoys entered Malaysian coastal waters. Of course, after the attack it became obvious to everyone, and everyone claims they would have made the correct assumption; hindsight is a wonderful thing.


    I see, those are the only air missions that count toward the prosecution of the air war, and planes that didn't participate in them must have been so hopelessly technologically inferior that they might as well have been retired immediately after Pearl Harbor? Or is it possible you were simply wrong in your statement and now can't find the grace to admit it?


    Well, if you can't find find factual data to counter a source that proves you wrong, it's always a good tactic to question the source's credibility. It's noted that you haven't offered a single citation to back up your statement that the P-40 was "retired" immediately after Pearl Harbor.

    Every source I can find on the P-40 claims it continued as a front-line aircraft until the end of the war. Production ceased in 1944 after over 13,000 examples had been produced. Doesn't sound like it was considered such a bad aircraft to me. It's kill ratio with the AVG in China against Japanese aircraft (not Zeros) was 1:23 or better; The P-40 definitely did the "spanking" in China.

    If you don't like Wikipedia, how about the following;

    Warbird Alley: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

    Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - USA

    www.P-40.com

    P-40 Warhawk

    P-40 and Zero

    Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk WWII Fighter Aircraft

    Eric Bergerud, "Fire In The Sky"
     
  13. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    My spoof meter is giving ambiguous readings on that post. I'll play it safe and assume you knew P-40s were not up the high standards of the USN, although the Mildcat was. :D

    However, we did have two "carriers" that could make it up the Yangtze. However, they were both on Lake Michigan, so they probably didn't see much combat. :)
     
    Za Rodinu likes this.
  14. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Knowing Za after being here for awhile and being friends with him I can pretty much tell when he is being sarcastic ;) LOL. I wonder when Lias will post a rebuttal with the sources and facts to back up his statements? He was on earlier and has yet to.
     
  15. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Neither of those "carriers" ever had any air groups assigned, but even if they had, they would have had the same problem as any other aircraft carrier which might find itself operating on a river; turning into the wind in preparation for launching aircraft. Those river channels can be mighty narrow.
     
    Za Rodinu likes this.
  16. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    "Rats! Foiled again!". With an avatar like mine what do you suppose my attitude is,eh? :)

    You now, those Chinese rivers have a lot of meanders, they might find a bend or two to come into the wind :D

    Ok, enough joking ;)
     
  17. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    No problem. For a headwind, you just get two fighter pilots on the bow, and ask them which one is the better pilot! :D
     
  18. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    As for the A6M in China this aircraft never was directly pitted against the AVG. The first A6M2s in China consisted of 15 pre-production models assigned to the 12th Rengo Kokutai and their first aerial combat didn't occur until 13 September 1940.
    A number of additional aircraft were eventually assigned to this unit and flew in China until September 1941 when they were pulled out of service there and reassigned duties for the war against the Allies / US.
    In service in China the Zero destroyed 99 Chinese aircraft (by pilot report... the score is likely far lower in reality) for a loss of two Zeros to ground fire.

    As for Pearl Harbor, anyone arguing for a conspircy has to willfully ignore the numberous individual incidents and chains of events in the days and hours before the attack that should have alerted the US to that impendending event.
     
  19. John Dudek

    John Dudek Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    36
    The AVG didn't fly its first mission until 21 December, 1941 IIRC.
     
  20. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    I think it was 20 Dec 41 :). I wonder when Lias will provide us with the source(s) about the P-40. Lias has been on a few times now and has yet to do so. Seems to be avoiding the question. It appears to be a reasonable request since we have provided ours.
     

Share This Page