Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Interesting article I just ran across...


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 06:06 PM

And it really throws a slightly different light on the Pearl Harbor attack. Don't know just exactly how accurate this is or might be, but it does make one remember that the; "plans dissolve upon first contact".

Goto:

The Pearl Harbor Myth
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#2 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 06:11 PM

Vaguely familiar. http://www.ww2f.com/...-big-snafu.html

"One of our King Tigers could take five of your Shermans, but you always had six of them."


WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

#3 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,165 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 07:17 PM

I don't know...The article seems to make a lot of supposition and present it as fact.

But this bit really confuzzled me.

The article states

Of the 19 total torpedo hits, these two battleships absorbed 12—nearly two-thirds of the hits. Four of these were overkill, wasted torpedoes that would have been more effective against the battleships California, which received only two hits, and Nevada, which received just one.

implying that 4 torpedoes per battleship is sufficient to achieve a sinking. It further says that the wasted torpedoes would have been put to better use against the Nevada which received only one torpedo hit.

But later the article states about the bombs dropped

Five hits were scored on the battleship Nevada, a ship already sufficiently damaged by a torpedo strike in the first wave.

Now, how can the Nevada be insufficiently targeted with torpedoes, in the first part, and yet, have been "sufficiently" targeted by torpedoes in the second???

Boy, I should have been an article writer for a military magazine. You can have the IQ of a brick and still get published and paid...

#4 machine shop tom

machine shop tom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:53 AM

This article is proof that one researching an event seventy-years later has both the benefits of hindsight and not having been shot at during that particular event.

tom

#5 arthur45

arthur45

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:58 PM

Actually, Zimm is correct, although he should have left out some words that confuse. The bombers were not
there to drop against those ships accessible to torpedoes (those berthed with an unobstructed side) but
only those batttleships inside of a double berth. So hitting an outside battleship would be considered a
wasted (or hopefully redundant) use of bombs. I've read his book, The Pearl harbor Attack, and Zimm
certainly does lay to rest the idea that the Japanese air attack was superbly planned and
executed. It was neither. The torpedo planes, for example, should have attacked first and
in unison, and operation that should have taken no more than a few minutes. None of the planes
would likely have been downed, given the average time required from sound general quarters to the
first anti-aircraft shots. As it was it took almost 15 minutes and 5 of the last 7 torpedo attacks resulted in
the plane being shot down. It was anything but a disciplined attack - fighters downed several civilian aircraft
an strafed targets of no military value. Zinn then calculates the AA fire effects and defensive fighter effects
against the Japanese had Pearl been provided 30 minutes or so of warning, and the probable result would
have been near destruction of the attacking forces. The Japanese were lucky the US had such incompetent
Army (Short) and Navy (Kimmel,Bloch,Pye) commanders running things.

#6 OpanaPointer

OpanaPointer

    I Point at Opana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:08 PM

The reason the attack proceeded as it did was because the signal that total suprise had been achieved was mistaken for the opposite.

"One of our King Tigers could take five of your Shermans, but you always had six of them."


WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbor Attack Message Board
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989

#7 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,240 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:55 PM

.... The bombers were not there to drop against those ships accessible to torpedoes (those berthed with an unobstructed side) but only those batttleships inside of a double berth.

Given the height they were dropping from isn't that rather unrealistic?

... I've read his book, The Pearl harbor Attack, and Zimm certainly does lay to rest the idea that the Japanese air attack was superbly planned andexecuted.

Actually at least from reviews I've read it has not been particularly well recieved.

.... The torpedo planes, for example, should have attacked first and in unison,

Was their sufficient air space to do this? Note that it also doesn't allow one to launch torps at targets missed by earlier planes.

operation that should have taken no more than a few minutes.

There's no way that operation could have been acomplished in "a few minutes". They had to plan on surpressing the US fighter fields for example and that combined with the attack on the naval vessels is going to take some time. Then there's the fact that unless they were supremely over confident they would still want the second wave and that had to follow the first by a siginifcant interval.

Zinn then calculates the AA fire effects and defensive fighter effects against the Japanese had Pearl been provided 30 minutes or so of warning, and the probable result would have been near destruction of the attacking forces.

Since the second wave faced a force that had significantly more warning and didn't suffer such a fate his conclusions are rather brought to question.

#8 Carronade

Carronade

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,394 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:25 PM

The bombers were not there to drop against those ships accessible to torpedoes (those berthed with an unobstructed side) but only those batttleships inside of a double berth.

Given the height they were dropping from isn't that rather unrealistic?

I saw an article years ago, I think in the Naval Institute Proceedings, which included a diagram of the bombs dropped on Arizona and Vestal. The high-level bombers flew in flights of five and dropped as a group, which I found a bit surprising, so their bombs landed in a wide V pattern spread across both ships. They were flying along the axis of Battleship Row, i.e. along the length of their targets, so I guess this was intended to cover left-to-right spread. Arizona and Vestal were attacked by two five-plane flights, from Hiryu IIRC, each of which scored one hit on each ship, one forward, one aft; the forward hit on Arizona was the fatal one.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users