lack of efficient recon at Pearl

They were in "war mode"...But, they were not yet at war. This is November 28th after all. Hence, the pilots would inform the Captain as to what action to take. Shooting down a Japanese recon plane without provocation would be considered an act of war, and it would be the American's fault.

 

If I understand you right, you seem to think the US military should have acted as if we were at war, when we were not at war? Something akin to the current "eternal vigilance" mode of the War on Terror (or whatever cute acronym it is today)? Which, for units not in an active theater of war, isn't really all that vigilant.

So, yes, the mindset was not one of being at war, but I don't think there is or was any way to change that. I am not sure what your examples of the mindset of units in wartime going into an active theater have to do with the mindset of units before the war begins? However, yes, if the forces called for in the M-B requirements were available, it seems likely they would have been used as planned. But they weren't available, anywhere, which was already pointed out.

 

What were the rules of engagement at that point? I don't think there was one and I'm not sure it was thought much about. "Rules of engagement" as a formalized set of orders are linked to the postwar Laws of Armed Conflict and the Cold War necessity for preventing provocative incidents between the nuclear powers.

What we had in 1941 were war warnings, which left the theater commanders to use their best judgment. Halsey's ROE were just that - his, although he cleared them - sort of - with Kimmel before he left.

16 October, Stark to Kimmel, King, and Hart "In view of these possibilities you will take due precautions, including such preparatory deployments as will not disclose strategic intention nor constitute provocative actions against Japan." Kimmel later said that Roosevelt's "shoot first" order was verbally transmitted to him to include the Southwest Pacific (i.e., the Philippines and Guam), but I don't think that was ever confirmed to have happened?

25 November, Ingersoll to Kimmel "Chances of favorable outcome of negotiations with japan very doubtful x this situation coupled with statements of Japanese government and movements their naval and military forces indicate in our opinion that a surprise aggressive movement in any direction including attack on Philippines or Guam is a possibility. Chief of staff has seen this dispatch concurs and request action adees [addressees] to inform senior army officers their areas x utmost secrecy necessary in order not to complicate an already tense situation or precipitate Japanese action x Guam will be informed separately."

27 November, Stark to Kimmel "Consider this dispatch a war warning. The negotiations with Japan in an effort to stabilize conditions in the Pacific have ended. Japan is expected to make an aggressive move within the next few days. An amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, or Kra Peninsula or probably Borneo is indicated by the number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of their naval forces. You will execute a defensive deployment in preparation for carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46. Guam, Samoa, and continental district have been directed to take appropriate measures against sabotage. A similar warning is being sent by the War Department. Inform naval district and Army authorities. British to be informed.”

So the ROE's were left up to the commander's on the scene discretion.

 

ask the captain, before shooting the enemy, is war mode??!? that's pre-war mode, no ? pre-war--before the war.....after war started it was different--no? in WW2- the war--you could shoot an enemy recon plane without asking any1....
difference
before 7 Dec you could not shoot recon plane
after 7 Dec you could shoot
are these modes the same ? most definitely negative


you can't be in war mode and then perform as if you are not in war

war 1.
''a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.''

mode . ''A manner, way, or method of doing something, experiencing something, or acting:''

if they are not in conflict or performing as if there is a war on, how can you be in war mode?

they were not at total war mode.....they were in 'half' war mode.....sleep mode....'they won't attack us' mode etc
they were not doing the same procedures as they did after 7 December......there was a huge difference,
there is a tremendous difference in mindset before the war, then going into the war....when I was in, most of the men did not even think about going to war, going into combat, etc --realistically, seriously
when you know for sure, that you're going into combat, or you're at Pearl Harbor 8 December-mindsets get serious-realistic.... 0700 7 Dec they were thinking liberty --just like Skipper's Pearl H survivor thread ! they weren't thinking about war or the enemy could attack......they were thinking about getting some on Hotel street-or wherever it was in 1941

 

Sorry, but if a "state of armed conflict", i.e. a "war", does not exist, then you cannot be in a "war mode".

Yes, the captain giving permission to shoot, or any officer on land, sea, or air, granting permission to shoot within a chain of command, is the way things work - in wartime or peacetime. Ammunition is issued on orders. Ammunition is loaded on orders. Weapons are cocked and ready on orders. Weapons are fired on orders. That is simply the way it works and when it doesn't work that way it is due to a breakdown in discipline and can lead to consequences, which is why the modern ROE have become so complicated.

 

Dont forget the lack of communication between Kimmel and Short meant that no one knew that Short was not preparing for an external, but internal attack and thus was not ready for a raid. Short went opposite of the navy in his alert numbering.
To me the lack of communication is Kimmel biggest failure. He should have said something to Stark, knowing the army was not living up to its duty.

 

so, it appears, the main reason there wasn't efficient or much recon was because they thought there was no threat.....that's what I get from the posts here

 

No, it was a contributing factor, but I think you seem to be still suffering a disconnect. To conduct an "efficient" and sufficient recon, the Army assessed it needed 160 B-17. They had between six and 12. The Navy assessment was not much different...and they had 72 to 81 aircraft to work with. So with between 4 and 50% of the required aircraft available, how do you do "much recon" or more "efficient" recon? You see, to conduct an efficient search with an arc of about 45% required about 8 aircraft out to warning distances of 200-450 miles, with at least three echelons behind it, one in route to patrol, one ready to take off, and one undergoing servicing for a mission - it was a crew, aircraft, and maintenance intense effort...especially since it was assumed that at least 10% of aircraft returned would not be available for a mission because of maintenance issues or because of aircraft accidents...and the percentage would increase as the mission tempo increased.

The threat attitude simply means they did conduct the most and most efficient recon they could...in the direction they thought there was a remote possibility of a threat coming from.

So if they were in a full "wartime" mindset - difficult to be in when you aren't at war and just as difficult to maintain when you are at war (the proximate cause of a lot of wartime "surprise") - they still would be economizing their assets and looking in the wrong direction.

 

Yep, I probably misstated the maintenance reserve:

8 aircraft and crews on station times 8 to cover a 360 degree arc = 64
Plus the same number in route to relieve aircraft on station = 64
Plus the same number warming up to take off to relieve aircraft on station = 64
Plus the same number turning around, preparing for warm up to take off to relieve aircraft on station = 64
Plus circa 40% reserve for aircraft down for maintenance, crew rest, losses in accidents, etc = 102
Total c. 358.

 

you must think I can't read??? I saw Opana's post...?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you obviously did not read posts # 45 and 50, or you just can't comprehend.
what are you suffering from? immaturity? blindness?

 

Excuse me, but what is your major malfunction?

Post # 45 is your post, not Opana's. Post # 50 is your post, not Opana's. In both you simply repeated the same mistaken opinions and misunderstandings you have been repeating all along. It is very simple to comprehend your posts, because you keep getting your questions answered...and then simply ask the same questions again. I'm not being immature, but I am beginning to wonder if you are simply trolling.

So again, since you seem to fail to understand:

No, they were not at war, they were under a war warning, so not fully in a wartime mindset, which is no guarantor against surprise in wartime anyway.
No, there were not sufficient aircraft to perform the "more" or "more efficient" reconnaissance than what they did, which was ineffective because they were looking in the wrong direction.

 

''No, it was a contributing factor, but I think you seem to be still suffering a disconnect. To conduct an "efficient" and sufficient recon, the Army assessed it needed 160 B-17.''

'''So again, since you seem to fail to understand:''
bold mine ..this undeniably infers he knows it all and everyone else is stupid.....very poor choice of words if you want a friendly discussion

but it's ok for Rich to talk crap about me---meaning having nothing to do with the thread? this is fair?
my father always taught me to be nice and try to word things to sound like you're not a jerk......and I try to do this
I constantly see members go out of their way to be jerks, and word things in a very unfriendly manner...and now I'm the bad guy? no one talks crap to me .
is this what we want on the foum? unfriendly words? jerks with jerky comments??
one of my first threads was making this forum a professional, friendly, mature, etc forum by having members not be jerks, etc....because I had a member call me a liar and in no uncertain terms call me stupid
does it bother me ? no....ha......I don't lie down like a sissy,etc......I'm just making things fair...we want fairness, don't we?