Pearl Harbor - conspiracy?

I didn´t answer your question directly but like I said the US thought their fleet was safe so possibly they would not have reacted because they didn´t think any Japanese attack could really harm them (?)

PS. Congrats on the avatar KnightMove!

[ 22. October 2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

I didn´t answer your question directly but like I said the US thought their fleet was safe so possibly they would not have reacted because they didn´t think any Japanese attack could really harm them (?)

PS. Congrats on the avatar KnightMove! </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, then this is another argument to hold against the conspiracists - that this telegram would not have made a difference.

PS. Thx, but it is not the one I want. I have to wait until Peppy adds mine.

 

I do not think Marshall's telegram would have made a difference. A probable red alert on Sunday?...

That landscape is terrifying and I 100% agree with you, Andy.

Hitler's Lebensraum included the land to the Urals, you're right. But his strategic plans included conquest of the Middle East and a link-up with the Japanese in India.

 

I get involved in a new debate with Pearl Harbor conspiracists somewhere else...

One of their main points is that the American fleet in Pearl Harbor were only old WW1 ships, while all modern ones have been saved.

Well, this is a WEAK argument, as MOST American ships at that time were from WW1. But can you help me to find detailed material to support this reasoning?

I need:

The American fleet in December 1941:
- in total;
- in the Pacific;
- stationed in Pearl Harbor;

- the detailed casualties of Pearl Harbor, and which of the damaged ships could not be reused.

- year of construction for all of these ships (to create a statistics how many were from WW1).

 

Hey, Knight, here are some data that might be helpfull to you.
145 vessels and service craft were at anchor at that time. All but one Pacific fleet's battleships were there. Three carriers, as sou probably know, along with 13 cruisers were on patrol (Saratoga, Lexington and Enterprise). Some useful data is here:

http://www.bluejacket.com/dec_07_1941_ships_ph.html

I am not sure about following facts, but I think that two battleships were lost and six others damaged. Pacific fleet after the attack conssited of:

3 carriers
16 cruisers
44 destroyers
16 submarines

Another helpful link is

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/usf.htm

 

That's helpful for a start, thx Srdo!

 

Damage report:

http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/CinCPac-D.htm

The Pacific Fleet NOT at Pearl Harbor

http://www.ww2pacific.com/notpearl.html

USS Indianapolis
Commissioned 15Nov32

Heavy Cruiser - Minneapolis
?

USS Chicago
Commissioned 9 March 1931

USS Chester
Commissioned 24 June 1930

Heavy Cruiser - Pensacola
?

Heavy Cruiser - Louisville
?

Battleship - Colorado
in overhaul
Bremerton, Puget Sound, WA


-------------------------
In Pearl Harbor:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/pearlus.html

Battleship Row

USS Nevada
commissioned 11 March 1916

USS Arizona
commissioned on 17 October 1916

USS Tennessee
commissioned on 3 June 1920

USS Maryland
commissioned 21 July 1921

USS California
commissioned 10 August 1921

USS West Virginia
commissioned on 1 December 1923

USS Oklahoma
commissioned 2 May 1916

Navy Yard

USS Pennsylvania
12 June 1916

USS New Orleans
Commissioned 15Feb34

USS San Francisco
10 February 1934


-------------

Whatever quite alot of boats at Pearl Harbor

If I get it right 8 battle ships in Pearl harbor and only one outside - Battleship - Colorado (BB-45) -- in overhaul


ATLANTIC
A quarter of the Pacific Fleet was ordered to the Atlantic 7 April 41 for Neutrality Patrol. These returned to the Pacific within six months of Pearl Harbor, except 3 CLs which stayed with the Atlantic Fleet.
Battleships - Idaho (BB-42), Mississippi (BB-41), New Mexico (BB-40)

 

A battleship, whether it is 30 or 2 years old, makes no difference in a battle. Because the 30-year-old battleships has been re-fit and re-equipped with radios, radars, new optics, electronics devices, etc. Even steam turbines could have been improved to achieve more speed. The armour and fire power remain unchanged and can be more powerful than the modern vessel.

Certainly the US Navy's big boys had an average age of 15-20 years. The Japanese Navy didn't have all that many very new ships, it had some ships 35 years old as did the Royal Navy. An example could be HMS King George V, some 25 years old, which did quite a fine job against the young Bismarck. But well, I don't want to get into very technical details.

Let's imagine that there hadn't been a Pearl Harbour and have a fleet versus fleet battle instead. Yamato and Musashi battleships could have turn the tide in favour of the Japanese, but not because those were newer battleships, but because of their massively powerful design.

[ 05. December 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

On the contrary, age does make a difference in ships. Older hulls have seen more operational time and have been "worked," using the correct naval term. That is, they have been repeatedly stressed through use.
The ship also has suffered corrosion and other effects of age of a similar nature. Often, some watertight doors are not due to warpage of bulkheads and that sort of thing. Hull and bulkhead penetrations also tend to proliferate over the life of a ship. This means that watertight bulkheads that really were when the ship was built are no longer so. A good example of this is the Nevada at Pearl Harbor.
Changes to improve ventilation of the forward portion of the ship resulted in alot of new ductwork being installed throughout spaces in that area. The bomb hit the Nevada took near her bow allowed water to enter this system and spread to many spaces due to the dampers in this ventilation system not having been secured or maintained where their watertightness was suspect. By the time Nevada was entering the channel out of the harbor she was well down by the bows due to thousands of tons of seawater pouring in through the ventilation system. Her captain had to ground her deliberately to prevent her sinking in the channel.
Armor integrity is in a similar fix. Metallurgy improves constantly. Armor made in 1918 is likely to be inferior in quality (if only in minute degree) to that made in 1940. Older ships of this era that received upgraded armor, particularly deck armor, often had it installed piecemeal using small plates over the existing armor. This made the new armor less effective than if it was applied in large plates and did not have to go around existing bulkheads and piping.
In WW 2 the need for more electrical power and the great increase in electrical equipment also presented problems in older ships. Routing new power cables required many penetrations of decks and bulkheads, often at inconvienent locations.
The bottom line is, age, in and of itself, of a ship does make a difference.

 

I do not agree very much with that. It is true what you say, but all are very minor details to have decisive importance in the course of the battle. Guns, speed, manœuvrability, armour and leadership are the decisive factors in a battle. The perfect example of this are HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. The Hood was twenty years old and the Prince of Wales not even one. When they faced the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck the British had far larger fire power and the Germans. The Hood, despite being 20 years old was substantially faster and more manœuvrable than the Bismarck. Also what made a difference were:

- The strategical position when the battle opened.
- The superior artillery controls and opticals in the German ships (not something related to a ship's age)
- The fatal flaws of Hood's ORIGINAL DESIGN (which provided its advantages too).
- The lack of training of the Prince of Wales's crew.

I don't see anything decisive related to ship's age which decided the battle. The Hood's lack of apropriate armour was because of its design as a battle cruiser, similar to the 'modern' pocket battleships and battle cruisers of the Germans.

 

*bump* for the newer members... maybe more opinions?

 

Holy crap! What is this?!

King George V class battleships were the most modern and advanced battleships ever built by the RN and it was just not even a year old! I meant the older ships…

My apologies.