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

US Army deployments during the Pearl Harbor attack

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by John Dudek, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. dabrob

    dabrob Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    4
    John,

    Did we somehow loose a posting of yours in there ?


    At least until the Alzhimers sets in ...



    Sure there were anti-sabotage sentries at the US Army's CAC installations but most did not have full gun crews on site. Just a skeleton crew of sentries to prevent sabotage, not invasion. And as I have stated (and sourced) in past postings here, there were NO 240mm pieces installated in the field on Oahu on the night of Dec.6-7'41. Additional coinfirmation can be found in a Coast Defense Stugy Group (CDSG) Journal article from Volume 16, Issue #4 entitled , "240mm Howitzers on Oahu 1922-1944", written by one William C.Gaines.



    The real question is, can you remember exactly what you were doing and exactly where you were doing it for the entire month BEFORE and for the entire month AFTER Kennedy was shot ? Your source's account from memory DOESN't say that he was digging foxholes and stringing barbed wire ON Dec.7'41 but rather says that he had been doing so over several MONTHS previous. The print is NOT as you claim here. On the morning of Dec.7'41, the traumatic day according to you, he was getting ready to go on a nice truck ride, in fact.


    It doesn't matter.

    What would matter to a Japanese invasion force would be Yoshikawa's report at 1801 on Dec.6'41 via Tokyo, telling Nagumo that it was a typical peacetime Saturday night on Oahu and that as despite some sentries being posted to important buildings in downtown Honolulu, there were still NO American troop formations dug in and watching Oahu's east coast invasion beaches as of Saturday afternoon.


    Yeah but ALL of that only happened AFTER the Kido Butai's bombs/torpedos were ALREADY falling on Pearl Harbor. THREE HOURS LATER in fact. 0755 + 0300 = 1100 hours +/-

    Had the Japanese really been landing on Oahu before sunrise at 0606 as was their early war preference, they would have already been ashore for some hours and quite possibly in ambush positions which might have allowed them to prevent the American defenders from reaching their own assigned beach defense locations.


    0930 + 0100 = 1030 ?

    An interesting but contradictory paragraph since a previous one at your same own source has already indicated that just 30 members Company B of the 65th Engineers were breakfasting at Kaneohe while the remainder were on leave in Honolulu. That paragraph sees them sent to Schofield Baracks while this one has then shifted to Fort DeRussy.

    So, which was it ? Schofield, DeRussy or ??? wtf.

    It seems that human memory from the time of great events is NOT as perfect as you seem to think. AS IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED YOUR OWN CONTRADICTORY SOURCE.

    Perhaps we should examine your source a little more closely now ...

    From http://www.25thida.org/pearlharbor.html comes:

    Schofield Barracks was not a primary target. If the Japanese had intended to invade Oahu with ground forces on December 7, 1941, Schofield Barracks with its thousands of Soldiers whose mission was to defend Oahu would have had a much higher priority in Japanese planning. However Schofield was only lightly attacked which in retrospect indicated there would be no invasion that Sunday.

    'Tis no wonder that the oft practised American deployments went so well when there was no invader trying to interfere with those deployments historically.

    However, on November 27 1941 reacting on messages from the War Department emphasizing the need to take careful precautions against sabotage and assuming there would at least four hours warning of an approaching attack force from the Navy, the commander of the Hawaiian Department ordered all Army units to Alert 1 status which was an anti-sabotage configuration.

    So the American defenders did beat their 4 hour warning window of getting to their beach defense positions by mostly getting there in 3, but without heavy weapons and ammunition which weren't deliverd in most cases until the end of that infamous day.

    And that was 3 hours AFTER being alerted to the historical Japanese attack, rather than Japanese beach landings which might have begun 4-5 hours prior to 0755.

    Tragically one of the Haleiwa P36 pilots who had shot down two enemy aircraft was inadvertently shot down and killed by ground fire as he flew low over Schofield.

    Enough said already.

    The Hawaiian Department went to Alert Level 3 as the attack occurred and as early as 0930 units of both divisions began quickly moving to their assigned defense sectors.

    So the official line is that US Army units BEGAN to move by 0930 when the historical Japanese attacks had begun at 0755, one hour and 35 minutes earlier.

    With the possibility of a Japanese invasion, the first order of business was to quickly construct permanent beach fortification including pillboxes and revetments as well as stringing thousands of yards of barbed wire on the beaches. Because a goodly portion of the defensive positions were on private land the Army had been unable to construct more permanent defensive fortifications at these locations. No such restrictions existed after the attack and an intense effort was undertaken to improve fortifications covering likely amphibious landing sites.

    YOUR OWN SOURCE says it quite clearly. No permanent beach fortification BEFORE the Dec.7'41 hisorical air attacks but lots of construction work AFTER.

    Had Japanese invaders come ashore near kaneohe/Bellows on the night of Dec.6-7'41, there would have been few defenses and no US Army troops there to stop them from getting inland.

    As described herein these Soldiers of the 25th Infantry Division were well trained to take defensive actions within the scope of the plans for defending Oahu against enemy ground forces landing on the beaches. Most of its members had served in the Hawaiian Division and had participated in frequent practice alerts. As it was a Sunday most were off-duty and some were off-post on pass or leave. All were totally surprised on this peaceful Sunday morning when the sounds and sights of war shattered the silence.

    Imagine how much more surprised and demoralized they would have been to discover that Japanese invasion troops had already been ashore for many hours and had been moving inland thru the darkness to block the very limited Oahu road and railway networks.

    Living in tents in the hills, building concrete machine gun emplacements, and spreading barbed wire for months prior to the attack is what heavy mortar section leader Sergeant Clem S. Seroski of Company H, 35th Infantry remembers doing. All part of a defensive strategy for Oahu focused on repelling an amphibious assault.

    This sounds to me to be a part of Short's month's long on-going training program rather than a part of the War Warning Alert Level #1 only just ordered on November 29'41. Some 10 days, not months, before.

    At 7:00 a.m. on the morning of the attack Seroski was preparing to go on an armed motor patrol with machine guns mounted on vehicles and live ammo.

    So, on that infamous morning, he WASN'T building bunkers, digging foxholes, stringing barbedwire nor laying beach mines. He was getting ready for a truck drive around Oahu's coastal highway.

    Most of the 25th Division Soldiers at Schofield Barracks had just finished breakfast or were in the chow line when Japanese planes attacked Wheeler Field and then swept over Schofield strafing the quadrangles and other facilities. Some of the men were still in their bunks, others were getting dressed, or shaving. Some were on there way to church services---the usual Sunday morning activities. No where was the element of surprise made any more vivid than it was at Schofield.

    Certainly your own source says it all too well. Just imagine the carnage had the japanese been attempting to invade instead of just allowing the US Army's two Hawaiian Divisions to deploy just like on parade day..



    I'm not really interested in your "offhand" guesses. I seek the truth via relaible sources, instead.

    .
     
  2. John Dudek

    John Dudek Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    36
    I too am not really interested in your Japanese Superman Invasion theories, with their made-up, non-existant, whiz-bang technology, their split-second timing, all the while, preparing and carrying out all of their needed pre and post-invasion tasks absolutely correct, while the US Forces do all of their's absolutely wrong. You have no reliable sources youself, because in the end, once you stray from the actual historical record, it all becomes conjecture and one cannot prove your historical myths and fantasies to be historical fact, historically proveable, or even possible, anymore than I can prove mine to be so. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.
     
    formerjughead likes this.
  3. dgmitchell

    dgmitchell Ace

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    314
    Play nice, boys. This is not a what-if thread so do not make it into one. John is prudent in suggesting that you agree to disagree, so please move on.
     
    mikebatzel and John Dudek like this.
  4. mikebatzel

    mikebatzel Dreadnaught

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    405
    Well as mentioned that second ship was anything but stationary. You asked for evidence that a undermanned and inexperianced gun crew could accomplish anything. I very clearly posted an example. Obviously not every AA gun on Oahu will need to be bore sighted to fire, if any, however the example was that five men, inexperianced on the artillary peice, were still capable of being effective. Information YOU ASKED FOR!

    Your redundant dismisals of information is becoming irrational. You say you are out to learn the truth? I dont see this.
     
    A-58, John Dudek and formerjughead like this.
  5. dabrob

    dabrob Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    4
    After posting evidence that General Short was so short of trained gunners that he could not man both his coastal defense and AA guns, I remember asking, "Which would you have chosen in the event of an invasion ?" in my posting #31 here but I do not recall ever asking "for evidence that an undermanned and inexperienced gun crew could accomplish anything" as you have stated.

    Please provide my posting number where I made any such request ?

    Actually, your own source, Sloan's "Given Up For Dead" recounts on page #288 that, "The three-incher had originally been part of Lieutenant Lewis's Battery E but without a rangefinder it was worthless for aerial defence so Lewis left it behind when the battery was moved."

    So much for your claim of boresighted 3" AA fire, shot down by YOUR OWN SOURCE.

    Pages 291/2 details how Hanna (an ex-artillery man so hardly in-experienced) and his 4 man volunteer crew were able to boresight fire into a run-aground destroyer sized target in the darkness which had a lantern fixed over the bow so that the JSNLF troops it carried could see to quickly disembark. From only 150 yards. At that distance, I could have hit it too.

    'Tis an entirely different prospect than firing on distant & maneuvering warships in the darkness off shore, which are firing back at you.

    I also note that you didn't mention that 3 of the 4 Japanese daihatsu landing barges seemed to get their troops ashore onto Wake Island DESPITE the fact that the alerted wartime (not peacetime and surprised) American garrison was dug-in and awaiting them for the second time on Wake's beachfronts.

    At the moment, I am inclined to believe that you alone invented that request.

    On the subject of the whole truth, lets all go back once again to pages 293 & #296/7 of YOUR OWN SOURCE at http://books.google.ca/books?id=TlhpjHF84rcC&dq=Sloan+%22Given+Up+For+Dead%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=add9fiKy8w&sig=3C8qMM_9ymNwZW_PE_yzpP2y5zo&hl=en&ei=9lWISpHFAYOHtgf_sNznDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    From page #293 where it states, and I quote:

    "In this brilliant illumination, Hanna and his gun crew spotted the second ship, Patrol Boat No.33 for the first time. It had hit the beach some distance to the west of No.32 and was also comiing under machine gun fire as it attempted to discharge it's landing party."

    This is followed by pages 296/7 which provide:

    "Several hundred yards further west, Itaya Comp. also suffered heavy casualties aboard Patrol Boat No.33, which was hit repeatedly by both Hana's gun and the three- and five-inch gun batteries on Peacock Point.
    "Our boat sank because of the US attack", said Senior Petty Officer Hisao Tsuji, one of the men desperately trying to escape No.33."

    The whole truth would be good, not just the selective bits that you choose to provide previously.

    Page 293 tells us all clearly that Patrol Boat No.33 (the second one) was ALREADY AGROUND when gunner Hanna first saw it. As in, stationary, and not moving.

    The only Japanese SNLF medic that I could find mentioned in this text was in the first Patrol Boat that grounded, No.32, not on the second No33, so where did your claim of a boresighted 3" gun hitting a MOVING IJN warship come from ? Pure invention on your part, I suspect.

    Since this is a source THAT YOU PROVIDED, I can only assume that you attempted to deliberately deceive the readers here ? 'Tis no wonder that you provided no quotes nor even page numbers lest your falsehoods be discovered.

    In light of the now more complete account, are you still intending to maintain your imaginary medic's claim that a single damaged but boresighted 3" gun sank a moving IJN Patrol Boat before she could beach herself or will you extend some of the credit to the OTHER additional American 3" and 5" batteries that historically took part ?

    I also still await your explanation of how any boresighted US coastal artillery gun emplaced on Oahu's western or southern shores might fire THRU the Koolau Mountain range at enemy ships prowling off the eastern shores of Oahu ?

    Since this posting has exposed your own untruths, a retraction of and an apology for this remark, is expected.

    .
     
  6. John Dudek

    John Dudek Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    36
    Please. Look at the pot calling the kettle "black." regarding all of your completely unsubstantiated historical, "what-if" fairy tales. Regarding Wake Island's second invasion atempt. The US Marines completely destroyed and killed off all of, the Japanese invaders on one islet and were on their way to destroying a second, when the surrender order was issued by hand, because their communications grid had been destroyed. Had the communications been maintained, than I believe that the Marines would have destroyed the remaining SNLF troops on Wake Island, in the same manner that they were destroyed a few weeks earlier, also later on Guadalcanal, and much later, by the Australians at Milne Bay.

    The US Marines probably wouldn't have remained there for long, but they would have driven off the Japanese SNLF troops.
     
  7. mikebatzel

    mikebatzel Dreadnaught

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    405
    Well if you had read the original post to you, you would have noticed that I had quoted it for you. Sigh, but alas

    I never made any claim toward bore sighted AA fire. For the second time, the example was provided to show that an undermanned artillery piece can still fire and be effective.
    I would like to see that.
    I won't comment on this other than you are talking hypothetical invasion of Hawaii, while I'm talking real history, in which there was no fire coming in from offshore that night. It is a mute point.
    I don't see what this has to do with the fact that a partial gun crew can still be effective, thus it was not included. Besides you are taking us back off topic again with your invasion of Hawaii.


    See above.

    But this does nothing to prove that that a partial gun crew can not be effective.
    Excuse me? I didn't know that I was required to bring my books to work with me. Beside no page numbers would have been useful to you. You read a Google preview, while my copy is an ebook for my Sony reader. A different page format, thus page numbers would have been useless. If a mod is required to prove to you I was at work they have my permission to verify that I was on my weekday, daytime IP.
    I never took away from what the marines and civilians on Wake island did. Full credit to those men who fought and died on that island.
    I never said they could. Again off topic with your invasion of Hawaii. I suggest we get off this topic before yet another thread with potentially good information will be lost when it gets closed.

    Who are you to make such a demand. I apologize for nothing. In almost two years of me being a member on this forum, I have never intentionally provided false information to support a false argument, as you have accused me of doing. Nor have I ignored information to the contrary, as you have. I will be the first to admit when I am wrong. I was not wrong in claiming that a gun crew can still remain effective while undermanned, even if the rate of fire is considerably slower. I remain in support of that previous statement.
     
  8. dabrob

    dabrob Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since my invasion Oahu scenario was posted in the "What IF" discussion section of this board, what is your problem with that ?

    Except that historically, they didn't.

    Wow, for a guy that just claimed that he wants to agree to disagree, you sure have some strong opinions. Not backed up by fact but merely opinions.

    Since both of the WW2 Wake Island battles occurred well AFTER Dec.7'41, what exactly does your rant here have to do with the supposed theme of this thread, "US Army deployments during the Pearl Harbor Attack" ?

    .
     
  9. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,378
    Likes Received:
    883
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Once again this has turn into a bickering session. Multiple warnings have been issued. I'm closing it and if any other threads are hijacked by bickerers, the perps will be thrown out.
     
    John Dudek and mikebatzel like this.

Share This Page