CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Was v.adm naguma foolish, Pro's and con's of third wave< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Philip Payton Search for posts by this member.

1



Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Sep. 01 2002,5:15  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I've been reading a couple of books and one discribes a 30 min heated discussion between Naguma, Fuschida and Genda on wether to retreat, attack the US in open battle or launch a third wave and take out the shoreside facilities at pearl.  in Tora Tora Tora this isn't depicted and i think it throws a whole new light on the subject for me as to wether Naguma was foolish to let the opportunity slip away especially when the use had lost over 100 planes but only 20 something ships, 3 of which were only out for two weeks after the attack. what do people think

--------------
Philip Payton, Nottingham, UK.....        "Strangers are only friends you haven't met yet"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
David Aiken Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 901
Joined: Feb. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Sep. 01 2002,10:31 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Aloha Phil,
There was no "30 minute" heated discussion between Naguma [Nagumo], Fuschida [Fuchida], and Genda. The [unknown time length] heated discussion was within Nagumo's Staff [that would suggest Kusaka and Genda was involved] when Fuchida arrived:

Upon Fuchida's arrival to Akagi "...where refueled and rearmed planes were being lined up on the busy deck in preparation for yet another attack. I called to the bridge as soon as the plane stopped, and could tell on arriving there that Admiral Nagumo's staff had been engaged in heated discussions about the advisability of launching the next attack. They were waiting for my account of the battle....[attack results given]... This seemed to please Admiral Nagumo who observed, 'We may then conclude that anticipated results have been achieved'. Discussion next centered upon the extent of damage inflicted on airfields and air bases, and I expressed my views saying. 'All things considered we have achieved a great amount of distruction, but it would be unwise to assume that we have destroyed everything. There are still many targets remaining which should be hit. Therefore I recommend that another attack be launched.'"

A surviving Japanese document gives Nagumo's reasons for halting further strikes says:

"1. The first attack [this means both waves] had inflicted all the damage we had hoped for, and another attack could not be expected to greatly increase the extent of that damage.
2. Enemy return fire had been surprisingly prompt even though we took them by surprise; another attack would meet stronger opposition and our losses would certainly be disproportionate to the additional distruction which might be inflicted.
3. Intercepted enemy messages indicated at least 50 large planes still operational; and we did not know the whereabouts of the enemy's carriers, cruisers, and submarines.
4. To remain within range of enemy land-based planes was distinctly to our disadvantage, especially since the effectiveness of our air reconnaisance was extremely limited."

HTH,

--------------
Cheers,

David Aiken, a Director
Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

Keep the largest WWII website on line!
Join NOW: $25
P.O. Box 1007
Stratford, CT  06615

http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Sep. 03 2002,11:51 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In hindsight, we can say that a third attack, one against the fuel tanks and repair shops, would have really knocked the US fleet out. I've heard it said in a couple of locations that had the fuel tanks been hit they would have had to pull the majority of the fleet that was left back to the West Coast, for example, and we probably would have lost Midway.

But keep in mind what each side knew at the time. Nagumo was given strict orders for a mission he didn't really approve of anyway, and those orders were met in the first two waves. Additionally, there was strong pressure early on to scrub the Pearl Harbor attack because it was felt the carriers were needed to help support the southern operations (Invasion of the Philippines, etc.) and while Yamamoto was able to keep the attack going, Nagumo was supposed to help the southern task force as soon as possible. Showing up with damaged or missing carriers was not what the Japanese Navy wanted. The attack on Pearl was only supposed to prevent the US from interferring with the Japanese southern conquest, and those carriers were not to be risked lightly.

But in further hindsight, even if Japan had launched a third wave it would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the war. There was simply no way they could fight a war of attrition with us. It's the same reason we were able to win the battle of the Atlantic against the German U-boats; we were able to build more per month than the Germans could sink.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 4
Philip Payton Search for posts by this member.

1



Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Sep. 04 2002,5:00 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nagumo never really supported the attack, from what i've read it was only upon Yamamoto's threat to resign that he fell reluctantly into line, could this have influenced his thinking in not launching the third wave, loss of the fuel dumps and port facilities would probably have forced the US to move back to the West Coast and perhaps in the long run look for a peaceful settlement.

--------------
Philip Payton, Nottingham, UK.....        "Strangers are only friends you haven't met yet"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
sequoiaranger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: Mar. 2003

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 06 2003,2:41 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

3rd Strike Effects:

Supposedly Nagumo was prepared to lose two of his carriers (and presumably their air group) in accomplishing his mission. He accomplished his mission losing NONE, so he felt he was better off saving the extra ships and personnel for the long war ahead. This is commendable, but from the standpoint of the ultimate objective (deal a huge, humiliating blow that would cower them out of the war), I feel he should have struck Pearl UNTIL he lost two carriers!! That is, maximize the destruction and accept losses.

In the long run, whether Nagumo hit extra oil tanks and machine shops (VERY hard to actually destroy, as we found out in bombing the Germans) or not, the Pearl Harbor raid was the turning point of the war. Up to that point, theoretically the Americans might just be intimidated, lose courage, and opt out of interfering with Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Once the bombs fell on Dec 7th, Japan was doomed to reap the whirlwind of the mightiest economy on the Earth.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
spiders24 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: Jul. 2003

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 27 2004,5:10 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am new to this site, Ive been reading about the Pacific was since middle school, and recently I realized when I was reading a book about the Guadalcanal Campaign and discovered that at one point the BB Colorado was in the vicinity, but Halsey didnt let it anywhere near Guadalcanal even though the loss of ships was high, I realized that the attack on Pearl realy didnt set the U.S. back at all cause the most of those BB's at Pearl where of the older slower type, so ive been wondering the attack on Pearl realy wasnt as devastating as many beleive it was because all those BB's where obsolete, this raises many quest's for myself, would it have been better if there was a 3rd wave damaging all the port facilities and forcing the Pacific Fleet to the West Coast? or maybe the Japanses hit the wrong targets, maybe they should have targeted the oil tanks and repair facilities to begin with, I beleive that all those BB's at Pearl wouldent have made a difference if they had survived
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 28 2004,4:05 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

OK, first comment. Your question would be easier to read and comprehend if you used more periods and less commas. That was an amazing run-on sentence!

Japan certainly would have gained something by attacking both the Navy Yard and the fuel supply. But they also would have lost somethings as well. More planes for one; a significant amount of the planes shot down during the attack were in the second wave of the attack; by that time the element of surprise had largely been lost and the Americans were figthing back more effectively. Those planes were needed to support the operations following the attack on Pearl.

Also, the third wave could not have happened on December 7th; the planes that had returned from the first wave were being serviced and armed for anti-ship missions in case parts of the US fleet tried to follow and attack the Kido Butai. By the time they could have had their armament changed from anti-ship to anti-ground any force that was launched to attack Oahu would be returning at night. Recall as well what happened to the Japanese carriers when they switched on the fly from one type of mission to the next at the battle of Midway. Vulnerability was a real concern.

By the time the Kido Butai could have struck again Oahu would have been more alert and able to defend itself and to strike back. Japan probably would have inflicted serious damage at Pearl, but they could also have lost a carrier or two out of the deal as well because the radar stations would know where they were coming from, and their reports not discounted.

The Pacific War was primarily an air war, but more battleships would have helped at Guadalcanal. Read up on the battles of Guadalcanal and think about how things might have been different if we'd had more surface power available in some of the naval engagements.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
herbw2 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 38
Joined: Jan. 2002

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 29 2004,8:03 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

A third wave against Pearl Harbor's repair shops, sub pens and oil tank farm, which was above ground, would, from what I have read,  made the base unable to service the Pacific Fleet for up to a a year.
Nagumo was timid at Pearl and at Midway and not the bold leader the Japanese needed. Because of his seniority Yamamoto was stuck with him.
However, the ultimate outcome of the war would have been the same.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
spiders24 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: Jul. 2003

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Aug. 09 2004,1:26 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thank you for your thoughts. I have read a couple books on the Guadalcanal campaign. Why was Admiral Halsey reluctant to use the Colorado at Guadalcanal? and not so about the Washington and the damaged South Dakota. 1 more very hypothetical Question about Pearl, if the Japanese had ignored the BB's and focused the 2 waves on the Facilities and Cruisers do you feel that would have been the smarter thing to do? Do you also feel that the BB's at Pearl on Dec 7th where obsolete?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Aug. 09 2004,2:49 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm not well enough versed on Guadalcanal to answer your first question.

As far as your questions about attacking the facilities and BB Obsolescence, I'll answer the second first as it's easier. Had they been completely obsolete they would not have been resurrected and used for the remainder of the war!  :) Some of them were clearly weaker than newer enemy battleships, but they would still be quite effective against other targets. It would be better to say that the overall, popular idea as to how to best use them was obsolete in light of the power of the carrier, but keep in mind the US had battleships in the Navy until 1991!

Whether the Japanese should have attacked the shipyard is one of those nebulous questions that we could debate until the cows come home. However, if we look at the extreme, they only attack the yard and drydocks and none of the ships, we come out with one very real disadvantage for the Japanese Navy. Our ships can still sortie and sail. We may not be able to upkeep them or refuel them there, but perhaps we could have shifted them to Australian ports. That wouldn't have done the Japanese any good. Clearly, they had to strike the fleet at least.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
11 replies since Sep. 01 2002,5:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Was v.adm naguma foolish
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner