Could the IJN have launched a "Third wave" at Pearl Harbour?

[renrich]

Very similar circumstances between Singapore and PH. The Moorer story goes on. His PatWing was sent to Australia where they were stationed at Darwin. During one of the air raids there he was trying to get his PBY out of the area and was shot down by the Nips. He was wounded but survived. Life was interesting for him in those days. Moorer got on my bad side a while back as I heard him being quoted(after his retirement from the Navy) as saying that civilians in this country had no business owning guns or something to that effect. He may have been misquoted or he may be senile but I crossed him off my list. I am sure that if he knew that he would be distressed. LOL

[renrich]

Sys that idea of small picket ships was and is a good one. If you recall the Japanese did that and that was why the Doolittle raid had to launch prematurely. It is surprising no one in command thought of that. Part of the peacetime mentality.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

.....Part of the peacetime mentality.

That my friend is exactly why we lost at Pearl, the Philipines and the Brits in Malaya/Singapore.

[renrich]

TO, an excellent book on the PH attack is "Air Raid: Pearl Harbor!" It is a collection of recollections by participants edited by Paul Stillwell. It was published by The Naval Institute Press and copywrited in 1981. One article in it is by a Captain Taussig(ret) who was a young officer in Nevada during the attack. He was badly wounded and watched most of the attack from a litter. His article is a technical discussion of the inadequancies of the AA batteries and their fire control systems on the USN ships of that day. I have outlined on this forum before how the 5 inch dual purpose batteries were operated during that time frame based on conversations with an uncle who was a CGM on CA25 and was responsible for the 5 inchers on that ship. Taussig"s article verifys my uncle's explanations and reinforces my opinion which is that I wonder how they ever hit an airplane making an attack.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

TO, an excellent book on the PH attack is "Air Raid: Pearl Harbor!" His article is a technical discussion of the inadequancies of the AA batteries and their fire control systems on the USN ships of that day. I have outlined on this forum before how the 5 inch dual purpose batteries were operated during that time frame based on conversations with an uncle who was a CGM on CA25 and was responsible for the 5 inchers on that ship. Taussig"s article verifys my uncle's explanations and reinforces my opinion which is that I wonder how they ever hit an airplane making an attack.

Is the 5 inch gun unsuitable for AA or is it just that particular model? I've been meaning to ask this for awhile. The British cruisers all used 4" AA guns as their secondary battery, but in 1939 the new class of "Dido" cruisers switched to 5.25" dual-purpose guns, replacing both the 6" & 4" AA guns of earlier cruisers. Were the 5.25" guns effective? I notice that the next group of Colony class cruisers went back to the 4" AA.

[fly boy]

i wonder what would happen to japan planes if we had p-51d's flying at the time and fully loaded

[renrich]

There wasn't anything wrong with the 5 inch38 or 5 inch 25. An experienced crew could get off 20 rounds per minute. The ammunition and the fire control was the problem. Once they got proximity fuses that helped a lot. The British fire control was even more hopeless than the American. Think about Repulse and POW. POW was practically brand new and they could not defend themselves against level and torpedo bombers. Shooting down attackers with the ammo and fire control systems of the 3 inch, 4 inch and 5 inch cannons of that time was almost as hard as shooting pigeons on the fly with a breech loading 22 rifle.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Very similar circumstances between Singapore and PH. The Moorer story goes on. His PatWing was sent to Australia where they were stationed at Darwin. During one of the air raids there he was trying to get his PBY out of the area and was shot down by the Nips. He was wounded but survived. Life was interesting for him in those days. Moorer got on my bad side a while back as I heard him being quoted(after his retirement from the Navy) as saying that civilians in this country had no business owning guns or something to that effect. He may have been misquoted or he may be senile but I crossed him off my list. I am sure that if he knew that he would be distressed. LOL

He wasn't mis quoted. His son, Tom,Jr was stockbroker that lived next door to me in Dallas. Tom voted for Reagan and Bush - his dad was left of Clinton and Mondale in many ways. Gun 'control' is one of them.

I asked him w/o going ballistic whether he thought the placement of the 2nd Amendment meant it was a Collective Right or an individual right and he responded 'it had a purpose where there were no police and we had a small standing army.

When I reminded him that our founders, Washington included, said 'beware of a large standing army' he was irritated but actually listened to my next point when I asked him how many police authorities were on standby to protect him from 'gand bangers' who didn't need no stinkin' license to purchase one?

This was during the Texas Right to carry law introduction - anyway I respected him and his service to the country - but, no he doesn't believe you and I should own a weapon. Remember, on a military post all the issue weapons are in lock up..so its a long way of life for him.

[renrich]

Interesting Bill, I think that us ordinary people sometimes have a vision that all military members tend to be conservative in their politics. However, people who spend a lifetime in the military certainly have a different outlook on life than we do. To begin with, in our lifetimes, an individual in the military who followed the rules pretty much had a job guaranteed with a decent retirement at the end. That has not been true of those of us in private enterprise. They always had a form of socialised medicine and if they spent much time in the DC area they came into contact with many left leaning government employees. I like the advantages conferred by a volunteer professional military but maybe our founding fathers were prescient in more ways than they knew in their fear of a standing army. I have a cousin, lives in the DC area, was in the first graduating class of the AF Academy, now retired and he mirrors some of the same views as Moorer.

[syscom3]

Lets stay on subject.

The fire control of the day was sufficent to hit aircraft up to middle altitudes that were flying straight and level.

[renrich]

It would have to be barrage fire, not aiming at a specific target unless a gun got lucky.The Nevada at PH mounted 8-5 inch 25s in single mounts, 4- 3inch 50s and 8-50 cal mgs. At the end of the war she mounted 16- 5 inch 38s in twin mounts, 8- 40mm quads and so many 20 mms I can't count them. If you are having a hard time hitting just add more guns. Somebody will get lucky. I went aboard Alabama at Mobile and it looked as if they put a 20 mm anywhere there was room. They may have said OK at battle stations if you have nothing to do, go grab a 20mm and shoot something down. Try not to hit the guys with white stars. Just kidding but they had them everywhere and lots of 40mm quads.

[syscom3]

The "Kates" were notoriously vulnerable to damage. Thats why a 3rd strike at Pearl would not be a cake walk. Just having a barrage means youre going to hit something, and hopefully it would be in the fuel tanks which would doom the aircrew to running out of fuel.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The "Kates" were notoriously vulnerable to damage. Thats why a 3rd strike at Pearl would not be a cake walk. Just having a barrage means youre going to hit something, and hopefully it would be in the fuel tanks which would doom the aircrew to running out of fuel.

What would be the difference in effective US AA if the Kates were flying high level bombing. not torpedoes? {since the BB's & CV's would already have been hit, the third wave would be almost all bombs} vs. tank farm, CA's & DD's at dock, repair shops, etc.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by freebird

What would be the difference in effective US AA if the Kates were flying high level bombing. not torpedoes? {since the BB's & CV's would already have been hit, the third wave would be almost all bombs} vs. tank farm, CA's & DD's at dock, repair shops, etc.

To hit the shipyard and tank farm, they would have to mass together. Flying around at 10,000 or so feet, the AA arcs would be perfect.

And remember, the torpedo effects were devestating because they hit the ships before there was any organized defensive fire.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Wayne Little

Ok after checking, the first wave aircraft in fact began arriving back at the carriers just after 10.00am, as they were recovered they would have been moved to the forward end of the flight deck. Now the aircraft would not have been left there as by the time all aircraft were recovered it was around 11.00. (Sea conditions slowed the recovery process). The decks needed to be cleared for the second wave's arrival. The carriers actually headed toward Oahu to reduce the distance the returning second wave had to cover.

During this time some aircraft would have been stowed below decks on the forward elevators,mainly Zeroes (forward hangar area)and Vals (Middle area)as these were their assigned positions below decks, the Kates however had to be moved to the rear elevators, once all recovery was complete, under normal circumstances. Now the majority of the attack aircraft in the first wave were Kates, so it is possible or probable that they were moved down the middle elevator and pushed to the rear below decks as other aircraft landed above them. (Zeroes and Kates)

The first wave took for the most part an hour just to land all aircraft, without doing anything else but move and stow the planes. So even if you were thinking quick turn around you couldn't do anything because the second wave was just minutes away and it was necessary to get them down asap, tired crews, damaged aircraft, fuel? Recovery of the second wave commenced at around. 11.15 and took approx. an hour to complete.

OK but what about managing the first wave landings so that they were on 3 or 4 carriers only, then at about 11:15 stop landing aircraft on those carriers, to prepare for launch. 3 carriers would prepare the third wave, while the other 3 carriers would then land the second wave without it interfering with the re-arming. I realize that using say the 3 carriers to recover the second wave would lengthen the time needed, but I believe the "Kate's" had longer endurance so they could probably stay in the air for an extra 15 - 20 min without great trouble.

Once that the first wave reports the destrucyion of the carriers, airfields & sinking of battleships the Japanese won't be expecting a Naval battle, couldn't they draft some sailors to help spot aircraft more quickly?

Also I checked the time for sunset in Hawaii, its about 5:50 pm, so even if the could launch at 1 pm, 75 - 80 min flight, 1 hour of attacks & 75 min return still gives you over an hour to recover before sunset.