Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe Kemper

Thanks Nikademus, I wasn't very clear in my previous response. If the carriers had not been available, I didn't know if the fleet would still have sortied but remained under land based air cover with hopes of engaging the enemy, they would have not been in port.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If the battle fleet had sortied, they'd have been sunk at sea, rather than in port.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If the battle fleet had sortied, they'd have been sunk at sea, rather than in port.

There is one line of thought that that if the battle line sortied it would have been far worse. As Terminus said they would have been sunk at sea. The loss of life may have been much higher and none of those ships could have been salvaged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe Kemper

Sorry if this has been discussed previously but I tried to search with no luck.

What if Pearl Harbor had been alerted to the approach of the Japanese fleet and we knew the Japanese were under orders to attack.

What would have been the response? If we knew it was a carrier strike force and its location and heading were known would the battleships have been sent to intercept or would they wait to join with the Lexington and/or Enterprise, if practical?

Would the fleet try to remain within land based fighter protection?

I am sure there are many variables to consider but I wonder what the response would have been based on the tactical and strategic doctrine of the US Navy at that time.

Thank you

Joe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

They expected to have to fight their way in. IIRC once the signal 'climb niitaka' went out to KB on 12/2 or 12/3 they were on autopilot to attack.

Yeah, but didn't the lead Japanese dude decide not to send the second (or third) wave primarily because they no longer had surprise? That's what it said in that old movie . . .

In any event, the one class of things that I think would have been dramatically different had PH been alerted is that US soldiers sailors and airmen would not have been lounging around enjoying a lazy Sunday morning, all hands would've been at battle stations or general quarters or whatever, water-tight compartments would've been prepped, aircraft would've been on patrol or else fueled, armed and ready to launch, etc., etc.

No matter what effect being in port or being out of port (or whether they would have sortied or not) would have had, being prepared for an attack in all the above noted ways surely would've made a very big difference? After all, isn't the advantage in most combat for the defender, except in those instances where a surprise attack catches the defender unprepared?

Sure, Kimmel sortying might have led to more boats lost to U.S. but on the other hand if they were not all in port in the first place what is the chance that the Jap airplane formations would have been able to find them, let alone buzz-in in such effective and orchestrated high-densities and score so many devastating hits?

Sure 15knt is not that fast but it will put distance between you and PH if it is sustained for a few hours and just being out there at sea, where the ability of the Japanese attack to find them would've been reduced could've led to some very different results. For that matter, if the KB leadership thought a flotilla of US BBs was heading their way, would they have just lingered in the area waiting for all their planes to complete their attacks on a (potentially in large part empty) Pearl Harbor?

So many contingencies . . . I think the only things you can say with any certainty are: it would not have turned out the way it did; and more Japanese planes would likely have been shot down.

US losses might not have been much different, and indeed as pointed out because of the benefit of the shallow harbor for subsequent recovery efforts, more ships might have been totally lost. But then again, if the departure of large fractions of the fleet occurred the evening before, giving 12 hours of steaming away from PH to some obscure spot 80 or 90 miles removed from the harbor, maybe very few high value ships would've been lost at all.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMAS Sydney

It was better for the US to have their ships sunk at Pearl rather than the open ocean.  Many of the ships at Pearl were only saved because they didn't have far to sink.  In the open ocean they would have gone to the bottom and been lost. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMAS Sydney

It was better for the US to have their ships sunk at Pearl rather than the open ocean.  Many of the ships at Pearl were only saved because they didn't have far to sink.  In the open ocean they would have gone to the bottom and been lost. 

Two ships, Arizona and Oklahoma, were permanently lost despite being sunk "in harbor". Since I have doubts that KB could have sunk substantially more ships if the fleet was out at sea and maneuvering and fighting back, ultimately it might not have made any difference. Besides which, as i related earlier, I can't really conceive of a major fleet like Kimmel's simply sitting in harbor awaiting an attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The...Japanese...."DUDE?" Oh, my...

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Assuming full watertight conditions, I doubt California would have sunk; she had had inspection plates removed between the triple bottom hulls and gradual flooding took place.  That's one ship that would have survived.

West Virginia was screwed no matter what happened.  She took more torpedoes than could be accurately counted, so many that some hit in areas already destroyed by earlier hits.

Oklahoma would have probably sunk no matter what as well; she took IIRC 4 torpedo hits in quick succession and all the DC parties would have done would be to counterflood to keep her from capsizing, not sink.

Nevada's an interesting case; from the accounts and inspection of the damage it appears the near-misses are what caused her progressive flooding forward that required grounding.  Had she been at sea would she have sunk?

Assuming that Arizona does not get hit by a lucky bomb while maneuvering at sea, that leaves us with WV, Oklahoma and possibly Nevada that are lost at sea if they took the same damage that they took in harbor.  Three BB's permanently sunk and who knows how many damaged, some severely, and then everything would depend on whether the KB launches more strikes against them.  Remember, if they're at sea then there's no need to attack the numerous airbases on Oahu, so more Vals and Kates available to go after the ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I suspect the best action (this is with all hindsight) would have been staying in PH fully alert and ready. Torpedo nets? Yeah! Why the heck didn't they already do that anyway? Serious question, BTW, I've never heard why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The...Japanese...."DUDE?" Oh, my...

What? . . .

It was a dude, not a chick right?

*Yes I know he had an actual name, bio, and all that, but I can't be bothered to remember every little detail of this stuff! Its a hobby for me not my profession! *

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Nik, Iasked this earlier . . . . do you know if Nevada left on its own initiative or per pre-existing orders (i.e. in case of air attack bugger off asap)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Nik, Iasked this earlier . . . . do you know if Nevada left on its own initiative or per pre-existing orders (i.e. in case of air attack bugger off asap)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Nik, Iasked this earlier . . . . do you know if Nevada left on its own initiative or per pre-existing orders (i.e. in case of air attack bugger off asap)?

While i don't have a direct quote i believe it was standard operating procedures. I note from one dusty tomb i own that after the attack other ships also got under way and fled to sea in order to not present themselves as sitting duck targets as well as to "look for the enemy fleet" (This included CL's St Louis, Phoenix, and Detroit, and destroyers Monaghan, Tucker, Bagley, Dale, Henley and Phelps.)

Like i said, it just wouldn't make sense for a fleet, before or after a threat of air attack, to sit in harbor. Thinking of Taranto.....same thing. Operational warships after that raid fled the harbor to safer waters. Most if not all navies considered a ship at it's most vulnerable when at anchor in a harbor. (again demonstrated by US CV policy for the months immediately following the PH attack. CV TF's were to only enter PH at any one moment and only long enough to fuel and re-provision and then....back out to sea.

You don't build a big expensive navy and then leave it for another navy to use as target practice. I don't care how strong the defenses are in theory. Nor do i think the USN naval command would think that way. A warship fights best when at sea, with room to maneuver and fight and fully manned at battlesations. Only a defeated, disabled or morale poor navy hides in port in the face of attack. (This of course does not include sitting in port to AVOID attack as was seen in large part during WWI)