Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would they have put up a reasonable fight?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would they have put up a reasonable fight? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would the... - 3/29/2012 8:32:57 AM   
fflaguna

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/29/2009
Status: offline
I've been wonder, if the US carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would they have been able to detect an incoming raid or launch fighters after the first surprise attacks began?

Are sudden "emergency! get your planes in the air now!" operations possible on carriers like those in WW2?

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 8:47:15 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
If the carriers had been in port, the air group would have been on bases ashore. They would likely suffered the same fate as the other planes at bases around Pearl. More importantly, the carriers would have most likely been sunk.

In the first months of the war US fighters were not prepared to fight the Zero. Any that got airborne probably wouldn't have done all that well.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to fflaguna)
Post #: 2
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 9:55:25 AM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
I believe one of the scenarios for HPS Simulations' Naval Campaigns: Midway examines this hypothetical, although it assumes that the carriers are out and sailing about with their aircraft on-deck, instead of ashore as wdolson supposes.

It's quite likely that some or all of them would have been sunk, but it also opens up the possibility, however slim, of one of the Japanese carriers getting hit as well, and any damage to the KB at that junction could have a lot of butterfly effects later on, as opposed to the US carriers being lost in the shuffle of 1944's Essex'es.

Wargamer.com did an AAR of the hypothetical here:
http://www.wargamer.com/article/3134/after-action-review-naval-campaigns-midway

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 3/29/2012 9:56:11 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 1:34:59 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If the carriers had been in port, the air group would have been on bases ashore. They would likely suffered the same fate as the other planes at bases around Pearl. More importantly, the carriers would have most likely been sunk.

In the first months of the war US fighters were not prepared to fight the Zero. Any that got airborne probably wouldn't have done all that well.

Bill


You're right about them being ashore (SOP) and as vulnerable as any other A/C parked along the runways..., but the few fighters that actually DID get airborne that morning actually gave better than they got. But a few more in the air weren't going to make that much difference.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 4
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 1:42:09 PM   
Shellshock


Posts: 533
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
You always hear it said that the loss of the battleline at Pearl Harbor forced hidebound admirals in the US to turn away from battleships, use it's carriers more aggressively and eventually see carriers as the primary weapon of the Pacific War. So, if one or two carriers are sunk and the BBs survive does that lesson still sink in?

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 5
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 1:49:54 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

In the first months of the war US fighters were not prepared to fight the Zero


Yep. And yet they had plenty of P-36 hawk fighters to practice dogfights with..
..seems like tactics could have been developed if they spent more time training.. less time on the beach

remember, "can't out run a zero, so don't try.. have to out fly em "

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 6
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 3:33:30 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Would it be fair to say the carriers were not at PH because they knew the attack was coming?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 7
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 3:40:02 PM   
Shellshock


Posts: 533
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Would it be fair to say the carriers were not at PH because they knew the attack was coming?


The Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".




< Message edited by Shellshock -- 3/29/2012 3:42:23 PM >

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 8
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 3:56:27 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
If the carriers had been in port, they all would have been sunk or put out of action in the first strike.

If the carriers had been at sea then it would be a toss up. If the Japanese spotted the American carriers then just as at Midway, they would be faced with the tactical dilemma of dealing with a carrier task force and a significant land based air contingent. As we all know, there is no easy solution to that. In addition, assuming the Japanese search doctrine was just as weak six months prior to Midway as it was at Midway, there is always the chance that the Americans would launch the first strike. Given what we now know about Japanese AA ability, fighter vectoring, ship design and doctrine, a two or three carrier American strike-even if poorly coordinated would have had a very good chance of hurting the Japanese fleet. Even a mutual strike might have been significant for the Allies given Japanese damage control and the fact that any damaged carrier would have been very far away from a suitable port of refuge.

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 9
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 5:16:39 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

If the carriers had been in port, they all would have been sunk or put out of action in the first strike.

If the carriers had been at sea then it would be a toss up. If the Japanese spotted the American carriers then just as at Midway, they would be faced with the tactical dilemma of dealing with a carrier task force and a significant land based air contingent. As we all know, there is no easy solution to that. In addition, assuming the Japanese search doctrine was just as weak six months prior to Midway as it was at Midway, there is always the chance that the Americans would launch the first strike. Given what we now know about Japanese AA ability, fighter vectoring, ship design and doctrine, a two or three carrier American strike-even if poorly coordinated would have had a very good chance of hurting the Japanese fleet. Even a mutual strike might have been significant for the Allies given Japanese damage control and the fact that any damaged carrier would have been very far away from a suitable port of refuge.

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.


All this is fun and well to speculate about and one can easily feign bravado....but unfortunately for the righteous American CV captain...would he have launched the first strike you suggest and plunge his country into as an yet undeclared war?



_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 10
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 5:55:29 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

You're right about them being ashore (SOP) and as vulnerable as any other A/C parked along the runways..., but the few fighters that actually DID get airborne that morning actually gave better than they got. But a few more in the air weren't going to make that much difference.


Agree with that completely.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 11
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 5:56:59 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

All this is fun and well to speculate about and one can easily feign bravado....but unfortunately for the righteous American CV captain...would he have launched the first strike you suggest and plunge his country into as an yet undeclared war?


Halsey would have. He was on the Midway resupply mission and his standing order as of 3 December was that they would attack any Japanese vessel operating in search radius as presumed hostile.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/29/2012 5:57:05 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 12
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 6:11:25 PM   
MarkMohrifield

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/14/2012
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry


The Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".


Wow! No wonder one of Enterprise's nicknames was "Lucky E".

< Message edited by MarkMohrifield -- 3/29/2012 6:18:55 PM >

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 13
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 6:54:29 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If the carriers had been in port, the air group would have been on bases ashore. They would likely suffered the same fate as the other planes at bases around Pearl. More importantly, the carriers would have most likely been sunk.

In the first months of the war US fighters were not prepared to fight the Zero. Any that got airborne probably wouldn't have done all that well.

Bill


Agreed. PH already had enough instrinsic fighter defenses to make a conventional attack bloody. Suprise was the biggest factor. Had a few more fighters gotten in the air, most likely the result would have been more Japanese bombers lost because with suprise achieved, the Zeros moved from escort to ground attack and dispersed somewhat. This and the need for the Japanese to spread out to hit their targets allowed the few fighters that did get into the air to score....mostly via ambushes against undefended bombers.

This would have been more than balanced by damage or loss caused to the CV's themselves allowing the Japanese a greater period of operational freedom.



_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 14
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 7:01:58 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

All this is fun and well to speculate about and one can easily feign bravado....but unfortunately for the righteous American CV captain...would he have launched the first strike you suggest and plunge his country into as an yet undeclared war?


Halsey would have. He was on the Midway resupply mission and his standing order as of 3 December was that they would attack any Japanese vessel operating in search radius as presumed hostile.



And Halsey probably would have used common sense as Kimmel instructed him to do...before departing on the resupply mission for Wake (he was on the Wake run...Newton was on the Midway run) Kimmel asked Halsey if wanted to take the battleships.

Halsey's response - "Hell No!" "If I have to run I don't want anything to interfere with my running!"*

Halsey also asked Kimmel how far Kimmel wanted him to go, "Fully appreciating that he might be standing into big trouble..." Kimmel responded "GD, use your common sense!"*

(* Quotes are from At Dawn We Slept, Prange, p. 401)

As I said, it is easy to foist bravado on our heroes...it is one thing, when Halsey could possibly have been looking at odds of 1:6, to launch a "pre-emptive first strike" against a carrier fleet, versus the other option of notifying Pearl of the danger and retreating to safer waters, or what Halsey anticipated...encountering a Japanese submarine and engaging it.

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/29/2012 7:08:50 PM >


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 15
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/29/2012 7:05:41 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

If the carriers had been in port, they all would have been sunk or put out of action in the first strike.

If the carriers had been at sea then it would be a toss up. If the Japanese spotted the American carriers then just as at Midway, they would be faced with the tactical dilemma of dealing with a carrier task force and a significant land based air contingent. As we all know, there is no easy solution to that. In addition, assuming the Japanese search doctrine was just as weak six months prior to Midway as it was at Midway, there is always the chance that the Americans would launch the first strike. Given what we now know about Japanese AA ability, fighter vectoring, ship design and doctrine, a two or three carrier American strike-even if poorly coordinated would have had a very good chance of hurting the Japanese fleet. Even a mutual strike might have been significant for the Allies given Japanese damage control and the fact that any damaged carrier would have been very far away from a suitable port of refuge.

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.


All this is fun and well to speculate about and one can easily feign bravado....but unfortunately for the righteous American CV captain...would he have launched the first strike you suggest and plunge his country into as an yet undeclared war?




As I said, all is speculation and anything could happen. Who is to say that the attack on Pearl had not already happened? The American carriers could still have been undiscovered and pulled off an attack.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 16
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/30/2012 1:52:14 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Would it be fair to say the carriers were not at PH because they knew the attack was coming?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock
The Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".


One of the primary reasons the Enterprise was late was not just the storm, but trying to refuel the DDs in rough seas. The US struggled quite a bit with refueling in anything but placid conditions in the first months of the war.

Another factor that hasn't been brought up yet was that the USN learned a heck of a lot in the first six months of the war. The force that faced the KB at Midway knew what they were doing far better than the CVs in December 41.

People can train for combat, but until the actual war happens, all tactics are theoretical. US CVs had never been to war and were an untried force. The crews knew the basics very well, but they didn't know yet what would work and what wouldn't. Various raids on Japanese outposts around the Pacific in the first months of 1942 gave the crews the first hand experience they needed to hone their skills.

Nobody flying in the USN had ever done a live weapons drop in anger. No fighter pilot had ever fired his guns at another plane.

I think it highly likely that if the Lexington or Enterprise had found the KB on Dec 7, they would have flubbed the attack and possibly lost the ships.

The difference in skills could be seen at Midway. Most of the Enterprise and Yorktown pilots were combat vets and they scored big. The Hornet's air group was pretty green and the only squadron that was really combat ready was VT-8 because of Waldron's aggressiveness. When the rubber hit the road, Stanhope Ring, CAG-8 lead VS-8 and VB-8 off in the wrong direction and caused half of VF-8 to be lost due to fuel exhaustion. When it came to strikes on the Hiryu, VS-8 and VB-8 were the two most complete squadrons available, but they scored no hits. They didn't do very well against the damaged cruisers later in the battle either. Hornet's air group made virtually no contribution to the battle except to sacrifice an entire VT squadron to distract the Zeroes.

It wasn't until the Vietnam War that the US realized that most planes shot down were flown by rookies. If a pilot got in 10 missions, their chances of surviving the tour were much higher than they were in the first 10 missions. This is why the Top Gun school exists. It's an attempt in peace time to give pilots as many of those skills from the first 10 missions they can without live fire.

The results of Pearl for the US CVs is probably the best possible outcome for them. They were not ready to take on the KB and they were out of position to even try.

The inexperience at carrier fighting was also evident on both sides at Coral Sea. Both sides launched full deck strikes at the wrong targets. The US did in the Shoho and the Japanese launched everything at the Neosho and Sims. Later the Japanese launched a dusk strike that flew right over the US carriers without finding them. The two opposing carrier TFs almost sighted one another and Japanese aircraft tried to land on US decks by mistake.

The Japanese had their two least experienced carrier groups in the battle and it showed. The Yorktown and Lexington's groups were about average seasoned for the USN at that time, but they were green compared to the 1st string KB flyers on the Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu, and Soryu.

Combat experience is a major factor, both individual and institutional. Something that continually grew for the USN as the war went on and dropped for the Japanese. The US did a much better job than Japan of capturing institutional knowledge about combat as the war went on. As a result green air crews knew more and more about what to expect by the time they got into combat and the learning curve was ever flatter.

On Dec 7, 1941, the USN was at the bottom of a learning cliff. People talk about how tough it is to learn this game. The real thing was even tougher.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 17
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/30/2012 2:31:25 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

People talk about how tough it is to learn this game. The real thing was even tougher.


Hard to believe! . . . but true

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/30/2012 9:39:50 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fflaguna
I've been wonder, if the US carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would they have been able to detect an incoming raid or launch fighters after the first surprise attacks began?

an interesting question, fflaguna.
depends on whether or not USN CVs were 'in port' at Pearl (w/ their airgroups flown off to land base), or if they were 'on patrol' in active defense. & i don't know what amount of air-search KB used on the day.

given what we know historically, it's hard for me to mentally construct any scenario that doesn't result in an even more 'orrid defeat for the USN. i'd assume that the USN CV ability to detect an incoming raid could only be 'very low', & their ability to provide effective CAP over PH would be negligible.


(in reply to fflaguna)
Post #: 19
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/30/2012 9:48:25 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The air defense of the Hawaiian islands were the realm of the USAAF. The Navy did not have any role. And the services did not get along with one another very well. I would expect USN fighters on shore would be unarmed. Any airborne on CAP over the carriers would have been kept over the carriers and the CAP would have been reinforced as soon as word of the attack got out.

The Japanese probably were flying some kind of search. The Tone and Chikuma were along with their large sea plane contingent. These two cruisers were designed to use their air group as air search for the KB.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 20
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/30/2012 7:02:48 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It wasn't until the Vietnam War that the US realized that most planes shot down were flown by rookies. If a pilot got in 10 missions, their chances of surviving the tour were much higher than they were in the first 10 missions. This is why the Top Gun school exists. It's an attempt in peace time to give pilots as many of those skills from the first 10 missions they can without live fire.

Bill


...actually, i thought Top Gun exists to give select fighter pilots a unique training experience (flying against agressor aircraft that simulate current enemy tactics and tendencies) that they are to take back to their respective squadrons and share...but perhaps i'm being too nitpicky...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 21
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/31/2012 3:19:00 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
the roman military maxim

"make ready in peace what you need in war"

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 22
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/31/2012 5:51:59 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

quote:

In the first months of the war US fighters were not prepared to fight the Zero


Yep. And yet they had plenty of P-36 hawk fighters to practice dogfights with..
..seems like tactics could have been developed if they spent more time training.. less time on the beach

remember, "can't out run a zero, so don't try.. have to out fly em "



I can't believe that anybody would quote TMTSNBN in a serious discussion!

You do realize that even the P40B was faster than the A6M2?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 23
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/31/2012 7:46:23 PM   
dorjun driver


Posts: 641
Joined: 4/20/2006
From: Port Townsend: hex 210,51
Status: offline


quote:

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.


What kind of acid are you on? Would you care to share?

_____________________________

x - ARPAnaut
x - ACM
x - AES
Current - Bum



The paths of glory may lead you to the grave, but the paths of duty may not get you anywhere.
JT

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 24
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/31/2012 9:03:51 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

You do realize that even the P40B was faster than the A6M2?


Exactly. TMTSNBN was as badly confused as the tactics used by the early pilots in the war itself.

Hooray for matchsticks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 25
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 3/31/2012 10:26:38 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver



quote:

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.


What kind of acid are you on? Would you care to share?


There was no precedent for a carrier vs. carrier engagement prior to the battle of the Coral Sea, so both sides had in fact no experience in that kind of combat a the time of PH. Also see wdolson's post.

_____________________________


(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 26
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 4/1/2012 12:34:54 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver



quote:

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Anything could have happened.


What kind of acid are you on? Would you care to share?


There was no precedent for a carrier vs. carrier engagement prior to the battle of the Coral Sea, so both sides had in fact no experience in that kind of combat a the time of PH. Also see wdolson's post.



I have to agree with this. Before the Coral Sea neither side had fought that type of battle.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 27
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 7/19/2012 1:51:13 AM   
aether59

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2012
Status: offline
Just a note on this discussion, not that I'm an expert or anything.

My father was a chief gunnery officer on the CV-2 Lexington on PH day and he went in the water when she was sunk in the battle of the Coral Sea. His job in the tower was to watch his quadrant of the radar and call out the incoming plane coordinates to the gun crews. The RCA CXAM radar were new then, and not very capable. From Wikipedia on that radar system, it says the Lex spotted incoming Zero's at 68 miles at Coral Sea, which is about at most 10 minutes warning. My father said the radar stunk at and was unreliable with altitude, and they called the antenna the "rotating bed mattress", because that's what it looked like.

Had they been at PH, and if there had been radar men, gun crews and pilots at quarters early that Sunday morning, how many planes can you scramble in 10 minutes?

He said the men were told, as to the reason they were steaming away from PH on Dec. 5th, 1941 was the Admiral thought they were getting lazy, and needed to go out on maneuvers. Makes sense on hindsight, I guess, since her and the Enterprise missions were secret for two reasons: Not to alert the Japs that the CV's were missing from PH and to keep the 12 planes on each a secret about being delivered to Wake and Midway.

Always seemed to me that would be an awful small job for such large carriers, but I guess they felt those planes were really needed on the islands.

I got the sense from him, as has been mentioned on this board, that the men were pretty green...after all, the Coral Sea was the first carrier to carrier combat. My father always said that it was fuel lines leaking that did the Lexington in, but the official report points more toward gas fumes erupting in the air ventilation system than the fuel supply lines.

Like most battle hardened vets, he never spoke much at all about the war...it took 40 years to get these few tid-bits out of him.

Though I do remember him talking about the Zero pilot who smiled and saluted to the men in the tower as he roared past. After the men were collected from the Coral Sea waters, the Navy dumped them on an island called Tonga-Tapu for a few weeks, because they were still in dangerous waters and the Navy couldn't spare a ship(s) to ferry them back stateside.

As you can imagine, the island natives were pretty awestruck by a bunch of dirty, oily SOB's that spoke funny being deposited on their island. But apparently the native women were quite enamored with their tee-shirts (the men didn't have much else). Only problem was, the shirts didn't fit the better endowed gals, so they cut two holes in them and walked around like that..!! Hmmmm..

Jon

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 28
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 7/19/2012 10:31:42 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
A few thoughts about the PH strike from various sources. I think the most likely result would have been that the carriers would have been sunk if they were in the vicinity of PH. If in the harbor their planes would likely have contributed nothing to the defense since they would have been parked wing-tip to wing-tip on the USN airfields (probably with no gas and no bullets and certainly with no bombs or torpedoes).

quote:

If the carriers had been in port, they all would have been sunk or put out of action in the first strike.


I think that the majority of the dive bombers in the first strike were targeted against the airfields. The torpedo bombers and level bombers were targeted on the battleships. Flexibility in the execution of the plan of higher command was not a trait frequently demonstrated in combat by the Japanese during the war. The plan called for the dive bombers of the second wave to attack carriers and cruisers. The actual attack contradicts my previous comment somewhat because the dive bombers of the second wave actually concentrated on the USS Nevada instead of the cruisers they were supposed to hit. The pilots were aware that Yamamoto had placed a premium on sinking BBs and in the event they didn't have to make a choice between Nevada and Lexington or Enterprise so they deviated towards the prime target (one might argue that Lcdr Fuchida placed a higher priority on carriers but if one did one would have to place undue reliance on his post-war interviews and writings which have been widely discredited [especially in Japan]).{Zimm: Attack on Pearl Harbor; Strategy, Combat, Myths Deceptions}

quote:

The Japanese probably were flying some kind of search. The Tone and Chikuma were along with their large sea plane contingent. These two cruisers were designed to use their air group as air search for the KB.


The Japanese were not inclined to use any strike (B5 or D3) aircraft for searching. Tone and Chikuma were designed and intended to scout for the carriers BUT their combined complement of seaplanes was only barely able to carry out a search of around 120 degrees. Such a search was dangerously thin especially if one considers how such a doctrine turned out at Midway. Certainly no "super-search ability" was demonstrated in that fight by these two ships. (Parshall and Tully: Shattered Sword).

The KB retained 48 A6M2s for fleet defense. Roughly 1/3 to 1/2 would have been airborne at any one time. The KB had no radar, no Fighter Direction Center and in many a/c: no radios. An escorted strike coming in on an unanticipated axis might well have caused some serious damage to the KB. The USN was not practiced in multi-carrier strikes in 1941 and plane characteristics and inexperience certainly made an uncoordinated strike a good if not likely possibility. But then again Yorktown and Lexington put together good coordinated strikes both against Lae/Salamaua and the Shoho pretty much right out of the on deck circle so dismissing the USN's ability to do so against KB is not entirely justified. At Midway 1 x 1000 lb bomb killed Akagi.

I've experimented with turning 1st Turn Surprise and Historical 1st Turn OFF and then stuck the Japanese with doing just what they did in the way they did it whilest the Allies get to try any and all surprises against the IJN. I'm afraid that the results obtained seemed pretty much what the IJN would have wanted. I admit that any IJ Player who continued after any other result would have to be a real diehard masochist but after quite a few run throughs it seems the system will not permit any great disaster for the IJN. The real IJN Command considered this a really high-risk operation: in the game it's not




(in reply to fflaguna)
Post #: 29
RE: OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would... - 7/20/2012 1:06:28 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
From Zimm's book on PH 16 Kate's were assigned the carrier moorings. Six went after Utah and ten changed to 1010 dock when they realized no carriers were in Port. A carrier or two would have drawn them all away from Utah, Helena and Oglala. And spared those ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT: If the carriers had been at Pearl Harbor, would they have put up a reasonable fight? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906