Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Admiral Kimmel

 
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 >> Admiral Kimmel Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 1:55:14 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I was just curious what everyone's take is on a bunch of men and women throughout history. I may do more of these if the response is good.

I find myself reading about Admiral Kimmel from time to time and curious what everyone else thinks about it.

We may never really know if he was a scapegoat or not. I have read good and bad things about him.

At the end of the day, when you're in charge, you are held responsible for the outcomes.

I don't know if he was a "good or bad" admiral so to speak, but I feel like he was probably the scapegoat for what happened at Pearl Harbor.

I've always thought anyone in his position at that time in history would probably of suffered the same fate.

What does everyone else think?
Post #: 1
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 2:20:23 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
A very interesting topic indeed.

Personally I do not have especially strong opinions either way.

1) Did Kimmel have complete intelligence ? Did Kimmel deploy usable assets in a 'high alert and defensive deployment as directed to 10 days prior to the attack ?

2) Was he therefore the scapegoat ?

Respectively I think the answers are no and maybe.

This is not because I am an Allied fanboi 'managing in a game' better than Kimmel.

I think there is abundant evidence that Air Patrol Naval Search - Senior Officer Management of early Radar installations - Task Force patrols of any number of sea lane approaches should have been in place. Heightened alert at sea was at least as great a threat as any 'Island 5th Column sabotage' - which he misjudged and over emphasized. There had been war games and mock attacks on Pearl prior to Dec 7 and the risk was known and assessed.

Would have the outcome been any different ?

Potentially not. Despite heightened alert status - naval search and patrols - even confrontation of the KB if discovered could have resulted in even worse circumstances. It might have been that the Carriers were actually deployed in such activity - sunk and lost! The slow BBs and other ships 'might have been lost' near Pearl as opposed to 'in Pearl'.

So if he is a scapegoat it is because of the outcomes and it is legitimately arguable "it could have been worse" had he taken a more proactive stance defending Pearl as ordered to 10 days earlier. However this ignores the order to specifically deploy more 'robustly' prior to the attack and the poor assessment of the risk of sabotage.

Most interestingly - while Congress - and others have recommended his absolution and posthumous re-reinstatement - Presidents Nixon / Regan / and Clinton have all declined to do so - probably on the advice of Senior Military Commanders of the current generations that have had time to reflect on actions and results with the benefit of sober historical assessment.



< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 9/25/2019 2:22:24 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 2
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 2:40:35 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I was just curious what everyone's take is on a bunch of men and women throughout history. I may do more of these if the response is good.

I find myself reading about Admiral Kimmel from time to time and curious what everyone else thinks about it.

We may never really know if he was a scapegoat or not. I have read good and bad things about him.

At the end of the day, when you're in charge, you are held responsible for the outcomes.

I don't know if he was a "good or bad" admiral so to speak, but I feel like he was probably the scapegoat for what happened at Pearl Harbor.

I've always thought anyone in his position at that time in history would probably of suffered the same fate.

What does everyone else think?


A year or two back I read Alan Zimm's "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions", and it changed my thinking on the attack. I'd characterized the raid as a military effort which failed only because, luckily, the fleet CV's weren't where PacFleets own August ops plan called for them to be. Zimm makes a convincing argument that the attack was as much a political exercise (as conceived by Yamamoto) as a military one, and as such it actually succeeded in its tactical objective but had a political effect exactly the opposite of what was intended. He also has some harsh words for the quality of Japanese planning and preparation.

Switching my thinking from military to political in that regard gives me more sympathy for Kimmel. It is tough to expect a military commander to anticipate a hostile military action with a flawed political goal.

My sympathy remains limited, however - Pearl should have been much harder to sneak up on (there was an entire PBY patrol wing there, after all), more 'on alert' (Halsey basically gave a war warning to his task force days earlier, for comparison), and much more expensive to raid (the Army's air and anti-air defenses don't seem to have met even the Navy's alertness level). Kimmel doesn't seem to have conveyed any urgency down-chain to set his command on a war footing, despite clear evidence that a war was coming. The fact that the war wasn't expected to come to Pearl doesn't excuse the failure to start preparing the personnel there to be committed to fight somewhere else. He also seems to have been content to leave defense of his battle-line and primary forward base to the Army (General Short?) without recognizing that they were reliant on the Navy for early warning.

There's also, of course, been some analysis pointing out that a *little* warning might have made things worse for the US; if the battle line had time to get steam up and sortie, any ships sunk would not have been recoverable. That's always struck me as a somewhat pessimistic viewpoint, but I can't dismiss it. However IMO it doesn't help Kimmel's case.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 3
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 3:35:38 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
It is the military's job to be prepared and for the commanders to ensure that it's so.

But it sure is hard to be prepared for a sneak attack that begins a war in an unexpected place in an unexpected way.

Yeah, the Allies knew Hawaii was a potential target, but all the intel led them to believe a Japanese attack was imminent in Indochina or the Philippines or possibly Russia. They looked at other possibilities and deemed them much less likely. So they were focused pretty far forward even as the enemy crept and did their work.

And the commanders always look bad when that happens, whether they are in fact negligent or not.

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 4
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 5:02:18 PM   
dcpollay


Posts: 532
Joined: 11/22/2012
From: Upstate New York USA
Status: offline
If the fleet had sortied would it be worse? Would the Vals with extra heavy bombs have been agile enough to dive-bomb a moving Battleship instead of an anchored one? And would the shallow water modified torpedoes have been able to perform in open-ocean? There are so many what ifs in an alternate history.

_____________________________

"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 5
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 5:03:33 PM   
Lovejoy


Posts: 240
Joined: 12/16/2015
From: United States
Status: offline
I wouldn't say that calling Kimmel a scapegoat is entirely wrong, though there are things other forumites have pointed out that he does have responsibility for.

However, I don't think that, in the aftermath of the attack, it would have been feasible for Kimmel to have been kept on as CINCPAC or COMINCH, and since he was one of the more senior naval officers, I'm not sure what else the Navy could have done with him that wouldn't have been a demotion.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 6
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 6:30:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
I would say this:

- Roosevelt adopted policies that were highly likely to push Japan to war. Surely the thought that Japan would back down wasn't really entertained was it? So if that is the case then....

- .....how could the US not be more prepared?....

- ....but then military preparation on the defensive is not necessarily easy or the work of a moment. An attacker has all the options in terms of where and when to strike, while the defender has to cover as many bases as possible without falling foul of the old saying (Frederick the Great?) "he who tries to defend everything, defends nothing"......

- ...so despite everyone's best efforts the Pacific Fleet got a bloody nose in its own backyard....

- ...and its the way of the world that when something like that happens, the buck has to stop with the guy in charge - so its perhaps not surprising what happened at the time.

- So, with hindsight, did Kimmel realistically employ his forces to the best of their ability? or was his plan of defence deficient in some way? That is not something I can answer as I don't know what exactly he had and how exactly he employed what he had, and what, realistically he could have done differently.

- But it appears perhaps strange - certainly in the current general age of forgiveness - that despite a Senate Inquiry recommending they do so, repeated presidents have chosen not to reinstate Kimmel.

- I would be keen to know why the Inquiry was keen to reinstate and why the presidents refused.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/25/2019 6:31:08 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Lovejoy)
Post #: 7
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 6:37:48 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I was just curious what everyone's take is on a bunch of men and women throughout history. I may do more of these if the response is good.

warspite1

Excellent idea


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 8
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 6:53:11 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcpollay

If the fleet had sortied would it be worse? Would the Vals with extra heavy bombs have been agile enough to dive-bomb a moving Battleship instead of an anchored one? And would the shallow water modified torpedoes have been able to perform in open-ocean? There are so many what ifs in an alternate history.

Vals could only carry the 250 KG (550 lb) bomb and that could mess up a ship's upper decks pretty badly.
The Kates were the aircraft that could carry the 1760 lb (or thereabouts) made from converted 16" shells.
The old BBs would have had trouble dodging the torpedoes the Kates dropped, given Japanese training, suicidal bravery, and poor USN AA at the war's start.

OTOH, any attempts at level bombing by KB's bombers would likely have had poor results. If the big bombs were released too low they might not build up enough speed to get full penetration to magazines and machinery spaces. If they were released higher the ship has a few seconds to try and dodge them, and the pilot's errors in estimating speed and course have much more chance of causing a miss.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to dcpollay)
Post #: 9
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 6:55:26 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I was just curious what everyone's take is on a bunch of men and women throughout history. I may do more of these if the response is good.

warspite1

Excellent idea


I prefer a bunch of women ... Can I start with Cleopatra and her handmaidens?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 10
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 7:45:34 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
If the battle wagons had put to sea, they might have been missed entirely, or not. However, one thing that was missed were the tank farms. If those had been properly hit it would have put the Allied war effort back months. I think everyone just uses the old BBs as artillery for landings.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 11
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 8:45:15 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I think Kimmel was incompetent = a major naval base without a proper naval search? , but i also think there was more incompetence around and he was made scapegoat too.

(in reply to Lovejoy)
Post #: 12
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 9:10:39 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
Context is important.

There had been a general rumbling of war for weeks leading up to Pearl, but no concrete evidence. Japan was already involved in China, and what solid signal intelligence the Americans had wasn't getting passed on to where it was needed.

The impact of air power was also not fully understood by most of the Navy. Despite demonstrations of it in fleet exercises and in other instances (eg Taranto), the notion of a trans-Pacific airstrike was a hard sell.

The less discussed factor is the general unwillingness of the American public towards involvement in the war prior to Pearl Harbour. Linked, and in conflict to it, is the political agenda of the US government at the time. The debate between neutrality and intervention in America was very much still an ongoing debate prior to Dec 7th.

Had Kimmel/Short been "prepared for war" in a manner that would have been effective, they would have been severely reprimanded - barbed wire on beaches and AA guns blocking streets makes a poor political impact in a country that had a strong vein of non-interventionism right at the heart of politics.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 13
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 10:36:45 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
MM - that's a bit of hyperbole with the wire on the beaches and AA batteries blocking streets. That was not an option and not realistic. Nobody expected an invasion until after the attack. Better manning of existing defenses, actual aircraft dispersal, more Cat patrols, maybe some standing CAP MIGHT (not certain would) have helped. Or not. But to treat sabotage as the biggest threat seems to be a mistake. They would have to get onto the base in the first place, and realistically how much could they take out?

And (he ducks), Mac got a free pass for very similar mistakes/oversights.

Just my thoughts.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 14
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 10:47:25 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

And (he ducks), Mac got a free pass for very similar mistakes/oversights.

Just my thoughts.


You know, I've never really put those two together before, but you're right. The two big differences, of course, were first that Kimmel lost four BB's (two recoverable, but that wasn't certain at the time) while Dugout Doug's only immediate losses were some aircraft. In the end of course he lost the Philippines but no sane person (which of course didn't include Doug) actually expected us to be able to hold them. Second, Mac had excellent PR skills and was happy to use them. I've never seen any indication that Kimmel played the political game any more than any flag officer has to.

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 15
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 10:58:21 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The impact of air power was also not fully understood by most of the Navy. Despite demonstrations of it in fleet exercises and in other instances (eg Taranto), the notion of a trans-Pacific airstrike was a hard sell.



If air attack wasn't considered a reasonable threat why were there multiple AA *regiments* guarding the harbor? Not to mention the Army fighters.

quote:



Had Kimmel/Short been "prepared for war" in a manner that would have been effective, they would have been severely reprimanded - barbed wire on beaches and AA guns blocking streets makes a poor political impact in a country that had a strong vein of non-interventionism right at the heart of politics.


I'm with fcooke - that's reductio ad absurdum. To be prepared for war the patrol wings should have been practicing patrol missions - which they could easily do by flying real search patterns. There were more than adequate planes available to maintain an acceptable op cycle while still providing long-range recon. To be prepared for war the Army should have had at least a "dawn patrol" of fighters up. To be prepared for war the AA guns around the harbor should have had ready ammunition available - note that the guns wouldn't need to have been moved from their actual December 7th positions to have been useful.

If and when the search planes spotted something (an incoming invasion force would have given plenty of warning, and even an hour or two could have been given for the actual raid), then you can take additional measures. You should have *plans* for those, of course (the rapidity with which steps were taken after the raid indicates some level of planning, though not necessarily enough).

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 16
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/25/2019 11:38:20 PM   
tolsdorff

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 12/12/2016
Status: offline
Ïn a biography of Nimitz by Potter, Nimitz is quoted as saying the following :

quote:

Let me say one thing," continued the elder Nimitz. "I do believe that we
are going to have a major war, with Japan and Germany, and that the war is
going to start by a very serious surprise attack and defeat of U.S. armed forces,
and that there is going to be a major revulsion on the part of the political
power in Washington against all those in command at sea, and they're all going
to be thrown out, though it won't be their fault necessarily. And I wish to be in
a position of sufficient prominence so that I will then be considered as one to
be sent to sea, because that appears to be the route."


I always interpreted this as meaning: Kimmel was relatively powerless in his position CinCPAC due to geopolitical reasons, no matter what he did.

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 17
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 12:24:58 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

However, one thing that was missed were the tank farms. If those had been properly hit it would have put the Allied war effort back months.


Actually Zimm in his book analyzes the attack on the tank farms extensively (apparently Fuchida read what Nimitz wrote after the war and decided he needed to show how he would have done better than Nagumo had he been in charge). Zimms analysis quite clearly shows that the bombing of the tank farms a) would have done much less damage than Nimitz postulated (due to the weapons loads of the Japanese aircraft and the quantity thereof AND the physical characteristics of the oil in the tanks (140+ degrees just to make it flow like a liquid should).
b) the non-difficulty in constructing new tanks AND the number of ships/tankers required to rebuild the tanks AND replace the oil in them in different time frames.
Mimitz made an offhand remark in the immediate aftermath of the attackconcerning the tanks (which has been incorporated into the urban legend about the attack) but never ordered or made an in-depth study of the ramifications of such an attack on the tank farms.

In the final analysis though, Adm Kimmel was responsible for whatever happened to his command while he was on watch - politicians are never responsible for anything unless they take credit for somebody else's actions.

(in reply to tolsdorff)
Post #: 18
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 1:38:31 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I think the nation needed scapegoats and Short and Kimmel were appropriately chosen, regardless of their actual culpability, since it was their commands that were caught with their pants down. You can't have that kind of screw up without some heads rolling.

You could argue the same for MacArthur, what with Clark Field getting hammered with eight hours of warning, but his political capital was too high and FDR saw him as a net asset for the country's morale (plus a potential political foe).

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 19
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 3:12:49 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
As CaptBH states above, I'm of the opinion that Kimmel was doomed with the outcome of the attack. Whether he was actually able to exercise some of his other options is debatable. My memory is that he had some rather direct cables from the Naval Chief Stark and he basically followed those, correct me if I am wrong. I think he was sacrificed in lieu of the Naval Chief Stark, but Stark was moved shortly after when it wasn't so apparent and replaced with King.

As for Mac, well I'm no fan. Still, I can't hold him too liable for PI overall or Clark in particular. Based upon order of battle as presented in WitP, the only way to avoid the destruction of Clark is if the IJ chooses to target Manila instead. To avoid the early collapse would have required assets ( 2 - 4 more fighter groups, another marine division, 2 - 4 units of SeaBees) that simply did not exist. The catch is "early collapse" because the IJ could and would have been able to apply more force and still effect the taking of the PI, but at an even higher cost to the allies.

Yes, higher state of readiness, yadi yadi yadi, but getting personnel to a high state of readiness without war is tough to do. Elite units, sure. But average units … and the tactics used today to attain high readiness were not available in the '40's. Mostly they were developed in the 80/90's some 50 year later.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 20
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 3:51:11 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
What was the state of readiness of the BBs (and other ships) at PH?

Did they still have layers of (inflammable) paint on them, canvas tarps erected, and other peacetime paraphernalia on deck?

Is it a myth that they never left harbour on Sundays?

Did they have AAA rounds distributed? Was there a morning stand-to?

Did the AAA regiments have a stand-to on Sunday (and all) mornings?

Someone already mentioned CAP.



_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 21
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 4:12:01 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
I read that in the run-up to December 7th various intel assessments in Washington that war could be imminent resulted in several alerts including on successive weekends. I think the fleet actually sortied at least once - a huge decision given the fuel that would be used. The Navy would not have had a blank cheque to spend money yet, so using the fuel budget would have been a serious issue.

The men were grumbling about the lack of shore leave (all that temptation - soooooo close!) and both Kimmel and Stark decided it would be better not to react to every missive from Washington telling them to be alert. It just happened that the Japanese arrived one week later than the intel-estimated alert the weekend before.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 22
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 4:16:11 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
More to point, in peacetime the BB"s would not have put to sea at all without a requirement (exercise) as it was quite expensive to put to sea. Weapon stores also would have been a peacetime stocks, not wartime. etc etc etc. These are all things I refer to above as "options" that Kimmel may have been specifically told NOT to do from Stark. Remember, still peace time and that means budgets have rather more control than might be thought.

PH was a big lesson, commanders now have (and use) more discretion. But prior to then, it isn't clear that it was used to the same level ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 23
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 5:02:56 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

- I would be keen to know why the Inquiry was keen to reinstate and why the presidents refused.
warspite1

Well I've only been able to find a few bits and pieces, but I do think it curious that there is open criticism of Marshall and Stark - but only Kimmel and Short were left to hang.

....Excerpts From the Pearl Harbor Investigations


the dorn report (1995)

``Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not
fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short; it should be broadly shared.''
``It is clear today, as it should have been since 1946 to
any serious reader of the JCC (Joint Congressional Committee)
hearing record, that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were
not solely responsible for the defeat at Pearl Harbor.''
``. . . the evidence of the handling of these
(intelligence) messages in Washington reveals some
ineptitude, some unwarranted assumptions and misestimates,
limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of
clarification and follow-up at higher levels.''
``The `pilot', `fourteen-point' and `one o'clock' messages
point, by the evening of December 6th, to war at dawn
(Hawaiian time) on the 7th--not to an attack on Hawaii--but
officials in Washington were neither energetic nor effective
in getting that warning to the Hawaiian commanders.''


The Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (1991)

``The Army Pearl Harbor Board (of 1944), held that General
Marshall and the Chief of War Plans Division of the War
Department shared in the responsibility for the disaster.''
``The applicant in this case . . . must show . . . that the
FSM (in this case Major General Short) was unjustly treated
by the Army . . . the majority found evidence of injustice.''
``In this regard, the majority was of the opinion that the
FSM, singularly or with the Naval commander, was unjustly
held responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster.''
``Considering the passage of time as well as the burden and
stigma carried until his untimely death in 1949, it would be
equitable and just to restore the FSM to his former rank of
lieutenant general on the retired list.''
``Recommendation.--That all of the Department of the Army
records, related to this case be corrected by advancing the
individual concerned to the rank of lieutenant general on the
retired list.''


the army pearl harbor board inquiry (1944)

``The Chief of Staff of the Army, General George C.
Marshall, failed in his relations with the Hawaiian
Department in the following particulars:
(a) To keep the Commanding General of the Hawaiian
Department fully advised of the growing tenseness of the
Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity
for better preparation for war, of which information he had
an abundance and Short had little.
(b) To send additional instructions to the Commanding
General of the Hawaiian Department on November 28, 1941, when
evidently he failed to realize the import of General Short's
reply of November 27th, which indicated clearly that General
Short had misunderstood and misconstrued the message of
November 27 and had not adequately alerted his command for
war.
(c) To get to General Short on the evening of December 6th
and the early morning of December 7th, the critical
information indicating an almost imminent break with Japan,
though there was ample time to have accomplished this.''
``Chief of War Plans Division War Department General Staff,
Major General Leonard T. Gerow, failed in his duties in the
following respects:
(a) To send to the Commanding General of the Hawaiian
Department on November 27, 1941, a clear, concise directive;
on the contrary, he approved the message of November 27,
1941, which contained the confusing statements.
(b) To realize that the state of readiness reported in
Short's reply to the November 27th message was not a state of
war readiness, and he failed to take corrective action.''


the naval court of inquiry (1944)

``It is a prime obligation of Command to keep subordinate
commanders, particularly those in distant areas, constantly
supplied with information. To fail to meet this obligation is
to commit a military error.''
``It is a fact that Admiral Stark, as Chief of Naval
Operations and responsible for the operation of the Pacific
Fleet, and having important information in his possession
during this critical period, especially on the morning of 7
December, failed to transmit this information to Admiral
Kimmel, this depriving the latter of a clear picture of the
existing Japanese situation as seen in Washington.''
``The Court is of the opinion that the deficiencies in
personnel and materiel which existed in 1941, had a direct
adverse bearing upon the effectiveness of the defense of
Pearl Harbor on and prior to 7 December.''
``The Court is of the opinion that Admiral Kimmel's
decision, made after the dispatch of 24 November, to continue
preparations of the Pacific Fleet for war, was sound in light
of the information then available to him.''
``The Court is of the opinion that Admiral Harold R. Stark,
U.S.N., Chief of Naval Operations . . . failed to display the
sound judgement expected of him in that he did not transmit
to Admiral Kimmel . . . during the very critical period 26
November to 7 December, important information which he had
regarding the Japanese situation, and especially on the
morning of 7 December 1941, he did not transmit immediately
the fact that a message had been received which appeared to
indicate that a break in diplomatic relations was imminent,
and that an attack in the Hawaiian area might be expected
soon.''


the joint congressional committee report (1946)

``The errors made by the Hawaiian commanders were errors of
judgment and not derelictions of duty.''
``The War Plans Divisions of the War and Navy Departments
failed:
``(a) To give careful and thoughtful consideration to the
intercepted messages from Tokyo to Honolulu of September 24,
November 15, and November 20 (the harbor berth plan and
related dispatches) and to raise a question as to their
significance. Since they indicated a particular interest in
the Pacific Fleet's base, this intelligence should have been
appreciated and supplied to the Hawaiian commanders for their
assistance, along with other information available to them,
in making their estimate of the situation.
``(b) To be properly on the qui vive to receive the `one
o'clock' intercept and to recognize in the message the fact
that some Japanese military action would very possibly occur
somewhere at 1 p.m., December 7. If properly appreciated this
intelligence should have suggested a dispatch to all Pacific
outpost commanders supplying this information, as General
Marshall attempted to do immediately upon seeing it.''


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 24
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 8:10:20 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

``The errors made by the Hawaiian commanders were errors of
judgment and not derelictions of duty.''


That is a key point - for various reasons you can't keep the troops/ships on alert ALL the time.

But having said that, high level commanders are expected to exercise skill and judg[e]ment in assessing the required readiness level, and organise training exercises so that it can be rapidly attained with a minimum of confusion. They were on a war alert, and, though not directly relevant, the USN had started fighting an undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic by October 41 latest.

PS: It is interesting that King & Kimmel's predecessor, James O. Richardson, was sacked in February 1941 because he refused to toe the line and recommended, strongly, the fleet be withdrawn to the West Coast - because it was too vulnerable to surprise air attack. The fact he was right didn't see him reinstated, either.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 9/26/2019 8:34:24 AM >


_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 25
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 12:30:53 PM   
jagsdomain

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/4/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

MM - that's a bit of hyperbole with the wire on the beaches and AA batteries blocking streets. That was not an option and not realistic. Nobody expected an invasion until after the attack. Better manning of existing defenses, actual aircraft dispersal, more Cat patrols, maybe some standing CAP MIGHT (not certain would) have helped. Or not. But to treat sabotage as the biggest threat seems to be a mistake. They would have to get onto the base in the first place, and realistically how much could they take out?

And (he ducks), Mac got a free pass for very similar mistakes/oversights.

Just my thoughts.

Yea! Doug out Doug gets free pass for scwreeing up everything but he is good...

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 26
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 1:09:44 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
On the operations of the fleet:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410813apac.html

Note who signed it. :-)

So, yes, the fleet wasn't tied up alongside the whole time. There are various pieces of evidence here and there that this schedule was generally adhered to.

Back to an earlier point, some years back I snagged an account from a junior officer on the USS Maury (a Gridley class, you'll note). Among other things he mentions an order to "strip ship" sometime in the summer/early fall of 1941 due to lessons the RN had learned in battle:

quote:

“Strip Ship” meant to remove all inflammable material from the ship and it was devastating to the feeling of well being and comfort in the ship. Below the Main Deck all portholes were removed and steel plates welded over the holes. All linoleum and rugs were removed. All of the beautiful sheathing that concealed the bundles of wires and ever-present pipes had to come out. All curtains and slip covers disappeared. Even the accumulated paint in the interior spaces had to be chipped off, leaving the metal bare or covered with the garish yellow of a thin coat of Zinc Chromate, which we soon learned to loathe. The Captain’s Gig and our 30 ft. Motor Launch were removed with their Davits. The mahogany bridge railings and our Teak Accommodation Ladder were sacrificed because of danger from splinters in case of a hit. Even our beautiful Bridge gratings had to go and we were left to slide around on bare metal.[\quote]

(in reply to jagsdomain)
Post #: 27
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 1:29:08 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
Thanks for posting that - they were at least stripping off the excess flammable materials and getting into war-fighting trim.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 28
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 2:01:02 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Very interesting that the August order and TF composition is not what WITP-AE uses for the starting TFs of Enterprise and Lexington on turn 1. Our game was pretty well researched so I take the TF composition to be quite accurate.

I presume events and the need to cover reinforcements to islands to the west resulted in break up of Kimmel's ordered TFs. I didn't like the make up of TF 1 with Saratoga tied to the BB divisions anyway, but then I know from historic hindsight that CVs became the prime striking force and slow BBs were a drag on their speed. Prior to the PH attack US doctrine held that BBs were the queens of the seas.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 29
RE: Admiral Kimmel - 9/26/2019 4:15:04 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 297
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline
I find this stuff pretty fascinating as well. Although it is folly trying to put ourselves in the shoes of commanders in 1941, it sure feels like the lack of concern regarding any sneak attacks at the Flag level filtered down through the commands. The vast majority of troops were caught unaware and disbelief seemed rampant. Kimmel and Short were held responsible in the manner the Navy typically utilizes. I have become pretty cynical regarding my Navy (served 1982-86 w/VS-21) after reading accounts of the Mk14 torpedo debacle, the Midway USS Hornet "flight to nowhere" cover up and numerous other facepalm moments.

I agree that Kimmel was going to take the brunt of retribution whether he really deserved it. While onboard the Enterprise in Nov. of 1985 we hit Bishop's Rock during workups. Captain Robert Leuschner was sacked Jan 27th of 1986. Just the way it goes.

Related to this subject, after reading the first half of Beans, Bullets and Black Oil I came away with a slightly better impression of Admiral Robert Ghormley's role in the South Pacific. Politics and social standing had and still have a lot of power in the flag ranks of the US Navy. Why should top Admirals (and Generals for that matter) be held responsible when there are perfectly ripe scapegoats "closer to the situation"?


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Admiral Kimmel Page: [1] 2   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

1.906