pearl harbor, why no usn a/c in the air?

[old hoodoo]

I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually happened to immobilize the navy air?

The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token defense.


Al

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at
> Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
> at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what
> actually happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
> The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least
> a token defense.
>

The Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were all at sea.

[Mike Weeks]

>From: "old hoodoo"
>Date: 4/9/2004 12:58 Pacific Daylight Time

>I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl
>Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
>at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually
>happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
>The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token
>defense.

As stated, Navy fighters were aboard the at-sea carriers. In addition, the
USAAC had the responsibility for aerial fighter defense of Hawaii did it not?

Don't think there were even USMC fighter squadrons on Oahu. VMF-211 was at sea
on Big E -- heading for Wake and VMF-221 was at SDiego, about to put aboard
Sara for transit to Oahu.

MW

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:58:09 -0500, "old hoodoo"
> wrote:

>I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
>at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually happened to immobilize the navy air?

Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.

Fighters from ENTERPRISE did arrive over Pearl in the course of the
attack.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Henry J Cobb]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
> famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
> at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.

IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.

-HJC

[Mike Weeks]

>From: Henry J Cobb
>Date: 4/9/2004 17:23 Pacific Daylight Time

>Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>> Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
>> famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
>> at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
>IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
>patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.

Assuming in the first place that there were indications there was such a
sea-borne threat to Hawaii, how would it be done if there weren't even enough
PBYs in Hawaii to cover "every direction" of the compass -- for what sector
width and for what range ...????

MW

[Henry J Cobb]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Assuming in the first place that there were indications there was such a
> sea-borne threat to Hawaii, how would it be done if there weren't even enough
> PBYs in Hawaii to cover "every direction" of the compass -- for what sector
> width and for what range ...????

Well, look at what they were actually doing.

http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/ph11.htm
> VP-21 7 planes - in the air conducting search 120° to 170° to 450
> miles from Midway.
....
> VP-14 3 planes - in the air on morning security patrol armed with
> depth charges.
....
> VP-24 4 planes - in the air conducting inter-type tactics with
> submarines.
....
> To summarize the foregoing, at the moment the first bomb dropped,
> aircraft of this command were in the following condition:
>
> 14 - in the air (7 on a search from Midway).
> 58 - on the surface ready for flight in four hours or less.
> 9 - undergoing repairs.
> 81 - Total.

The only early warning system Hawaii had (besides the overlooked radar)
weren't on patrol, instead they were doing ASW exercises.

Applying VP-21's numbers we get 51 planes required to do a 360° search
to 450 miles so just 20 planes in the air could have done a search
beyond the strike radius of any Japanese carrier based aircraft.

-HJC

[Rich]

Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:58:09 -0500, "old hoodoo"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
> >at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
> Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
> famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
> at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
> Fighters from ENTERPRISE did arrive over Pearl in the course of the
> attack.

The Enterprise planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor during the raid
were a mixed bag of 18 VB-6 and VS-6 SBD's. Four, piloted by Ensigns
Clarence Dickinson, Bud McCarthy, John Vogt, and Walter Willis were
brought down by Japanese fighters. Dickinson and McCarthy were the
only survivors of these encounters with the Japanese fighters. Ens.
Ed Deacon's SBD was shot down by US AA fire, but both he and his rear
seat gunner were saved. Lt(jg) Frank Patriarca crash landed his SBD
in a field on Kaui when he ran out of gas; both he and his gunner
survived. The remaining 12 aircraft landed on either on Ford Island
NAS or at Ewa MCAS.

Rich

[Bill Kambic]

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message

<snipped for brevity>

> The only early warning system Hawaii had (besides the overlooked radar)
> weren't on patrol, instead they were doing ASW exercises.

ASW was a valid mission and practice would be A Good Thing.

> Applying VP-21's numbers we get 51 planes required to do a 360° search
> to 450 miles so just 20 planes in the air could have done a search
> beyond the strike radius of any Japanese carrier based aircraft.

Well, no.

First off, setting up an air plan for surface search with multiple aircraft
is a complex enterprise. The effective area of coverage for visual search
is highly dependant upon environmental conditions. This does not mean you
don't do it, only that it's not something you "just do."

Second, the only air-surface detection system on any patrol aircraft at that
time was the Mark I Eyeball. A fine device during daylight, but of limited
utility at night or in less than fine VMC conditions. Since the Japanese
force approached within strike range during the night then the only
detection opportunities might have been at dusk the night before (but at the
extreme range of the search) or at dawn as they were launching. Having
spent a lot of hours doing open ocean visual search I can assure you that
neither time is optimal.

Third, your program would have been a MAXEFFORT thing. Sure it can be done,
but it consumes aircraft and crews. So if you are going to run hard you
must have something to run for. No one KNEW the location of the Japanese
fleet. There was a bunch of speculation, but no one KNEW. Consuming your
fuel and spares under those circumstances would not have been a wise
military decision.

With the aid of hindsight (which is always 20/20) a high intensity air plan
starting on Friday, December 5, 1941 would have been a wise plan (even if it
didn't work). But with the information at hand there was no justification
for such an effort.

Bill Kambic
CDR, USNR(Ret)
VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP 93, FASOTRAGRULANT

[Ozman Trad]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...

> IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
> patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.

yeah hindsight is crystal clear ain't it ?

[sid]

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message >...
> I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
> at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
> The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token defense.
>
>
> Al
>

According to Morison, three Kanehoe based PBYs were aloft when the
attack started. One of these, working the Ward datum, sighted a sub
and dropped smoke pots at 0633. He also notes that one "combat plane
available for instant use" on Ford Island was launched "with
difficulty" during the attack and ordered to search a sector between
280 and 330 by Adm Bellinger. Apparently several utility types wre
lauched from Ford during this timeframe as well.
The hapless SBD's from Enterpise were aloft inbound to Ford and found
themselves in the fray as well. They left the boat between 0615 and
0637. Several were shot down by the Japs with the survivors landing at
Ford late in the attack while getting a Blue-on-Blue smackdown to
boot.
More were shot down in later searches by both enemy and friendly fire
that afternoon and evening.
(Later Admiral) Moorer went aloft in one of the 3 surviving PBYs just
after the attack.

[dano]

Here is a thread i picked up in a Google search:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/bbs/pearl_config.pl?read=291


Dano

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
> I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl
Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
> at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually
happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
> The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token
defense.
>
>
> Al
>
>
>

[Mike Weeks]

>From: Henry J Cobb
>Date: 4/9/2004 19:26 Pacific Daylight Time

<snip>

>Applying VP-21's numbers

Which wasn't based at PH in any event ...

>we get 51 planes required to do a 360° search
>to 450 miles so just 20 planes in the air could have done a search
>beyond the strike radius of any Japanese carrier based aircraft.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/martin_1.html

The "Martin-Bellinger Report" on aircraft availability

<start>
PATROL WING TWO
U. S. NAVAL AIR STATION,
Pearl Harbor, T. H.,
December 19, 1941.

Memorandum for Admiral H. E. Kimmel, U. S. Navy.

MY DEAR ADMIRAL: In accordance with our conversation of yesterday, I am
forwarding to you the following information:
....

[I]t should be noted that there were insufficient patrol planes in the Hawaiian
Area effectively to do the Job required. For the commander of a search group to
be able to state with some assurance that no hostile carrier could reach a spot
250 miles away and launch an attack without prior detection would require an
effective daily search through 360 to a distance of at least 800 miles.
Assuming a 16-mile radius of visibility this would require a daily 16 hour
flight of 84 planes. A force of not less than 209 patrol planes, adequate spare
parts and ample well trained personnel would be required for such operations.

(Signed) P. N. L. BELLINGER
Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy,
Commander Patrol Wing TWO.
<end>

RADM Bellinger appears to not agree.

MW

[John Carrier]

Snip

>Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
> at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
> Fighters from ENTERPRISE did arrive over Pearl in the course of the
> attack.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Of course, if the relatively limited seaplane patrol assets had been used
for long range search, there was the possibility the attack force might have
been detected prior (perhaps well prior) to launch. As there were
insufficient aircraft to provide a truly effective search (perhaps 180
degree hemisphere to the west of Oahu), it was decided to not search at all.

The short and long term impacts of an early warning at Pearl are interesting
to ponder. There are a number of scenarios in which the outcome for the US
could have been far worse.

R / John

[John Carrier]

It's a given the search capability wasn't there. It's also a given there
was a war warning out. I'd think a prudent commander would do the best he
could with the assets he had. Formulate some threat axes. 270 would be
more likely than 090. Application of a little common sense (your enemy
might like to avoid detection, therefor he's likely to give your forward
bases: Wake, Midway, etc) might refine that considerably. There's even a
discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
assets.

So maybe you wind up with a pattern that gives a PsubD of 30%. An educated
guess (threat axis either NW or SW of Pearl) might sweeten that
considerably. And you FLY! They had SOME search capability, why not use
it? Instead they played staff games ... memos flying all over the place.
Can't do a full search, so we'll ask for the assets (non-existent) and sit
on our hands till we get them.

The underlying problem was that while a Japanese attack was expected, no one
knew where it might occur. But on Oahu in early December 1941, everyone
knew, in their hearts, it couldn't happen there (or if it did, it would be
sabotage by all those Japanese living on the island).

R / John

[nice guy]

poor intelligence from the dem administration

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
> I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl
Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
> at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually
happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
> The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token
defense.
>
>
> Al
>
>
>

[Henry J Cobb]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/DD/dd365-Pearl.html
> On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
> the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
> Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
> radar installation work.

How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

-HJC

[Bill Kambic]

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message

> > On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
> > the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
> > Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
> > radar installation work.
>
> How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Damned if I know.

Why don't you take a look at Vol. 3, "History of U.S. Naval Operations in
WWII" by CAPT Samuel Elliot Morrison, USNR. IIRC he has a complete order of
battle for PACFLT in December, 1941 that includes some information on the
technical capabilites and availability of U.S. vessels.

Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical decisions
made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back at
Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision made
at the highest levels of government.

Much has been made of the "proof" of Pearl Harbor vulnerablity given a
successful raid during naval exercises a few years before and the successful
British attack at Taranto. In truth those operations don't really show the
basing decision, or the specific defense decisions, to be inherently
unsound. They only show that any base is vulnerable to attack under some
conditions.

Toland has written a couple of books, IIRC, on the subject of December, 7,
1941. I comment them to you.

Bill Kambic

[Henry J Cobb]

Bill Kambic wrote:
> Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical decisions
> made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back at
> Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision made
> at the highest levels of government.

That's still a good idea today.

5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
Tripoli.

The only place you could base a carrier further from any place you'd
possibly use it is in Texas.

I just hope that as the Navy once again becomes more forward based that
better care is put on force protection this time.

-HJC

[Bill Kambic]

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message

> Bill Kambic wrote:
> > Your tone suggests some hostility toward strategic and tactical
decisions
> > made at the time. Placing the Fleet forward at Pearl (instead of back
at
> > Dago) was controversial when it was made. It was a political decision
made
> > at the highest levels of government.
>
> That's still a good idea today.

Indeed.

> 5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
> San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
> Tripoli.

I'm not sure I see your point.

> The only place you could base a carrier further from any place you'd
> possibly use it is in Texas.
>
> I just hope that as the Navy once again becomes more forward based that
> better care is put on force protection this time.

Sure, but no defense is 100% (as no offense in 100%). Commanders do the
best they can with the assets available.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

[Henry J Cobb]

Bill Kambic wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
>>5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
>>San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
>>Tripoli.
>
> I'm not sure I see your point.

Take the top dozen trouble spots where a carrier battle group might make
a difference.

The compare the distance between the current carrier bases and these areas.

Select the base that is most distant and transfer the carriers out
elsewhere so they can react to trouble quicker.

The result is better coverage and quicker response for the same long
term costs.

Ignore Boxer's whining, it's not like she'd ever vote for any real
defense spending.

-HJC

[Mike Weeks]

>From: Henry J Cobb
>Date: 4/10/2004 09:18 Pacific Daylight Time

>How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Saw a movie (so it must be accurate ...) some 20+ years ago which in fact
showed that indeed a US aircraft carrier w/ very advanced aircraft -- including
some kind of airborne radar aircraft -- spotted the appraoching IJN carrier TF
....

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Saw a movie (so it must be accurate ...) some 20+ years ago which
> in fact showed that indeed a US aircraft carrier w/ very advanced
> aircraft -- including some kind of airborne radar aircraft -- spotted
> the appraoching IJN carrier TF
>

Yeah, Nimitz had some nerve naming a carrier after himself.

[Mike Weeks]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 4/10/2004 11:53 Pacific Daylight Time

>Yeah, Nimitz had some nerve naming a carrier after himself.

Always have wondered how, as the then head of BuNav, he was able to do that ...

[montgomery_scott]

Acccchhh! m' wee bairn, Mikey Weeks.... have y told the people on this
thread that you've been caught bull****ting by Kevin Brooks when you
pretended you were a "jet fighter pilot"...


MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!

Acccch!!! M'wee bairns… I'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more…

The following message has been designed to prevent Mike Weeks from
engaging in conduct on this thread THAT HE has engaged in on the
threads where the USS Liberty survivors gather….

….and to follow Zionist Mike Weeks, who got caught by Kevin Brooks
pretending on the Google Groups pretending to be a US Naval "jet
fighter pilot"...

…just like Week's good buddy, A. Jay Cristol(Ahron Jay Cristol),
author of "The Liberty Incident" has BEEN CAUGHT pretending to be a
"jet fighter pilot" who "flew combat missions in the Far East" during
the Korean War and who served as an officer in US Naval Intelligence
when in reality…

…Mike Weeks is IN ACTUALITY … a US Naval reservist…and "no";he's not
the "jet fighter pilot" he got caught pretending to be ….. he is
"computer operator" AND…

"the Korean War… snicker…heroooo",A. Jay Cristol never came within
thousands of miles of any combat… and he graduated from "flight
training school" only 90 days before the Korean War ended before he
sat his fat little rump down in the cockpit seat …not of his
...snicker… "jet fighter"… but instead a "Turkey Prop".. the US Navy's
slowest plane… and "no"… he never served in US Naval Intelligence
unless perhaps it was in the kitchen of the mess halls peeling
potatoes as punishment for bull****ting about his "war record"




Mike Weeks, who ALONG WITH HIS BUDDY, A. Jay Cristol, is actively
involved in helping the Government of Israel cover up the murder of 34
of his fellow countrymen…

In the following messages on this thread, you'll be able to determine
for yourself to just what extent, if any, Mike Weeks is a traitor to
both his country and fellow computer oper… er.. fellow servicemen in
the US Military…

…but first to give you a snapshot of just what kind of individual it
is who ends up betraying his fellow Americans…. We'll repeat the "self
esteem" problems Mike Weeks has which cause him to pretend to be a
"jet fighter pilot" as Wing Commander of "The Data Entry Squadron"…


Hey, Mikey…. M'wee bairn… point oot t'the ladies the hyperlink Kevin
Brooks is talking aboot where he caught you bull****ting aboot being a
"jet fighter pilot"…

>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet >when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."



>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".


>Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet >jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it.

>> since he made such a big deal of it.

> since he made such a big deal of it.



>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".






(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...[i]
> >From: Henry J Cobb
> >Date: 4/9/2004 19:26 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> <snip>
>
> >Applying VP-21's numbers
>
> Which wasn't based at PH in any event ...
>
> >we get 51 planes required to do a 360° search
> >to 450 miles so just 20 planes in the air could have done a search
> >beyond the strike radius of any Japanese carrier based aircraft.
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/martin_1.html
>
> The "Martin-Bellinger Report" on aircraft availability
>
> <start>
> PATROL WING TWO
> U. S. NAVAL AIR STATION,
> Pearl Harbor, T. H.,
> December 19, 1941.
>
> Memorandum for Admiral H. E. Kimmel, U. S. Navy.
>
> MY DEAR ADMIRAL: In accordance with our conversation of yesterday, I am
> forwarding to you the following information:
> ...
>
> t should be noted that there were insufficient patrol planes in the Hawaiian
> Area effectively to do the Job required. For the commander of a search group to
> be able to state with some assurance that no hostile carrier could reach a spot
> 250 miles away and launch an attack without prior detection would require an
> effective daily search through 360 to a distance of at least 800 miles.
> Assuming a 16-mile radius of visibility this would require a daily 16 hour
> flight of 84 planes. A force of not less than 209 patrol planes, adequate spare
> parts and ample well trained personnel would be required for such operations.
>
> (Signed) P. N. L. BELLINGER
> Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy,
> Commander Patrol Wing TWO.
> <end>
>
> RADM Bellinger appears to not agree.
>
> MW

[vincent p. norris]

> There's even a discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
>problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
>assets.

Very sensible post, John; but wasn't Operations Analysis developed
during WW II, too late for Pearl Harbor?

It's an aspect of Game Theory, isn't it?

vince norris

[Henry J Cobb]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>> There's even a discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
>>problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
>>assets.
>
> Very sensible post, John; but wasn't Operations Analysis developed
> during WW II, too late for Pearl Harbor?
>
> It's an aspect of Game Theory, isn't it?

http://www.lionhrtpub.com/orms/orms-2-01/nps.html
> The British, specifically the Operational Research Society, mark the
> year 1937 as the birth of operational research (they say operational,
> we say operations). Operational research began when, having developed
> radar, scientists were then asked to develop procedures for its use in
> a new, effective air defense system.

-HJC

[Guy Alcala]

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/DD/dd365-Pearl.html
> > On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
> > the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
> > Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
> > radar installation work.
>
> How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Not sure, but out of the six CXAM sets fitted to ships, only California was
there. Her set was removed and mounted ashore after the attack, then
installed in Hornet sometime in the summer of 1942.

There were 14 CXAM-1 sets installed, of which Pennsylvania, West Viriginia
and Curtiss (AV-4) were in Pearl, but I don't know that they'd actually been
fitted yet. The only other naval air search set that might have been
available would be the early SC, but I dont know which ships might have
gotten that at the time. Friedman ("Naval Radar", from which the above
fitment info comes) just says SC "installation began in late 1941, and the
operating forces objected strongly to the reduced capabilities of the new
set [compared to the CXAM/CXAM-1, which had much larger antennas and thus,
greater range].

I remmber reading somewhere that after the attack, it became USN policy for
at least some ships in Pearl to maintain a radar watch despite the terrain
limitations, the navy not being willing to trust the army again. I don't
know how long this policy remained in effect; as experience with radar grew,
and especially considering that an Army set had picked up the incoming raid,
the beginner behavior that occurred on Dec. 7th wasn't going to be repeated.

Guy

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:23:20 -0700,
Henry J Cobb attempted to say .....

> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> > Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
> > famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
> > at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
> IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
> patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.
>

There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Carrier]

> There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.

You might have missed my post. While 360 degree coverage would have been
the most desirable, coverage on the most likely threat axes would have
certainly been better than nothing. Insufficient search capability is
better than none at all. The aircraft were of absolutely no use sitting on
the ramp.

R / John

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 06:31:30 -0500,
John Carrier attempted to say .....

> > There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.
>
> You might have missed my post. While 360 degree coverage would have been
> the most desirable, coverage on the most likely threat axes would have
> certainly been better than nothing. Insufficient search capability is
> better than none at all. The aircraft were of absolutely no use sitting on
> the ramp.
>

Nope, I saw it after I had posted.
There were some aircraft up that morning, with others preparing for patrols.
Not enough perhaps but not zero as the originator of this thread suposes.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[montgomery_scott]

Accchhh! m'wee bairns... i'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more..

Hey, Mike Weeks...who do you think'll be the first person on this
thread to catch you bull****ting about pretending to be a "jet
fighter pilot" like kevin brooks caught you on the sci.military.naval
thread



MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!

Acccch!!! M'wee bairns… I'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more…

The following message has been designed to prevent Mike Weeks from
engaging in conduct on this thread THAT HE has engaged in on the
threads where the USS Liberty survivors gather….

….and to follow Zionist Mike Weeks, who got caught by Kevin Brooks
pretending on the Google Groups pretending to be a US Naval "jet
fighter pilot"...

…just like Week's good buddy, A. Jay Cristol(Ahron Jay Cristol),
author of "The Liberty Incident" has BEEN CAUGHT pretending to be a
"jet fighter pilot" who "flew combat missions in the Far East" during
the Korean War and who served as an officer in US Naval Intelligence
when in reality…

…Mike Weeks is IN ACTUALITY … a US Naval reservist…and "no";he's not
the ...snicker...."jet fighter pilot" he got caught pretending to be ….. he is
"computer operator" AND…

"the Korean War… chortle,chortle…...heroooo",A. Jay Cristol never came within
thousands of miles of any combat… and he graduated from "flight
training school" only 90 days before the Korean War ended before he
sat his fat little rump down in the cockpit seat …not of his
...snicker… "jet fighter"… but instead a "Turkey Prop".. the US Navy's
slowest plane… and "no"… he never served in US Naval Intelligence
unless perhaps it was in the kitchen of the mess halls peeling
potatoes as punishment for bull****ting about his "war record"




Mike Weeks, who ALONG WITH HIS BUDDY, A. Jay Cristol, is actively
involved in helping the Government of Israel cover up the murder of 34
of his fellow countrymen…

In the following messages on this thread, you'll be able to determine
for yourself to just what extent, if any, Mike Weeks is a traitor to
both his country and fellow computer oper… er.. fellow servicemen in
the US Military
…

…but first to give you a snapshot of just what kind of individual it
is who ends up betraying his fellow Americans…. We'll repeat the "self
esteem" problems Mike Weeks has which cause him to pretend to be a
"jet fighter pilot" as Wing Commander of "The Data Entry Squadron"…


Hey, Mikey…. M'wee bairn… point oot t'the ladies the hyperlink Kevin
Brooks is talking aboot where he caught you bull****ting aboot being a
"jet fighter pilot"…

>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet >when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."



>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".


>Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet >jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it.
>> since he made such a big deal of it.
> since he made such a big deal of it.



>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications".


> since he made such a big deal of it.









(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >Date: 4/10/2004 11:53 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >Yeah, Nimitz had some nerve naming a carrier after himself.
>
> Always have wondered how, as the then head of BuNav, he was able to do that ...

[Keith Willshaw]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> > Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
> > famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
> > at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
> IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
> patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.
>

It was an error to be sure BUT they would not have detected
the Japanese fleet since it made a high speed run into
position for the attack during the night.

The major blunders were in not having ammunition distributed
to the army AA guns, the unreadiness of the USAAF fighters
and the lack of torpedo nets.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"nice guy" > wrote in message
...
> poor intelligence from the dem administration
>

The democratic party was not responsible for intelligence gathering
as I recall, however the base commanders had been sent warnings
that clearly stated that war was imminent. Indeed the message sent
by Admiral Stark to Admiral Kimmel and General Short on
November 27 began

"This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.... Negotiations
with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in the Pacific
have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within
the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 "

Keith

[Tiger]

old hoodoo wrote:

>I have never heard of a single navy aircraft getting airborne at Pearl Harbor. Was this because all the naval aircraft were based
>at a single facility? Has there ever been an accounting of what actually happened to immobilize the navy air?
>
>The army managed to get up an assortment of fighters for at least a token defense.
>
>
>Al

>
>
Most Of the carrier air was at sea on Dec. 7th. And the PBY's and other
assorted planes would not have done much at Ford Island NAS. The AAF
had the duty for air defense. The Marines could have put up a plane
though. :-\ Of course it' s 755 am on a Sunday. Folks are thinking
about morning colors
& church, not flying with guns loaded and gas in the tanks ready to
go......

[Tiger]

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>
>> Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
>> famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
>> at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>
>
> IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out
> for patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.
>
> -HJC
>
Ahh, thats why they installed a radar!!!!!! Remember The scene in "Tora
Tora Tora?" We saw the bombers inbound on the scope. The officer on duty
thought they were the B17 flight coming from Cailfornia that morning.
Despite the wrong direction he blew it off.... The rest is history. :-(

[Tiger]

John Carrier wrote:

>It's a given the search capability wasn't there. It's also a given there
>was a war warning out. I'd think a prudent commander would do the best he
>could with the assets he had. Formulate some threat axes. 270 would be
>more likely than 090. Application of a little common sense (your enemy
>might like to avoid detection, therefor he's likely to give your forward
>bases: Wake, Midway, etc) might refine that considerably. There's even a
>discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
>problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
>assets.
>
>So maybe you wind up with a pattern that gives a PsubD of 30%. An educated
>guess (threat axis either NW or SW of Pearl) might sweeten that
>considerably. And you FLY! They had SOME search capability, why not use
>it? Instead they played staff games ... memos flying all over the place.
>Can't do a full search, so we'll ask for the assets (non-existent) and sit
>on our hands till we get them.
>
>The underlying problem was that while a Japanese attack was expected, no one
>knew where it might occur. But on Oahu in early December 1941, everyone
>knew, in their hearts, it couldn't happen there (or if it did, it would be
>sabotage by all those Japanese living on the island).
>
>R / John
>
>
You've been watching too many 9/11 hearnings. What If, What if, What if.
We got beat! period.

[Tiger]

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/DD/dd365-Pearl.html
> > On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
> > the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
> > Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
> > radar installation work.
>
> How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?
>
> -HJC
>
Why Are we refighting Pearl Harbor????? Is this "Final Conflict?" Is the
Nimtz going to travel through a time portal so VF 84 can splash Zeros
again?????

[Tiger]

John Carrier wrote:

>>There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.
>>
>
>You might have missed my post. While 360 degree coverage would have been
>the most desirable, coverage on the most likely threat axes would have
>certainly been better than nothing. Insufficient search capability is
>better than none at all. The aircraft were of absolutely no use sitting on
>the ramp.
>
>R / John
>
>
NO bucks, no Buck Rodgers! Ahh, the Great depression is just ending in
1941. Where are you geting the money to fly all these patols in
peacetime????????? On a Sunday no less, with guys still hung over from
Saturday liberty?????

[Tiger]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>
>>Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>>
>>>Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
>>>famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
>>>at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.
>>>
>>IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
>>patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.
>>
>
>It was an error to be sure BUT they would not have detected
>the Japanese fleet since it made a high speed run into
>position for the attack during the night.
>
>The major blunders were in not having ammunition distributed
>to the army AA guns, the unreadiness of the USAAF fighters
>and the lack of torpedo nets.
>
>Keith
>
>
If I launched a attack this Morning in 2004 on Norfolk, VA how prepared
would they be? About the same..... Oceania NAS might scramble jets. Most
ships in port would not be ready to steam out. No torpedo nets, Live
ammo mostly in the magazines, lots of guys on shore. My subs could
launch cruise missles and sink most of the fleet today beter than a
flock of Vals & Kates.

[Tiger]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>"nice guy" > wrote in message
...
>
>>poor intelligence from the dem administration
>>
>
>The democratic party was not responsible for intelligence gathering
>as I recall, however the base commanders had been sent warnings
>that clearly stated that war was imminent. Indeed the message sent
>by Admiral Stark to Admiral Kimmel and General Short on
>November 27 began
>
>"This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.... Negotiations
>with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in the Pacific
>have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within
>the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
>preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 "
>
>Keith
>
>
Ala 911 , Hawaii was not seen as the target. Thats why we deployed
planes to Midway & Wake and was sending reinforcements to the
Phillipines like the PT boats loaded to go to MTB squadron 3. The Intel
was all hot about movements toward Malaya. Thus, the Brits put Force Z
out to Sea from Singapore. Stop trying to refight the battle. We lost,
period end of story!

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


> If I launched a attack this Morning in 2004 on Norfolk, VA how prepared
> would they be? About the same..... Oceania NAS might scramble jets.
> Most ships in port would not be ready to steam out.
> No torpedo nets, Live ammo mostly in the magazines,
> lots of guys on shore. My subs could launch cruise missles
> and sink most of the fleet today beter than a flock of Vals & Kates.

The difference being the commanders at Pearl Harbor had been
sent a message from Washington that began

'This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.'


Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Ala 911 , Hawaii was not seen as the target. Thats why we deployed planes
to
> Midway & Wake and was sending reinforcements to the Phillipines like the
> PT boats loaded to go to MTB squadron 3. The Intel was all hot about
> movements toward Malaya. Thus, the Brits put Force Z out to Sea
> from Singapore. Stop trying to refight the battle.

There's a difference between refighting the battle and
analysing the errors made. Nothing could have prevented
the attack BUT the fleet anchorage could and should have
been better prepared.

> We lost, period end of story!

In strategic terms it was at best a pyhrric vicotry for
the IJN

PS please dont post using HTML

Keith

[Henry J Cobb]

Tiger wrote:
> Why Are we refighting Pearl Harbor????? Is this "Final Conflict?" Is the
> Nimtz going to travel through a time portal so VF 84 can splash Zeros
> again?????

I fear that it might be repeated with a Chinese ballistic missile,
guided by the joint European/Chinese GALILEO satellite radio navigation
system, fired into the base of the forward deployed American fleet.

-HJC

[Henry J Cobb]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>If I launched a attack this Morning in 2004 on Norfolk, VA how prepared
>>would they be? About the same..... Oceania NAS might scramble jets.
>>Most ships in port would not be ready to steam out.
>>No torpedo nets, Live ammo mostly in the magazines,
>>lots of guys on shore. My subs could launch cruise missles
>>and sink most of the fleet today beter than a flock of Vals & Kates.
>
> The difference being the commanders at Pearl Harbor had been
> sent a message from Washington that began
>
> 'This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.'

That's like saying "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" without giving
the time, place or nature of the attack.

They assumed sabotage and they prepared for their own assumptions.

-HJC

[DBurch7672]

I meant to ask if "Purple" was an American or Japanese name for the code I
mentioned! Sorry, my bad!

[John]

DBurch7672 wrote:

> I meant to ask if "Purple" was an American or Japanese name for the code I
> mentioned! Sorry, my bad!

American,,