pearl harbor, no naval air defense

[old hoodoo]

I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under repair and there were virtually no available fighter
pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????

Apparently an SBD from the Enterprize claimed on Japanese plane shot down for Naval air that day.

Al

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting
> the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The few
> fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under
> repair and there were virtually no available fighter pilots. Does
> this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????
>

Makes sense to me. Tasking Navy fighters with defense of land bases where
Army fighters were available would make fewer fighters available for carrier
service thus rendering surface vessels more vulnerable and less effective.

[Thomas Schoene]

old hoodoo wrote:
> I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting
> the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The few
> fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under
> repair and there were virtually no available fighter pilots. Does
> this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????

Not to me.

First of all, the Army was reponsible for coast defense nationwide. The
Army leadership would have been very opposed to having the Navy attempt to
take over the role. In any case, the Army was probably better suited to the
task. The Army Air Corps had more planes and pilots than the Navy, I
suspect. Also, defense of bases required a combined arms approach with both
fighters and anti-aircraft artillery, which was clearly more along the
Army's line.

Also, remember that there were not yet the huge numbers of planes and pilots
we think of later in the war. It made sense for the Navy to concentrate its
efforts on getting sufficient fighters and trained aircrew for its carrier
airwings. This was hard enough, IIRC, without also trying to provide
airfield defense squadrons.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[John]

Thomas Schoene wrote:First of all, the Army was reponsible for coast defense
nationwide. The

> Army leadership would have been very opposed to having the Navy attempt to
> take over the role. In any case, the Army was probably better suited to the
> task. The Army Air Corps had more planes and pilots than the Navy, I
> suspect. Also, defense of bases required a combined arms approach with both
> fighters and anti-aircraft artillery, which was clearly more along the
> Army's line.
>
> Also, remember that there were not yet the huge numbers of planes and pilots
> we think of later in the war. It made sense for the Navy to concentrate its
> efforts on getting sufficient fighters and trained aircrew for its carrier
> airwings. This was hard enough, IIRC, without also trying to provide
> airfield defense squadrons.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene

Also
Budget was not there for the military as yet..
My Dad was there as a coast artilleryman (55thCA ) and on some of the pictures I
have found
of the gear they had. a lot of it was WWI issue.(in his army photo album taken
at that time.)( he arrived in 1940, was at Ft Ruger and Derussy until 1946)
pictures show bald tires on the units trucks 1940-1941. etc:
pictures of the planes at Wheeler and Bellows P-36 A-12 B-18

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:51:21 -0500, "old hoodoo"
> wrote:

>I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
>few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under repair and there were virtually no available fighter
>pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????

No, not in the least. The mission of naval aviation is *not* defense
of shore bases against enemy attack - that's the Army (Air Force)'s
job.

This is the same reason USN fighters are not tasked with continental
air defense today.

--
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/

[Ogden Johnson III]

"old hoodoo" > wrote:

>I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
>few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under repair and there were virtually no available fighter
>pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????

No. In Hawaii, as in California, or New York, or Louisiana, or
wherever, the Army was responsible for defense on land, the Army
Air Force was responsible for defense in the air - both under the
Department of War - and the Navy was responsible for defense at
sea - under the Navy Department. The Army Air Force/Department
of War would have had a **** fit if the Navy Department had
presumed to order its fighter aircraft to be stationed in Hawaii
for the purpose of defending Hawaii against an attack.

That bureaucratic philosophy, of course, was no longer in effect
on and after Dec 8, 1941.

One of the reasons there were too few Navy patrol aircraft in
Hawaii was that the Army Air Force intended to provide B-17s for
such reconnaissance patrols as would be required for the defense
of Hawaii. The Navy's aircraft were to be used for fleet
reconnaissance out in the Pacific, but were pressed in to service
at General Short's request since sufficient B-17s weren't
appearing. Unfortunately, there were too few of them, and
adequate patrols were impossible, even at max effort/utilization.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Pechs1]

alflags-<< I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting
the naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under repair
and there were virtually no available fighter
pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?????? >><BR><BR>


Nope, the A/C on a CVA were there to protect the CVA, not the port it happened
to be in(which they weren't in at the time).
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Scott Mayfield]

If my memory serves me correctly, the carriers were all at sea for
carquals, and too far out to get an effective defense over Pearl.

SM

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
> I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting the
naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
> few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under
repair and there were virtually no available fighter
> pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????
>
> Apparently an SBD from the Enterprize claimed on Japanese plane shot
down for Naval air that day.
>
> Al
>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Mayfield" > wrote in message
...
> If my memory serves me correctly, the carriers were all at sea for
> carquals, and too far out to get an effective defense over Pearl.
>
> SM
>

At sea yes but not for caquals, as I recall they were delivering
aircraft to Wake and Midway.

Keith

[Mike Weeks]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"

>Date: 4/17/2004 16:01 Pacific Daylight Time

>"Scott Mayfield" > wrote in message
...
>> If my memory serves me correctly, the carriers were all at sea for
>> carquals, and too far out to get an effective defense over Pearl.

>At sea yes but not for caquals, as I recall they were delivering
>aircraft to Wake and Midway.

And the third was preparing to depart SDiego for Pearl.

MW

[Tiger]

Scott Mayfield wrote:

> If my memory serves me correctly, the carriers were all at sea for
>carquals, and too far out to get an effective defense over Pearl.
>
> SM
>
> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
> > I just read that that the Navy took no responsibility for protecting the
>naval base and that this was an Army responsibility. The
> > few fighter aircraft at the naval base were aircraft in transit or under
>repair and there were virtually no available fighter
> > pilots. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else??????
> >
> > Apparently an SBD from the Enterprize claimed on Japanese plane shot
>down for Naval air that day.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Enterprise Delivered F4F's To the Marines On Midway & Arrived back at
Pearl Late Sun the 7th or early Mon. the 8th. Lexington delivered F4F's
to Wake.