A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 10th 04, 06:09 AM
dano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #3  
Old April 10th 04, 03:48 PM
nice guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #4  
Old April 13th 04, 11:31 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old April 18th 04, 07:29 AM
Tiger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!


  #6  
Old April 18th 04, 10:33 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #7  
Old April 18th 04, 06:47 AM
Tiger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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......

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA Fitzair4 Home Built 0 December 7th 04 07:40 PM
Pearl Harbor Defense Dave Military Aviation 157 September 27th 04 12:43 AM
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.