Topic: For the WWII history fans.

[Lieutenant_Q]

An issue with this point however, is that, while the army believed that the Americans could be scared into suing for peace, the man responsible for the navy, Yamamoto, was not convinced.  The difference here, was that Yamamoto had been to the United States and saw what the American people were doing during the Great Depression.  He was convinced that the Americans were sturdier people than their propagandists propagated.  The Army officers though, they bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.  They overruled the one man who had been there, and ordered him to draw up the attack plans.  Pearl Harbor really wasn't about trying to force the American Surrender, it was about getting the Carriers.  Yamamoto realized that the only way they were going to have a chance in this war was to sink the three US Carriers, and then to follow it up with quick decisive strikes that put the US on its heels.  Had the Carriers been there, and sunk, I think a follow up operation to take Hawaii would have been worked out.  But when they missed the Carriers, Yamamoto knew the war was lost, because they could not hope to keep up with American Industry, and those three Carriers were all the Americans needed to hold their operations at bay long enough for the US to build who knows how many more (we do know, now, but back then they didn't).  Which is why Yamamoto tried desperately to engage and sink those Carriers in early 42.

[762_XC]

Had they sunk the carriers, taking Hawaii would have been moot. Even taking Midway was only a strategic feint to draw out the carriers.

[knightstorm]

I disagree with you guys about Pearl Harbor.  The goal of the attack was to take the battleships out of action, although they definitely would have liked to remove the carriers from the board also.  In 1941, the prevailing view was that battleships were still the key players in naval warfare, although there was an increasing recognition of the role of naval airpower.  Carriers were still viewed as supporting players.  Like I said, the Japanese were trying to re-fight the Russo-Japanese war, by opening with a crippling strike against the enemies Pacific fleet.  I will agree that Yamamoto realized that the US in 1941 was not Russia in 1904, but he was over-ruled by his superiors.

[762_XC]

"It was a disappointment and anxiety to all of them that they had not found the American carriers at anchor...the rational course was now to withdraw the fleet from danger - who knew where the American carriers might be steering?"

- John Keegan, The Second World War

It was perhaps the prevailing view of the old guard. But that did not include Yamamoto and Nagumo, especially after Taranto.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Yamamoto was one of the visionary military men of the Second World War.  He saw that the age of the Battleship was at its end.  The advent of naval air power rendered them obsolete.  The naval air power, still in its infancy at the time, was shown time and time again to be able to down the heavier ships, whose sole purpose was to sink other ships.  Destroyers, really a new class of ship at the time, with anti-air guns (and eventually anti-submarine weapons), would become the support elements of the new Carrier Fleets.

I'm reading Guderian's Memoirs right now, and Guderian was one of the other visionaries of the war.  He was one of the first to realize that tank warfare was not about supporting the infantry, as British, French and German strategists of the time espoused.  It was he who bears a large responsibility for the Blitzkrieg doctrine that dominated the Second World War in Europe.

[knightstorm]

"It was a disappointment and anxiety to all of them that they had not found the American carriers at anchor...the rational course was now to withdraw the fleet from danger - who knew where the American carriers might be steering?"

- John Keegan, The Second World War

It was perhaps the prevailing view of the old guard. But that did not include Yamamoto and Nagumo, especially after Taranto.

Taranto and Pearl Harbor both involved the sinking of Battleships in surprise attacks while they were at port.  People still believed that a battleships at sea would be superior to carriers.

[Lieutenant_Q]

If a Battleship came along side a Carrier, yes.  Battleships win.  But the key to Carriers, and Taranto proved that first, was that Carriers could strike at Battleships without endangering the Carrier.  The Swordfish bombers that the British used were useful in Torpedoing the Italian fleet.  Yes the Battleships were at anchor, but there was no reason to assume that even if the Battleships were at sea, trudging along at 20 knots, that they wouldn't be any more difficult targets.  Yamamoto and Nagumo both realized that the Carrier was superior to the Battleship, but that the Battleship had its place, supporting their Carriers.  But the cost of building new Battleships would quickly outstrip their usefulness in their new role.  A role that would be taken by Cruisers and Destroyers in the next era.

[Brush Wolf]

That's pretty cool...a lot of effort to guard against something the Japanese never could have pulled off (course they thought that about Pearl Harbor).

Actually, the Japanese did launch one air attack against the continental United States using a float plane deployed from a submarine.  Their target was a forest since they felt that a forest fire would force the US to divert resources away from the war.  But an attack on the Lockheed factory could have been possible.

There was a spoof movie made about this event i dont recall the name but it was funny Japs attacking a amusement park thinking it was a factory. The local puplic ended the issue.

I think the movie you are thinking of is 1941.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078723/

[762_XC]

I'm reading Guderian's Memoirs right now

I finished Panzer Leader a little while ago. Be sure to read Lost Victories (Manstein's memoirs) next if you haven't already.

[762_XC]

People still believed that a battleships at sea would be superior to carriers.

Again, some people. But not the ones in charge of operational planning for either side.

After Yamamoto lost his carrier force at Midway, he still had five battleships with which to challenge Enterprise and Hornet, not counting the two with Kondo's invasion force. Yet with only one CVL to provide them with air cover, he knew it was hopeless, so he withdrew.

[knightstorm]

People still believed that a battleships at sea would be superior to carriers.

Again, some people. But not the ones in charge of operational planning for either side.

After Yamamoto lost his carrier force at Midway, he still had five battleships with which to challenge Enterprise and Hornet, not counting the two with Kondo's invasion force. Yet with only one CVL to provide them with air cover, he knew it was hopeless, so he withdrew.

I'd say there's good evidence the people in charge of the US operational planning still believed that as most of the battleships sunk at pearl harbor were raised and modernized, and 10 additional battleships were completed by war's end.
The key term in your post is at midway.  By that point, the destruction of Force Z, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and the fighting earlier in the day had driven home the point about the effectiveness of the carrier.

[762_XC]

Well, you were talking specifically about the goal of the attack at Pearl Harbor, which was planned by Yamamoto.

Yamamoto was a driving force in naval aviation in the IJN, like Q mentioned. So there is little doubt the carriers were primary targets even then.

The plan was executed by carriers...how much doubt do you think Yamamoto had about their effectiveness as capital ships?

I don't think anyone thought battleships were useless...no one is arguing that. But to say that they were the primary target over the carriers would be a mistake.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I'm reading Guderian's Memoirs right now

I finished Panzer Leader a little while ago. Be sure to read Lost Victories (Manstein's memoirs) next if you haven't already.

A couple years ago, there was a brand new wargame out, one that we played considerably for about a month at our Wargaming night.  (one that I haven't been to in over a year now, unfortunately) Manstein's Backhand Blow.  1943 Ukrainian counter-offensive.  It was a well thought out game, and since that one, I've taken a good interest in him.  I'll have to find Lost Victories sometime this summer.  Unfortunately my summer reading list just keeps growing.  And I do want to get through Decision Points (Bush's Memoirs) some time before Christmas.  Not too mention all the Civil War era books I keep pushing back because I find something more interesting to read first.  (Not that the Civil War is dis-interesting mind you...)  Sigh... maybe I need to break my leg and unplug my computer...

[Grand Master of Shadows NCC37385]

That's pretty cool...a lot of effort to guard against something the Japanese never could have pulled off (course they thought that about Pearl Harbor).

Actually, the Japanese did launch one air attack against the continental United States using a float plane deployed from a submarine.  Their target was a forest since they felt that a forest fire would force the US to divert resources away from the war.  But an attack on the Lockheed factory could have been possible.

There was a spoof movie made about this event i dont recall the name but it was funny Japs attacking a amusement park thinking it was a factory. The local puplic ended the issue.

"1941" with John Belushi.


edit: Oooops, did see that Brush Wolf had already answered that.