2 ms·
Not that you're wrong, but I don't believe I described Pearl Harbor as a strategic success; I was discussing the intent, rather than the outcome. I do think it
by throwanem 5y ago
Not that you're wrong, but I don't believe I described Pearl Harbor as a strategic success; I was discussing the intent, rather than the outcome.
I do think it's fair to describe Pearl as an attempt to reconcile the doctrine of decisive battle with the increasingly evident primacy of naval air power and the numerical and resource superiority of the US. I'll grant that a surprise strike on ships in port doesn't exactly qualify as battle per se, but it was certainly intended to be decisive, and in that circumstance waiting to receive an attack in the classic style doesn't work.
As planned, the attack very well could have worked; after all, if the US fleet carriers had been at Pearl when the Japanese strike force arrived, the IJN could have counted on superiority in the Pacific until at least 1943. While in the long run that might still not have been enough, it would certainly have at least enabled them to consolidate gains and better prepare to receive US attacks in the Pacific, and in any case it's well documented that that was what they were going for.
- lucas_membrane 5y agoThere are at least three reasons other than the oil tanks and carries at sea why attack was a failure: 1) the ships attacked were in shallow water. Most were salvaged or repaired. 2) Timing the attack for early Sunday maximized the advantage of surprise, but minimized the number of officers and sailors on the ships when attacked, so that loss of know-how was less than it might have been. 3) The US sent ships out to counter-attack the Japanese fleet based on radio direction finding, but the signals were mis-interpreted, and the counter-attack went in the exact opposite direction of the true direction of the Japanese fleet.