Worst Pearl Harbor for the US?

ThePest179

Banned
So, as an opposite to the thread "Best possible Pearl Harbor for US", what chain of events would lead to the most devastating Pearl Harbor attack?

Bonus points if the US loses an aircraft carrier or more.
 
Going from memory here....

Have the carrier group in Pearl on that day and the USN is going to be put back significantly. I'd also venture to say that if more battleships were damaged like the Arizona, then getting started in the pacific is going to be a lot more difficult as well. Another way to have it go worse is to have the first wave target ALL the air bases and take out a majority of the aircraft. The only reason a third wave wasn't sent in is because the Americans were ready by then, and the Japanese high command didn't want to engage them directly.
 
them getting an early warning and the fleet actually being at sea?
many of the ships that were sunk in pearl, were salvageable because of the shallow water. ships being sunk out in the open are permanently lost.
 
Japanese hit and destroy both the carrier group and the oil supplies on Pearl Harbor. Would give them at least a year to freely grab as much of Southeast Asia as they could.
 
Good plan - first wave to hit all airfields and heavily mine the harbour entrances and channel. Torpedo attack on the carriers in the harbour.

Second wave to hit all the remaining ships in the anchorage with torpedo/dive bombers.

Third wave hit the drydocks, dive bomb anything still floating, maintenance stores/yards and the fuel tanks on the way out (why help out with a smoke screen) and drop some extra mines in the channel.

The only way to make it worse would be if the IJN emulated the FAA and carried out the first and second waves at night. Even if the USN/USAAF had fighters up, good luck finding or intercepting them without RADAR or experienced fighter controllers.
 
This discussion had been here before, so the solution will remain the same:

- Priority on aircraft carriers as targets.
- Strike decisively the airfields first to prevent any opposition in the air.
- Destroy as much as possible of the dockyard and fueldepot.
- ignore the battleship! These are obsolete and the USA can retain them, if they want, as they are useless in a modern naval war anyway.
 

ThePest179

Banned
Good plan - first wave to hit all airfields and heavily mine the harbour entrances and channel. Torpedo attack on the carriers in the harbour.

Second wave to hit all the remaining ships in the anchorage with torpedo/dive bombers.

Third wave hit the drydocks, dive bomb anything still floating, maintenance stores/yards and the fuel tanks on the way out (why help out with a smoke screen) and drop some extra mines in the channel.

The only way to make it worse would be if the IJN emulated the FAA and carried out the first and second waves at night. Even if the USN/USAAF had fighters up, good luck finding or intercepting them without RADAR or experienced fighter controllers.

This discussion had been here before, so the solution will remain the same:

- Priority on aircraft carriers as targets.
- Strike decisively the airfields first to prevent any opposition in the air.
- Destroy as much as possible of the dockyard and fueldepot.
- ignore the battleship! These are obsolete and the USA can retain them, if they want, as they are useless in a modern naval war anyway.

So, assuming this works, what would be the result on the Pacific front?
 
The Japanese would be able to run hog wild in the South and Central Pacific with no risk of bumping heavy US forces. Depending on how badly Pearl was wrecked it could take anywhere up to 12-18 months to rebuild it up to being at least a minimally operational fleet base. Whilst the BB's are no longer THE capital warship, they are still going to be needed for pre-invasion bombardment so some of these are going to have to be refloated and patched just to get to Bremerton in Washington for repair and refit.

The Pacific fleet would then be forced to operate from US bases such as San Diego and San Francisco until Pearl was at least able to act as a forward operating base again. The USN will need to get it to at least be able to operate subs and aircraft from Pearl Harbour so they can start attriting Japanese forces and shipping. The USN will transfer Wasp from the East Coast which will take time and their operations will be hampered to some extent by the damage to Pearl Harbour and the loss of the Phillipines, Wake Island etc. I suspect the US may build more fleet subs and may even resort to something like the the KM Milch cows to refuel and support forward sub ops until they got Pearl Harbour back up and operational. The IJN may well take greater operational risks and possibly take the opportunity to operate in the Indian Ocean to a greater extent than OTL.

However, in the long run even if Pearl Harbour had been totally razed and Midway was a IJN success, they are still going to lose. The US is going to build vast numbers of Fleet Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers and steamroll them under with sheer firepower and logistics.
 
I think the issue of destroying the dockyards, facilities, and fuel depots is grossly oversimplified. Those are difficult targets to destroy or even heavily damage and they are spread out, and they can be repaired (and repair capacity did exist at the base not to mention in the US). Heck, targets like that are even difficult to keep down in the modern era of PGMs. So, absent a sustained effort against the a wide array of targets, something the KB was not equipped to do, attacks on the facilities are unlikely to generate the kind of results people generally assume they will.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Worst case is around 18 hours of warning. Kimmel would sortie, likely lose one or two heavies to the IJN submarine picket line, and get caught in the open sea by overwhelming Japanese airpower. There is also the potential for at least Enterprise to come roaring back from the ferry mission to Wake and collect a torpedo or three from the picket and the outside change of her being found and sunk by the Kido Butai.

Casualties in this scenario would soar, and the ship losses would be actual losses, not refits (which most of the BB at Pearl needed in any case).

I tend to disagree with the potential for a 3rd strike being that crippling. Dry docks and repair shops are surprisingly resilient. One of the striking photos from the raid shows Dry Dock One on the aftermath of the attack. The two destroyers in the dock are wrecked and the USS Pennsylvania was ht by both bombs and parts of the destroyers (including a 1,000 pound torpedo mount). The one way to damage the dock seriously was to torpedo the caission, something that the Japanese attempted in the first wave, all of those efforts failed.

As as demonstrated during the Combined Bomber Offensive machine tools are really hard to destroy. Buildings are one thing, the tools themselves are much less likely to be destroyed. working without full enclosure is much less of an issue in Hawaii than would be the case in a cold weather location.

A third wave would also be forced to deal with the very heavy smoke that was coming from the ships in the harbor, something that would be vastly increased if, as is generally proposed, the tank farm was attacked. Each tank was separately protected by earthen berms, only a direct hit from either a dive bomber or high level bomber would be sufficient to set fire to the bunker fuel, a couple tracer rounds wouldn't do it. Once a tank or two is hit the resulting smoke would obscure the target from that point forward (this is a serious issue when each aircraft has a single bomb, even more than is the case with strategic bombing with massed heavy bombers).

That third wave would also face a fully manned defense. Pearl Harbor had a very robust AAA capability, as is illustrated by the fact that, even in the madhouse of OTL's two waves, the attack waves suffered not just the usually discussed 27 aircraft lost over the target, but an additional 40-50 (figures vary) that made it back to the fleet and were pushed over the side as being beyond reasonable repair. All told, despite the absolute surprise and rather woeful readiness of American defenses (most AAA batteries had no ready ammunition stored at the mount, the ammo as locked away, in many cases it as necessary to use fire axes to get into storage lockers) 28% of IJN aircraft (101 out of 353) received damage either from AAA or from the limited number of defensive fighter that managed to launch. Any third wave would have had to refuel, rearm and return to Oahu, there would have been at least two, more likely three, hours between the departure of the 2nd wave and the arrival of a 3rd. It would have flown into a fully armed and manned defense, with around 20 P-40s and 10 P-36.
 
Good plan - first wave to hit all airfields and heavily mine the harbour entrances and channel. Torpedo attack on the carriers in the harbour.

Second wave to hit all the remaining ships in the anchorage with torpedo/dive bombers.

Third wave hit the drydocks, dive bomb anything still floating, maintenance stores/yards and the fuel tanks on the way out (why help out with a smoke screen) and drop some extra mines in the channel.
Each wave will be smaller than OTL though, so it might be better to leave the first wave as-is, but split the second wave into those targeting ships and those targeting infrastructure. Also, having the carriers in would be helpful.
 
So, as an opposite to the thread "Best possible Pearl Harbor for US", what chain of events would lead to the most devastating Pearl Harbor attack?

Bonus points if the US loses an aircraft carrier or more.

Admiral Nagumo lets the third strike wave go ahead, which results in the successful destruction of the fuel storage facilities on the islands. As a result, the surviving Navy forces are pulled back to San Diego, where they had previously been based anyway. Most of the Army garrison is also shipped back to CONUS.

In addition to being a serious blow to U.S. morale and a shot in the arm to the Japanese Empire, this seriously weakens American force projection early on. This could result in the loss of Midway, as well as weakening the immediate security situation on the U.S. West Coast.
 
We need to start treating this whole myth that a third strike would have caused enough destruction to the tank farm and the facilities to force the Pacific Fleet to operate from the West Coast for a year or more the same way we treat the Sea Mammal.
 
Yep, it would have been much (ie some hours) later, would have been quickly spotted (40+ minutes ahead), and would have received everything the remaining forces could throw at it. The fuel farms aren't essential, ships can reload from fuel tanker in harbour itself, and the other stuff is harder to damage.
 
Last edited:
Yep, it would have been much (ie some hours) later, would have been quickly spotted (40+ minutes ahead), and would have received everything the remaining forces could throw at it. The fuel farms aren't essential, ships can reload from fuel tanker in harbour itself, and the other stuff is harder to damage.

That and bunker fuel is a lot harder to light off than people realized. Too many people treat it like is gasoline lying around in a bunch of cans - one match and the whole smash goes up. That is most definitely not the case.

We have hashed that out on any number of threads on this forum time and again and this is why I think we need to start treating this topic like we do the Sea Mammal. First the whole third strike issue comes from a highly dubious post-war claim by Fuchida. Second, the third strike will not be anywhere near as destructive as is commonly believed. Third, the whole issue of targeting logistics and infrastructure when there were plenty of untouched ships in port is so contrary to the IJN's ultra-Mahanian outlook that it is practically ASB.
 
Worst case is around 18 hours of warning. Kimmel would sortie, likely lose one or two heavies to the IJN submarine picket line, and get caught in the open sea by overwhelming Japanese airpower. There is also the potential for at least Enterprise to come roaring back from the ferry mission to Wake and collect a torpedo or three from the picket and the outside change of her being found and sunk by the Kido Butai.

If this submarine picket line was so dangerous, why didn't they sink USS Enterprise or any of the cruisers coming and going from Pearl Harbor coming and going in the immediate aftermath?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If this submarine picket line was so dangerous, why didn't they sink USS Enterprise or any of the cruisers coming and going from Pearl Harbor coming and going in the immediate aftermath?

The Picket, for on thing, wasn't set up heavily to the southwest, the direction that the Enterprise as going to be returning from (Wake). It was focused around the Harbor and its approaches, and between Oahu and the Kido Butai to act as picket/plane guard. The elements that were to the southwest (two subs, I 68 & I 69 were 25-50 miles SW of Oahu, their mission was to retrieve the crews of the mini-subs moved post attack) when it was clear that no heavy elements were going to sortie and the mini-subs were coming back, the subs assigned to the southwest left there close patrol and headed further south. The two recovery subs would have been square across the Enterprise's course had she returned at full speed 18 hours prior to the attack.

I-68 was heavily depth charged on December 13th, SW of Pearl.

All told there were 20 Japanese boats assigned to the picket mission, in addition to the subs directly attached to the Strike Force and mini-sub mother ships. Eleven were North/Northwest Oahu, two were Southwest, the remainder were South/Southeast of the Harbor entrance waiting for the fleet to sortie.

If the fleet sortied it was sailing straight into a shooting gallery of subs with the best 21" torpedoes in the world. The chances of one or two of those boats getting lucky it off the charts.
 
...as demonstrated during the Combined Bomber Offensive machine tools are really hard to destroy. Buildings are one thing, the tools themselves are much less likely to be destroyed. working without full enclosure is much less of an issue in Hawaii than would be the case in a cold weather location.

They're high-grade steel, which is difficult to wreck without a direct hit. It's akin to trying to knock out towed artillery pieces - you can suppress them (kill the crews, or force them to take cover), and damage them - tyres, hydraulics - but destroying them outright is really hard. At Dien Bien Phu the French were able to repair their guns again and again, despite being under direct fire.

The most effective way of destroying machine tools is by sustained heat, which ruins the spindles. I'm pretty certain the KB didn't have that kind of incendiary capability.
 
Top