|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 30, 2017 11:05:35 GMT -6
Interesting question and the standard answer for over sixty-one years was the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, when the dive bombers of the first wave of attackers hit the airfields at Hickam, Wheeler, Kanoehe, Bellows and Ewa.
At 0637 on December 7, 1941, while patrolling outside the Pearl Harbor entrance, the USS Ward sighted a periscope following the USS Antares, Minesweeper Condor had spotted the same periscope. This periscope was a Japanese midget submarine attempting to enter the harbor. At 0640 Ward attacked that submarine after increasing speed to 25 knots. Ward opened fire at 0645 and began dropping depth charges. The number 3 gun at a range of 560 yards struck the submarine at the waterline near the junction of the conning tower and the hull. The Ward claimed a square positive hit. The men manning that gun were from the St. Paul Minnesota reserve.
A dispatch was sent by voice transmission to the Commandant of the Fourteenth Navy District at 0645. Nothing was done, no alert was sounded and one hour later, the Japanese aircraft attacked the fleet. A true warning had been missed because no one believed a bunch of reservist could have identified and hit that submarine.
In 2002, the Hawaii Undersea Research Lab discovered that submarine, with a hole in her conning tower exactly where the Ward gunners and observers had claimed they hit her. So, after sixty-one years, the real answer to the question of who fired the first shot and sank the first vessel, is the United States, well over an hour before the Imperial Japanese Naval air strike commenced.
Just thought that this historical change of events as we know it, was interesting. There are many such changes in our view of historical events with the passage of time and further research.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 31, 2017 14:30:54 GMT -6
And without even a warning first. "Remember the No. 20!" Doesn't really have the same ring as "Remember the Arizona!" or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" My understanding was ADM Kimmel had been informed but there had been a lot of false alarm submarine reports in the previous weeks so they were waiting for confirmation when the Japanese planes began dropping their bombs. Almost cost the Japanese the element of surprise for what was essentially a test run of the midget subs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 31, 2017 15:24:39 GMT -6
And without even a warning first. "Remember the No. 20!" Doesn't really have the same ring as "Remember the Arizona!" or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" My understanding was ADM Kimmel had been informed but there had been a lot of false alarm submarine reports in the previous weeks so they were waiting for confirmation when the Japanese planes began dropping their bombs. Almost cost the Japanese the element of surprise for what was essentially a test run of the midget subs. Here is a cut from the Nimitz Report on the Attack: I have highlighted some important times: examine the time the voice transmission was transmitted: 0645. Now examine the time of its receipt: 0712. That's twenty seven minutes. Why, in heaven did it take that long for a voice transmission in the clear to be read, copied and forwarded to the CinC 14th Naval District. By the time that Monaghan was told to go to sea, and close the gates, to verify the contact, it was 35 minutes and only 20 minutes left before the attack at 0755. That's a very critical 35 minutes, in my estimation.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 31, 2017 15:39:36 GMT -6
I'm not excusing it although I think Kimmel and Short were unfairly scapegoated. Hell, MacArthur let the same thing happen to him in the Philippines a few hours later and he had prior warning.
All I can guess is it was early Sunday in Paradise. Everybody seemed to be expecting war but everybody also seemed equally convinced that the first blow could never come at Pearl Harbor. That the Japanese just weren't capable of pulling something like that off. Also, the many false sub sightings prior to had a crying wolf effect.
But no doubt, a lot of balls were dropped that day and the Japanese were badly underestimated.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 31, 2017 18:32:44 GMT -6
I'm not excusing it although I think Kimmel and Short were unfairly scapegoated. Hell, MacArthur let the same thing happen to him in the Philippines a few hours later and he had prior warning. All I can guess is it was early Sunday in Paradise. Everybody seemed to be expecting war but everybody also seemed equally convinced that the first blow could never come at Pearl Harbor. That the Japanese just weren't capable of pulling something like that off. Also, the many false sub sightings prior to had a crying wolf effect. But no doubt, a lot of balls were dropped that day and the Japanese were badly underestimated. The ball was really dropped in Washington, because neither on-scene commander got the appropriate warnings that the should and yes, they were scapegoats. But we knew that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible, we had done it with Saratoga during wargames. It should have come as no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 31, 2017 23:40:51 GMT -6
It is inexcusable that Kimmel and Short were relieved and MacArthur was retained. As bcoopactual says, he and his staff had prior warning. There were just a lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong (about the main threat being sabotage, about the feasibility of dropping torpedoes in a shallow harbor, and so on and so forth. We had the information and we had the facts but people didn't want to hear. The main culprit (I think) is another man who was promoted after being mainly responsible for the intelligence failure - Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner. From the Wiki: Turner also bears responsibility for another disaster - he pushed Admiral Ghormley into putting his friend, Admiral Daniel Callaghan, in command of the US task force at First Guadalcanal over the more experienced Admiral Norman Scott, the victor at Cape Esperance. Callaghan had no experience manuevering ships at night in combat and made no use of his radar-equipped ships or radio, just steaming head-on into the Japanese formation. A good officer and a nice guy, by all accounts, but manifestly not as qualified or experienced as Scott. Callaghan had no business being there but just wanted a combat command and got one. The US force was gutted and the death toll was frightful, including Norman Scott - our only experienced night-fighter. Turner was successful as an amphib force commander, but everyone who worked for him detested him.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2017 8:13:29 GMT -6
It is inexcusable that Kimmel and Short were relieved and MacArthur was retained. As bcoopactual says, he and his staff had prior warning. There were just a lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong (about the main threat being sabotage, about the feasibility of dropping torpedoes in a shallow harbor, and so on and so forth. We had the information and we had the facts but people didn't want to hear. The main culprit (I think) is another man who was promoted after being mainly responsible for the intelligence failure - Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner. From the Wiki: Turner also bears responsibility for another disaster - he pushed Admiral Ghormley into putting his friend, Admiral Daniel Callaghan, in command of the US task force at First Guadalcanal over the more experienced Admiral Norman Scott, the victor at Cape Esperance. Callaghan had no experience manuevering ships at night in combat and made no use of his radar-equipped ships or radio, just steaming head-on into the Japanese formation. A good officer and a nice guy, by all accounts, but manifestly not as qualified or experienced as Scott. Callaghan had no business being there but just wanted a combat command and got one. The US force was gutted and the death toll was frightful, including Norman Scott - our only experienced night-fighter. Turner was successful as an amphib force commander, but everyone who worked for him detested him. The chain of responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster begins with FDR, and moves through the State Department, intelligence services, and through each service. At each level there was enough blame for all. The CNO should have made it clear that Naval Intelligence was to report to him, not to War Plans although both should have worked together. But this is typical of a peacetime organization. The responsibility for the fleet being moved to Pearl Harbor on the objections by the previous command of the US Pacific Fleet rests with FDR. Admiral Richardson had made special trip to Washington to explain his case, and for that, he was fired. It was Admiral Kimmel's failure to order the deployment of the torpedo nets, which although heavy and not easy to remove, were the best protection against the one weapon that could sink those battleships. It was General Short's failure to deploy his AA guns, along with expediting the installation of the radar warning system and fighter command facility that left the fleet essentially defenseless. It was the Army that was responsible for the fleet's protection while in port. The list is almost endless, and believe me there was enough finger pointing to reach all parts of the government.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2017 9:43:49 GMT -6
I thought it might be interesting to expand this re-examination of historical events. One such event was the sinking of the Titanic. Many survivors reported that the stern had broken away from the ship as it rose, with the bow sinking down. It was never confirmed and the White Star adamantly denied the ship would break.
The expedition by Dr. Ballard confirmed what those survivors had reported was valid, Titanic had broken just about at the aft expansion joint about frame 25. This breakup actually makes sense, because as the bow and midsection filled with water and dived beneath the waves, the stern rose. However, the stern's weight, even filled with air, was considerable and overstressed the joint at frame 25. At about 17 degrees, this height is contested, the event occurred and the stern settled back into the water. It then began to fill up, and eventually turned and sank. It ended up about a mile to a mile and half away from the rest of the ship. Some experts say that the break occurred at the bottom and that there had to be a large section lying somewhere. A later expedition did indeed find that section of the double bottom confirming that the when she broke, a big piece had disconnected and floated away. Again, our historical information is now changed or at least modified by marine archeologists and naval architects. Our knowledge of the sinking is now much more clear. We now know due to metallurgical studies that the rivets which held the curved plates near the bottom, were not of a good quality iron, #3 instead of the standard #4, and this contributed to the disaster. We now have a much clearer picture of string of design, procedure and command mistakes that when linked together, ultimately caused the sinking of the Titanic.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 1, 2017 19:58:59 GMT -6
One point is that eyewitness accounts differed very widely - some survivors said the stern broke away and other said it remained attached. As you note, it did detach - and was ripped apart by the air trapped inside as it sank. The bow section, having flooded, survived mostly intact until it hit the bottom at over forty miles per hour.
As you say, there was a long chain of events, and all of the links had to be in place for the sinking to occur as it did. All three of the Olympics were involved in accidents or disasters - Olympic in one collision and one near-collision, Titanic lost on her maiden voyage in a freak accident and Britannic sunk by a single mine despite having been extensively modified after Titanic's loss. Admittedly these ships were far bigger than others of the time, but other shipping companies seem to have had better safety records.
Olympic had a long service life (despite her early collision) so a very slight change in any one of a dozen things might have made Titanic famous rather than infamous.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2017 21:05:15 GMT -6
One point is that eyewitness accounts differed very widely - some survivors said the stern broke away and other said it remained attached. As you note, it did detach - and was ripped apart by the air trapped inside as it sank. The bow section, having flooded, survived mostly intact until it hit the bottom at over forty miles per hour. As you say, there was a long chain of events, and all of the links had to be in place for the sinking to occur as it did. All three of the Olympics were involved in accidents or disasters - Olympic in one collision and one near-collision, Titanic lost on her maiden voyage in a freak accident and Britannic sunk by a single mine despite having been extensively modified after Titanic's loss. Admittedly these ships were far bigger than others of the time, but other shipping companies seem to have had better safety records. Olympic had a long service life (despite her early collision) so a very slight change in any one of a dozen things might have made Titanic famous rather than infamous. Eyewitness accounts do often differ especially from where they might be floating or whatever. Here is a real example. There is an old gentleman, a survivor of Pearl Harbor and the West Virginia who states in front of a large crowd during the church Veteran's Day ceremony that his turret on the WV, X turret was hit by a bomb that exploded. He and one other man managed to escape out a side hatch. Sounds really good and everybody was impressed. One major issue, that bomb did not explode, neither did the one that hit the forecastle, second deck. It was found intact, and the one that hit his turret shattered after penetrating the turret roof, damaged one the gun breeches.... but it did not explode. Pieces were found and sent to Washington for analysis. So, what killed his other crew mates? The fire caused by the high octane aviation gas in the Kingfisher scout bird sitting on the catapult on his turret. When the torpedoes hit, the WV rolled to port by 20 degrees. This caused that and another Kingfisher to fall into the cat walk along side the turret and the gas ignited, engulfing the whole stern of the ship. So, do I tell him, or let him go to his grave believing what he thinks happened. Again, eyewitness accounts have value but must be accompanied by good analysis of the actual facts of the event. As to the three sisters, these were the largest ships of their type, built during this era and I don't believe any of the crews who were used to the smaller ships, were comfortable with them or understood the problems. The officer on the bridge of Titanic certainly didn't understand how long she was and how long it would take to move the bow away from the iceberg. Small chains of events can cause big disasters.
|
|
|
Post by bridav58 on Feb 15, 2017 16:55:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2017 9:22:21 GMT -6
As we have all understood, in the heat of action there is a wide gulf between what actually occurred and what the participants perceive happened. Oklahoma is one example, Arizona, West Virginia are some. Washington and kirishima is another. In peacetime, this also happens with events such as Titanic and the loss of airliners. With the loss of a ship or aircraft, we have to find that wreck and investigate it to really figure out how it occurred and why.
|
|
|
Post by bridav58 on Feb 27, 2017 14:59:47 GMT -6
A bit OT but over on civilwartalk.com I was giving my take on Donald Canney's book of Confederate Steam Navy ,in it he credits the CSS Virginia II with 8" of armor on the bow & 6" on the sides when a lot of sources show her with 6" on the bow,5" on the sides. It seems Mr Canney was able to find some documentation in the Official Records of the Civil War to support his statement. However to be fair another book on the Confederate Navy written back in the 1880's(by William Scharff) stated the very same thing but a lot of people have ignored it. It's also interesting that the 20 hit meme by Washington on Kirishima was discussed in a Japanese language publication as long ago as the early 60's.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2017 15:12:29 GMT -6
A bit OT but over on civilwartalk.com I was giving my take on Donald Canney's book of Confederate Steam Navy ,in it he credits the CSS Virginia II with 8" of armor on the bow & 6" on the sides when a lot of sources show her with 6" on the bow,5" on the sides. It seems Mr Canney was able to find some documentation in the Official Records of the Civil War to support his statement. However to be fair another book on the Confederate Navy written back in the 1880's(by William Scharff) stated the very same thing but a lot of people have ignored it. It's also interesting that the 20 hit meme by Washington on Kirishima was discussed in a Japanese language publication as long ago as the early 60's. Interesting, and this does happen over time as more documents are released and found in locations no one would have thought to examine. Some officers of the Civil War kept their documents and it wasn't until later that families found those records.
|
|