 | This is an archive of past discussions about Attack on Pearl Harbor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive02. Thank you. —wwoods 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here so forgive me if I'm stumbling into the process wrong-footed. I have copy of the map that shows the routes of the Japanese ships AND shows where the Lexington and Enterprise were during that time period. This information was taken from the logs of the ships as shown in the Congressional Hearings. If it would be helpful please note so and tell me where to send the image.
Also, according the orders, the Japanese were to attack carriers first, and then battleships and so on. If there had been carriers AND battleships in the harbor the force was to have split their time between the two types.
- Sounds quite useful. Use the sidebar option Upload file and upload it into Wikipedia (giving it an appropriate name of course). Then you can put it in the article with [[Image:myPicture]] command (where myPicture is the name of the picture you uploaded.
- Welcome to the Wikipedia. Oberiko 16:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Japanese target wasn't really the American navy at all, but rather the aircraft carriers. That would have neutralized the ability of the air force to make attacks in the Pacific, and so could have had a significant imapact. Of course it means Pearl Harbor was a complete failure, since the aircraft carriers were not in port at the time. The above should probably be changed to mention all this, though I'm not quite sure how.
- This relates to the 'half the fleet in Atlantic' problem. There were six carriers in the fleet, three were stationed in the Atlantic. If the three Pacific carriers had been sunk, the US Navy still could have operated in the Pacific with the other three carriers. Not as effectively as it did with all 6 carriers, but effectively enough to make their presence felt.
- See also : World War II
Hello, previous writer. You seem to know a lot about this, which is why I haven't changed the article, but I have a couple of comments.
Your first sentence above is not mistaken, but it is in error nonetheless. US air forces (lowercase) may have been the target, but the US Air Force (capitals) was not created until after the war. At this time, both the army and the navy had "air forces" and it was the army's air force that became the USAF. The Navy still has its air force. To say "the navy was not the target, the air force was" would be quite misleading. Carrier strategy is as much or more a naval strategy as it is an air strategy.
Why not just add something like this? "The main Japanese target was the three aircraft carriers stationed in the Pacific, but they were not in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack."
The ultimate fate of the 22 Japanese ships is a non sequitur. I'd lose it.
There should be a much bigger article than this. ortolan88
I've been de-sub-paging some of the WW2 articles. Does anyone know if there is a way to refer to Japanese ships that parallels the use of "USS" for American ships? Eclecticology, Tuesday, July 2, 2002
- Is "maru" just for civilian ships? -- isis 09:02 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
The appropriate term is "HIJMS", for "His Imperial Japanese Majeesty's Ship" -- Noel