Written by: 12/7/2011 4:10 PM
If you are interested in taking a step back into history on this, the 70th anniversary of the attack at Pearl Harbor, I encourage you to read, “Pearl Harbor's Overlooked Answer.” This article is written by Jonathan Parshall and J. Michael Wenger and appears in the December 2011 issue of the Naval History Magazine.
From official investigations to conspiracy theories, efforts to account for how the United States was caught so unprepared on December 7, 1941 have almost all failed to take into account that the attackers were wielding a quickly evolving aircraft carrier force that would revolutionize naval warfare.
Accurately assessing a potential enemy threat hinges on one’s appreciation of the enemy’s capabilities. If you don’t know what your adversary can do, it is nearly impossible to predict likely operational targets or ways to forestall attacks. In the case of the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S. Navy had no real inkling of Japanese carrier warfare capabilities and therefore could not accurately assess likely operational targets.
The picture that emerges is of an enemy carrier force whose capabilities in late 1941 were mutating almost overnight. The Kido Butai of December 1941 was entirely different from the force that began exercising together in the summer of that year. It was 50 percent larger in terms of flight decks, could make much longer voyages, and was capable of speedily launching and efficiently coordinating huge groups of attack aircraft. In their frantic efforts to prepare for Pearl Harbor, the Japanese had created a brand-new monster.
0 comment(s) so far...
The vice chief of naval operations delivered a Secretary of the Navy Guest Lecture (SGL) to students, faculty and staff of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Feb. 16 in King Auditorium.
The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (ALCSG) launched its first combat sorties this deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Feb. 16.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced Feb. 16 the four Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers which will be forward deployed to Rota, Spain.
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON)(SS/SW) Rick D. West testified before Congress Feb. 16. MCPON appeared before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.
Navy's contract for job search and assistance to help Sailors separating by the Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) is well underway, an official said Feb. 17.
The vice chief of naval operations (VCNO) concluded a three-day engagement visit to Canberra and Darwin, Australia, Feb. 21.
The Navy continued to emphasize the policy of zero tolerance for substance abuse by separating 1,515 Sailors in fiscal year 2011 for synthetic chemical compounds, commonly called Spice, and other drug usage according to an official Feb. 21.
Vice Adm. William R. Burke, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics (N4), announced the winners in the fiscal year (FY) 2011 Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Environmental Awards competition, Feb. 22.
The Navy Personnel Command (NPC) fleet engagement team is scheduled to meet with Sailors, families and leadership in the Pacific Northwest Feb. 21-23 to discuss post-Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) matters and transition benefits, officials said Feb. 14.
Results from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 performance-based board for continuation of senior enlisted (SECB) were posted in Bupers Online (BOL) for individual Sailors access, according to NAVADMIN 054/12, released Feb. 14.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced Feb. 15 the next five Navy ships; three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, USS John Finn, USS Ralph Johnson, and USS Rafael Peralta, and two littoral combat ships (LCS), USS Sioux City and USS Omaha.
The vice chief of naval operations (VCNO) concluded a two-day visit to Singapore Feb. 23.
Led by the University of Michigan, the NEEC is composed of the U.S. Navy, The American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE), The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) and 15 institutions of higher education all of which are based in the U.S.A. The NEEC leverages this collection of partnerships to share knowledge and resources in addition to creating a consistent learning experience regardless of where you obtain your Naval Engineering education.
Fax: (734) 764-9649 Office Contact: rpmartin@GoNEEC.org Communications Contact: kbretziu@GoNEEC.org