Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:27:55 -0400
"Brad Meyer" <bradm110@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mla8631nlr988b9gbioncc9rjuaqdrc65j@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:27:50 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
<gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How about the
Marines are able to capture a working airfield at the start?
Not on Guadacanal. They were well over a weel getting it into shape
for operations. Lter in the war US forces would build airstrips from
scratch in less time then it took to get Henderson operational.
Could you perhaps leave the text I was reply to in the post, since it
was about how much more difficult it would have been to capture
Guadalcanal if the Japanese airfield has been in operation.
As noted if the airfield was operational it should mean any invasion
was spotted before it arrived. I really doubt Japanese logistics were
up to equipping such an airfield with the airpower to stop 3 USN
aircraft carriers. So it really comes down to whether the Japanese
would have shipped in any additional ground combat forces versus
the Marines inheriting a more ready to go airfield.
As far as I am aware the IJN plan to attack Midway was decided
before the Doolittle raid.
No, it was mooted before the raid and turned down. It was resurrected
after the raid.
The time line I have is Yamamoto pushing it in March as the next plan after
the Indian Ocean operations, and he had his way before the Doolittle raid
hit. The raid itself convinced some of the doubters and silenced others,
which meant the discussion of the alternatives was curtailed and awkward
questions like how does the IJN keep Midway supplied were dropped.
Though I suspect as far as Yamamoto was concerned such supply runs
were good excuses to hunt the USN again.
Remember the time line leading to Pearl Harbor and the way plenty of
IJN officers were either against the idea or very dubious about it, the
same thing applies to the Midway operation.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Brad Meyer
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- References:
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Geoffrey Sinclair
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Brad Meyer
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Geoffrey Sinclair
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Joe Osman
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Geoffrey Sinclair
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- From: Brad Meyer
- Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- Prev by Date: Re: Japanese Navy ships sunk near Malaya, Borneo, and Singapore
- Next by Date: Re: "Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe"?
- Previous by thread: Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- Next by thread: Re: IJN and Pearl Harbor: oil fields were left intact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|