Who is at fault for the defeat at Pearl Harbor Admiral Kimmel or others?

[Boats]

Who is at fault for the defeat at Pearl Harbor Admiral Kimmel or others?
By Er3jen
RE: http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_is_at_f...mmel_or_others

Without question, it is the complacency and incompetence of American Commanders, which allowed the disaster at Pearl Harbor to happen, as well as the disaster in the Philippines.

Admiral Kimmel cannot be excused, though his failings are nothing like those of General Short. To begin with, the British had demonstrated in their attack on the Italian port of Taranto that air power was a deadly force. On November 11th, 1940, more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British FAA (Fleet Air Arm) made a daring raid on the Italian Port of Taranto. Flying in two waves, the FAA Swordfish Torpedo Bombers attacked at night! It was a very small affair by comparison to the later Japanese plan, but
it was highly successful.

For the cost of two aircraft, three prisoners, and one killed, the British had sunk three battleships, seriously damaged two cruisers, and destroyed the oil tanks at the Italian Seaplane Base. The Italians had failed to deploy anti-torpedo nets because they believed the harbor was too shallow to facilitate a torpedo attack from aircraft. Like the Japanese, the British Admirals had conducted extensive planning and thought before attempting this raid. Reconnaissance was employed to assure that the targets were still in harbor. The Aircraft to be used were very vulnerable to air attack, so they were employed at night when the enemy had no night fighter coverage.

Shallow harbor depth was discounted since the Swordfish Torpedo Bomber could fly as slowly as 45mph with excellent control. It was therefore capable of gently setting its torpedoes in the sea. The Italians did employ barage balloons with anti-aircraft cables suspended beneath; The whole point of such balloons. However, the Swordfish were able to fly so slowly with such excellent control that they were able fly below the balloons and through the cables! Doubtless, much damage was the result of the Italians firing on each other in the confusion. Every Commander in the world knew about the British success at Taranto. Admiral Kimmel, like all American Commanders, was aware that war with Japan was a foregone conclusion, and that it most likely would happen very soon.

The Fact is that Kimmel provided even less protection that the Italians did. There were no Barage Ballons deployed at Pearl Harbor. Anti-aircraft defenses were virtually non existent in that they were neither prepared or manned. No observer corps was active, deployed, or even thought of, despite the British experience in combating the Nazis, which would have, at least, given a few minutes warning. No American fighters were kept in a state of standby, armed and manned, ready for immediate action.

The Japanese did possess 2nd line biplane torpedo bombers which could also have been employed in a precursory night attack. Even this had not been thought of despite Taranto, and no searchlights were in place to support the unthoughtful of and un-prepared anti-aircraft defenses. No, Admiral Kimmel and General Short contented themselves with the idea that the Japanese would attack Douglas in the Philippines. That was the idiotic accepted set-piece war plan. They completely failed their charges and thousands died as a result. A real professional soldier would have taken notice of a few accepted practices for a possible air attack, however unlikely!

At no time was a surprise inspection done of command and communication centers, which virtually did not exist by comparison with British and German C&C Centers.

There was no review of the British Experience, who had been at war for over two years.

The simple things which might have helped greatly were not even considered. Only incomplete air patrols were implemented. The admiral and General relied far too much on junior officers, who were unwilling to make unpopular recommendations.

They themselves, Kimmel and Short, both failed to discharge their duties, acted almost independently of each other, totally failed to review recent known experiences with nations already at war, thereby completely overlooking lessons already learned. Thus, implementing some practical solutions to the threat. Lets move on and consider what could have been the experience at Pearl Harbor for the Japanese. General Short and Admiral Kimmel hold several meetings to discuss how to better prepare for an attack. They conclude that the command and communication center is virtually useless without being staffed around the clock by senior officers. Thereby, not leave critical career making choices up to junior levels who would be loath to sound the alarm. Lacking sufficient patrol aircraft they order the implementation of an "Observer Corps".

It is futher agreed that, in light of the recent War Warnings from Washington, they should install anti-aircraft defenses which will be manned and armed at all times. Perhaps the Japanese will make a bombing attack by some secret ultra long range bomber, so they also install search lights with the anti-aircraft guns. Finally, the Army Air Corps is to condense its aircraft to prevent sabotage, but will also maintain twenty five pursuit aircraft on standby, fully armed and manned around the clock, like the British did in the Blitz. These improvements, together with the new radar system should, at least, prevent a complete surprise attack. Blunting an all out slaughter. As an after thought, Admiral Kimmel orders each ship to maintain twenty percent of the anti-aircraft mounts on the ships manned and ready at all times.

He further orders the placement of anti-torpedo netting alongside half the battle wagons. There is little doubt that such changes would have lessened the damage and loss of life. further, it would have been difficult for anyone to accuse Kimmel or Short of negligence had they made at least a few preparations based upon those which were already standard practice with the nations already at war. Admiral Kimmel and General Short utterly failed to take in to account any thing which had been instituted by any combatant, friendly or not, and consider if they too might profit from those experiences and procedures. This makes them culpable, it was their charge, they were the supposed professionals. Yes, they were responsible, they were derelict in their duties and performance. Had either one of them done just one or more of the things mentioned it would be much harder to find them at fault.

Answer Just one thing, the main point you seem to make was Taranto....In Taranto the water depth was roughly 14 to 15 fathoms (6 feet per fathom=about 90 feet) while at its deepest in the channels, Pearl Harbor was 40 feet. There is no comparison here. Besides this Admiral Kimmel's superiors supported and suggested that A/T nets were not a good idea as there usefulness was greatly debatable but their hindrance (emergency sorties, heavy, expensive, had to ship from U.S. etc.) made them less desirable by all. Another thing, supplies were in constant demand at Pearl Harbor.

Kimmel and Short were constantly asking and being denied supplies that they so desperately needed. Answer The blame lies primarily with President Roosevelt who allowed Pearl Harbor to be hit so that he could involve the US in the European war, and Admiral King who ignored a warning from the British. Kimmel and Short were the scapegoats. As for Taranto, the British got much more bang for their buck than the Japanese did. The Royal Italian Navy should have ruled the Med, but after Taranto it was crippled. The US Navy should have been crippled at Pearl Harbor, but it came back to rule the Pacific.