How bad a Pearl Harbour would be considered not a disaster

[naraic]

Alright.

Pearl Harbour was a major sneak attack by Japanese carriers against the American fleet at anchour. At the time it was considered a major disaster.

What would have changed if the attack was slightly blunted.

Let's say 30 fighters get in the air against the first wave shooting down a dozen Japanese planes (mainly over the airbases) and breaking up sufficient attacks that 50 additional planes get airborne to oppose the second wave.

In total 30 extra Japanese planes get shot down and a further 30 damaged. There are 80 extra American planes in service after the battle. There's also 8 less successful attacks (bomb or torpedo hits)[there was a total of something like 37 bomb or torpedo hits on battleships historically] on battleships.

Sufficient float planes and medium bombers survive that the Kido Butai are found and a small retaliatory airstrike is arranged that gets a hit or two with light bombs but causes only minor damage.

Other than reduced American loss of life on Pearl Harbour would a defense of this sort change anything in our impressions of Pearl Harbour. I suppose it would have been seen in retrospect as the start of the process of hard winnowing of the skilled pre war Japanese pilot group.

Would Kimmel and Short still be losing their careers after this type of Pearl Harbour.

 

[Sanderford]

Would Kimmel and Short still be losing their careers after this type of Pearl Harbour.

Yes. For all that they were aggressive and moved quickly after the war warning, they still mishandled their resources, and left their posts and personnel exposed to attack.

To answer the question, if the battleships had been sealed up for general quarters, thus leading to only one or two being sunk, as opposed to four, and the rest just being damaged, it honestly might be seen as less of a catastrophe.

 

[Alanith]

Have Lt. Kermit Tyler take the detection seriously, and send a warning to Pearl, where it gets taken seriously. Or better yet, the midget sub sinking by Ward earlier. The first would give you about 45 minutes to bring the base to full alert, get men aboard the right ships, ammunition distributed, the alert fighters scrambled, and condition Zulu set throughout the fleet. The later would give over an hour.

 

[DougM]

It would change nothing. In the grand scheme it means nothing. The fact that Japan pulled a sneak attack while still at peace is all that really matter to the war itself.
Now if you save the majority of the ships hit then it is a bit different but ultimately still does not make a huge difference in the war as it takes a while to build a big enough army/marine corp to do the invasions. And Europe first will still be a thing. So the war is not going yo change much.

 

[Sanderford]

Have Lt. Kermit Tyler take the detection seriously, and send a warning to Pearl, where it gets taken seriously. Or better yet, the midget sub sinking by Ward earlier. The first would give you about 45 minutes to bring the base to full alert, get men aboard the right ships, ammunition distributed, the alert fighters scrambled, and condition Zulu set throughout the fleet. The later would give over an hour.

This would effectively lead to what I proposed, with the addition of heavier Japanese losses, and possibly also the cancelation of the second wave of strikes.

It would change nothing. In the grand scheme it means nothing. The fact that Japan pulled a sneak attack while still at peace is all that really matter to the war itself.
Now if you save the majority of the ships hit then it is a bit different but ultimately still does not make a huge difference in the war as it takes a while to build a big enough army/marine corp to do the invasions. And Europe first will still be a thing. So the war is not going yo change much.

The OP wasn't asking if it changes anything about the war. They were asking whether the effectiveness of the raid being "blunted" would change the perception of it as the huge blow most considered it to be at the time.

 

[TonyA]

A less effective Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would be roughly the same thing as the original for one simple reason. The American public of 1941 wouldn't have anything, specifically the actual OTL raid, to compare it to. They wouldn't be sitting around like we are talking about how fewer of the BB's in port were sunk and how many more Zero's, and attack aircraft, were splashed by our guys. It's not apples and oranges, it's apple OR oranges.

 

[Sanderford]

A less effective Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would be roughly the same thing as the original for one simple reason. The American public of 1941 wouldn't have anything, specifically the actual OTL raid, to compare it to. They wouldn't be sitting around like we are talking about how fewer of the BB's in port were sunk and how many more Zero's, and attack aircraft, were splashed by our guys. It's not apples and oranges, it's apple OR oranges.

Fair point, but part of the reason it was so shocking was the perception that U.S. forces had been caught unaware and just utterly gob-smacked. If the outcome is less severe, then it is likely it can be portrayed as a bravely resisted sneak attack which, while damaging, was survived and fought off successfully.

 

[DougM]

I think y point is being miss understood.
No mater what happens it will not change the war because to the average Joe on the street it was not known how nig a disaster it was. So the only people at the time that knew it was as big a disaster as it was are in the government.
So who are we talking about viewing Pearl as a disaster? The persons point of view is critical to determine if it is a disaster,
To a Skipper if his ship is sunk or heavily damaged it is a disaster. To a pilo if he loses his aircraft on the ground it is a disaster. To the officer in charge if he gets canned and his career ended it is a disaster. To politicians. If you lose a major ship and a bunch of other damage it is a disaster.

It overall for the most part it will be a disaster as long as Japan does any significant damage and gets away basically free. So in essence as long as they get surprise, do some noticeable damage (sink or heavily damage a major ship or two). And get away basically in hurt it will be a disaster to someone and it’s end result will be pretty much the same as it was. So what I am trying to say is to answer the question we need yo know from whims perspective are we talking. A family in middle America who’s son gets killed will view this as a disaster. So short of the Japanese taking as much or more damage then the US it will be viewed as a disaster by someone

 

[1Big Rich]

The attack was badly bungled and poorly executed to begin with.

Fuchida fired the single flare to alert the pilots that surprise had been achieved, but the fighter pilots didn't see it. With surprise, the torpedo bombers were to go in first, the dive bombers after their runs.
Fuchida fired a second flare for the fighter pilots, the dive bomber pilots saw it and thought surprise was lost, and went in simultaneously with the torpedo bomber.

The torpedo bombers historical over-concentration on West Virginia and Oklahoma made those attacks less effective than they should have been.

As for preventing disaster, the Army and Navy stood down from the War Warning of November 27th on December 6th. Have them not stand down until December 8th.

I'm not sure that will save Arizona, or the over-concentrated battleships, but it will lessen the blow and inflict more damage on the Japanese. The Kido Butai might have to be reinvigorated before it can undertake something like Operation C, the Indian Ocean Raid.

My thoughts,

 

[gatordad699]

It will always be a sneak attack on a Sunday while holding peace talks at the same time. IMHO that and this

will be enough to get the same results. That’s 1,177 casualties alone.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

It will always be a sneak attack on a Sunday while holding peace talks at the same time. IMHO that and this
View attachment 665097
will be enough to get the same results. That’s 1,177 casualties alone.

Of course if the AA guns of the fleet and base are manned and firing that's a lot of flak which will make accurate level bombing a lot harder. Even moreso if a few squadrons of fighters are airborne as well