This is one of the things that has puzzled me about the Pearl Harbor attack. Why is it that the Japanese relied solely on bombers for the attack, rather than following up with a bombardment from their battleships, and possibly even an amphibious assault? It’s just always seemed to me that while the Japanese caused a considerable amount of damage to the Pacific Fleet in the attack, they could have had another Battle of Manila Bay had they committed the rest of their fleet…
Well, surprise was a crucial element of the plan, and sailing their battleships right on into the harbor would have deprived them of surprise. It would also have exposed the battleships to great risk.
Especially since the American carriers weren’t at Pearl, and the Japanese had no idea where they were. Had the carriers reappeared at an inopportune moment, the Japanese would probably have lost some of those battleships.
In addition to the excellent points that have been mentioned, the Japanese all did around 25 knots. (Aside: Hence, the US “fast” battleships that could do 30+ and keep up with the fleet carriers).
The slowest Japanese fleet carrier (Kaga) could do 28 and change. Slowing down your super secret strike force (or splitting it into 2 elements) isn’t a good idea.
Also, dragging those battleships across the ocean would have required a whole pile of oil which was already in short supply.
I think it would have stretched them too thin and been too risky, given all the unknowns and their limited resources.
Japan was also at the very edge of their logistical capability to launch the attack. Being able to launch planes from 250 miles at the end of your supply line is a lot different from covering those extra 250 miles and making an attack.
Ah, thanks all. This question’s just always bugged me – I assumed that there must have been a good reason to withhold the battleships (Yamamoto wasn’t an idiot, after all), but I couldn’t think of one.
loinburger, your question isn’t that out there- during the aftermath of the Battle of Midway, after Japan had lost the Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi and Kaga aircraft carriers, there were suggestions that they bombard Midway Island under cover of darkness. The idea was scrapped, however, probably in favor of minimizing loss (they also lost 2 cruisers I believe which collided into each other.)
Another point is that the Jap. Battecruisers were not nearly so good as the American ones. In one of the few, few old-style battleship fights, American vessels creamed the Japanese. Not sure if the Jap. Navy was aware of the discrepency or not.
The Battle of Surigao Straight (the last battleship vs battleship fight) was a one sided victory for the US because:
-
Admiral Oldendorf crossed the T. I believe this is actually the only time this ever happened in a battleship vs battleship fight.
-
5 of 6 of the US Battleships had fire control radar.
5 of the 6 US battleships had been hit at Pearl Harbor too, but were refitted before being sent into battle.
End result: Lots of accurate fire with little in response. It wasn’t a fair fight (in war, you don’t go for fair fights anyway).
The other battleship vs battleship combat was in the second night of the Naval battle of Guadalacanal. In this case, 2 new US battleships used radar to great advantage (ok, one used radar, the other one had a power failure and ended up doing not much).
There’s a nice battleship comparison at: http://64.124.221.191/baddest.htm
There was land-based air at Pearl too, y’know. Approaching battleships would have been spotted some distance away and the whole base would have been alerted.
First, there were no battlecruisers to speak of in the Pacific War. 2nd, the US battleships at Pearl were all built during WWI, whereas many of the Jap BBs were newer (althoug the Yamatos were not finished yet). 3rd, Japanese gunnery was excellent early in the war while the US’s wasn’t so hot at first.
The Japs crossed the Russian’s T at Tsushima with pre-dreadnoughts.
Also, the Japs were greatly outnumbered at Surigao Straight, and 1 of their 2 battleships had already been sunk by destroyers before the rest of the force met the US battle line.
What i cant stand is when people accuse the government of
knowing that Pearl Harbour was going to happen ahead of time
but didnt alert the forces because they wanted the US to have a
reason getting into the war
But if we WERE ready for them, it wouldnt change the fact taht
they DID attack and we could still go to war. The only thing that
would have changed is that we could have saved a couple ships
which would have made striking back a little easier and we could
of take several of them with us
=PK
But if the U.S. was expecting it, we would likely have repulsed the attack without incurring such heavy damage thereby lessening the emotional impact on the American people. After all, it was the shock of the loss as well as the surprise nature of it that galvanized the American public into accepting that war was now necessary.
Not that I believe that cockamanie conspiracy theory, I’m just pointing out why their paranoid theory is possible.