Was the failure of the Pearl Harbor attack the BIGGEST military fuck-up ever...

So in your mind, for example, the Sinking of Force Z, or the Yamato, were tactical defeats as well?

Was getting their battleship sunk a tactical victory for the Japs?

>None of those pre North Carolina class BB were ever used in first line duty,
What the fuck do you mean by "first line duty" if I may ask?

The main objectives were the battleships and carriers, not one or the other.

Both the Repulse and the PoW, as well as the Yamato later, were actually front-line ships. They saw action, and what was more, were actively deployed with the notion of making contact with enemy surface vessels. The battleships sunk at Pearl were not, and none of the ships that were spared ever saw action with enemy vessels; they were used as second ecehlon defense, far away from the heavily contested areas, or primarily for shore bombardment.

Sinking the former is a tactical victory. Sinking the latter is about on par with blowing up some warehouses. It would be like calling the sinking of the Idzumo or the Erebus a "tactical success".

>a country that has another 13 to throw immediately and more under construction
What 13 battleships did US have to throw immediately into the Pacific? Go ahead and list them.

>The battleships sunk at Pearl were not, and none of the ships that were spared ever saw action with enemy vessels
Why do you post on a Veeky Forumstory board if you have zero knowledge and probably no interest in actual history at all?

To accompany strike fleets, or to patrol in areas bordering Japanese ZoC. Something where they were likely to actually function as a capital ship, and fight the main enemy strength on the water.

"Strike fleet" is not a term of art. It's a lazy term you made up and pulled out of your ass. If you want to have a meaningful discussion,don't use your personal secret language like some autist.

hmm lets see, didn't hit fuel tanks, didnt hit carriers (main part), didnt hit repair yards, didnt hit submarines. pretty much everything damaged was fixed within a year, this is basic highschool history senpai

>The battleships sunk at Pearl were not, and none of the ships that were spared ever saw action with enemy vessels;
California, Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia fought against enemy battleships.

In no particular order:

Mississippi, Texas, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Nevada, and the Wyoming, if anyone bothered to take it out of mothballs.

I stand corrected. They saw action against surface ships once, at Suraigo strait. Big deal.

They couldn't accompany the carriers, and everyone on this thread knows it. Stop pretending any of the pre NC class BB meant a damn. They didn't. If you couldn't manage over 25 knots, you were pretty much worthless in the vastness of the Pacific.

>Mississippi, Texas, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Nevada, and the Wyoming, if anyone bothered to take it out of mothballs.
This is a history board, not Veeky Forums. History, whether you like it or not, is based on things that happened, i.e. facts. And the fact is USN could spare 3 battleships to the Pacific.

>I stand corrected. They saw action against surface ships once, at Suraigo strait. Big deal.
And the Iowa-class saw action against a training ship and a fleeing destroyer.

> It would be like calling the sinking of the Idzumo...a "tactical success"
It absolutely fucking was. What you think the American Navy was dissapointed that it sank? Do you think the Japanese wanted it sunk?

>And the fact is USN could spare 3 battleships to the Pacific.

The fact is that every U.S. BB design could navigate the Panama canal, which meant that transferrance to the Pacific was something they could do anytime they wanted to.

The fact was, those old BB were pretty worthless, and were not relaly needed until they were bakc on the offensive and were used primarily for shore bombardment. The fact was, the Mississippi, Idaho, and New Mexico at the very least WERE transferred over to the Pacific, which gives them more than 3 right there.

>And the Iowa-class saw action against a training ship and a fleeing destroyer.

The Iowa class was fast enough to protect a carrier on the move, and deter attempts to force a surface range confrontation that never historically happened. A Pennsylvania or New Mexico class ship would be some hundred kilometers behind valiantly but futilely trying to keep up.

>It absolutely fucking was.

It's also not one that shifts the balance of power in any meaningful way.

>Do you think the Japanese wanted it sunk?

It honestly probably was not worth the amount of oil it took to keep it fueled. But I digress; I mean yeah, if you want to say for what it was, the Japanese sank/bottomed 4 BB for very little loss. Given the rather limited strategic use of said old BB, one wonders exactly how much this "tactical victory" was worth, even in the short term.

Seriously what kind of dumb buck toothed jap just sends out bombers without intell on the air carriers being there. They didn't even have static intell of the fuel tank locations

>It's also not one that shifts the balance of power in any meaningful way.
What do you think a tactical victory is?

>Yeah, let's just send some scout planes to hang out above their most important naval base. I'm sure they won't react or anything.

A tactical victory is one in which one, but not all goals of an operation is achieved.

So, for instance, the usual rationale for Pearl Harbor is to do enough damage that the U.S. Would either stay out of the Pacific, or to neuter the fleet in the 6-12 month timeframe that the Japanese expected the war to last.

The U.S. obviously entered the war in the Pacific, and we're not hiding away in their bases. True, they lost a hell of a lot more than they won in those first months, but it's hard to directly attribute that to the missing BB that were knocked out at Pearl, again, these were primarily carrier fights like Coral Sea, and it's hard to see how battleships too slow to keep up with the carriers could have meaningfully contributed.

Therefore, it's hard to see what operational objective was actually furthered, and how this is a tactical victory at all.

>I stand corrected. They saw action against surface ships once, at Suraigo strait. Big deal.
You do realize the vast majority of the US carriers only fought one battle against enemy fleets, right? Exactly as many as those 20 knot battleships.

>Mississippi, Texas, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Nevada
Dude, some of those ships are on the list of ships damaged at Pearl Harbor, and all but a small number were all tied up in Atlantic Ocean commitments. Seriously why can't kiddies today do at least a couple minutes of wikipedia research before shitposting?

>The fact is that every U.S. BB design could navigate the Panama canal, which meant that transferrance to the Pacific was something they could do anytime they wanted to.
So when you made your post about 13 battleships the US could throw at the Pacific, you really meant ships that could cross the Panama canal, not ships that were available?

So to sum up, you made the following grade school-tier factual mistakes in this thread:
>didn't know which ships were damaged
>didn't know that damaged ships later fought against other ships
>didn't know that most essex-class carriers only fought one battle against other ships and were primarily used for shore bombardment
>didn't know that us battleships had commitments
>didn't know how many battleships the USN had
>didn't know what objectives the Kido Butai had
Honestly I don't think you should be making a thread about Pearl Harbor or WW2 to be very highly honest.

I'm going to throw in "don't know the meaning of terms used."

>You do realize the vast majority of the US carriers only fought one battle against enemy fleets, right?

You are aware that the carriers were the main weapon used against Japan, right? That the destruction of enemy capital ships were overwhelmingly caused by CVP, that the defeat and defense against Japanese LBA was primarily from CVP and that pretty much all U.S. strategy in the Pacific was based around carriers?

If you lose the old BB, American plans can still continue forward; if you lose the CV, they can't.

>dude, some of those ships are on the list of ships damaged at Pearl Harbor

And repaired within weeks.

>and all but a small number were all tied up in Atlantic Ocean commitments.

So? The fact that they weren't used didn't mean they COULDN'T have been used. In fact, it's telling that most of the Standard class was not primarily used in the Pacific, because they weren't capable of being useful there.

>So when you made your post about 13 battleships the US could throw at the Pacific, you really meant ships that could cross the Panama canal, not ships that were available?

No, I meant ships that were available, not necessarily ships that actually were used.

Hence, the wording "Had another 13 to throw"

Also, the Essexes weren't around at the time of Pearl Harbor, you retard. If we're going to count ships under construction, I need to add another pile of BB, making Pearl even more irrelevant.

Pot, meet kettle.