Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86
From: lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:53:22 -0500
References: <mailman.1117.1265359061.73134.lug@leica-users.org>

Mark writes:
Whatever the origin of the pictures, they do illustrate the terrifying
effects of a major attack.  I haven't read much about the history of the
Pacific war, but that attack must have really hurt the US's capability
to wage war for quite some considerable time.  How long did it take to
rebuild those ships and train replacement sailors and marines?

- - - - - -

I'm not a military historian but it is my belief that the Japanese Pearl
Harbor attack did not achieve its objectives regardless of the number of
ships sunk and people killed. The attack occurred at a time when naval
warfare was changing from a combat between ships at comparatively short
range using cannons to one where ships battled at long range using aircraft.
The US carrier fleet was not in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and escaped
intact. The subsequent battle of Midway was largely a carrier operation
which inflicted disproportionate losses on the Japanese navy and turned the
tide of the Pacific war.
Larry Z


Replies: Reply from mark at whitedogs.co.uk (Mark Pope) ([Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86)
Reply from shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86)
Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86)