[Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 86

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


The didn't get our  Aircraft carriers.
If it were not for THEIR carriers their would be no battle but they didn't
look hard enough to find and take out ours. And it was carriers which proved
to be the main weapon in the war. Much more so than battleships.
This I just read somewhere last month. Forgot where.
But as I read it it must be true.
And I didn't read it in an iPad or on the internet; I read it in a real book
with ink and paper.


[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner