Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#226

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Jan 2009, 13:58

Hi Guys,

If you don't get beyond the internet, you are not going to penetrate even to secondary sources, let alone primary ones.

With regard to the canal's air defences, I would recommend the following secondary source:

Alae Supra Canalem :Wings over the Canal : The Sixth Air Force and the Antilles Air Command
by Dan Hagedorn.

Copies are available on Amazon.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#227

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 15:23

The SAME alert was ALSO sent to the Canal Zone from the War Depratment Message Centre Code Room at 12:05 on December 7th 1941; there is NO trace of it having to be resent in any other way, or of it not being received, so the Commander, Canal Zone received a War Alert roughly 90+ minutes before Pearl Harbour was attacked, ... - No record of it not being received does NOT guarantee that it was received, nor that it was delivered to anyone of importance in the Panama defence Chain of Commad. Good try though.
Robert, you're working with the SAME kind of blinkers as before - just because YOU can't find it, it never happened :lol: YOU need to prove having said that that it wasn't received. I'VE shown that it was both sent AND there were none of the same issues as at Manila or Oahu.
"On Friday, 12 December, five days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Secretary Stimson was amazed to find that no scheme for establishing unity of command in Panama had been worked out. Aroused by the thought that the canal would probably be one of the next objectives of the Japanese, he had General Marshall draw up a proposed directive placing all Army and Navy forces in the Panama Coastal Frontier, except fleet units, under Army command, and later in the day Mr. Stimson laid the proposal before the Cabinet.3 The President approved the idea by taking a map, writing "Army" over the area of the Panama Coastal Frontier, but at the same time writing "Navy" over the Caribbean Coastal Frontier, and then adding his "O.K.-F.D.R." As presented by Secretary Stimson, the draft proposal had said nothing about the command of the Caribbean area except that "the Commanding General, Caribbean Defense Command, within his means and other responsibilities, will support the Naval Commander of the Caribbean Coastal Frontier."

So, phylo, please tell me, with just 55 minutes warning, who exactly got the War Warning in Panama and what did they do with it ? Being that there was NO clear chain of command at the time, did anyone at all listen ? War Alerts and warnings had become a regular event over the last few months afterall. Would anyone have taken THIS ONE any more seriously ? Did the Navy order the Airforce or did the Airforce order the Navy ? Maybe a junior officer wasted an hour of valuable time by going off to look for a superior officer just gone to lunch at 1200 ? Did anyone tell the Army and who, if anyone, finally got around to telling the AA gunners ? I'm not at all worried that this alert would have resulted in any actual increased alert in the field defences within just 55 minutes. Not a hope in that peacetime cluster...k.
That's YOUR good try, Robert - but as despite some CONSIDERABLE time researching this and arguing about on MANY fourums, you STILL cannot show that there wasn't an alert in the Canal Zone on December 7th 1941 :wink: P.S yes, I've VERY aware if that passage in the history - but YOU seem to have neglected ONE MAJOR ISSUE with it...

The passge talks about a unified command for the Army AND navy....the air defence in the Canal Zone WAS in the hands of the Army - the ARMY Air Force - and so there wouldn't have been ANY break in the command chain from the receipt of the war alert from the Chief of Staff of the ARMY and the alert status of the ARMY Air Force :lol: :lol: :lol:

...Especially as the THEN Zone Commander was General Andrews...who had just replaced Van Voorhis AND who had formerly been commander of the USAAF in the Canal Zone! He was the most air-minded of ALL the Department Commanders, having been an airman himself!

I truely hope that you didn't spend a whole lot of time on that research when my initial thread opening post on this topic stated, "I do know that 3 US interceptor squadrons, each of 10 x P-36 fighters, were flying in Panama's rainy season cloudy skies already but AFAIK the 71 more modern P-40s which had just arrived were not operational there until well after Dec.7'41."

Please try to keep up.


Whereas the Army Air Force's operational history records that they HAD been there for some time - long enough to be operational AND exercising regularly on practice interceptions! :wink: I'll go with the record.

And to THAT you can add the 12 PBY Catalinas based at the aforementioned Coco Solo Naval Air base, according to History of United States Naval Operations in World War II by Samuel Eliot Morison...which of course you know about, yet didn't know they were based at Coco Solo. - These were busy patrolling the Caribbean off of Panama in search of German U-boats and so were not at all important to my ATL scenario. It was the OTHER 12 PBYs based at the Pacific end of the Canal, that you didn't mention, which were the only long range search aircraft available to the USN for peacetime Pacific Ocean patrols at the time.

Yet again, reference to my initial thread starting post would have provided you with, "AFAIK there were only 12 PBY scouts assigned to search the Pacific to the west of Panama out of the 96 that were estimated to be able to provide a proper long ranged search." had you bothered to read it.


I was referring to the operational status of Coco Solo - which YOU had wrongly pooh-poohed earlier :wink: Despite knowing there were Catalinas based in the Canal Zone, you hadn't bother to find out WHERE - and naturally assumed that someone who DID find out where when you didn't...was wrong... :lol:

So from THAT we can see that while they didn't have the VHF radios as discussed before to ensure controlled/ground vectored interception, THEY WERE ALL ON 24-HOUR ALERT - So ? The US pilots could have been sitting in their cockpits but without good initial radar plot locations and NO radio guidance possible after takeoff, what good were they going to really do against 3 seperated Pan-Am flyingboats that were trying hard not to mbe found ?


The "So" is that they WERE successfully carrying out searches and interceptions in exercise WITHOUT the benefit of ground control on 50% of sorties. THAT SAME CAVEAT APPLIES ALL YOUR OTHER ATTEMPED RESERVATIONS. The exercises were being carried out with successful interceptions DESPITE ALL THE RECOGNISED PROBLEMS AND ISSUES :lol: :lol: :lol:

Remember, I DID tell you that fighter pilots were trained to do their OWN search and pursuit... - Do you really think that only 50% against peacetime training targets was "good enough" for wartime ??


When its DESPITE all the known problems - yes. Ground vectoring in the BoB only raised the interception rate by another 35% or so.

All of which to me reads as in the event of an alert ONLY 21 out of 42 P-40s would find their targets
Seven P-40s against each of three slow flying boats; it may only be statistics, but that's enough to do the job
- Except that on Dec.7'41 none of the P-40s were declared operational. They were still training and awaiting radio equipment installation.


No, they were operational as per the AAF operational history; they were exercising. Training happens DAILY in armed forces even when operational. There are specific days when they don't train - it's called LEAVE :lol: Nor were they "awaiting radio equipment", just VHF to replace HF sets.

BTW, I found "Air traffic regulations for the Canal Zone were revised to provide for a defended zone extending ten miles on either side of the canal.19" with "19. Panama Canal Air Traffic Reg., 15 Dec. 1941" on page #275 of http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-8.html so my ATL "Chins Clippers" would have been free and clear to fly over the Canal Zone on Dec.7'41.


???? THAT only means that the CZ was made a "no-fly zone" with aircraft being ONLY permittted to cross in fixed corridors and otherwise intercepted automatically - it does NOT mean that it was a free-for-all BEFORE That! :lol: :lol: :lol: Robert, you're attempting to massage the truth now, when it's already been made quite clear that the U.S. and Panamanians were cooperating on regulating ALL air traffic in the are since December 1940. Which means pre-notified flight plans, etc.

Now - have you as yet worked out why there would be difficulties "aiming" torpedos at the dock gates in December, worked out how to fit THREE H6K Mavises on the afterdeck of the Chitose when there's only room for TWO, and worked out how fast runoff rainfall would replenish Gatun lake in the event of an "unexpected" outage?
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 30 Jan 2009, 01:03, edited 3 times in total.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#228

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 16:17

If you don't get beyond the internet, you are not going to penetrate even to secondary sources, let alone primary ones
Sid, you mean like I Lived With Latin Americans by the journalist John L. Strohm, published in 1942, an account of the several years he'd just spent in Central America? Not the bestest of catchy, bestselling titles LMAO, but -

"...-our civilan plane had orders to fy over the Zone at one particular spot, where we were undoubtedly under careful scrutiny..."

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#229

Post by robdab » 29 Jan 2009, 19:24

phylo_roadking,
Sid, you mean like I Lived With Latin Americans by the journalist John L. Strohm, published in 1942, an account of the several years he'd just spent in Central America? Not the bestest of catchy, bestsellng titles LMAO, but -
"...-our civilan plane had orders to fy over the Zone at one particular spot, where we were undoubtedly under careful scrutiny..."
Three points :

Since it has a copyright date of 1943, Sid is likely to disqualify your source as "American war propaganda". And what I have read of it on books.google.com would certainly seem to support just such a contention. "Fair and balanced", it isn't.

The body of the Panama chapter includes reference to work ongoing on a Canal expansion which confirms that your own quote above does NOT refer to the Dec.7'41 air traffic control period that we discuss here. You quote from at least two years AFTER that time period.

Your quote above has been snipped at a point that untruthfully ALTERS it's meaning quit significantly. From page #225 of your own source it should properly be, "...-our civilan plane had orders to fy over the Zone at one particular spot, where we were undoubtedly under careful scrutiny from below.". From below. Not by USAAF fighters.


Which is a clear example of why I so mistrust all of your other supposedly factual statements that are provided without sources, that I can confirm myself.

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#230

Post by robdab » 29 Jan 2009, 19:31

Sid Guttridge,

If you don't get beyond the internet, you are not going to penetrate even to secondary sources, let alone primary ones.
With regard to the canal's air defences, I would recommend the following secondary source:
Alae Supra Canalem :Wings over the Canal : The Sixth Air Force and the Antilles Air Command
by Dan Hagedorn. Copies are available on Amazon.


Thanks for the source recommendation Sid but being in Canada, it will be at least a week, and with border customs delays more probably three, before I see it here, even if I ordered it today.

I doubt that this discussion will wait for three weeks to a month so that I can have time to read it but perhaps I can find an ebay copy more quickly ?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#231

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 20:21

Three points :

Since it has a copyright date of 1943, Sid is likely to disqualify your source as "American war propaganda". And what I have read of it on books.google.com would certainly seem to support just such a contention. "Fair and balanced", it isn't.

The body of the Panama chapter includes reference to work ongoing on a Canal expansion which confirms that your own quote above does NOT refer to the Dec.7'41 air traffic control period that we discuss here. You quote from at least two years AFTER that time period.

Your quote above has been snipped at a point that untruthfully ALTERS it's meaning quit significantly. From page #225 of your own source it should properly be, "...-our civilan plane had orders to fy over the Zone at one particular spot, where we were undoubtedly under careful scrutiny from below.". From below. Not by USAAF fighters.

Which is a clear example of why I so mistrust all of your other supposedly factual statements that are provided without sources, that I can confirm myself.
Robert, you'll find that anyone engaging in in-depth discussion with me has to be aware of the possibility of being "sandbagged"...

Regarding your three points...

I don't NEED the material to be EITHER "fair" OR "balanced" ...just accurate.... :wink: And thus on the matter of the applicability of Strohm's quote to the situation on December 7th, 1941...I would refer you to Army Airforces Historical Studies No. 42 "Air Defences of the Panama Canal 1 January 1939 - 7 December 1941"...specifically pages 43 and 44...
On 2 September (1939) the 19th Wing ordered France and Albrook fields to be prepared to "place in readiness the maximum force possible" to search the sea lanes approaching Panama, to escort vessels within that limit, and to intercept any foreign planes flying over the Canal Zone without permission. A combat crew roster was prepared, icluding every officer in the wing with the exception of the commanding general and the two base commanders, Lt. Col. Adlai H. Gilkeson of Albrook Field and Maj. Edwin J. House of France Field. The 16th Pursuit group was ordered to be prepared to ooperate patrol and interception missions with six planes, while the 6th Bombardment Group was to be "prepared to operate on search or bombing missions the maximum number of B-18 airplanes for which personnel is available." At both Albrook and France fields light bombs, newly inspected, were made ready for immediate use. Armament had already been requisitioned in August in an amout suitable to equip with machine guns all planes in the Zone, including the obsolescent P-26A's, and all planes on order for the wing.
On 6 September, after the outbreak of war in Europe, The Panama Conal Zone was placed under military control. At the request of the War Department, the President issued an executive order giving General Stone exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the operation of the Canal in order to insure the security of the installation. Still more troops were ordered to the Zone, including 2,700 officers and men of the 18th Infantry Brigade. The Air Corps was unable to send any additional forces at the moment, but by this time the promised P-36s had begun to arrive, along with a few medium bombers and one transport plane. Stringent regulations for aircraft facts were put into effect on 14 September, when an executive order created the "Canal Zone military air space reservation" The area included territorial waters within the three-mile limit off both entrances of the waterway, and the order barred all flights unless specifically authorised by either the Civil Aeronautics Authority, or the State Department. It directed the use of certain prescribed routes and stipulated that all cameras were to be sealed. Foreign planes were to be escorted by war planes stationed in the Canal Zone."
So what do we learn from this??? First of all and in no particular order -
patrol and interception missions with six planes
It wasn't to keep six aircraft in readiness, it was to be ready to use everything available for six-aircraft patrol and interception sorties. That is a VERY different situation to what you described up the thread.
unless specifically authorised by either the Civil Aeronautics Authority


In other words the CAA had full authority and regulation of airspace over the Canal, and thus all regulations WERE to Washington standard;

But MOST important of all this THIS -
It directed the use of certain prescribed routes and stipulated that all cameras were to be sealed
As you found your way to Strohm's book, I'm QUITE sure you're aware the FULL quote was
"our civilan plane had orders to fly over the Zone at one particular spot, where we were undoubtedly under careful scrutiny from below. Sea approaches are guarded by planes, guns, torpedo boats and submarines; my camera was even held for safekeeping."
So I'm afraid you are 100% wrong in what you said - "The body of the Panama chapter includes reference to work ongoing on a Canal expansion which confirms that your own quote above does NOT refer to the Dec.7'41 air traffic control period that we discuss here"

...Strohm's experience quite clearly illustrates that his flight over the Canal Zone was made under the regulations put in place by FDR's Executive orders OF SEPTEMBER 1939 and that were in operation SINCE that date.

Did you not wonder why I didn't put Strohm's FULL quote about flight regulations in??? :lol: :lol: :lol: You can't get a better agreement between two sources than 100%... As I said - "I don't NEED the material to be EITHER "fair" OR "balanced" ...just accurate..." :wink: :wink: :wink:
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 30 Jan 2009, 01:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#232

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 20:24

P.S.
Foreign planes were to be escorted by war planes stationed in the Canal Zone."
I presume that NEXT post they're going to be radio'ing ahead for an escort? :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#233

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 20:33

Moab -
Go check out the Alt History folder on Consimworld.com where Robert D has basically conceded defeat there on this.
...or Tanknet...or....or...ad infinitum.
Some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Must have no life as much time as he devotes to this. Notice he won't really read a real book on it but just sits there and googles for something that supports him, no matter how out of context it is or suspect the source.
I have certain reservations about civil engineers who can't identify two commonly-used sluice gate types - the Tainter gate on the Folsom Dam and the Vertical Lift gates on Hwachom Dam. THAT should have been second-nature to him. I'm certainly having problems with a civil engineer who earlier in this thread hadn't yet accurately calculated the outflow from Gatun Dam in the event of one or more Gates being damaged...and STILL hasn't - especially when he admitted to this SAME lack a month and a half ago on Tanknet - and obviously hasn't or hasn't been ABLE to do the calculations since being challenged THERE on this detail.

And finally I have problems with a civil engineer of 30 years' experience on THIS thread...who can't identify different types of dam sluice gates - even though on the Tanknet equivalent he said he ALSO had experience of "a half-dozen dam projects" I find it strange - though understandable :wink: - that he DIDN'T make that claim HERE....though even MORE understandable after his two mis-identifications. Hmm............................

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#234

Post by Simon K » 29 Jan 2009, 20:58

My nets are still there.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#235

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 20:58

And while we're on the subject of Army Airforces Historical Studies No. 42 "Air Defences of the Panama Canal 1 January 1939 - 7 December 1941"-

During 1940 and onward -
"On at least one occasion a ground observers' net was established temporarily in order to train the observers in aircraft recognition and the mechanics of relaying their reports."
So no Clair Chennault-style observer net in the Canal Zone, eh Robert?
"On 20 June an immediate census was ordered for women and children who might be sent from the Canal Zone in the event of an attack, the registration being handled jointly by the Army, Navy, Red Cross and government agencies. Military authorities in the Zone began to conduct a thorough "housecleaning" and by the end of July they had rounded up 81 aliens, most of them European refugees who had received temporary haven from the Panamanian government and later entered the Canal Zone illegally. In announcing this action, Secretary of War Stimson declared "The situation in Panama is one that everyone has his eye on. The Army realizes the danger."
So the massed Japanese intelligence corps in the Canal Zone are going to have a few problems...
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 30 Jan 2009, 01:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#236

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 21:03

By the way - there's one REALLY major problem with painting their intruders in Pan-Am colours...

Anyone know? :wink: :wink: :wink:

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#237

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 22:13

Robert's WI seems to depend on three large Japanese H6K Mavis flying boats wandering around unobserved in Panamanian airspace, disguised as Pan-Am clippers.

He has ALREADY been shown that not ONLY did very strict flight prodecures and regulation apply in the Canal Zone, that it had been introduced as early as the autumn of 1939, that the Panamanians permitted operational over-flys of "Panamanian" airspace and they participated in the regulation of their airspace to U.S standards...

There was one minor problem with the ENTIRE idea of three Pan-Am flying boats wandering around unquestioned in EITHER Panamanian airspace OR Canal Zone air space...Army Airforces Historical Studies No. 42 "Air Defences of the Panama Canal 1 January 1939 - 7 December 1941 -
"By 1940 Albrook had become the primary station for PanAmerican Airways and its subsidiary airlines, and the rapid increase in traffic had resulted in agreat deal of congestion. General Van Voorhis recommended that the War Department allocated $1,800,000 for the immediate construction of an air terminal in the south-east section of Albrook. The arrangements would have the advantage of keeping all commercail air traffic under military control without allowing passengers to have any contact with the operational part of the airfield. Within less a month the Air Corps approved the Department commander's suggestion..."
Therefore - not ONLY did the military control ALL flights in and out of the Canal Zone along fixed air corridoors, have pre-flight flightplans logged with them - THEIR LARGEST AIR BASE WAS THE FIELD THE COMMERCIAL CARRIERS WERE FLYING IN AND OUT OF!!!

So if ANYONE would know where EVERY SINGLE PAN-AM OR PANAGRAS AIRLINER IN CENTRAL AMERICA would be OR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE at any given time...AND be responsible for regulating and controlling their whereabouts...AND because it was situated IN the Canal Zone they controlled Pan-Am's movements in and out...it was the USAAF!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 30 Jan 2009, 01:14, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#238

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 22:30

Here we have a nice two-line drawing of the Chitose BEFORE the large crane and derrick modification Robert suggests -

Image

...whereas HERE is a similar vierw of the Akitsushima and its crane...

Image

Now, a few minutes with a printed copy of each, a calculator and a steel engineers' ruler indicted that the afterdeck of the Chitose is 58.5 metres long, from the rear of the elevator housing - the bit that looks like a multistorey carpark? :lol: - to the rear of the ship. THIS however requires removing EVERYTHING there including the two seaplane-handling cranes just immediately aft of the elevator housing....

While a similar process indicates that the base if that large crane on the Akitsushima is somewhere between 12 and 14 metre wide...

THUS the Chitose has only some 46.5-44.5 metres free decking to carry H6K's....which are EACH 25 metres long!!! Carrying TWO rather staggered, positioned like bits of a jigsaw and well-lashed down is possible - just about - BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IT CAN CARRY A THIRD.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#239

Post by Tim Smith » 29 Jan 2009, 22:52

Yes there is.

Mavis number three is in six large pieces, and has to be assembled before flight!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#240

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jan 2009, 22:58

...which of course would mean sitting for X-number of hours with the other two bobbing in the water of a Galapagos inlet somewhere, with Pan-Am and Panagras aircraft flying overhead wondering "Who are THOSE guys down there? Pan-Am clippers? Hello, Albrook Field, have any of our aircraft reported problems or not reported in at all...."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Now....if this was Tanknet, Robert would suggest that the Chitose would NOW fly off some of her single-engined floatplanes and shoot them down...the ONLY problem is the Japanese have had to REMOVE their OTHER two cranes....and there's STILL a gurt big Mavis being assembled on deck between the elevator housing and the only crane left on board... :P AND sooner or later someone at Albrook Field would give up calling the missing flyingboat and would press the Panic Button...Thus the attackers would CAUSE their OWN alert!!! 8O )

Locked

Return to “What if”