Comments on: Best Mechanics will Win if U.S. Fights Japan (May, 1932)

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:09:48 +0000

Something for the people who think the longwinded section on airships is silly to consider:

Note the date of this article: 1932

One year before the P-2Y entered service.

Four years before the PBY entered service.

Two years before radar was more than a pipe dream.

Several years before it was a truly practical and useful device.

Finally, a nearly a decade before the war actually happened.

All in all, when taken in that context it appears that LT. Hogg was an incredibly insightful man, with much of what he said becoming absolutely true due course, a decade after he said it would happen.

By: Zyzzyva

Zyzzyva — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:48:19 +0000

Definitely have to agree with Eamon here. The first seven pages are surprisingly reasonable – he gets the Pacific Theatre down amazingly well: the difficulty in fighting so close to enemy fleet bases, the probable loss of the Philippines (“and the Aleutians”), island hopping, forcing victory via the US’s overwhelming industrial base and by massive island-based bombing raids on the Home Islands. Even the invariable racist dig (the Japanese “have not succeeded in copying the Prussian brains that developed the model. The Japanese fight fanatically, but lack imagination”) is a aimed at the IJA’s real, and pretty horrendous, problems with training and professionalism.

Then the magic words “cheap imitation” show up and the article goes off the rails. “Only one in ten thousand can be taught to fly an airplane”? American land campaigns in Manchuria and Korea? Two whole pages on the (admittedly kinda cool, but still) USS Akron? What the heck happened to the author?

By: K!P

K!P — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:06:05 +0000

i read an article once that basicly stated taht japanese coulnd not be good pilots because they have narrow eyes, hence they lack 3d view.

By: StanFlouride

StanFlouride — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:08:10 +0000

LIEUT. JOHN EDWIN HOGG has two other articles here, one of which is from two years later and criticizes the US Navy’s readiness. The other discusses how navy inventions lead to civilian applications.

At the time this was written long-range observation aircraft were not available except as blimps and dirigibles. The ability of the US Navy to find and attack the Japanese fleets was due, in part to the Catalina Flying Boat which had a huge range.

By: slim

slim — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:07:45 +0000

Fascinating article, a peek into U.S. thinking in 1932. In some ways prescient, in others naive.
Hawaii is impregnable. Battleships don’t need much armor topside.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:16:28 +0000

Nice catch Jari, I didn’t even notice that. “The Skeleton Harvest of Maple Hill Farm” is my new favorite book title.

By: Jari

Jari — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:30:55 +0000

True. On the lighter side, the guy in the Startling Detective ad looks like Mandrake on drugs.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:52:14 +0000

It seems like a lot of articles about Japan and other nonwhite countries from the 30′s follow a weird pattern; strong, reasonable assessment and fairly accurate predictions before taking a hard right turn into racism.

I remember reading about US military leaders dismissing reports about the Zero’s capability because the Japanese couldn’t possibly be ahead of whites.

I also like how the author loses focus and starts talking about airships.