Evening star., 1946-07-22
Bomb Survey Reveals
VituI Military Facts
Neglect of Air Power Held Real
Cause of Pearl Harbor
BY David Laurence

Cause of Pearl Harbor
By David Laurence
With all due respect to the fine work
of the congressional committee which
investigated the Pearl Harbor disaster.
the more important of the reports which
were made public over the week end
was the remarkable document issued by
the United States Strategic Bombing
Survey.
This survey tells really why we were
defeated at Pearl Harbor and why it
took nearly four years to beat Japan,
and it tells the American people some
unpleasant truths which even today are
being ignored. 1t is story of miscalcu-
lation on the Importance of air power.
This correspondent last week COM
mented on report by this same Stra-
tegic Bombing Survey and said it was
biased because it did not cover Navy
operations. 1t turns out that the mime
ographed experimentation which was
was not the final summary report by
the Survey Committee at all but was,
in fact, only a segment Unfortunately
the White House did not reveal the i'm
portant fact that the brief report was
only the forerunner of the major report
that now has been issued.
Final Report Impartial.
The final report is not only impartial,
but it is comprehensive and it gives due
credit to all branches of our armed serv-
ices. 1t is by far the most valuable
document issued to date on the Pacific
war. 1t points out, first of all, that
whereas Japan had 10 aircraft carriers
at the outbreak of the war and we had
seven, there were only four of ours in
the Pacific at the time of Pearl Harbor.
1t adds significantly:
Ninety P-4O's and IS Bits In the
Philippines could not be expected to
check the japanese push southwark
One thousand planes in the Philip
pines. at least equal in performance to
the best then available to the japanese,
including types effective against ship
ping, well-manned, equipped and sup
piled, and dispersed on some so airfields,
would have seriously impeded the orig
inal Japanese advance If knowledge of
their existence had not entirely dissuad-
ed the Japanese from making the at
tempt
The loss of relatively antiouated
battleships at Pearl Harbor had little
effect on the Nays combat capabilities
at that time, while the addition of a
few carriers would have enormously In
creased its capabilities. Larger overall
appropriations to the armed forces be-
ginning at the time of japanese occupa-
tion of Manchuria, when the threat to
peace in the Far East became evident
might have made war unnecessary and
would have paid for itself many times
over in reduced casualties and expendi-
lures had war still been unavoidable"
/ Carrier Work Praised.
The survey tells of the splendid work
of the aircraft carriers Of the Navy,
and might have included some mention
! Of the supporting Navy task forces
which protected the carriers. but 1t does
give some hitherto unpublished data
on the accuracy of Navy planes versus
Army planes. 1t appears that the low
level flying Of the carrier planes had a
record of so per cent accuracy within
$50 feet while the high-altitude flying
of Army bonbers resulted in 10 per
cent of the bombs dropped hitting the
target areas. A revised program sub
sequent to March, 1945, brought this
latter record up to 35 to 40 per cent
within 1000 feet of the aiming point In
daylight attacks from 10000 feet or
lower
The report makes some excellent
recommendations for the future and
expresses in statesmanlike terms some
observations about the discussed
merger, now shelved until the next ses-
sion of Congress. The report advocates
unity of command" but says this
should, however, decentralize admins
trative burdens and permit specialized
| training and the free development of
the component forces, even at the risk
! of some duplication"
| Even more pertinent is the recommen-
| dation for separate air force within
| department of common defense but
with primary responsibility only 'for
passive and active defense against long
range attack on our cities for
| strategic attack, whether by airplane
| or guided missile; and for all air units
| other than carrier air and such land
| based air units as can be more effective
as component parts of the Army or
| Navy"
| Here Is definition which can be
easily understood and which should
commend itself to all who are trying
| to be objective and impartial in the
controversy between the armed services
as to the proper ALLEGATION of air