Pearl Harbor Midget Sub
Dave
identification of the wreck of the fifth Japanese midget sub that
attacked Pearl Harbor. The wreck was originally found in the West
Loch, but was removed as part of the salvage after the big LST
conflagration in 1944. A Nova episode in January will be devoted to
the discovery.
Three items caught my eye that I had never heard: 1) the recovery of
an 800-pound torpedo, allegedly larger than aircraft torpedoes, from
the Battleship Row area, 2) the recovery of a map from one of the
other subs marking an address in Honolulu, and 3) documentation of a
radio transmission from the sub that mission was accomplished. To my
memory none of these details appeared in the books and articles I have
read. Several cable documentaries feature a National Park Service
Historian (I don't have his name) who seemed most knowledgeable about
the attack, but none of these points is mentioned there either.
Does anyone have any more information on these points?
Dave Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com
a425couple
> In the news last night and this morning are reports ---
Yes.
And for those who have not seen it, a fairly complete
story is on newsgroup - rec.aviation.military:
"Pearl Harbor mini-submarine mystery solved?
Researchers think they have found the remains of a Japanese mini-submarine
that
probably fired on U.S. battleships on Dec. 7, 1941.
By Thomas H. Maugh II" ------
a425couple
> Three items caught my eye that I had never heard: 1) the recovery of
> an 800-pound torpedo, allegedly larger than aircraft torpedoes, from
> the Battleship Row area,
Yes, something about that is not making sense to me right now.
I do not have enought time this morning to double check everything,
but I believe the Japanese torpedo planes at Pearl Harbor were: =
'Kate' / Nakajima B5Ns, and they carried:
Japanese aerial torpedo Type 91 Mod 2,
which were18' long, 17.7" diameter, weight 1,840 lbs.
So, as far as I know, the aerial weighed over twice 800 pounds.
More can be found at the below interesting read:
(I keep getting rejections, so I'll delete the cites!!)
Meanwhile, the midget subs (read more -
wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko-hyoteki_class_submarine)
are listed as being armed with:2 � 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedoes,
muzzle-loaded into tubes.
(Read more wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_torpedo)
and these appear to have a 772 pound warhead,
so weight was way over 800.
a425couple
> In the news last night and this morning are ---
> A Nova episode in January will be devoted to the discovery.
the one cite says:
"The "Nova" episode describing the search for the I-16-tou will air Jan. 5."
> 2) the recovery of a map from one of the
> other subs marking an address in Honolulu,
The one cite says, "But a map taken from one of the other
mini-subs showed the location of a safe house in Pearl City,
Hawaii, suggesting the crew might have scuttled the boat and
escaped"
Sheesh Dave.
Shame on you for pointing out that area of discussion!
Shame, in this era of global warming and conservation!!
Do you have any idea of how many electrons are going to
be used up in the endless natterings about racism?
Geoffrey Sinclair
Japanese midget sub fired on Battleship Row....specifically the USS Arizona
and USS Oklahoma... The LA Times details the find of some LST remains nearby
the midget sub discovery location outside of the harbor and has LINKED the
two stories together, suggesting that BOTH were salvage efforts from the
explosion of the LSTs in West Loch.
This "midget sub firing on BB Row" tale has been retold often, since Burl
Burlingame's ADVANCE FORCE PEARL HARBOR (1992) suggested that a Japanese
aerial photo, taken from the late Hirata Matsumura's B5N "KATE", showed two
torpedoes from a midget submarine to fire on BB Row.
The myth has just as often been rebutted. Logically, if a submarine was in
the position which Burlingame suggested, to GET turned into that location to
fire torpedoes in the time frame suggested, the submarine would have BLOCKED
all aerial hits onto BB Row before the photo was made...and continued to
block them thus preventing the USS OK from turning over. IF such was done,
we should award the midget sub CO a posthumous medal for absorbing the
aerial attack....yet, sadly, the USS OK and USS WeeVee WERE hit and often...
This myth ignored the many witnesses on three ships outside of Pearl Harbor
to an attack by this 5th midget sub onto the USS St Louis:
Moored next to USS Honolulu, St. Louis was the first cruiser to get
underway, backing from her berth at 0931. Steaming through oil fires,
snapping a steel cable that linked a dredge to shore and almost hitting Ford
Island, she rushed down the outer channel of Pearl Harbor at 22 knots.
Almost at sea, two torpedoes were spotted to starboard, heading directly
toward St. Louis. Increasing speed to 25 knots, she maneuvered as best she
could within the confines of the channel and primarily hoped to outrun the
torpedoes. Fortunately, both torpedoes exploded on coral near Buoy No. 1.
Spotting what was believed to be the conning tower of the midget submarine
that had attacked her, St. Louis opened fire with her five inch battery;
gunners claimed they hit the top of the periscope fairwater and observed the
object plunge underwater. In actuality, St. Louis had fired upon Crossbill's
Oropesa minesweeping float. Unable to avoid the minesweepers due to her
speed, St. Louis roared between the two ships--"probably scaring the hell
out of both of them", as her skipper later recounted--severing Cockatoo's
starboard minesweeping gear. Undaunted, St. Louis reached the open seas.
The real discovery of the 5th midget submarine seems lost by the myth.
Sincerely,
David Aiken, a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.
http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20091207_sea_yields_clues_to_41_attack.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-minisub7-2009dec07,0,6991792.story
Via Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Dave
wrote:
>
> The real discovery of the 5th midget submarine seems lost by the myth.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Aiken, a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
>
>
> Via Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
Any idea where the stories about the radio transmission and the map
with the address came from?
a425couple
> The myth has just as often been rebutted. Logically, if a submarine was in
> the position which Burlingame suggested, to GET turned into that location
> to
> fire torpedoes in the time frame suggested, the submarine would have
> BLOCKED
> all aerial hits onto BB Row before the photo was made...and continued to
> block them thus preventing the USS OK from turning over.
I do not know what will turn out to be the likely truth.
But the above "rebuttal", seems to me, VERY weak in it's "logic".
The big BBs were between 583' and 624' long.
There draft was 30 to 35'.
They were tied up side by side in pairs (mostly),
and about 100' apart from bow to stern.
Thus, their spread distance from bow of 1st pair
to stern of 4th pair was torpedo target area of 2,700'.
Now, this one possible Japanese midget submarine
was 78' long. (And 6' beam, and highest heigth 10').
So, even if it tried to block all it could, by staying
sideways, it could only block/protect a very small
portion of the BBs.
Then when you consider, it would be working to maneuver
to point it's bow to the BBs, then it only blocking a
tiny 6' of any possible aerial torpedo path.
(And even less likely when you consider that very likely
it was too shallow (at 10' height) to block running torpedo.)
Dave
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in ...
>
> > The myth has just as often been rebutted. Logically, if a submarine was in
> > the position which Burlingame suggested, to GET turned into that location
> > to
> > fire torpedoes in the time frame suggested, the submarine would have
> > BLOCKED
> > all aerial hits onto BB Row before the photo was made...and continued to
> > block them thus preventing the USS OK from turning over.
>
> I do not know what will turn out to be the likely truth.
> But the above "rebuttal", seems to me, VERY weak in it's "logic".
ITSM that better indication of the 5th sub not entering the East Loch
is the attack on the St. Louis.
Tracy White
> Loch, but was removed as part of the salvage after the big LST
That is a best guess, there has been no documentation found (and the
national archives HAVE been searched) that discusses any aspect of
this midget. HURL made the suggestion due to the midget's position "in
line" with LTVs salvaged and dumped after the West Lock disaster.
> other subs marking an address in Honolulu, and 3) documentation of a
> radio transmission from the sub that mission was accomplished. To my
> memory none of these details appeared in the books and articles I have
The radio transmission has been known about for a while, but it was
not a message of any detail. It was simply a code "word" that meant
success.
It really comes down to two things.
St Louis reported seeing two torpedos in the water coming towards her
and impacting on a coral reef short of her hull in her action report
for the day:
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/Pearl/ph84.htm
The battleship row area, which had multiple thousands of eyes on it,
watching low flying airplanes close to the water, reported no
sightings of any midget other than the MANY sightings for the midger
that Monaghan rammed and sunk. It wasn't until a photograph that was a
copy of a copy was examined that anyone said "I see a midget firing on
a battleship!"
So which do you trust more?