Discussion:
World War 2 Japanese Super-Submarine Found In Hawaii
(too old to reply)
Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
2009-11-19 21:28:03 UTC
Permalink
World War 2 Japanese Super-Submarine Found In Hawaii
http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found-in-hawaii

{EXCERPT} Gizmodo.com, Jesus Diaz According to Van Tillburg, it looks more like a Cold War submarine than a WW2 ship. Capable of carrying 144 people through 37000 miles, it was three times...

http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found-in-hawaii

Submarine Service Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/submarineservice

World War I/II Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/world-wars

WWII Victory Medal Issue Regulations
http://www.amervets.com/replacement/w2.htm#isr

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634

Military Personnel Database
http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://www.amervets.com/share.htm
Public Information Office
http://www.13105320634.com
Andre Lieven
2009-11-19 22:57:05 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 4:28 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
Post by Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
World War 2 Japanese Super-Submarine Found In Hawaii
http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found...
{EXCERPT} Gizmodo.com, Jesus Diaz According to Van
Tillburg, it looks more like a Cold War submarine than a WW2
ship. Capable of carrying 144 people through 37000 miles, it was
three times...
http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found...
A shame that the writer of this piece is an idiot who can't do any
basic
research.

Because the I-201 and I-401 are NOT "sisters":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-200_class_submarine

Displacement: 1,290 t (1,270 LT; 1,420 ST) surfaced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

Displacement: 5,223 tons

The 400 class were almost Surcouf like sub cruisers of old, and the
201s were similar in concept to Type XXis and small Guppys.

Andre
Jack Linthicum
2009-11-19 23:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
On Nov 19, 4:28 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
Post by Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
World War 2 Japanese Super-Submarine Found In Hawaii
http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found...
{EXCERPT} Gizmodo.com, Jesus Diaz According to Van
Tillburg, it looks more like a Cold War submarine than a WW2
ship. Capable of carrying 144 people through 37000 miles, it was
three times...
http://gizmodo.com/5407769/world-war-2-japanese-super+submarine-found...
A shame that the writer of this piece is an idiot who can't do any
basic
research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-200_class_submarine
Displacement: 1,290 t (1,270 LT; 1,420 ST) surfaced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine
Displacement: 5,223 tons
The 400 class were almost Surcouf like sub cruisers of old, and the
201s were similar in concept to Type XXis and small Guppys.
Andre
I-401 Sen-toku Type 5223 tons surfaced, 6560 tons submerged, 110 foot
hanger carried three Seiran aircraft, the only survivor Seiran is in
the Dulles Smithsonian Air and Space exhibit. They had snorkels and an
anechoic coating that peeled off when submerced.

I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-19 23:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000 nautical miles.

The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese

Keith
Jack Linthicum
2009-11-20 00:06:47 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.


http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/GARBER/aichi/aichi.htm
Alan Lothian
2009-11-20 05:16:18 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.
Which basically reinforces Keith's point. That's not what submarines
are *for*. IJN subs could have caused much grief to US Pacific supply
lines, but preferred Bushido nonsense. (For the same reason, living
conditions aboard the subs were appalling, far worse than in Type VII
U-boats, which were not exactly high on creature comforts. And quite
unnecessarily so. The Japanese, that is.)

Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun

If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Dennis
2009-11-20 05:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a
sackful of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in
luxury. On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against
an increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the
thought experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many
changes. But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
Not sure how much difference it would make. I don't think they
usually stayed out on patrols for that long. Later on, that's because they
didn't survive that long. However, the crew efficiency would surely be a
lot higher.

Interesting! Why don't you take it to soc history what-if?

Dennis
Fred J. McCall
2009-11-20 05:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Alan Lothian <***@mac.com> wrote:

:
:Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
:Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
:torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
:of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
:On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
:increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
:experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
:But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
:

The 'slow to dive' thing is a killer. Much of the Atlantic was under
air patrols, unlike the Pacific. The slower you are to dive the more
likely they are to catch you surfaced and kill you before you can get
under.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Jeff Dougherty
2009-11-20 07:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.
Which basically reinforces Keith's point. That's not what submarines
are *for*. IJN subs could have caused much grief to US Pacific supply
lines, but preferred Bushido nonsense. (For the same reason, living
conditions aboard the subs were appalling, far worse than in Type VII
U-boats, which were not exactly high on creature comforts. And quite
unnecessarily so. The Japanese, that is.)
Read a comment by one of the American prize crewmen on I-400. He said
they might have wanted to keep the subs away from the Soviets, but
that the crews thought they should all be sunk anyway. Described them
as filthy, rat-infested, and unsafe. On paper I-boats read out as
very good submarines, but as you and Keith point out their doctrine
made them useless. I've always been amazed at the lack of attention
the Japanese paid to commerce warfare, from either an offensive or
defensive standpoint, but then I suppose the Decisive Battle was
supposed to end the war before any of that stuff had time to be
effective.
Post by Alan Lothian
Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
Mmm, I don't know that this would actually be a good idea. Versus a
Type VII U-boat you only get a couple knots of speed, and both diving
speed and test depth are quite a bit less for the Gato. The tradeoff
for all this is range, but I'm not sure what you can do with an extra
3,000 nm of range out in the Atlantic. Methinks you'd run out of
weapons long before you started burning a lot of that extra fuel.
It's also worth noting that surface speed is much less of an asset in
the Atlantic than in the Pacific, due to much thicker air cover and
much better radar on the escorts.

I'd venture to say that for commerce raiding in the Atlantic you'd be
hard-pressed to do much better than the Type IX U-boat. Decently
fast, can dive fast and deep, and long-ranged enough to hit most of
the sea lanes you're really interested in hitting. My only
modifications would be the (IMO) much more sensible U.S. engineering
setup versus the German one where you're forever clutching and
unclutching the diesel, and perhaps make her a *bit* bigger to hold
more weapons- Type IX has a decent number of tubes but is a bit scanty
on reloads for my taste.

-JTD
Post by Alan Lothian
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
 If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Dennis
2009-11-21 22:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Dougherty
Mmm, I don't know that this would actually be a good idea. Versus a
Type VII U-boat you only get a couple knots of speed, and both diving
speed and test depth are quite a bit less for the Gato. The tradeoff
for all this is range, but I'm not sure what you can do with an extra
3,000 nm of range out in the Atlantic. Methinks you'd run out of
weapons long before you started burning a lot of that extra fuel.
It's also worth noting that surface speed is much less of an asset in
the Atlantic than in the Pacific, due to much thicker air cover and
much better radar on the escorts.
I'd venture to say that for commerce raiding in the Atlantic you'd be
hard-pressed to do much better than the Type IX U-boat. Decently
fast, can dive fast and deep, and long-ranged enough to hit most of
the sea lanes you're really interested in hitting. My only
modifications would be the (IMO) much more sensible U.S. engineering
setup versus the German one where you're forever clutching and
unclutching the diesel, and perhaps make her a *bit* bigger to hold
more weapons- Type IX has a decent number of tubes but is a bit scanty
on reloads for my taste.
The extra endurance of a Gato or a Type IX could make sense if you
could spend more time out in the Black Hole, before escort carriers
provided air cover there too. You'd need extra reloads to take advantage
of that. Take the IX and rearrange it to fit that scenario.

Dennis
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-20 08:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
Not much use in the North Atlantic but would have been useful for the
long South Atlantic patrols where conditions were more benign. Fewer
escorts and patrol aircraft help but then the Germans had the type IX
for those waters.

Keith
Peter Skelton
2009-11-20 13:34:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:16:18 +0100, Alan Lothian
Post by Alan Lothian
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.
Which basically reinforces Keith's point. That's not what submarines
are *for*. IJN subs could have caused much grief to US Pacific supply
lines, but preferred Bushido nonsense. (For the same reason, living
conditions aboard the subs were appalling, far worse than in Type VII
U-boats, which were not exactly high on creature comforts. And quite
unnecessarily so. The Japanese, that is.)
Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
Like the German ones?

(The devil made me say it.)

More seriously, I'm inclined to think the German types suited
Atlantic conditions better than the Gatos. The speed difference
was very little at cruising and only a couple of knots flat out.

The crucial period was before April '43. Gatos were more
comfortable, as you say, but a large part of that comfort was air
conditioning, more useful in the Pacific campaign than the North
Atlantic. Against that there are the superior electric control
systems of the German boats. They could be trimmed awash in any
weather good enough to make them visible at more than a couple of
hundred yards on metric radar. The type vii was better than the
ix in this respect because of its size. A Gato, even larger and
without the control system might have had trouble as early as
April '41, would have been in difficulty by September that year
(until Ernie King saved their asses in December).


Peter Skelton
David E. Powell
2009-11-22 06:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Skelton
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:16:18 +0100, Alan Lothian
Post by Alan Lothian
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.
Which basically reinforces Keith's point. That's not what submarines
are *for*. IJN subs could have caused much grief to US Pacific supply
lines, but preferred Bushido nonsense. (For the same reason, living
conditions aboard the subs were appalling, far worse than in Type VII
U-boats, which were not exactly high on creature comforts. And quite
unnecessarily so. The Japanese, that is.)
Interesting what-if: give the Germans Gatos for the Battle of the
Atlantic. Leave out the massively self-inflicted wound of American
torpedoes. You've got high surface speed, long endurance, and a sackful
of weaponry; your crew are, by submarine standards, living in luxury.
On the other hand, you're big and slow to dive and up against an
increasingly effective ASW force. Just a thought. Oh, for the thought
experiment, you can't have radar on the Nazi Gatos. Too many changes.
But you can have torpedoes that reliably go bang.
Like the German ones?  
(The devil made me say it.)
More seriously, I'm inclined to think the German types suited
Atlantic conditions better than the Gatos. The speed difference
was very little at cruising and only a couple of knots flat out.
The crucial period was before April '43. Gatos were more
comfortable, as you say, but a large part of that comfort was air
conditioning, more useful in the Pacific campaign than the North
Atlantic. Against that there are the superior electric control
systems of the German boats. They could be trimmed awash in any
weather good enough to make them visible at more than a couple of
hundred yards on metric radar. The type vii was better than the
ix in this respect because of its size. A Gato, even larger and
without the control system might have had trouble as early as
April '41, would have been in difficulty by September that year
(until Ernie King saved their asses in December).
Peter Skelton
Not to mention the early German torpedo problems. (The US weren't the
only submariners snake bit early.)

Didn't Prien use semi submerged trim in his approach into Scapa?
There's one place a smaller boat with good trim would probably be the
better choice over a Gato, though some US boats snuck in tight spots
too.
Jack Linthicum
2009-11-27 21:20:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:22:57 +0100, Alan Lothian
Post by David E. Powell
Not to mention the early German torpedo problems. (The US weren't the
only submariners snake bit early.)
Difference is, Doenitz had a number of German officers chucked into the
brig for gross incompetence and dishonesty, and sorted out the problem
fairly sharpish. US chaps got away with it all.
<snips early & late>
It was Jan - Feb. '42 before the balance chamber problem was well
understood. It only caused trouble against reasonably good ASW
(because the boat had to be submerged for some time) but the time
from start of war to solution wasn't much different from the
Americans.
The British torpedoes lauched against Sheffield in the Bismarck
campaign (May '41) failed. Only the IJN seems to have gotten it
right.
Peter Skelton
Practice, practice, practice

This can be attributed to the sinking of many old target hulks in
numerous live-shoot trials prior to the war.
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-27 21:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
In article
<much snippaggio.. I've missed big chunks, but I am now securely, I
hope back on-line>
Post by Peter Skelton
The crucial period was before April '43. Gatos were more
comfortable, as you say, but a large part of that comfort was air
conditioning, more useful in the Pacific campaign than the North
Atlantic. Against that there are the superior electric control
systems of the German boats. They could be trimmed awash in any
weather good enough to make them visible at more than a couple of
hundred yards on metric radar. The type vii was better than the
ix in this respect because of its size. A Gato, even larger and
without the control system might have had trouble as early as
April '41, would have been in difficulty by September that year
(until Ernie King saved their asses in December).
I agree with Peter, here, but the huge weapon-load of the Gato must
have helped. Imagine a dozen of the buggers off the US coast in early
1942.... which brings us to....
Reality check

Torpedo loadout Gato class - 24 torpedoes and 10 tubes
six forrard and 4 aft

Torpedo loadout type IX U-boat - 22 torpedoes (24 in type IX D)
and 6 tubes, 4 bow and two stern.

There's not much in it in terms of weapons carried. Note that U-123
which initiated Operation Drumbeat was a type IXB

Keith
Alan Lothian
2009-11-28 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willshaw
Reality check
Oh, not another one, Keith. You're always spoiling my fun.
Post by Keith Willshaw
Torpedo loadout Gato class - 24 torpedoes and 10 tubes
six forrard and 4 aft
Fire six going in, and four going out. Americans always profligate with
torpedoes. Given how few of them went bang, understandable to begin
with. But many a maru somewhat excessively blown out of the water
later. Still, I wasn't there at the time.
Post by Keith Willshaw
Torpedo loadout type IX U-boat - 22 torpedoes (24 in type IX D)
and 6 tubes, 4 bow and two stern.
Point taken.
Post by Keith Willshaw
There's not much in it in terms of weapons carried. Note that U-123
which initiated Operation Drumbeat was a type IXB
Hardegen. Note also that I actually checked this. For some strange
reason, I thought U-123 was Kretschmer's boat (it was, of course, U-99,
a Type VII). Lot to be said for checking stuff. In some ways, the Type
IX was a Gato without air-conditioning or an ice-cream parlour. And of
course Type VIIs, at near-extreme limits, also made a serious
contribution to Drumbeat. Although nowhere near as effectively as
Admiral King.

IIRC (and I haven't checked this one) Roosevelt urged the playing-down
of Allied (overwhelmingly RN and RCN until the USN baby carriers
started whacking) successes in Atlantic ASW in case the Japanese picked
up a few hints. You couldn't have got a hint into your average Japanese
admiral's head with a four-pound hammer and a six-inch nail, but
Roosevelt wasn't to know that.

But I go with the consensus here, that the type VII was the best boat
for the job in the North Atlantic, even though living conditions aboard
left, ah, something to be desired. British subs were mostly worse, and
certainly no better, in that respect. Casualty rate nearly as bad,
especially in the Med, where they encountered the Axis's most effective
ASW chaps. Not German.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun

If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-28 12:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
Post by Keith Willshaw
Reality check
Oh, not another one, Keith. You're always spoiling my fun.
Post by Keith Willshaw
Torpedo loadout Gato class - 24 torpedoes and 10 tubes
six forrard and 4 aft
Fire six going in, and four going out. Americans always profligate with
torpedoes. Given how few of them went bang, understandable to begin
with. But many a maru somewhat excessively blown out of the water
later. Still, I wasn't there at the time.
Given that they used those six tubes to destroy a number of
IJN capital ships the fit was rather effective. I suspect that
the average Maru would rate one or two torpedoes but when
USS Cavalla came upon the carrier Shokaku she fired a
full spread out of which she got three hits.

Keith
Paul J. Adam
2009-11-28 15:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
Post by Keith Willshaw
Torpedo loadout Gato class - 24 torpedoes and 10 tubes
six forrard and 4 aft
Fire six going in, and four going out. Americans always profligate with
torpedoes.
Some of our T-boats could manage a bow salvo of ten on occasion: six
internal tubes and two pairs of external tubes, all bearing forwards.
(Later boats rearranged the externals and added a stern tube, with 6+2
forward and 1+2 aft)
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam
mike
2009-11-29 02:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lothian
Lot to be said for checking stuff. In some ways, the Type
IX was a Gato without air-conditioning or an ice-cream parlour. And of
A/C also nice for removing humidity, US boats the fresh food
lasted longer, and just not so much a 'pig boat' as before even
when not in the tropics.

Compare the VII with the old S-Class boats.

I believe the US Fleet Boats had a better Torp Computers as well
as being able to detect cold water layers for spoofing sonar.

**
mike
**
Peter Skelton
2009-11-29 15:39:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:21:01 -0800 (PST), mike
Post by mike
Post by Alan Lothian
Lot to be said for checking stuff. In some ways, the Type
IX was a Gato without air-conditioning or an ice-cream parlour. And of
A/C also nice for removing humidity, US boats the fresh food
lasted longer, and just not so much a 'pig boat' as before even
when not in the tropics.
Compare the VII with the old S-Class boats.
I believe the US Fleet Boats had a better Torp Computers as well
as being able to detect cold water layers for spoofing sonar.
Detecting cold water layers was WWI technology, everybody had it.
They needed it because layers affected boat trim.

Peter Skelton

Alan Lothian
2009-11-27 20:22:57 UTC
Permalink
In article
<fc71a346-3762-4c32-9eab-***@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
David E. Powell <***@msn.com> wrote:

<much snippaggio.. I've missed big chunks, but I am now securely, I
hope back on-line>
Post by David E. Powell
Post by Peter Skelton
The crucial period was before April '43. Gatos were more
comfortable, as you say, but a large part of that comfort was air
conditioning, more useful in the Pacific campaign than the North
Atlantic. Against that there are the superior electric control
systems of the German boats. They could be trimmed awash in any
weather good enough to make them visible at more than a couple of
hundred yards on metric radar. The type vii was better than the
ix in this respect because of its size. A Gato, even larger and
without the control system might have had trouble as early as
April '41, would have been in difficulty by September that year
(until Ernie King saved their asses in December).
I agree with Peter, here, but the huge weapon-load of the Gato must
have helped. Imagine a dozen of the buggers off the US coast in early
1942.... which brings us to....
Post by David E. Powell
Not to mention the early German torpedo problems. (The US weren't the
only submariners snake bit early.)
Difference is, Doenitz had a number of German officers chucked into the
brig for gross incompetence and dishonesty, and sorted out the problem
fairly sharpish. US chaps got away with it all.
Post by David E. Powell
Didn't Prien use semi submerged trim in his approach into Scapa?
Not sure about that. What he did have was a fully-worked-up pre-war
crew, with top of the range POs. Also the Brits were careless, and
Prien was lucky. Still, HMS Wolverine settled his hash. Apparently a
huge, glowing, underwater explosion, never entirely explained.
Post by David E. Powell
There's one place a smaller boat with good trim would probably be the
better choice over a Gato, though some US boats snuck in tight spots
too.
Japanese ASW was pathetic. Most US lost boats went down to mines or
unlucky contacts with enemy air. Now, if the Italians had been running
Japanese convoy escorts....
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun

If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Peter Skelton
2009-11-27 21:13:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:22:57 +0100, Alan Lothian
Post by David E. Powell
Not to mention the early German torpedo problems. (The US weren't the
only submariners snake bit early.)
Difference is, Doenitz had a number of German officers chucked into the
brig for gross incompetence and dishonesty, and sorted out the problem
fairly sharpish. US chaps got away with it all.
<snips early & late>

It was Jan - Feb. '42 before the balance chamber problem was well
understood. It only caused trouble against reasonably good ASW
(because the boat had to be submerged for some time) but the time
from start of war to solution wasn't much different from the
Americans.

The British torpedoes lauched against Sheffield in the Bismarck
campaign (May '41) failed. Only the IJN seems to have gotten it
right.

Peter Skelton
David E. Powell
2009-11-29 05:56:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:22:57 +0100, Alan Lothian
Post by David E. Powell
Not to mention the early German torpedo problems. (The US weren't the
only submariners snake bit early.)
Difference is, Doenitz had a number of German officers chucked into the
brig for gross incompetence and dishonesty, and sorted out the problem
fairly sharpish. US chaps got away with it all.
<snips early & late>
It was Jan - Feb. '42 before the balance chamber problem was well
understood. It only caused trouble against reasonably good ASW
(because the boat had to be submerged for some time) but the time
from start of war to solution wasn't much different from the
Americans.
The British torpedoes lauched against Sheffield in the Bismarck
campaign (May '41) failed. Only the IJN seems to have gotten it
right.
Peter Skelton
...and the Italians.
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-29 12:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Powell
The British torpedoes lauched against Sheffield in the Bismarck
campaign (May '41) failed. Only the IJN seems to have gotten it
right.
Peter Skelton
...and the Italians.
To be fair the problem with British torpedoes was pretty much
limited to the magnetic exploder. The Swordfish were able to
load torpedoes with conract exploders and fly a successful strike
the same day.

Keith
Jeff Dougherty
2009-11-20 07:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by Jack Linthicum
I-201s were Sensuikan Taka, welded hull, fast boats 1291 tons
surfaced , 1450 tons submerged. 19 knots submerged (sic), four 21
inche torpedo tubes ten torpedoes. Snorkel.
Frankly 10 torpedoes for a boat that size wasnt very impressive
given the long patrol distances involved in the PTO. The German
type IXC was smaller and carried 22 torpedoes and had a range of over
12,000  nautical miles.
 The real problem for the IJN was not hardware it was doctrine.
The handful of technically inferior German U-boats based in Japan were
far more effective than the boats deployed by the Japanese
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks. The I-400s were the biggest boats in the world until the SSBNs
hit the water. We ran them across the Pacific to keep them out of the
Soviets' hands.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/GARBER/aichi/aichi.htm
Yeah, but I've read that the Japanese plan was to approach the Canal
from the *east*, after sailing through the Indian Ocean, around the
Cape of Good Hope, and through the South Atlantic, all so that the
Americans would be surprised by an attack from an unexpected
direction. You might, repeat might, have been able to get away with
that in, say, mid 1942, but by the time those subs got into service it
was an utterly insane idea. Which sadly does not make it unique in
the annals of IJN planning.

-JTD
Keith Willshaw
2009-11-20 08:45:19 UTC
Permalink
"Jack Linthicum" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1e5d9ac1-b4e0-443c-b17a-***@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Jack Linthicum
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks.
Apart from the issue of the practicallity of a single 800kg bomb or
torpedo actually achieving that aim there was the matter of the canal
air defences to overcome. The whole program was cockeyed, they
would have done much better building 10 conventional boats
and using them to sink merchies as they exited the canal.

Keith
Jeff Dougherty
2009-11-27 22:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willshaw
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Jack Linthicum
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks.
Apart from the issue of the practicallity of a single 800kg bomb or
torpedo actually achieving that aim there was the matter of the canal
air defences to overcome. The whole program was cockeyed, they
would have done much better building 10 conventional boats
and using them to sink merchies as they exited the canal.
With the detection and foiling of a German plot to bomb the Panama Canal
locks before the U.S> entry into the war in 1941, provisoins were made to
add extra emergency dams to the reservoirs that supply the locks.  Even if
the Japanese had managed to attack and damage the locks, the canal would
not have suffered extensive damage.
Fascinating- I'd never heard of that. Do you know where I might look
to get more details?

-JTD
mike
2009-11-29 02:38:51 UTC
Permalink
With the detection and foiling of a German plot to bomb the Panama Canal
locks before the U.S> entry into the war in 1941, provisoins were made to
add extra emergency dams to the reservoirs that supply the locks.  Even if
the Japanese had managed to attack and damage the locks, the canal would
not have suffered extensive damage.
Fascinating- I'd never heard of that.  Do you know where I might look
to get more details?
One of the many mobile caissons in use during WWII in the C.Z.

this one is '43'

http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=1fb6257f321e3b47_landing

There are 46 gates total, consisting of 92 leaves. Each lock has
several,
that can be selected to fit the size of ships going thru.

spare lowered in
Loading Image...

So they put a hole in one.

Big Whoop.

**
mike
**
Peter Stickney
2009-11-27 22:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willshaw
On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
Post by Jack Linthicum
Keith
The Sen-kokus were, belatedly, designed to do in the Panama Canal. The
Seiran carried one 800 kg bomb or torpedo, intended to do it the Gatun
Locks.
Apart from the issue of the practicallity of a single 800kg bomb or
torpedo actually achieving that aim there was the matter of the canal
air defences to overcome. The whole program was cockeyed, they
would have done much better building 10 conventional boats
and using them to sink merchies as they exited the canal.
With the detection and foiling of a German plot to bomb the Panama Canal
locks before the U.S> entry into the war in 1941, provisoins were made to
add extra emergency dams to the reservoirs that supply the locks. Even if
the Japanese had managed to attack and damage the locks, the canal would
not have suffered extensive damage.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...