Here's a photo of I-16tou's midsection and conning tower: http://imageshack.us/a/img822/3125/photomar22151806.jpg

Here's I-16tou's bow section, clearly showing that both torpedoes have been fired: http://imageshack.us/a/img204/7237/photomar22163736.jpg

All of these photos were found at I-16tou.com.

I hope that you're wrong, for the sake of the group of men who have been studying that part of the photo for years an correalating it with computer simulations and scaling it with the distance of the battleships to find it's length.

Is that the one who writes....
Conclusion
In summary, we found no proof that will conclusively settle the long-standing debate

its an interesting theory, but there is no conclusive proof. The photo does not really prove anything one way or another. Damage to the West Virginia was too extensive to determine exactly what happened.

We don't even know for sure if any midget sub entered the harbour. I-16tou was found 3 miles south of Oahu. The researchers have an interesting theory that it may have been scooped up with other debris in 1944, but this is all based on very circumstancial evidence. To me it sounds too much like the "magic bullet" theory. :ping:

I don't think we will ever know for sure what happened.

Now you're playing internet games. I pointed out that you were wrong about torpedo splashes, so you dropped that like a hot rock and danced over to something else. I looked at the photo and I don't see the tube you're talking about at all. That's okay, and if the people who've studied the photo come to a conclusion then that's fine. I've been wrong before. But the way you phrased that sentence makes it the typical sort of challenge people make when they get excited.

And your photos of the sunken midget sub are great. Were they taken at Pearl Harbor?

You keep trying to prove to me that there might have been a midget sub there. What you're missing is that I've never denied that. I've never denied the possibility. I haven't denied anything. All I've said is that that particular photo doesn't prove anything.

Get it?

I have looked at this some more and I see some more holes in the theory:

1. there is no record of a midget sub being scooped up in 1944 and dumped outside of the harbour. Now it is possible that the Navy did not recognize what it was and just dumped it with the LST wrecks from the West Loch disaster, but a midget sub is 80 feet long and this one was in only 3 big pieces. It is improbable that someone would not have recognized that it is not a LST;

2. the wreckage lies in a straight line, bow in front followed by midsection followed by stern section, all within 180 meters of each other, exactly as you would expect if it had been scuttled and sank to the bottom. What are the odds it would land like that if the wreckage had been scooped up in West Loch and just dumped in the open ocean?

more details at I-16tou.com

Not quite. Three miles out, and the sub was cut into three with ropes attached. That, and the ex-submariner using his intuition, is how they formed their theory about it being dumped after the West Loch disaster.

Finally.

Your absolutely right. What could have happened is that they recognised that it was the last midget sub, but just dumped it anyway without telling anyone, as the West Loch Disaster wasn't publicised very much, to avoid ruining morale.

It's unlikely that it was scuttled outside the Harbour. For one, the midget sub only carried one scuttling charge, and the dumping theory best explains the ropes attached to the submarine.

If a mini sub did indeed get into the harbor and was able to fire off it's torpedoes than it probably hit the Oklahoma. There WAS one torpedo hole on the Oklahoma that was bigger than the others but the assumption was that 2 torpedoes hit near the exact same spot.

It does open up a few questions,since the explosive power on aerial torpedoes was smaller than the explosive power you would find on submarine and surface ship torpedoes.

Every torpedo hole is different, depending on strike angle and how the charge detonates. One Japanese merchant was actually sunk by a dud torpedo.

We're not talking about paper thin merchant hulls though. I think all the attack angles were pretty much the same weren't they? Same weapon, same conditions, same angle of attack, maybe a larger than average torpedo hole does point to a larger than average torpedo.

Here's the video:
Killer subs in PH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ssOVE5UBU

Thanks.

It's funny, the narrator in that video is different to the one I first saw, and he narrated Convoy: War for the Atlantic.

Battleship hulls are no thicker than merchant hulls, averaging 1/2" thick. The heavy armor belt is too heavy to extend very far underwater, and torpedoes can easily be set to run below them. Take Nevada, for example. The main armor belt was 14" thick at the waterline, but only 8" thick at its lowest point, which was 8 feet below the waterline, on a ship with a 27-foot draft. This means that 19 feet from the bottom of the armor belt to the keel of the ship was unprotected. On the other hand a good part of that was protected by anti-torpedo bulges, which are lightweight steel bulkheads containing a liquid that is more compressible than water, allowing the gas to be pushed away, thus protecting the inner hull.

Yes, a larger hole does indicate a larger torpedo. I was just pointing out the other possibilities. The fact that the sub's torpedoes had been fired is also indicative. As I said before, I'm not arguing that it didn't happen. I'm more than willing to believe it. What I'm arguing with is certain people jumping to conclusions and trying to prove that they're right.

What I find interesting from the video is the story of "Midget Sub #2". The narrator says the sub entered Pearl Harbor, fired both of its torpedoes, missed, and went aground on what, according to their map, looks like the north side of Ford Island, and was destroyed by two American warships. The wreck was raised two weeks later and "buried as landfill".

Cybermat, I'm surprised you're so concerned with trying to prove the sub found outside the harbor was actually once inside the harbor, when you already have proof that there was a sub that was sunk inside the harbor. It was fairly easy for me to find a trail leading to that particular sub.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Pearl.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_...lass_submarine

There you have absolute proof that at least one of the subs got inside and launched both its torpedoes. That they missed is irrelevant.

Does the photo show a submarine or air-launched torpedoes? Who cares? Was the sub you're concerned with sunk outside the harbor, or inside and then later moved outside? Who cares. Your concern with trying to prove that is meaningless, if all you want to prove is that one of the subs did indeed fire its torpedoes. did one of the torpedoes from that sub make the hole in Oklahoma? Maybe, maybe not. If so, did that torpedo contribute to the sinking of the ship? Since Oklahoma capsized it's pretty much certain that it was torpedoes that did her in, so if that torpedo was indeed from a midget sub then it certainly was a contributing factor.

On the other hand, if all you're trying to do is prove that at least one of those subs got inside the harbor, you don't have to theorize any longer. I've handed you proof that one of the subs was sunk, and raised again just two weeks later, well inside Pearl Harbor. It was quite easy to find.