Japanese Supersub???!!!

[Rockin Robbins]

It's very interesting that there are two links in the cover page of Subsim referring to a Japanese "supersub" that supposedly could have won the war: 'Japanese SuperSub' explores how submarine could have altered course of WWII (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/05/05/2010-05-05_what_if__japans_supersub.html) and Secrets of the Dead: Japanese SuperSub. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episodes/japanese-supersub-preview-this-episode/546/)

These submarines were the largest submarines in the world at that time, assuming the baggage of very slow dive times and larger, more noisy machinery associated with size at the time. Each submarine had an on-deck hangar capable of carrying three (count 'em!) Aichi M6A1 "Seiran" (Mountain Haze) float torpedo planes. So zero bombers, zero fighters just 3 float planes apiece.

So besides wasting the 100 or so men on board, the resources invested in the machinery and the fuel necessary to propel it to its doom, in what way might this admittedly fascinating machine have influenced the outcome of the war in any manner?

Keep in mind that in comparison, a single Essex class carrier bore about 100 planes, fighters, torpedo planes and dive bombers.

Seems to me our "science" channels are full of junk science and "history" channels are full of fables. Don't they have SOME responsibility to the truth? This sucker is on PBS, financed by dollars extracted from our pockets by force. We have no voice in what manner of nonsense they broadcast but are compelled to pay for it.

[Catfish]

- the plan was to bomb the Panama canal, or better its locks.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Weiss Pinguin]

Meh, everyone throws out 'Could've won the war' when talking about newly discovered plans for a particular weapon, or some other 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' project. Seems to me that kind of thinking would very quickly lose a war for someone.

[Raptor1]

So, they're talking about the I-400, right?

EDIT: Yes, they are. A curious design, but certainly nothing that could change the course of the war...

[Oberon]

Ironic, I was just reading that...quite far-fetched and grasping at straws really if you ask me. I do take exception as well to the ' the World War II "Secrets of the Dead" episodes that will air the following two Wednesdays - Winston Churchill attacking his French allies to make a point about his toughness'

Presuming that this refers to Mers-el-kebir, then it had a bit more reasoning behind it than making a point about Churchills toughness. :damn:

[krashkart]

Oh, that show airs tonight. I shall watch with much gleefulness and soak up everything that nutritious television has to offer me. :yep:

[Raptor1]

Oh, that show airs tonight. I shall watch with much gleefulness and soak up everything that nutritious television has to offer me. :yep:

And then throw it out of the window in rage at the stupidity of the world? :hmmm:

[tater]

I agree, nothing more than hyperbole. Bomb the locks? LOL, it would have been fixed quickly. The IJN could have sunk all 3 CVs at Midway, AND taken the island, would have delayed the war by a few months at best. Japan had zero chance of winning the war, even if they themselves thought they had a 10% chance of winning right before they started it—and this required a negotiated peace. Negotiation was required before the new naval construction in the US started coming off the slipways in 1943. PH made any such negotiation moot, it would not happen. Japan loses.

[Jimbuna]

I agree, nothing more than hyperbole. Bomb the locks? LOL, it would have been fixed quickly. The IJN could have sunk all 3 CVs at Midway, AND taken the island, would have delayed the war by a few months at best. Japan had zero chance of winning the war, even if they themselves thought they had a 10% chance of winning right before they started it—and this required a negotiated peace. Negotiation was required before the new naval construction in the US started coming off the slipways in 1943. PH made any such negotiation moot, it would not happen. Japan loses.

Yeah, I can buy that.....they were hoping to hang on to some of the raw material rich territory they had conquered through a negotiated peace from a position of strength (as they saw/envisaged it).

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes sir. I was all about raw materials plus the fact everyone else was doing the land grab! The I-400 would not have turned the outcome of the war.

[Jimbuna]

Yes sir. I was all about raw materials plus the fact everyone else was doing the land grab! The I-400 would not have turned the outcome of the war.

I doubt it would have even scratched the surface.

Might just as well say Surcouf would have done similar for the French.

[TheSatyr]

I dunno...a bombing raid with biological weapons on a West Coast city would have shocked the US nearly as much as Pearl Harbor did. Even if only 3 planes were involved.

Never underestimate the psychological and political effects of WMDs. Would it have won the war? Of course not. But,it might have caused problems politically for Truman.

[Raptor1]

Small scale WMD usage (As I pointed out in the numerous discussions about Germany winning the war) does not have the same effect on a victorious population as it does on a defeated population; if anything, it would've made the American public even more willing to defeat Japan.

[AVGWarhawk]

I dunno...a bombing raid with biological weapons on a West Coast city would have shocked the US nearly as much as Pearl Harbor did. Even if only 3 planes were involved.

Never underestimate the psychological and political effects of WMDs. Would it have won the war? Of course not. But,it might have caused problems politically for Truman.

The Japanese tried the bombings but using balloons. I believe some of these balloons did make landfall on the west coast of the US.

[Weiss Pinguin]

The Japanese tried the bombings but using balloons. I believe some of these balloons did make landfall on the west coast of the US.
Japanese Fire balloons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_balloon_bombs_in_WWII) (as told by wikipedia)
Japan released the first of these bomb-bearing balloons on November 3, 1944. They were found in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Michigan and Iowa, as well as Mexico and Canada.

General Kusaba's men launched over 9,000 balloons throughout the course of the project. The Japanese expected 10% (around 900) of them to reach America, which is also what is currently believed by researchers. About 300 balloon bombs were found or observed in America. It remains likely that more balloon bombs lie unexploded in the forests, deserts, lakes and mountains of North America.

And the only known casualties caused by the fire balloons:
On May 5, 1945, a pregnant woman and five children were killed when they discovered a balloon bomb that had landed in the forest of Gearhart Mountain in southern Oregon. Pastor Archie Mitchell and his pregnant wife Elsye drove up to Gearhart Mountain with five of their Sunday school students (aged 11-14)to have a picnic, and Elsye and the children got out of the car while Archie drove on to find a parking spot. As Elsye and the children looked for a good picnic spot, they saw a strange balloon lying on the ground. As the group approached the balloon, a bomb attached to it exploded and Elsye and all five children were killed. Archie witnessed the explosion and immediately ran to the scene and used his hands to extinguish the fire on his wife's and the children's clothing, but he could not save them. [7] They are the only known deaths on the continental U.S. as the result of enemy action during WWII. They are also the only known deaths caused by the balloon bombs.

[krashkart]

The Japanese tried the bombings but using balloons. I believe some of these balloons did make landfall on the west coast of the US.

Yes, but most landed in sparsely populated areas. There was one that made headlines when it killed someone in Washington state or Oregon(?). I remember reading about the story back in grade school but the details are fuzzy. Looking for it right now.


EDIT:

Here, a website dedicated to the subject:

http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/


EDIT 2:

It was in Oregon. I was close. http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/articles/balloonbombdeaths.html

[tater]

I dunno...a bombing raid with biological weapons on a West Coast city would have shocked the US nearly as much as Pearl Harbor did. Even if only 3 planes were involved.

Never underestimate the psychological and political effects of WMDs. Would it have won the war? Of course not. But,it might have caused problems politically for Truman.

It would have driven home the requirement that he destroy the japanese more than we were already doing. Nothing more. It's like smearing meat all over your body, then climbing into a tiger cage and poking him, lol.

There is nothing the japs could have done to win the war. Nothing at all.

[Jimbuna]

Small scale WMD usage (As I pointed out in the numerous discussions about Germany winning the war) does not have the same effect on a victorious population as it does on a defeated population; if anything, it would've made the American public even more willing to defeat Japan.

Which is precisely what happened with the British populace when Hitler started the London Blitz.....not only did it fail to demoralise them but in fact it simply strengthened they're resolve.

[Randomizer]

Even if only 3 planes were involved. Never underestimate the psychological and political effects of WMDs.
At one point the Marines wanted to dump some 2000 tons of Mustard gas onto Iwo Jima, a plan that was turned off at the White House level. A three plane chemical raid on any West Coast city would only have better facilitated the annihilation of Japanese civilians and would have been like bringing a stick to a gun fight.

[nikimcbee]

Seems to me our "science" channels are full of junk science and "history" channels are full of fables. Don't they have SOME responsibility to the truth? This sucker is on PBS, financed by dollars extracted from our pockets by force. We have no voice in what manner of nonsense they broadcast but are compelled to pay for it.

You are 100% right IMO. History channel is the worst culprit. But these "what if shows" have gotta go. Now even NatGeo is doing them:shifty:. But speaking of tax dollars wasted, I get more worked up over some of the art shows PBS has than the history ones. Example: Oregon art beat; exploring art made out of recycled garbage, or mud, or blah, blah, blah:shifty:.
Regarding changing the war, if they totally destroyed the Panama Canal, all it would have done is delay supplies, ship movements. It's like being down by 35 points in football with 30 seconds to go, and you run a trick play.



Oh, that show airs tonight. I shall watch with much gleefulness and soak up everything that nutritious television has to offer me. :yep:

We found our sacrifical lamb to watch it.:haha:

[nikimcbee]

Yes, but most landed in sparsely populated areas. There was one that made headlines when it killed someone in Washington state or Oregon(?). I remember reading about the story back in grade school but the details are fuzzy. Looking for it right now.


EDIT:

Here, a website dedicated to the subject:

http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/


EDIT 2:

It was in Oregon. I was close. http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/articles/balloonbombdeaths.html


you are correct, I have a short book on the attack on the West Coast.

[tater]

There is an exhibit on this at the International Balloon Museum here in Albuquerque, actually. Includes some actual bomb-balloon parts.

[krashkart]

We found our sacrifical lamb to watch it.:haha:

Glad I came back to this thread... I almost forgot to change channels. :up:


EDIT:

Well, that was a disappointment. :shifty:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Someone may have already mentioned this: bombing the Panama canal locks would have been a BIG mistake for the Japanese, as it would have delayed much needed aid they required to feed their people and rebuild their country (after they lost the war, of course).

[Torvald Von Mansee]

This sucker is on PBS, financed by dollars extracted from our pockets by force. We have no voice in what manner of nonsense they broadcast but are compelled to pay for it.

^^^^^^^^wonders if this guy has bitched about our bloated military spending, or the no-bid contracts to Halliburton. My guess is no.

[Sledgehammer427]

well, that was a disappointment.

the lamb has spoken!!
:P
:D

[fred8615]

I found that while the promos played up the "war changing" aspect, the show itself didn't push that theme too much. Other than the biological attack scenario, it seemed to say these subs were intended more for their psychological effect than any real attempt at winning the war.

I did yell at my TV though when they called a B-25 a B-29! :damn:

[krashkart]

I didn't see the "what-if's" as much, either. I did miss the first half of the show, though. They called a B-25 a B-29? That's almost worthy of a boycott in my book.

[tater]

That Ken Burns WW2 show on PBS claimed the whole point of Midway was to take Hawaii, too, which is nonsense. They never had operational plans to move farther East. The point of Midway was to bait the US fleet into "decisive battle."

Like every single large battle the japs lost at sea, they failed to realize that they'd just had another of their "decisive battles"—and lost.

[krashkart]

That Ken Burns WW2 show on PBS claimed the whole point of Midway was to take Hawaii, too, which is nonsense. They never had operational plans to move farther East. The point of Midway was to bait the US fleet into "decisive battle."

Like every single large battle the japs lost at sea, they failed to realize that they'd just had another of their "decisive battles"—and lost.

Gods. What's the point of teaching research skills in schools if nobody uses them anymore? :har:

[TLAM Strike]

I didn't see the "what-if's" as much, either. I did miss the first half of the show, though. They called a B-25 a B-29? That's almost worthy of a boycott in my book.
Go easy on them, they guy who read that script and the guy who wrote it probably didn't know what the guy editing it was going to put in.

As for the "War changingness" of course they hype it in the trailer. They are trying to get viewers! The more people who view it the more likely some will donate to PBS.

"This is the most awesome weapon ever devised..."

"Holy Cr@p! I'm going to watch this!"


In found in the show they focused more on the cutting edge nature of the design and how it factored in to the post war world.

Minor errors and debatable history aside it was an enjoyable hour of TV.

I am prepared to be flamed now... :p2:

[krashkart]

I am prepared to be flamed now... :p2:

Okay. :D


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Marineflametank1968.jpg



Anyway, I didn't think it was a bad show overall. I was kidding about the boycott thing, just had to nitpick about something. :rotfl2:

[msxyz]

The I-400 and her sister boats were designed for surgical strikes against distant important targets. They were mere weapon platforms but, as submarines, their performance was mediocre at best.

As someone said, the original plans called for 3-4 of them to lauch several bombers against the Panama canal locks. Even if this plan was succesful, they might have blocked the traffic for a few weeks at best.

Other plans called for surprise attacks against important industrial targets, such as powerplants, on the west coast.

While these attacks would have caused very little and localized damage to the industry and economy of a country as big as the US, they would have made a lasting impression thus forcing the US to divert some forces to protect the homeland.

In practice, it would have locked the US into an asymmetrical warfare, like the one fought against terrorists and insurgents.

[Raptor1]

The I-400 and her sister boats were designed for surgical strikes against distant important targets. They were mere weapon platforms but, as submarines, their performance was mediocre at best.

As someone said, the original plans called for 3-4 of them to lauch several bombers against the Panama canal locks. Even if this plan was succesful, they might have blocked the traffic for a few weeks at best.

Other plans called for surprise attacks against important industrial targets, such as powerplants, on the west coast.

While these attacks would have caused very little and localized damage to the industry and economy of a country as big as the US, they would have made a lasting impression thus forcing the US to divert some forces to protect the homeland.

In practice, it would have locked the US into an asymmetrical warfare, like the one fought against terrorists and insurgents.

Even if they were used like that, it would not have forced the US into anything, as Japan's disastrous oil situation following the invasion of the Philippines would have made it impossible to send them out on such missions.