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 and Secrets of the Dead: Japanese SuperSub.

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.

[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.

[krashkart]

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

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

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

[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. 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.
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.

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

We found our sacrifical lamb to watch it.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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).

[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...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

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.