CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED

 


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Mini-sub article in naval history dec. 04< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Tony D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 25 2004,11:58  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hi Ken,

I was wondering if you had a chance yet to read the latest offering from Autometric Inc. in the December 2004 issue of Naval History.  I haven't yet had a chance to go through it, but my co-author, Joseph Czarnecki, has this take on it:

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarshi....7.topic

--------------
Tony DiGiulian
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 2
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: 5
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 25 2004,12:19 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The article he's responding to is online here for the time being at least.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
David Aiken Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 901
Joined: Feb. 2001

Member Rating: 5
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 26 2004,11:03 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Aloha Joe Czarnecki and Tony D,
Most important to the Autometric hypothesis is the context of the photo within the rest of the action within the harbor. They have yet to address the aerial torpedo attack and the time frame [not the exact time] when the photo was made. This has yet to be done by these myth makers.

Good rebuttal, Joe. Added to the above, your point #8 is the first thing by which the Autometric folk should have tested their hypothesis before committing to their seemingly irreversable course. "What would a sub captain being doing exactly where the impact of aerial torpedos were striking the water?"

IF the Autometric folk are correct...the sub had to make a 90 degree turn to get into position while the aerial torpedo impacts were coming down around them.

The shallow harbor is even more shallow in that area. The height of the midget sub and its length, especially during its turn, MUST be calculated...and compared to the path of the aerial torpedos.

"So give that Japanese sub captain an AMERICAN medal for absorbing aerial torpedo hits that blocked further damage to USS Oklahoma to prevent that ship from capsizing!" ;-)

Of interest, for John DeVirgilio's "Japanese Thunderfish", Naval History, Winter 1991, he utilized an advance copy of my "Search for Five Hirohito Messengers" Maru mag, March 1992, which detailed the five torpedo-bearing B5N losses (all from Kaga) and the attack on BB Row. This study was expanded and corrected for "Torpedoing Pearl Harbor" Military History mag, Dec 2001.. The study of the high-level portion of the B5N attack on BB Row is in John's "Seven Seconds to Infamy", Proceedings Dec 1997.

Cheers,
David Aiken, a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

--------------
Cheers,

David Aiken, a Director
Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

Keep the largest WWII website on line!
Join NOW: $25
P.O. Box 1007
Stratford, CT  06615

http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 4
Ken Hackler Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: 3.5
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 26 2004,12:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hey guys.

There are a number of issues raised in Autometric's latest article that I am addressing individually in an article I will hope that Naval History magazine considers given their past record of publishing only one side of the story (Autometric's).  If NH doesn't wish to publish the story, I will try a few others that are more open to publishing stories that do not conflict with entrenched positions.

A few of the high points I will address have been covered here in some detail over the past few years, such as where did the midget submarine go after supposedly firing at BB Row?

I am also addressing some of the things they based previous articles on, such as the 1967 Our Navy magazine hoax article, which they relied heavily upon in a previous Proceedings article, as well as the mysterious electric light barrier sea story that Daniel Martinez got from an unnamed source.  

There are a dozen flaws with their theory, but I am quite certain that all can be adequately addressed publicly and supported by documentation.  Something they always avoid.

Anyway, cross your fingers that we can get some of these myths destroyed once and for all.  I think they have received enough self-serving publicity from this.

Edited by Ken Hackler on --

--------------
Ken Hackler
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
mmarland Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: Dec. 2003

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 27 2004,9:56 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I have a few questions on this topic, I'm sure much has been talked about before but here goes.

1. What were difference between the aerial torpedoes and those carried by the midgets. Since the Oklahoma and West Virginia were hit multiple times. Would the damage caused by both types of torpedoes be distinguishable.

2. What was the time period it took from launching the torpedo and it hitting the target. In the photo, torpedoes have already hit the ships. So at the time the torpedo was alledgedly fired, the whale boat would have been further away from battleship row and even closer to the sub, most likely almost on top of it.

Finally in looking at other photos taken that day, it find it hard to believe no one claims to have seen a sub. Take a look at this picture , it's hard to say that no one would have noticed a sub.

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/helpers/ph320.jpg

Mike



here
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Tony D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 27 2004,2:48 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

David and Ken,

Thank you for the responses, I look forward to your finished work.


mmarland,

Aircraft at Pearl Harbor carried a single heavily modified version of the 45 cm Type 91 (1931) Mod 2 aircraft torpedo.  This had a 205 kg warhead of Type 97 explosive (shimose).

Mini-subs at Pearl Harbor carried two 45 cm Type 97 (1937) torpedoes.  These had a 350 kg warhead of Type 97 explosive.  This was used operationally only at Pearl Harbor as there was a problem with the first air vessel, similar to other Japanese torpedoes of the time.

Type 97 explosive is about 7% more powerful than 100% TNT.

Joe and myself discussed this difference in warhead size vs. the damage to WV as part of our essay on the original 1999 Autometrics article (essay is on the Tech Board at www.navweaps.com).  However, I must caution you that underwater explosions are not directly proportional to the size of the warhead explosive.  Roughly - very roughly - speaking, doubling the size of a torpeodo warhead will result in only 50% more damage.

I'm afraid that I cannot open the link you provided, so I cannot look at your photograph.  I get a 403 message, "You don't have permission to access /Naval/helpers/ph320.jpg on this server."

Edited by Tony D on --

--------------
Tony DiGiulian
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 7
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: 5
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 27 2004,5:41 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Tony, that link is to a picture on Navsource, whom in an effort to control the costs of bandwidth, blocks linking to images on their site. So if you click on it again  and you get the error message, just move the mouse up to the address bar at the end of the line, click once to put a cursor in said box, and hit enter. THen it should load fine.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
Tony D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 27 2004,9:43 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Tracy,

Thank you, that did work.

I've seen that picture before, but I believe that it shows the battleline following the second attack (Nevada's gone).  By Autometric's reckoning, the mini-sub would have been long gone by that time.

--------------
Tony DiGiulian
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 9
mmarland Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: Dec. 2003

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 28 2004,2:24 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

I was just trying to give a different perspective on what some one would have seen that morning closer to ground level. Looking across to battleship row, you see a host of different small craft, you can make out the individual sailors as well as the perspective to craft of similar size and proximity. Now stick in a surfaced minisub in that same general vicinity and it would be hard to belive that not one person ever saw the sub.

Thanks for the detailed analysis on the torpedoes.

Mike
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
8 replies since Oct. 25 2004,11:58 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Mini-sub article in naval history dec. 04
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner