Two Sunken Japanese Submarines Found Off Hawaii 239
Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that two World War II Japanese submarines, including one meant to carry aircraft for attacks on American cities, have been found in deep water off Hawaii where they were sunk in 1946. Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the US East Coast — perhaps targeting Washington, DC and New York City — the 'samurai subs' were fast, far-ranging, and some carried folding-wing aircraft. Five Japanese submarines were captured by American forces at the end of the war and taken to Pearl Harbor for study, then towed to sea and torpedoed, probably to avoid having to share any of their technology with the Russian military. One of the Japanese craft, the I-201, was covered with a rubberized coating on the hull, an innovation intended to make it less apparent to sonar or radar; it was capable of speeds of about 20 knots while submerged, making it among the fastest diesel submarines ever made. The other, the I-14, much larger and slower, was designed to carry two small planes, Aichi M6A Seirans that could be brought onto the deck and launched by a catapult. The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good. 'It's very moving to see objects like this underwater,' says Hans Van Tilburg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 'because it's a very peaceful environment, but these subs were designed for aggression.'"
Tour a sub. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Informative)
Link [ussnautilus.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:4, Interesting)
My family drives from New Jersey to Massachussetts every year, and it's tradition to stop in Groton at the Nautilus for a long break. The museum is excellent and the tour of the sub gives you a feel for history that can never be matched by books or documentaries. I have a lot of fond memories of the place, from when I was very young being completely in awe of this boat that could go underwater, to growing up and understanding the history surrounding its creation, and truly appreciating the sign on one of the nearby houses in Groton that encouraged visitors to be mindful of the fact that, for all the marvelous engineering and history surrounding the ship, it was a ship made for war.
Minor correction. (Score:3, Funny)
"for all the marvelous engineering and history surrounding the ship, it was a ship made for war and therefore AWESOME!"
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Funny)
I am a sub service veteran, having served on missile subs in the late 60s/early 70s. When I wasn't out to sea on patrol I used to work on different subs that were in port. One of the boats I worked on was the Nautilus. A few years my wife, daughter, and I toured the Sub Museum and the Nautilus. I pointed out some of the gear that I had worked on, thinking it would impress my daughter. It did: She said "Oh my God, Dad! Your so old the stuff you worked on is in a museum!" It brought me back down to Earth right quick...
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:4, Informative)
I spent a couple hours at the shrine to the Thresher and the Scorpion in Groton. Any loss at sea is - awe inspiring? But, the loss of a sub is somehow a little bit more than the loss of a surface ship. I got to tour one of the last diesel boats in San Diego, soon after I joined the Navy. A 3rd class petty officer spotted me wandering up and down the pier, examining every detail of the boats, and invited me aboard for a guided tour. Simply awesome.
Uncle Sam wouldn't allow me to serve aboard boats, for the same reason he wouldn't let me around his aircraft. Poor color vision kept me out of anything interesting. *sigh*
In '74 and '75, there was a captured WW2 U-boat at the Great Lakes training center as well. That was god-awful small and cramped, even compared to the boat I toured in San Diego.
Never did tour the Nautilus. I can't even remember why I missed it - it was certainly on my list of "things to do". It probably had something to do with chasing women.....
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Informative)
U505 at Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. It's Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page, and it's Museum [msichicago.org] page.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The U505 is impressive but the tour is far too short. You really don't get a good opportunity to experience the sub and examine all its workings. The tour guides rush you from room to room, tell a little story in each, and then hustle you out. I would have preferred to go at my own pace, but I understand the need to keep the line moving since it's such a confined space.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
U-boat in Chicago.
Growler Submarine in New York City
Submarine Force Museum in Groton CT has the USS Nautilus
There are others.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't go inside it, but the HA.19 [wikipedia.org], one of the Japanese midget submarines that participated (ineffectually) in the attack on Pearl Harbor, is on display at the National Museum of the Pacific War [wikipedia.org], in Fredericksburg, Texas.
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Insightful)
And, looking at my gut, I'm guessing the soft-serve experience did something to me as well.
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:5, Funny)
OK... I can't help it... Going AC...
You were in a long black tube in Bangor. The most memorable things were getting to feel a big vertical shaft and getting cream in your mouth? And now that memory has created a life-long fascination? I'm having trouble not reading between the lines here.
Sorry for regressing to 12-years-old there. I'll try to grow up a little now. Truthfully, I'd love to let my boys tour a sub. Next time we're in Portland I'll see if I can line it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One more reason to flee to the Cleve!
Re:Tour a sub. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's pretty much still the case on modern nuke boats. The bunks in the torpedo room are roomier and more open. Some guys get "coffin sickness" from their racks (they wake up screaming at night) so they are allowed to sleep in the torped
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah touring subs are pretty neat. I know of ones in Portland, Galveston, and Pearl Harbor? Any others?
You can tour a Soviet sub in San Diego.
Re: (Score:2)
Until recently there was a Russian sub on display in Providence, RI. Unfortunately it was swamped in a storm and it looks like it's being sold for scrap.
http://www.saratogamuseum.org/juliett/index.html [saratogamuseum.org]
USS Silversides (SS-236) (Score:4, Insightful)
USS Silversides (SS-236) [wikipedia.org] Active in WWII from April of 1941 to July 1945, and saw quite a bit of action.
Can be seen at the Great Lakes Naval Memorial & Museum [discountasp.net].
In Muskegon, MI. They have several "overnight" programs for Cub Scouts and Indian Guides and such so you can spend the night sleeping in the bunks, as well as eat in the galley, watch Das Boot, etc. Very very very cool for kids and adults both.
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of the Baltimore Maritme Museum [historicships.org] which includes some other wonderful ships to tour also
Re: (Score:2)
I went through U-505 in Chicago at the Museum of Science & Industry when I was a wee lad, and it was among the highlights of a very good visit.
Re: (Score:2)
Battleship Cove in Fall River, Mass., has the USS Lionfish: http://battleshipcove.org/ss298-history.htm [battleshipcove.org]
Also, they have the battleship USS Massachusetts, two PT boats, an East German (Russian) missile corvette, and a bunch of other stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
SS-481 USS Requin [wikipedia.org] at the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
USS Drum (SS-228)
Gato-class submarine
1940-1967
Battleship Memorial Park
2703 Battleship Parkway
Mobile, Alabama, 36602
Google Maps satellite view [google.com]
This park also has a lot of other nice things to look at, such as the USS Alabama (BB-60), and A-12 (similar to the SR-71) #06938.
A good part of the Drum and Alabama are open for you to explore.
I was there to see the A-12, but spent h
Re: (Score:2)
The USS Torsk [wikipedia.org] is open for tours in Baltimore. For more, check out the Historic Naval Ships Association's list of submarines. [hnsa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA (Score:4, Informative)
The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA - Listed In Order Of Launch Date [submarinemuseums.org]
Re: (Score:3)
[Sigh] Though that page repeats the (completely false) urban legend that Blueback was used in The Hunt for Red October...
There's also the Submarine Museums [navy.mil] page from the USN, which links not only to submarines on display, but to other museums with submarine exhibits.
Re: (Score:2)
...anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.
That is a difficult task after the USS Greeneville Incident. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.
Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means.
Scorpion Soviet Sub at Queen Mary (Score:2)
http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=scorpioninformation [queenmary.com]
You can go through the entire sub from front to end.
I have done this a couple times and take relatives down to it when they come in town, than you can go right next to the Queen Mary all here in Long Beach, CA.
Lots of ducking your head and pipes everywhere, a plumber would get a hard on walking through it all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They built 28 WWII subs up there and floated them down the Mississippi.
I have claustrophobia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Submarines, underwater? (Score:5, Funny)
It's very moving to see objects like this underwater
Compared to those damn flying submarines...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO? SkyDiver! [wikipedia.org]
Disappointed (Score:4, Interesting)
When I first read this headline, I thought they had located the missing midget submarine used to attack Pearl Harbor. (See this [wikipedia.org]) This is not the case. That ship still remains lost.
In the year 2199... (Score:5, Funny)
Earth's only hope for survival will be to resurrect these two subs as spaceships to kick some Gamilon ass.
"Leader Dessslok, it's as if we're fighting a ghost ship! How can an old Earth submarine defeat all of Gamilon?"
Hurry Starforce, there are only 57 days before all life on Earth becomes extinct!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think you mean to use the Douglas DC-8. And they aren't taking them away from Earth but bringing them here, to be stacked up next to volcanoes, and blown up with nuclear bombs. Afterwards, their ghosts will attack humans. We'll have to develop meters that can detect these ghosts, and charge enormous sums to eliminate them.
Wait, that sounds familiar, somehow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Article is wrong: Japanese DID attack US mainland (Score:5, Informative)
And yes the aircraft were recoverable by the sub crew: they were seaplanes, and would be picked up by a crane aboard the sub.
You can read a summary of US-mainland attacks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II#Japanese_assaults [wikipedia.org]
Thank God (Score:5, Funny)
Someone has got to say it (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what your girlfriend said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only real insight was Freud's obsession with the phallus, and his lack of consideration for basic physics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.
Especially when it contains lots of seamen.
it comes from japan (Score:2)
the world capital of porn production and general weirdness of all varieties
so its not surprising
Read "On the Bottom", by Edward Ellsberg (Score:2)
East coast USA? (Score:2)
FTA:
I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.
early stealth subs were german inventions (Score:3, Interesting)
better details on stealth u-boats (Score:2)
Airplane Carriers... (Score:4, Interesting)
The submarine type mentioned, the one designed to carry folding aircraft and a catapult for launching, was actually used in the only aerial attack on the contiguous United States by the Japanese during WWII (both Alaska and Hawaii were attacked by aircraft) if one does not count the numerous attack balloons sent aloft by the Japanese.
One of these submarines surfaced off the coast of Oregon and launched one of it's folding aircraft. The plane then flew over forested tracts of land and dropped (by hand!) small incendiary bombs in an effort to start large-scale forest fires. One of these bombs landed on property NW of Langlois, Oregon, property that my Aunt and Uncle owned at the time. Fortunately, the Japanese had not taken into account just how damp the woods along that coast are during the summer months and they simply blew up a few trees. It is not unheard of for it to be raining there in June/July. The desired fires never happened.
It is unknown what became of the plane, but it is assumed it landed near the submarine (I believe they were float-equipped, but incapable of a water launch and thus needed the catapult), was folded up and stowed below deck again.
Though I do not recall the title, there is a book on the subject.
There was also an unverified report of a submarine off the coast of San Diego. An alarm was sounded but the sighting was later questioned.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's a teaser. It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were. (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)
American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.
Now I learn that the Japanese were playin
Re: (Score:2)
Jet engines aren't much use to the army.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's a teaser. It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were. (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)
American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.
Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.
Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.
Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially. A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)
As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality of its own. It's great it you can produce one tank that will kill five of the enemy's; until of course your enemy starts producing six tanks for every one of yours.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A) Believing every rumor is NOT the opposite of arrogance.
B) In fact, they had good reason to disbelieve the reports. Their only problem was that they made certain assumptions about how much of a death-trap the Japanese military were willing to make their planes... Get rid of all armor, and a plane can climb much faster. Of course it dives MUCH SLOWER, so upon figuring this out this fact, future dogfights became i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.
It wasn't that simple.
If you look at Germany vs USSR, for example, it's a common myth that USSR won by "swarming hordes", human wave attacks, etc. The myth is also wrong. There are very few documented cases of human wave attacks by the USSR - it was well known by then that this simply doesn't work against machine guns (so what you've seen in e.g. "Enemy at the Gates" is pure bullshit).
Tech difference was also nowhere hear as great as some people make it out to be. To have a look at some points...
German tank
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The axis forces of WWII made many arrogant mistakes, like not believing in convoys (Japanese), not believing allies had broken their codes (Japanese and German), not believing that their own governments could come up with anything like a "death
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. You missed the part about "same could be said for all participants". My point was that as vicotrs, the Americans got to write about their achievements, while minimizing the achievements of others, and glossing over their mistakes.
History is seldom written from the perspective of the losing side; if it's written it's called a hostorical novel or fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
You are either trolling or you don't understand the meaning of "history is written by the victors".
Even if you don't kill all your enemies and all who supported them in any way the winner still comes out on top with the loser subdued, guess which party is more powerful (hint: It's fucking obvious).
Also, just because there are books written on the subject doesn't mean they've received as much publicity as those describing the glorious victors (btw, this is the "guess which party is more powerful" bit in the
Re: (Score:2)
...don't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes...
Actually, for the purposes for which they were designed, "suicide planes" were a pretty practical weapon. They knew that many planes weren't coming back. A piloted plane diving onto a boat is both dangerous and terrifying. It inspires local forces as much as it intimidates the enemy. AFAIC, it's a great example of hive think. And, simultaneously, a travesty of humanity and an example of focusing on strategy and practicality to the point of completely neglecting any other goals.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Japanese were convinced that Dolittle's raid was conducted by submarine launched bombers to such an extent they spent an enormous amount of effort developing them.
Like many such items during the war - these subs attempted too many innovations in one jump and were not reliable. The Germans and the Japanese had a penchant for attempting to produce super weapons as opposed to incremental improvements in existing stuff. Some of what they produced was incredible, but none of it was really ready for prime time, or available in sufficient quantity to significantly have any effect on the war.
One of the most draconian decisions of the war was on the part of the US - it was recognized that the Sherman was no match for the heavier German tanks. There were some improvements, but the US counted on the fact that we were producing and delivering tanks at a rate that outstripped the Germans ability to destroy them or replace their own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...which completely explains why we had to drop two of them before they surrendered. Surely they were in no hurry to lose another major city.
The bombs were dropped because it was completely clear to all that the japanese of that time were going to dig in as deep as possible and were all willing to fight to the death. If you run the math, the number killed by those two bombs is far less than the casualties would have been on just the Allies side had we had to actually invade Japan. Imagine the scale of da
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum.
Of course the allies led in technology. That's why they won the war. There's a certain luxury to develop new technologies when you're fighting at arm's length (in the case of Britain post 1940 and the US) vs being right in the thick of things. The Soviets had already won the tank design part - as early as 1941 I believe it was von Rundstedt that commented, on inspecting a captured Soviet T-34: "If ever the Soviets can mass produce this tank, we've lost the war". Individually German tanks were far superior. However they were far more complex, resulting in engineering, maintenance and manufacturing difficulties. The Soviets had a good simple design that could take a beating and was easy to make and maintain.
Germany was, after the start of Barbarossa and the stall in the offensive, in a fight for her life. That leaves very little budget for R&D. And with 20-20 hind-sight too much of it went to tank and artillery development (a losing proposition because they were going to be beaten by sheer numbers anyway), and not enough of it to asymmetric warfare like U-Boats or aircraft. Imagine a Germany capable of sealing off the North Atlantic with hordes of type XXI U-boats, or bombing the Ural tank factories and the Norfolk shipyards with long range bombers (read about the Amerika Bomber project that got cancelled)/strategic rockets!
The Japanese were never going to win, period, unless Germany managed a complete victory in Europe and took on the US. Yamamoto even knew this before the war started. They were too small, and trying to grab too much of an empire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Of course the allies led in technology. That's why they won the war. "
The Allies won the war because of Hitler's master plan:
10 Invade your neighbour
20 Goto 10
30 An empire which will exist for 1000 years!
The U.S. was fully prepared to declare Germany the winner in Europe and let life go on.
Technology did end the war in the Pacific though. But if Hitler didn't declare war on the U.S. and Russia, regardless of the Pacific, Europe would be a Nazi superpower. It was a strange time in history. T
Re: (Score:2)
American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
Surprising, considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft. The zero is a copy of the H-1 [wikipedia.org], which the Japanese deny of course. But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things, like motorcycles and cars, for example. They were good at it, just like the Chinese are today.
I got modded troll, but I don't care. I guess we just have different definitions of "Geek".
Re: (Score:2)
Zero: Maximum Speed: 533kph, Range: 3,105km, Rate of Climb: 15.7m/s
F4F-4 Wildcat: Maximum Speed: 515kph, Range: 1,240km, Rate of Climb:
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you look at Japanese culture, the whole thing of permanence is frowned on... The Zero was the embodiment of Japanese thinking; fast, able, lethal, depending on pilot skill rather than heavy defenses. Worked well, too, until they started running out of seasoned pilots and the Allies fielded heavily armored aircraft that the Zero couldn't knock out of the sky.
The F4F was about the only plane that even came close to even with the Zero. The Buffalos, the Spitfires, were all toast. For the Buffalo, t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like the other poster, I think you meant the F6F Hellcat. The F4F was slower than a Zero and couldn't come close to out-performing it. It had the advantage in the dives, and it was much tougher, which kept the carnage down to some extent, but performance-wise, no way.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
You might want to read Arthur Clarke's old story "Superiority."
The wonder weapon often has significant hidden flaws or doesn't make it to the battlefield in time be decisive.
A downed Zero was recovered from the Aleutians in July 42, rebuilt and flown for testing:
"The Zero had superior maneuverability only at the lower speeds used in dogfighting, with short turning radius and excellent aileron control at very low speeds. However, immediately apparent was the fact that the ailerons froze up at speeds above two hundred knots, so that rolling maneuvers at those speeds were slow and required much force on the control stick. It rolled to the left much easier than to the right. Also, its engine cut out under negative acceleration [as when nosing into a dive] due to its float-type carburetor.
"We now had an answer for our pilots who were unable to escape a pursuing Zero. We told them to go into a vertical power dive, using negative acceleration, if possible, to open the range quickly and gain advantageous speed while the Zero's engine was stopped. At about two hundred knots, we instructed them to roll hard right before the Zero pilot could get his sights lined up."
Advanced U.S. fighters produced toward the war's end still couldn't turn with the Zero, but they were faster and could outclimb and outdive it.
Without self-sealing fuel tanks, the Zero was easily flamed when hit in any of its three wing and fuselage tanks or its droppable belly tank. And without protective armor, its pilot was vulnerable.
Koga's Zero [americanheritage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - he owns the Wall St. Journal. Brain freeze. My bad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does that work? See this [wikipedia.org].
Re:Launched by catapult? (Score:5, Interesting)
A little tangential here, but it may be interesting to engineering nerds.
I got a description of some of the workings of standard carrier catapults from a co-worker who used to be stationed on one. This is maybe 20 years old, so our tech may have changed since then. Apparently they have (had?) a supply of hour-glass shaped steel widgets on board color-coded to match the aircraft being launched. When it was time to launch, they would grab the appropriate size/color and insert it as an intentional weak-link in line with the cable before firing up the winch. When the cable was properly tensioned, the steel widget would break and release the cable throwing the plane into the air.
Kind of a neat design idea if you can't just haul the cable along fast enough to throw the plane.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am no expert, but my impression is that aircraft cat systems haven't changed significantly in those 20 years.
But in the US Navy's next carrier class [wikipedia.org], it will [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to read The Fine Article, but I wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility. Could it be another type of Kamikaze mission?
Also... I wonder if two aircraft would be all that affective with conventional weapons. It reminds me of M.A.S.H.'s 5 o'clock Charlie.
Re:Launched by catapult? (Score:4, Informative)
wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility
It was. The aircraft were fitting for water landings and the subs had cranes to lift them back on deck.
Re:Launched by catapult? (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, there was also one British submarine seaplane carrier, the M2 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Launched by catapult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in tha day, they had to use a big boom arm for ships without a deck. For recovery, the aircraft would land next to the ship/sub and a big crane would just hoist them out of the water. this page [ussslcca25.com] shows a pretty similar process for an old OS2U-3 Kingfisher. Some pretty cool pix at the bottom of the page. I wouldn't want to be the pilot during recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Presuming there even was truly intended recovery for the aircraft launched from these subs.
I was fortunate enough to see one of those aircraft at the Paul E. Garber restoration facility of the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum back when it was open. It was one of the many craft that astounded me. I've toured subs and seen the limited room, squeezing a couple planes in there too seems unimaginable, yet there was the perfectly viable plane sitting in front of me.
However I was also "fortunate" enough to see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think they did very well - I seem to recall reading that not one was ever used successfully.
They were used successfully (from the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]):
1 April 1945: Six "Bettys" attack the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. At least one makes a successful attack, with its Ohka hitting one of the 406 mm (16 in) turrets on West Virginia, causing moderate damage.
12 April 1945: Nine "Bettys" attack the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. Mannert L. Abele is hit, breaks in two, and sinks. Witnessed by LSMR-189 CO James M. Stewart. Jeffers destroys an Ohka with AA fire 45 m (50 yd) from the ship, but the resulting explosion is still powerful enough to cause extensive damage, forcing Jeffers to withdraw. Stanly is targeted by two Ohkas. One strikes just above the waterline, with the charge punching through the other side of the hull before detonating, causing little damage to the ship, and the other Ohka narrowly missed and crashed into the sea, knocking off the Stanly's ensign in the process
4 May 1945: Seven "Bettys" attack the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. One Ohka hits the bridge of Shea, causing extensive damage and casualties. Gayety is also damaged by a near-miss by an Ohka. One "Betty" returns.
11 May 1945: Four "Bettys" attack the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. Hugh W. Hadley is hit, suffers extensive damage and flooding. Vessel judged beyond repair.
Re:Launched by catapult? (Score:4, Informative)
Currently steam for the launchers, though electromagentic rails are being designed as upgrades.
The hydralics are used to slow the arresting cables down. And for the big elevators.
Re: (Score:2)
"A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator. Not very much used now-"
How do you think the navy gets its planes airborne from carriers?
Re: (Score:2)
Are 4 bangs part of the name? All of the Gojira posts have 4 bangs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like Japan wasn't bombing civilians? Or Germany? Or Britain? Or Russia? Or _ANYONE ELSE_?
That's how wars were fought in those days. Get over it. We didn't have smart bombs, we couldn't take out a specific building, or even a specific city block. And their war industries were located right in the middle of their major cities. We had no other choices. The only way to stop their military was to carpet bomb their cities, or though a direct ground assault. And do you realize how many _more_ people would have die
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically your saying that you wish people were killed to prevent the killing of other people. I suppose the irony is lost on you.