Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Midget sub sank Oklahoma????

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by ickysdad, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Dec 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
  2. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    May 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    There are two other threads on this story.

    Here is what I posted on one of them;

    I did notice several errors in the article, however. There was no such thing as an "800 pound Japanese torpedo"; the Japanese aerial torpedo used in the attack weighed 1,841 pounds with a warhead of 452 pounds. The torpedo used by the Japanese mini-subs weighed 2,161 pounds with a 772 pound warhead. The "800 pound" figure may refer to the warhead of the mini-sub torpedo. But the relative size of the hole in the Oklahoma's hull could vary greatly depending on several factors, only one of which is the size of the warhead.

    As for the capsizing being proof of a larger warhead than the aerial torpedoes, no, that's completely incorrect, and the person who so stated should know better. The Oklahoma took several torpedoes, all on the same side of the hull because of the way she was moored. The capsizing was caused by the rapid and unequal flooding of the hull on that side. One torpedo (even with a slightly larger warhead), more or less, wouldn't have made any difference, unless it had struck the other side of the hull.

    I personally don't think anything has been proven. The theory outlined in the article is one possible interpretation of the facts, but that's all it is; there are other possible interpretations which fit the facts equally well. Whether a Japanese sub did penetrate Pearl Harbor and hit the Oklahoma with a torpedo makes little difference; the damage done to the Oklahoma by the aerial torpedoes which we know struck that ship were sufficient to capsize her. A single torpedo strike could not have added a significant amount of damage to that already inflicted by the air attack.
  3. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Jun 5, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Sounds like they trying to blame a single tooth of the buzz saw for all the damage to their finger.
  4. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Aug 5, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Phoenix Arizona
    A couple of things here:

    We know that Oklahoma (along with Nevada) had the weakest and shallowest torpedo defense systems of the battleships at Pearl. We also know that the defense system itself was not breeched. Instead, the Oklahoma capsized due to rapid flooding on one side that could not be counterflooded in time and that water over the third deck was the cause of much of the additional flooding outside the torpedo defense system.

    If the midget sub's torpedoes had hit Oklahoma with their much larger warheads it is likely they would have successfully breeched the torpedo defense system completely. Yet, there is no evidence to support this. So, the likelihood is that none of the midget subs contributed anything to the actual attack in terms of outcome.

    We also know that these subs were very prone to breeching the surface after firing, particularly when they fired both torpedoes nearly simultaneously. Yet, given the number of potential observers no one ever reported seeing one of these subs in a position to fire on Oklahoma.

    The available evidence would suggest that no such attack took place but, it might remain a very remote possibility that it occured.
  5. Cla68

    Cla68 Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Likes Received:
    CombinedFleet.com has updated its page on the midget submarines at Pearl Harbor:

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

    (scroll to the bottom of the page)

    They appear to support the theory that the fifth midget sub fired its torpedoes at the USS St. Louis as she exited South Channel out of Pearl Harbor at 22 knots, but both torpedoes missed and exploded on the reef.
  6. yankydvr

    yankydvr recruit

    Nov 27, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Interesting info
  7. Kevin Kenneally

    Kevin Kenneally Member

    Apr 24, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I do not believe this could have occurred.

Share This Page