Hello,
Here's a link with an account: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-Midway/USN-CN-Midway-5.html
Seems hard to believe that the kanbaku pilots of KdB couldn't destroy a tank farm if they really wanted to.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 CA30ist |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 37 ( 3-May-2008 19:01:15) |
|
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
|||
|
Posts: 1832 ( 3-May-2008 20:02:42) |
Seems hard to believe that the kanbaku pilots of KdB couldn't destroy a tank farm if they really wanted to. Yes, but they proved exactly that at Trincomlee. |
||
|
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 1001 ( 4-May-2008 05:32:30) |
Shattered Sword also notes the destruction of the oil tanks by level bombers: "Indeed, Hiryu's report was more restrained than her division mate:
"The First chutai scored a hit on a fuel tank in the vicinity of the NE cape on Sand Island."", and: "On Sand Island, bombs had hit the
water lines, as well as a trio of oil tanks which were left burning heavily."
Also, where did you get the information on the oil tanks at Trincomalee? |
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
|||
|
Posts: 1834 ( 4-May-2008 05:48:54) |
Shattered Sword also notes the destruction of the oil tanks by level bombers: "Indeed, Hiryu's report was more restrained than her division mate: "The First chutai scored a hit on a fuel tank in the vicinity of the NE cape on Sand Island."", and: "On Sand Island, bombs had hit the water lines, as well as a trio of oil tanks which were left burning heavily." According to the notes section of "Shattered Sword", the above statements were based on the claims of Japanese pilots which may, or may not, have been accurate. What I'm looking for is some verification of the actual damage by someone on the American side in a position to be knowledgeable about what actually happened on the ground. So far, I haven't found any document that confirms the destruction of more than a single tank on Midway. Also, where did you get the information on the oil tanks at Trincomalee? See http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/japraid.html "It should be recalled that all attempts made by Japanese air force to destroy the oil tanks at Chiana Bay failed and none of the bombs fell on to target. Finally three crew members who belonged to the suicide squad of the Japanese air force dived on to one oil tank (tank No. 91) and the oil caught fire with a big bang when the bombs packed with air craft exploded. That was the only oil tank the enemy could destroy that too at the cost of three lives. The oil burnt for nearly a week and the remnants of the burnt oil tank still remains to tell the tale. Certain parts of the Japanese air craft were later recovered along with the skull of one of the crew members of the suicide air craft. The remnants of the air craft are now kept near the destroyed oil tank around which an iron fence has been erected. The skull has been subsequently removed by someone. The tank farm now belongs to the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation."
Last Edited By: Dolphinstriker
4-May-2008 06:21:57.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 1002 ( 4-May-2008 06:05:19) |
Thanks
Though, it couldn't have been a dive bomber if there were three crew members. The Val only had two. Only the Kates had three.
Last Edited By: Creeping Death1929
4-May-2008 06:08:25.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Glenn239 |
|||
|
Posts: 1067 ( 5-May-2008 18:35:22) |
Look closely, it appears to show only a single, rather small, oil tank burning.
The Hyperwar link CA30ist provided states: The powerhouse on Eastern Island and the oil tanks near the Marine dock on Sand Island were primary targets and were hit. 0644 OP to Bn: "Tanks on fire at southwest part of island". Both say "tanks", not "tank". Your opinion that the Japanese could have easily destroyed the Pearl Harbor fuel tanks is not supported by fact. The destruction of far smaller tanks on Midway proves beyond doubt that the Pearl's supplies were in jeopardy, had the Japanese task force been commanded by someone with a better sense of opportunity and more aggressive instincts. From what I recall of the discussion on Combined Fleet with Mike Wenger, his analysis of the level bombing attacks at Pearl Harbor (Hickam, etc.) will leave little doubt but that a similar attack on the massive, sprawling oil fields would have proven disastrous for the United States Navy. IIRC, the IJN, Kimmel and Nimitz all said the same thing. Seems hard to believe that the kanbaku pilots of KdB couldn't destroy a tank farm if they really wanted to. I'd say closer to impossible, not merely just hard. Would have to be either unfamiliar with the war in question, or be overly swayed by patriotism in order to reach another conclusion. Though, it couldn't have been a dive bomber if there were three crew members. The Val only had two. Only the Kates had three. DS's posted account doesn't contribute much to the discussion - it does not state how many B5N2's made the attack, how far from the target their bombs fell, and why their bombs missed the field. |
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
|||
|
Posts: 1841 ( 5-May-2008 20:08:41) |
The Hyperwar link CA30ist provided states: Yes, and that's problematical. Where is the after action report that states "X" number of oil tanks were hit and destroyed? Surely, the commander of Midway had to submit a report that listed damaged/destroyed equipment and facilities? Presumably the Hyperwar article was an eyewitness, yet another eyewitness account which I referenced says only one tank was destroyed. The destruction of far smaller tanks on Midway proves beyond doubt that the Pearl's supplies were in jeopardy No doubt about it, anytime fuel tanks are the target of enemy bombers, they're in "jeopardy". But the sorry performance of Nagumo's fliers at Trincomlee where they had orders to destroy the fuel tank farm, leaves open to question just how much damage they could have inflicted on Pearl Harbor's fuel tnks. No amount of opinion or speculation will change that. I'd say closer to impossible, not merely just hard. Would have to be either unfamiliar with the war in question, or be overly swayed by patriotism in order to reach another conclusion. The record of the Japanese dive bomber pilots is impressive, particularly against ships, but they AFAIK never made attacks against fuel tanks. It's not unreasonable to question their effectiveness against different types of targets especially when there is no historical precedent to judge by. It should also be mentioned that had the Japanese dive bombers been employed against the Pearl's fuel tanks, the USN would have suffered far less damage to it's ships and other facilities. DS's posted account doesn't contribute much to the discussion - it does not state how many B5N2's made the attack, how far from the target their bombs fell, and why their bombs missed the field. It does, however, establish that Nagumo's pilots, under orders to destroy the fuel tank farm at Trincomlee, failed to do so. That happens to be a very inconvenient fact for those who claim that Nagumo should have attempted to destroy the fuel tanks at Pearl Harbor. |
||
|
robdab |
|||
|
Posts: 294 ( 5-May-2008 21:22:15) |
Dolphinstriker,
One newspaper reporter's account, written circa 2005 and based on a 2002 second-hand account from a dead eyewitness is hardly convincing, is it ? Perhaps further sources should be found before profound conclusions are reached ?
|
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
Wrong Concusion | ||
|
Posts: 1842 ( 5-May-2008 23:07:14) |
By using the same logic as you suggest, one could state that because the Americans didn't sink a Japanese carrier during the Pearl Harbor raids, then they couldn't have sunk any at Midway either. Wrong on so many levels ... No, your conclusion is illogical. Historically the Americans didn't sink any carriers at Pearl Harbor, the only conclusion you can draw from that is that the Americans didn't sink any carriers at Pearl Harbor. However, we know for a fact that the Americans did sink a carrier at Coral Sea and four carriers at Midway. The conclusion you can draw from that is that the Americans sank four carriers at Midway and one at Coral Sea. My logic holds that the Japanese may not have been able to destroy the fuel tank farm at Pearl Harbor because when they tried to do something similar at Trincomlee a few months later, they failed; totally different from concluding that the Pearl Harbor case means something that we know for an historical fact didn't happen. If you're going to try to refute an argument solely through logic, at least get your logic straight. One newspaper reporter's account, written circa 2005 and based on a 2002 second-hand account from a dead eyewitness is hardly convincing, is it You have to judge that for yourself. Personally, I think a newspaper account, including an eyewitness account, and details of the target, the tank number for instance, and pictures of the wreckage and a sign, commemorating the event, erected by locals, is very convincing. And particularly so when I find other sources confirming the details such as the fact that it took a suicide dive to accomplish the damage. The fact that there is no report or mention in historical records that the Japanese did manage to destroy the tank farm at Trincomlee during their attack also tends to lend credence to the report. We do have statements (in Dull, for instance) that Nagumo ordered the destruction of the fuel tanks at Trincomlee, so we know they were trying. Whether you choose to believe it is immaterial unless you can come up with data that indicates the report is false. |
||
|
robdab |
Out of Context ... | ||
|
Posts: 295 ( 6-May-2008 06:49:22) |
Dolphinstriker,
I believe that you deliberately take this one example out of it's proper context in an attempt to prove your long held point of view wrt how difficult it was for aircraft to bomb fuel tanks. That the Japanese failed to destroy more than one of Trincomalee's 99 fuel tanks when so ordered to do so is, I believe, a reflection of the surprise discovery of the carrier HMS Hermes, an Allied destroyer, a tanker and two other merchant ships, that same morning. Yes Nagumo had ordered the oil tanks destroyed but I consider it likely that such an order was downgraded in priority when a carrier target presented itself approx. 70 miles south of Trincomlee. Attacked by 70 bombers and 20 fighters which originally should have been hitting Trincomalee, she was hit some 40 times. And sank quickly. I only speculagte but perhaps those Japanese aircraft could not bomb the Trincomalee fuel tanks since they had already dropped their loads on Hermes etc. ? Perhaps the one that did do a suicide dive was too heavily damaged by flak to get back to the Kido Butai ? This example does not reflect any difficulty that aircraft have in hitting fuel tanks. It reflects only the substuitution of a higher priority target thus showing the flexibility of the IJN to adapt to changing military situatiions. The bombing of Wake Island by both twin engined Japanese land based bombers and IJN divebombers has several examples of the Japanese destroying fuel tanks and would perhaps better reflect the reality of the early WW2 Japanese experience ?
Last Edited By: robdab
6-May-2008 06:52:39.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
