Did someone post an article here a while back on the fuel depot at Pearl Harbour December 1941 showing the layout?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 PMN1 |
Fuel supplies Pearl Harbour 1941 |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3471 (23-Apr-2008 11:45:20) |
|
||
|
CA30ist |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 32 (23-Apr-2008 16:14:42) |
Hello,
Yes, I posted some info, and another gentleman did also, IIRC. You can also find data if you google up "Red Hill fuel storage tanks," I believe. This is all from memory, so don't take it as Holy Writ. |
||
|
BenjaminGraff |
|||
|
Posts: 121 (23-Apr-2008 21:47:52) |
From: http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge342/Red%20Hill%20Storage%20Tanks-revised.pdf
|
||
|
stanger69 |
|||
|
Posts: 18 (25-Apr-2008 04:40:54) |
Out of interest, how much fuel could each various ship hold?
|
||
|
BOBC 59 |
and the Ao | ||
|
Posts: 1147 (25-Apr-2008 05:32:03) |
The new fast battleships held over a million gallons of navy special fuel oil!!and the oilers the T-2 tankers or as u know it Fleet tanker held 130,00 barrels
or about 5.5 mill gallons the little harbor oilers or barges held about 100k gallons
NUFF SAID BOBC
For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
Last Edited By: BOBC 59
25-Apr-2008 05:37:33.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
CA30ist |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 33 (25-Apr-2008 19:12:21) |
Hello,
Very roughly, an old small DD (4-piper) like WARD could bunker about 300/350 tons of fuel oil; a big cruiser approx. 3,000 tons; a battleship maybe twice that (?) -- |
||
|
BOBC 59 |
|||
|
Posts: 1148 (25-Apr-2008 21:15:27) |
"BIG MAMIE" had excess of 6600 tons- of navy special bunkerage about 200 tons of diesel-- av gas about 25 tons- and obout 8-900 tons -of water both
feed water and potable, theses are approx plus minus 100 tons, it was a long time ago When I was oil and water king!
NUFF SAID BOBC
For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
Last Edited By: BOBC 59
25-Apr-2008 21:17:41.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
therritn |
Fuel tanks | ||
|
Posts: 33 (29-Apr-2008 06:14:15) |
Could someone refresh my memory? Why didn't the Japanese bomb the fuel tanks? Did they have specific orders not to, or didn't they have time, or did
they not see them?
|
||
|
Glenn239 |
|||
|
Posts: 1063 (29-Apr-2008 18:54:14) |
The fuel tanks were not bombed because Nagumo instead elected to retreat on the basis of already fulfilling his minimal mission orders. Probably the worst IJN
tactical decision of the entire war.
|
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
|||
|
Posts: 1816 (29-Apr-2008 19:35:53) |
A few months later when the Japanese raided Ceylon, Nagumo gave specific orders to bomb the fuel tanks at the naval base at Trincomlee. The vaunted Kido Butai
was able to destroy a grand total of one tank, and that required a suicide dive. It's not as easy to destroy fuel tanks as Hollywood would have you
believe.
|
||
|
robdab |
|||
|
Posts: 290 ( 2-May-2008 06:45:06) |
PMN1,
Also not shown was the extensive civilian fuel tankage around Honolulu Harbor.
Last Edited By: robdab
2-May-2008 06:54:18.
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
