General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Japanese aircraft carrying subs
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: October 03, 2001 03:46PM
<HTML>As we have discussed before on this site, the Japanese had a very different vision for the use of their subs than did the Germans.
They saw them as long range eyes and ears for the fleet in tracking the movement of major US fleet units, and for inflicting 'attritional' losses on the US fleet as it sailed out to the great decisive naval battle both the US and Japan saw as the culmination of conflict in the Pacific. Merchant warfare was an irrelevant sideshow in this view, because any war plan that was not quickly decisive against the US would lead to defeat.
As such Japanese boats were large, very, very long ranged, and fast on the surface. Many also had aircraft fitted for recon work - you can search a much vaster stretch of ocean with an airplane than you can with a high periscope lookout! Obviously the Japanese did not foresee an ASW environment dominated by long range aircraft - they thought airpower would be confined to short ranged airplanes near shore bases or aircraft carriers, so they felt there would be plenty of room in the ocean to surface for the extended periods necessary to launch and recover aircraft.
In war this turned out to be less than successful. Long ranged ASW aircraft made it dangerous to stay on the surface for aircraft operations, and the small number of small, slow airplanes carried (usually only one per boat) could do very little.
But Japanese boats did launch aerial reconn of a number of US harbors, including Pearl, during the war. They also dropped some small bombs (to no effect) on the Oregon forest, trying to start forest fires.
Towards the end of the war many plane carrying subs used their hangars for ferrying supplies.
At the end of the war, several giant (5,000+ ton) subs, the I-500 class, were built. These carried three dive bombers, and had enough range to go nonstop from Japan to the US east coast and back. Several missions, such as bombing the White House, were contemplated. An attack on the Panama canal locks was trained for but cancelled. In the end they saw no service, though they were commisioned and ready by war's end. I suppose they could have been used to spread bio weapons (the Japanese had weaponized anthrax by 1945) to the US mainland if the war had gone on.
The book you are referring to is "I-boat Captain". It is a good read.
The US missile attack you refer to was by the USS Barb against Japanese coastal factories on what is now Russian soil, but at the time was part of Japan. The Americans used standard 5" bombardment rockets ina jury rigged set-up to launch them from the deck of the surface boat. It is described in Gene Fluckey's autobiography, "Thunder Below", also a good read.</HTML>
They saw them as long range eyes and ears for the fleet in tracking the movement of major US fleet units, and for inflicting 'attritional' losses on the US fleet as it sailed out to the great decisive naval battle both the US and Japan saw as the culmination of conflict in the Pacific. Merchant warfare was an irrelevant sideshow in this view, because any war plan that was not quickly decisive against the US would lead to defeat.
As such Japanese boats were large, very, very long ranged, and fast on the surface. Many also had aircraft fitted for recon work - you can search a much vaster stretch of ocean with an airplane than you can with a high periscope lookout! Obviously the Japanese did not foresee an ASW environment dominated by long range aircraft - they thought airpower would be confined to short ranged airplanes near shore bases or aircraft carriers, so they felt there would be plenty of room in the ocean to surface for the extended periods necessary to launch and recover aircraft.
In war this turned out to be less than successful. Long ranged ASW aircraft made it dangerous to stay on the surface for aircraft operations, and the small number of small, slow airplanes carried (usually only one per boat) could do very little.
But Japanese boats did launch aerial reconn of a number of US harbors, including Pearl, during the war. They also dropped some small bombs (to no effect) on the Oregon forest, trying to start forest fires.
Towards the end of the war many plane carrying subs used their hangars for ferrying supplies.
At the end of the war, several giant (5,000+ ton) subs, the I-500 class, were built. These carried three dive bombers, and had enough range to go nonstop from Japan to the US east coast and back. Several missions, such as bombing the White House, were contemplated. An attack on the Panama canal locks was trained for but cancelled. In the end they saw no service, though they were commisioned and ready by war's end. I suppose they could have been used to spread bio weapons (the Japanese had weaponized anthrax by 1945) to the US mainland if the war had gone on.
The book you are referring to is "I-boat Captain". It is a good read.
The US missile attack you refer to was by the USS Barb against Japanese coastal factories on what is now Russian soil, but at the time was part of Japan. The Americans used standard 5" bombardment rockets ina jury rigged set-up to launch them from the deck of the surface boat. It is described in Gene Fluckey's autobiography, "Thunder Below", also a good read.</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
oliver | 10/03/2001 09:14AM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
Hank | 10/03/2001 12:10PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
parade | 10/03/2001 12:43PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
oliver | 10/03/2001 01:58PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
Rainer Bruns | 10/03/2001 03:24PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
Jack | 10/03/2001 02:31PM |
|
Japanese aircraft carrying subs
|
kurt | 10/03/2001 03:46PM |
|
Re: Japanese aircraft carrying subs
|
oliver | 10/03/2001 08:00PM |
|
Re: Japanese aircraft carrying subs
|
William Engel | 10/05/2001 11:51AM |
|
Re: Japanese aircraft carrying subs
|
oliver | 10/05/2001 01:28PM |
|
That's I-400 class
|
kurt | 10/06/2001 02:27AM |
|
Re: That's I-400 class
|
oliver | 10/06/2001 08:42AM |
|
Re: That's I-400 class
|
kurt | 10/06/2001 12:35PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
Steve Cooper | 10/08/2001 07:22PM |
|
Re: Submarine Aircraft carrier
|
I Stapley | 10/09/2001 01:59PM |