The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#376

Post by Orwell1984 » 26 Oct 2014, 01:29

phylo_roadking wrote:.
Just as a matter of interest - I don't suppose we happen to know where the flying boat base at RAF Pembroke Dock bunkered their...aviation spirit? 8O
RAF Pembroke Dock had its own separate tanks on the base.

Image

Luftwaffe reconnaissance photo of Pembroke Docks circa 1940 with Llanreath and LLanion oil tank depots. RAF Pembroke Dock is upperleft close to the pointed bit of coast. If you look below the circled mark to the lower right you can just make out circular shapes which are the RAF base's fuel tanks. And in the water off the base you can make out the shapes of flying boats. As can be seen the RN oil tank depots are located a distance from the RAF base.

The below image is from a later date 1943 but gives an idea of how the base was set up.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ww2images/6902233033/

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#377

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 26 Oct 2014, 03:43

RichTO90 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:Just as a matter of interest - I don't suppose we happen to know where the flying boat base at RAF Pembroke Dock bunkered their...aviation spirit? 8O
In the tanks marked Trinidad I would suspect...

Trinidad is the same oil deposit(Orinoco Belt) from which Venezuela gets it oil. The oil from that formation is sour heavy crude oil. So basically you are looking at something approximating Bunker B or No #5-6 oil in the Trinidad tanks, (IMO). Texas is light sweet crude.


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#378

Post by RichTO90 » 26 Oct 2014, 05:30

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Trinidad is the same oil deposit(Orinoco Belt) from which Venezuela gets it oil. The oil from that formation is sour heavy crude oil. So basically you are looking at something approximating Bunker B or No #5-6 oil in the Trinidad tanks, (IMO). Texas is light sweet crude.
The high octane aviation fuel produced by Shell Trinidad Limited's refinery was so important it gave rise to the sobriquet ‘flying on Trinidad oil’ in the RAF.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#379

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 26 Oct 2014, 06:18

RichTO90 wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:Trinidad is the same oil deposit(Orinoco Belt) from which Venezuela gets it oil. The oil from that formation is sour heavy crude oil. So basically you are looking at something approximating Bunker B or No #5-6 oil in the Trinidad tanks, (IMO). Texas is light sweet crude.


The high octane aviation fuel produced by Shell Trinidad Limited's refinery was so important it gave rise to the sobriquet ‘flying on Trinidad oil’ in the RAF.
Forgot about that. Makes sense , when talking about refined fuel instead of oil.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#380

Post by phylo_roadking » 26 Oct 2014, 17:18

Orwell, thanks for that.

However, it's still interesting with respect to this debate that the Admiralty was prepared to bunker aviation spirit with its "Trinidad" soubriquet in their tanks at Llanreath - for FAA use?

I'm a bit suprised at the nature of that pro forma. It would suggest that the pro forma was filled in weekly to show what was in each tank...as opposed to reserving particular tanks for particular oils and fuels 8O As we've already seen, aviation spirit/gasoline produces hugely greater and more risky levels of vapour than heavier oils - so I can't understand why there wasn't a tank (or tanks) reserved for that specific use and danger. Several of the more detailed accounts also note that Llanreath was an older generation of oil storage facility - perched right on top of a hill, and easy to spot...and thus attack.

Something else that struck me this morning in the middle of breakfast; many of the eyewitness and other accounts I've read of the raid describe an "incendiary" being dropped on the tank. However....those four quite large craters left in the landscape would hint at something much larger and high explosive than a little magnesium incendiary...

Anyway, I've ordered a copy of Vernon Scott's "In Harm's Way", one of the very few dedicated works on the raid - there might be some indication in it of what exactly was in the first tank to blow...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#381

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 27 Oct 2014, 03:17

IF 'trinidad" was RAF high quality av-gas, would that mean "texas" was the 100 octane US av-gas? If so there is a real good reason why those tanks went up so easily. Place was a poorly thought out giant av-gas bomb waiting to happen.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#382

Post by RichTO90 » 27 Oct 2014, 14:29

ChristopherPerrien wrote:IF 'trinidad" was RAF high quality av-gas, would that mean "texas" was the 100 octane US av-gas? If so there is a real good reason why those tanks went up so easily. Place was a poorly thought out giant av-gas bomb waiting to happen.
It works like this. An Admiralty Oil Fuel Depot contained fuel oils used by the RN. That included NFO's, but also included heating oil, diesel, petrol (M/T and aviation grades), kerosene, and other petroleum products. About the only thing that wouldn't likely be in those tanks would have been crude. Of those, the least likely to have produced the effect at Pembroke in August is the NFO. Meanwhile, a strike on a tank on any tank containing any of the others would likely have ignited them and, given the layout at Pembroke, would likely have ignited at least three more.

BTW, in the photos there appears to be evidence of at least four high explosive bombs striking in the stick running up through the fields to the road and then the tanks...and at least two or possibly three smaller bombs, but there is no indication of incendiaries being used. Given that the standard Abwurf-Behalter (AB) or Bomben-Schalt-Kasten (BSK), held some 36 1-kilogram B1El bomblets, and that the Ju 88 could carry a maximum combination of four (assuming two auxiliary fuel tanks) or six 250 kilogram bomb "packages" (assuming no auxiliary fuel) internally, each consisting of one 250KG bomb, or four 50KG bombs, or four AB/BSK incendiary canisters, you would think there might be at least some evidence of at least some of the 144 bomblets landing in the open field?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#383

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Oct 2014, 17:33

BTW, in the photos there appears to be evidence of at least four high explosive bombs striking in the stick running up through the fields to the road and then the tanks...and at least two or possibly three smaller bombs, but there is no indication of incendiaries being used. Given that the standard Abwurf-Behalter (AB) or Bomben-Schalt-Kasten (BSK), held some 36 1-kilogram B1El bomblets, and that the Ju 88 could carry a maximum combination of four (assuming two auxiliary fuel tanks) or six 250 kilogram bomb "packages" (assuming no auxiliary fuel) internally, each consisting of one 250KG bomb, or four 50KG bombs, or four AB/BSK incendiary canisters, you would think there might be at least some evidence of at least some of the 144 bomblets landing in the open field?
Agreed; that's pretty much what I meant above. I'm also a bit puzzled by apparently only ONE bomber from the formation attempting to attack the depot.

There's a lot of unintentional disinformation around about the raid, simply because there are SO many disparate eye witness accounts available - adults in Bufferland and Pembroke Dock, children playing and at school, etc. There's confusion over the the numbers of aircraft, and the types..and what they did; some kids' as adults later remembered waving to them as they flew over, and the air crew waving back...others remember the bombers machinegunning the area! :roll: Hence I'm hoping Scott's book will cut through some of the clutter.
It works like this. An Admiralty Oil Fuel Depot contained fuel oils used by the RN. That included NFO's, but also included heating oil, diesel, petrol (M/T and aviation grades), kerosene, and other petroleum products. About the only thing that wouldn't likely be in those tanks would have been crude. Of those, the least likely to have produced the effect at Pembroke in August is the NFO.
Hence the pro forma. If you couldn't keep to any strict regime about what was to go in which tank where...then the best you could do was record what was in each of them week on week :P

Another thought on that...and it goes back to what we were discussing a few days ago about venting vapour/pressure; if the various tanks at Llanreath were actually storing all sorts, including high-vapour types of fuel - there doesn't seem to have been much of a regime for storing the more delicate types or venting vapour either I.E. nothing on the pro forma about storing petrol in certain specific tanks 8O

Maybe it was just so second-nature that there was no need for any comment on the pro forma...but I'm suprised there was nothing on it indicating that certain tanks were reserved for "Trinidad" and "Texas".

Christopher...
IF 'trinidad" was RAF high quality av-gas, would that mean "texas" was the 100 octane US av-gas? If so there is a real good reason why those tanks went up so easily. Place was a poorly thought out giant av-gas bomb waiting to happen.
As I noted above, it was product of an earlier generation of Depot design - not least in its position and the lack of concealment/camoflage. But it was also the product of an era when noone expected an enemy being able to fly that far...or be flying from as close as France! :(
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#384

Post by Orwell1984 » 27 Oct 2014, 18:23

As an aside came across this when I was doing my searching. Unfortunately it's not been digitized yet.
Investigation into Damage to Crops and Losses of Stock in South Pembrokeshire following the Bombing of Oil Tanks at Llanreath on August 19th 1940.

Includes 3 photographs depicting: South Pembrokeshire - bombing of oil tanks at Llanreath: graph of contaminated milk yield; map of affected area; cattle - condition of gall bladder containing approximately 1 gallon of bile. Dated 1940.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C1420781

Another interesting find was a presentation at the 2007 Contaminated Land in Wales conference entitled " Llanreath Oil Storage Depot - Managing a Wartime Legacy". If you search on this you can find a PDF on the presentation. There are a series of interesting powerpoint slides which are unfortunately a bit indistinct in spots.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#385

Post by RichTO90 » 27 Oct 2014, 19:20

Orwell1984 wrote:Another interesting find was a presentation at the 2007 Contaminated Land in Wales conference entitled " Llanreath Oil Storage Depot - Managing a Wartime Legacy". If you search on this you can find a PDF on the presentation. There are a series of interesting powerpoint slides which are unfortunately a bit indistinct in spots.
Interesting, especially since they describe the pollutant residue as 50-60% mineral oil and 18-30% aromatics...that doesn't sound like Bunker C, NSFO, or any of the heavier fuel oils? AFAICT that is closer to a diesel residue or a lighter grade of heavy fuel oil? However, the description of it being of a "highly viscous, bitumen-like consistency" is more consistent with a heavy fuel oil. Contradictions amid contradictions. Regardless, I still suspect the initiating tanks for the catastrophe were not filled with Bunker C.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#386

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Oct 2014, 19:40

Interesting, especially since they describe the pollutant residue as 50-60% mineral oil and 18-30% aromatics...that doesn't sound like Bunker C, NSFO, or any of the heavier fuel oils? AFAICT that is closer to a diesel residue or a lighter grade of heavy fuel oil?
Although, given the number of tanks that blew across the next couple of weeks - any number of different fuels may have gone up (and back down again) in the course of events 8O It's a pity that posterity hasn't preserved the completed pro forma for that particular week...or else it has, and it's buried in a Kew file somewhere. As for the constituents today - there'll have been a lot of mixing as tanks split and filled the berms - or as a tank went up and its contents were desposited over the neighbourhood, it'll have fallen on top of previous/other tanks' contents...

Talking of the berms - what's the idea of "group" berms like that? It looks more like it was done to prevent oil spillage downhill into the town and easier recovery...a catchment system...rather than damage control in the event of a fire.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#387

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Nov 2014, 17:44

Ok, Scott's book arrived this morning and I've read through it.

The first tank hit contained 12,000 gallons of "oil"...the exact grade of which is not specified, but it certainly wasn't Trinidad or any other aviation spirit. In the minutes following the attack, the residents of Pennar and Llanreath...but particularly Pennar...came out of their houses in their hundreds, blocking the arrival of the Pembroke Dock fire fighters fifteen minutes later. Some were shocked, some were escaping damage to their houses by the blast, some were looking for husbands and children...but into the middle of the crowd charged over fifty maddened PIGS from a pig farm right beside the tank farm! They were described as all coated in a "thick, gluey oil" and several were on fire! A bit like that level crossing scene at the start of Mars Attacks! :P That description would rule out "Trinidad".

The fire fighters arrived in a trickle; the VERY first response was by the staff of the Depot, who came out of where they had been sheltering in the underground tunnel down to the haven, and they tried fighting the fire with a couple of small pumps, but it was described by participants as "pissing in the wind". The PD part-timers arrived 15 minutes after the attack under Chief Morris, the Pembroke Fire Brigade about the same interval after that - and detachments from all over South Wales arrived through the evening, followed by detachments from as far afield as Brimingham the day after.

It looks like the bomb hit the roof of the tank...setting light the oil below. A few minutes' AFTER the actual bomb, the top blew off the tank with a HUGE secondary explosion. Through the night there was an issue with water pressure, as the old cast iron and rusted water mains had started to collapse with the extra pressure and demand uphill from any of the areas' housing....but it was got round by daisychaining pumps down to the water's edge at Llanreath. The two tanks marked on the pro forma as containing water DID contain water at the time of the bombing...and this was used to get over the low pressure period until the seawater solution could be effected...

But the battle against the fire was "lost" the next morning; as the tide went out the pump engine that had been driven out onto the beach wasn't able to go any further as the water line went down over soft mudflats :( Water pressure dropped disastrously, and although a temporary reserve source of pumpable water was found in the old "pickling pond" in Pembroke Dock, full pressure wasn't restored for many hours until a series of fire boats from the haven were daisychained out to deeper water to allow the pumping of sea water to re-start. In the meantime a SECOND tank blew, and the fire fighting because containment and limiting rather than extinguishing.



The other major contributory factor was that the area was WHOLLY unprotected; there was no fighter cover, there were no AA assets of ANY size in the area despite so many strategically important installations! The area had in fact been bombed before....two German bombs had landed inside berms at the depot on May 4th...but failed to explode! It wasn't until the Home Office official, the Chef Inspector of Fire Brigades Capt. Tom Breaks was sent on the 20th to take charge of the firefighting, and he began agitating urgently for protection that the first AA gun arrived in the area three days later. In the meantime....the Germans came back! There were several strafing attacks made on firefighters during the first week of the fire....

In 1980, when Vernon Scott published an early account of the fire and the events surrounding it in the Telegraph newspaper over a number of days, he was contacted by a native of Pembroke who was the nephew of a Lt. Col. Tom Powell REME, who had met a Luftwaffe colonel who was still a POW in Palestine in 1946 awaiting repatriation. It turned out that the Luftwaffe officer had been the pilot who led the attack on Llanreath. He told Powell that shortly after dawn on the 19th of August, a high-level German recce flight had been made over Pembroke Dock to ascertain if any AA cover had been provided for the town since the previous visits that year. Once the pilot returned to France with the news that there wasn't...the order to fly the mission against the tank farm was given. Which would also explain why only one bomber in the formation attacked the tank farm; once the tank farm had visibly been hit - their mission was accomplished.

Finally - I wondered why there was only one bomb hit the tanks, and four craters...five would be an odd number (sic!) for a stick of bombs. SIX were indeed dropped, but one failed to explode. The PD AFS team later posed for a photographer with the tail section of the defused bomb.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#388

Post by robdab » 07 Nov 2014, 21:23

.
Gents,

It been good to see you all playing so nicely together but I've found some more "factoids" that I just know you'll want to consider ...

http://web.archive.org/web/200805171608 ... olulu.html details the quantity of civilain bunker "C" fuels stred at Honolulu Harbor on the afternoon of Dec.6'41 which is why that tankfarm should also be included in any "what if" IJN fuel storage bombing target list.

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/helpers/pearlmap.jpg presents a map which DOES show the 9 large American avgas tanks located on Ford Island which should also be targteed by any "what IF" IJN strike ... AND the location of the US anti-torpedo nets across the entrance channel leading into Pearl Harbor.

I believe that I've located the source of Alan Zimm's Book of Deceptions generic oil tank information ... the Oil Measure and Storage section of http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm is better than another wikipedia source, but not much better. Certainly not nearly as specific to Pearl Harbor's fuel storage tanks as is http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habsha ... 40data.pdf which was prepared by

Historic American Engineering Record
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
San Francisco, California

Darwin's oil tanks are depicted in photos at http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/157291/ along with http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/027348/ and http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/027347/

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/012448/ blames Japanese bombs for Singapore's fuel tank woes

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/069958/ claims that Italian bombs ignites fires which Zimm claimed Italian Navy cruisers couldn't accomplish ...

last but certainly not least, the Luftwaffe gets credit from http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/SUK10476/ for igniting the British Admiralty's Turnchapel, Plymouth. Oil Depot fuel storage tanks ...

its slowly beginning to seem that bunker "C" isn't all that impossible to ignite ...
.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#389

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Nov 2014, 21:44

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/helpers/pearlmap.jpg presents a map which DOES show the 9 large American avgas tanks located on Ford Island which should also be targteed by any "what IF" IJN strike ... AND the location of the US anti-torpedo nets across the entrance channel leading into Pearl Harbor.
Well, given that that's Bob Berish's map for Sam Morison's 1948 book...that's hardly proof that the Japanese knew of either of those in 1941...
http://web.archive.org/web/200805171608 ... olulu.html details the quantity of civilain bunker "C" fuels stred at Honolulu Harbor on the afternoon of Dec.6'41 which is why that tankfarm should also be included in any "what if" IJN fuel storage bombing target list.
That's a bit "cart before the horse"...unless you're also claiming that the Japanese knew what was in them...
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/012448/ blames Japanese bombs for Singapore's fuel tank woes
Apart from the minor fact that it doesn't actually say WHAT is burning there - tanks, pipework, what...let alone what grade of oil.
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/069958/ claims that Italian bombs ignites fires which Zimm claimed Italian Navy cruisers couldn't accomplish ...
HAIFA, PALESTINE. 1940-07-15. AS FIRES BLAZE FIERCELY, DENSE CLOUDS OF SMOKE RISE FROM THE OIL INSTALLATIONS OF THE SHELL OIL COMPANY, WHICH WERE SET ON FIRE BY ITALIAN BOMBERS DURING THE FIRST AIR RAID ON THE CITY.
Ditto; there's no indication there of what parts of the "oil installations of the Shell Oil Company" were ablaze...OR what grade of oil, if any, was ablaze...
last but certainly not least, the Luftwaffe gets credit from http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/SUK10476/ for igniting the British Admiralty's Turnchapel, Plymouth. Oil Depot fuel storage tanks ...
Oh? Does it? Really?

PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND. 1940-11-28. DAMAGED BUILDINGS IN RUINS AT RAF STATION, MOUNT BATTEN. SMOKE SEEN IN THE BACKGROUND IS RISING FROM THE TURNCHAPEL OIL TANKS.

No, not from http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/SUK10476/ it doesn't.

A rather relevant P.S. ...

The Luftwaffe hit the Turnchapel tank by accident - they were aiming for RAF Mount Batten, the Sunderland flying boat station!

And an equally relevant P.P.S. ...
its slowly beginning to seem that bunker "C" isn't all that impossible to ignite ...
..except the Turnchapel tanks almost certainly contained aviation fuel :P Turnchapel was actually Stage One, Site Two of the Admiralty's Plymouth Aviation Fuel Reserve Depot. Even as late as 1944, as detailed in ADM 116/5143 (Oil fuel supplies in conjunction with Operation `Overlord': manning arrangements for oil storage depots) Turnchapel is listed as containing aviation spirit. So all Rich's comments above regarding that fuel applied to Turnchapel. It did not contain Bunker C.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#390

Post by Takao » 08 Nov 2014, 22:06

As this discussion concerns the invasion of Oahu...Would not the intentional destruction of any and all oil/gas tanks border on a "moronic" idea by the Japanese? After all, they are capturing the island, and not conducting their historical hit and run raid. Thus, they will most likely need to keep the oil facilities, if not their contents, as intact as possible.

Do the Japanese have the wherewithall to rebuild and restock all of Oahu's oil supply? If so, will construction of base facilities elsewhere have to be delayed or cancelled?

Just seems to me, that intentionally destroying what you will need the most, sound like a rather dumb idea.


Off the cuff to robdab.

The Port of Honolulu's 300,000 barrels of oil pales in comparison to PH's 4.5 million barrels. Further, given that this is an "invasion", how much use is the Port of Honolulu going to have by the Americans. Destroying these tertiary targets is a dilution of effort that is put to better use elsewhere.

If the Japanese cripple the American aircraft on Oahu, there is little logic in going after support facilities that the Japanese will need after the capture of Oahu. Again, destroying the tanks at Ford would appear to be a rather dumb move on the part of the Japanese. IMHO, wasting Vals on the torpedo nets is even more foolish, and needs no further comment.

Correct me if I am misreading this, but the PDF you have provided, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habsha ... 40data.pdf , only concerns three oil tanks...
Yet, you set back and assume that the data pertains to all of the oil tanks...Therefore, you are making the same mistake that Zimm does.

As for the photos, they do not prove much of anything unless you know their contents...

Locked

Return to “What if”