The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

[phylo_roadking]

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.

Indeed.

In fact - if anyone is likely to destroy the island chain's POL reserves....it would be the Americans in the event of the defence against invasion turning against them. To deny both stocks and storage facilites to the enemy.

[OpanaPointer]

I've read of plans to turn the harbor into a "lake of fire", but that was back in the '80s and I'm damned if I remember the source.

[phylo_roadking]

As an actual defensive action like the 1940 anti-invasion "flame barrages" in the UK, or just to get rid of the bunkered fuels?

[Carl Schwamberger]

As an actual defensive action like the 1940 anti-invasion "flame barrages" in the UK, or just to get rid of the bunkered fuels?

Likely the latter. I remember the same thing as OP, from some magazine article or other. Accuracy of those things is all over the scale & in that one it was tough to separate hyperboyle from information. It looked like they intended to let the oil & other fuels out through the distribution pipes into the harbor or onto the airfields/motor pools and ignite it there.

A few years ago I took a look at the wind and water currents around Oahu & those did not look like they favored flame barges, or burning oil barriers. Anything adrift could be shifted several nautical miles in a hour. Actually they looked like they would interfere substantially with landing operations. That was covered many pages up thread here, as well in other threads on other web sites.

[OpanaPointer]

As an actual defensive action like the 1940 anti-invasion "flame barrages" in the UK, or just to get rid of the bunkered fuels?

It would have been pointless to try that with the bunker fuel. I'm pretty sure they were talking about the lighter POLs.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, I was referring to bunkered fuel, as in stored....not the Bunker "C" we've been discussing above...

Although releasing it back into the wild I.E. the bottom of the harbour would probably make it as useless to the invader!

[ChristopherPerrien]

I've read of plans to turn the harbor into a "lake of fire", but that was back in the '80s and I'm damned if I remember the source.

Fuchida, Prange, Goldstein, Dillion, and a couple Canadians , can go swim in it. It warrants no consideration as something that could have realistically happened.

[OpanaPointer]

Well, I was referring to bunkered fuel, as in stored....not the Bunker "C" we've been discussing above...

Although releasing it back into the wild I.E. the bottom of the harbour would probably make it as useless to the invader!

Some of it would have been pumped up and into settling tanks.

[OpanaPointer]

I've read of plans to turn the harbor into a "lake of fire", but that was back in the '80s and I'm damned if I remember the source.

Fuchida, Prange, Goldstein, Dillion, and a couple Canadians , can go swim in it. It warrants no consideration as something that could have realistically happened.

This wasn't a publication.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, I was referring to bunkered fuel, as in stored....not the Bunker "C" we've been discussing above...

Although releasing it back into the wild I.E. the bottom of the harbour would probably make it as useless to the invader!

Some of it would have been pumped up and into settling tanks.

O I don't doubt that some of it could eventually have been recovered - but it's going to be a relatively large undertaking...and somewhat vulnerable itself to outside interference

[ChristopherPerrien]

I've read of plans to turn the harbor into a "lake of fire", but that was back in the '80s and I'm damned if I remember the source.

Fuchida, Prange, Goldstein, Dillion, and a couple Canadians , can go swim in it. It warrants no consideration as something that could have realistically happened.

This wasn't a publication.

Okay , well as an article or something way-back IDK. I do know Brian J Ford, talks of the sea-oil flame barrage for the UK and its failures in, Allied Secret Weapons-Ballatine 1971, I do not recall if he mentioned the study of the use of such a system elsewhere, offhand, like Hawaii in that book. Maybe he wrote articles elsewhere on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Allied-Secret-Wea ... 0345020979

I got a copy but it is buried in my library, no way I can reach it

[OpanaPointer]

The item was a xerox of a planning document from Com14th, dated early 1941. I get things when they're FOIA'd at San Bruno, a friend of mine sends them to me.

[glenn239]

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.

Rest assured the Americans hadn't gone through the spectacular trouble of housing 600,000 tons of bunker fuel at Hawaii for decorative purposes. It was there to be able to support a strong fleet. If the IJN deliberately preserved the tank farms, then the USN would have the capacity to move strong forces to Hawaii, perhaps strong enough to defeat an invasion. If the IJN instead destroyed the tank farms, then the USN would be for the most part forced back to California, where its ability to interfere at Hawaii would be impeded.

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?

Answer to one is 'no' - the Pearl tank facilities had 10% of the entire Japanese strategic reserves, so represented a level of supply beyond any capacity to fully replace.

Answer to 2 also appears to be no - Oahu is too far forward to be an IJN major base. When Kido Butai operated from a forward base for local operations, (Staring Bay, 1942), it did not require the construction of extensive base facilities.

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

I think it would be overstating the available Japanese options to suppose that the defenders of Oahu would permit even one barrel of oil to be captured by the IJN after a siege. By the same token, I think it would be...unwise...for the IJN to permit USN forces to operate around Hawaii drawing on the oil supplies that otherwise could be destroyed.

[glenn239]

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...

Phylo has posted some fantastic stuff over the past weeks. I think Rob's contribution quite helpful as well with the information on those tanks, and I did not think that he made any such claim as that the information for the few tanks he had posted was to be taken for all the tanks at Hawaii. I appreciate these contributions.

[phylo_roadking]

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.

Rest assured the Americans hadn't gone through the spectacular trouble of housing 600,000 tons of bunker fuel at Hawaii for decorative purposes. It was there to be able to support a strong fleet. If the IJN deliberately preserved the tank farms, then the USN would have the capacity to move strong forces to Hawaii, perhaps strong enough to defeat an invasion. If the IJN instead destroyed the tank farms, then the USN would be for the most part forced back to California, where its ability to interfere at Hawaii would be impeded.

Glenn, I would have to question your reasoning on this. I can't see USN fleet units being prepared to tie up beside quays and spend time replenishing - during an ongoing invasion with any respectable amount of tactical air support. No captain worth his salt is going to want to be stationary that long...in a restricting anchorage/port basin that he'd have to crawl through and then back out of...be tied up beside a very vulnerable bombing objective that long...one that if it goes up would at the very least do him considerable damage; not just blast and heat...but I wonder what happens if a fuel oil tank blows when it's busy pumping fuel oil along a pipeline into a ship's tanks...

I can see fleet oilers plying back and forth between California and any USN assets deployed off the islands - there's nothing remarkable about it, later in the war how were the South and Ccentral pacific fleet trains oiled??? They were as far from a major port as Hawaii was from California...

...and at best I can see smaller, faster units...destroyers, submarines etc. dashing inshore at night to possibly refuel while offloading troops, munitions etc. and taking on casualties - but their time would be limited, they'd want to be back out to sea with room to manouver to avoid fall of shot before dawn.

I'm not aware of any RN ships oiling at Dunkirk, for example, even before the inner basins were put out of service....or in any of the few Norwegian ports they were able to use; if they themselves didn't ply back and forth to the UK for replenishment - they were oiled out to sea in the case of Norway.