The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#451

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Nov 2014, 06:00

robdab wrote:Opana, YOU are the one HOSTING all 40 volumes of the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings testimonys on your website. Do you NOT know what information they contain ??

The quote just above sure seems clear to me.
.
And I am mildly curious to know if you have any idea just exactly what the difference was that Admiral Bloch was referring to? Or why you think it has the slightest bit of importance to the discussion?

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

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#452

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Nov 2014, 06:03

robdab wrote:After so many years of inane battling about how NSFO was supposedly almost impossible to ignite.
The only inanity over the years has been supplied by you. No one has ever said it was "almost impossible to ignite". That is yet another one of your inventions, like Val's carrying a 250 kg. bomb along with two 66 kg. bombs. Provide some proof.


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

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#453

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Nov 2014, 06:09

robdab wrote:.
While tracking down that PHA Volume 22 quote about anti-torpedo netting being historically used instead of anti-submarine netting at the entrance channel into Pearl Harbor, I came across several other interesting "factoids" which I present to illuminate the future discussion of glenn239's Invasion of Oahu alternative history scenario ....
Give us all an fffing break and go crawl back under your rock. All that was covered in considerable detail long ago so go peddle your astonishing revelations on Alt Space Bats Forum or wherever it is you go in between your bouts of lunacy here.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#454

Post by OpanaPointer » 15 Nov 2014, 14:54

Apparently some folks haven't put enough time on the subject to know the difference between an anti-submarine gate and an anti-torpedo net. It's rather significant.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

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

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#455

Post by robdab » 24 Nov 2014, 01:42

.
RichTO90 wrote:Give us all an fffing break and go crawl back under your rock. All that was covered in considerable detail long ago so go peddle your astonishing revelations on Alt Space Bats Forum or wherever it is you go in between your bouts of lunacy here.
Since you were kind enough to ask, I've been down in Buffalo, NY, snowblowing ... drove down there with 2 friends, 3 snowblowers, 6 shovels, 2 icepicks and a 3' wide push broom ... what a hellhole ! I'm over 6' in height and the snowfall there for just 3 days was well over that in depth ... for block after block and mile after mile, south of Buffalo ... 30+ roof collapses and well over 300 partial/damaged roofs reported by when I left yesterday evening ... and now its raining to add more roof weight to their miseries ... supposed to go up to 60F+ tomorrow too so there will be flooding as well.
.

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

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#456

Post by robdab » 29 Nov 2014, 05:22

.
Takao wrote: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.
I don't agree with you at all. The Honolulu Harbor tankfarm was also known as the Iwilei tankfarm and a modern view of it can be seen at
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?r ... &FORM=LLDP I have seen a similar 1927 photo of it but am still trying to re-locate that missing URL. As you can see, it was not at all like the UPPER, MIDDLE and LOWER tankfarms of Pearl Harbor on Dec.7'41. So closely spaced together that not much in the way of the KB's air resources would have been required to neutralize it as a secondary refueling point for any USN Pacific Fleet warships not willing or able to re-enter PH for refueling after the Japanese air attacks there. Should one (or both) of the 2 missing USN carriers be able to refuel within Honolulu Harbor, then she and her entire escort group might successfully escape back to the US West Coast as American carriers were well equipped and practised at re-fueling their own escort groups while underway at sea ...
Takao wrote: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.
Yes, you are mis-understanding it because in reality it covers 31 of Pearl Harbor's fuel storage tanks ... I had the following information but just didn't present it because I thought it more important at the time to finally settle the issue of whether or not the IJN's KB fliers could have ignited the stockpile storage tanks filled to near capacity with American NSFO ... Please note that URL provides data on both the 1924 built 50,000 barrel storage tank design (106' in diameter by 32' tall) S748 & S749 AND on the 1924 built 80,000 barrel storage tank design (123' in diameter by 34' tall), S750. As well locating all three MIDDLE TANKFARM tanks within 260m of Merry Loch which will become important later. A look at the map attached to that URL will also make clear the nearby location that the USS Neosho shifted to DURING the historical Japanese air attacks on Pearl Harbor. Berth M-3 on Merry Point which actually puts her within Quarry Loch and just a very, very short distance from Building #88 AND these 3 storage tanks, which will also be shown to be of great potential significance, shortly.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habsha ... 45data.pdf provides interesting data on the fuel storage tanks of the LOWER TANKFARM. First, it details that tanks #1 thru #9 were built in 1917 but presents no size data for them. Next that a 1924 expansion project saw the construction of tanks #10 thru #28 - another 19 storage tanks. Finally detailed design data for tank #13, aka S729, which is to be demolished along with tank #17, is presented as 50,000 bbls (with a 106' in diameter by 32' tall). It is mentioned that the 4 tanks remaining at the time of this modern survey, #10, #11, #13 and #17 were of similar design.

Next, a publication by the Hawai'i Pacific University, Military Campus Program, entitled "Pearl Harbor Shipyard" provides the following quote from its chapter entitled "Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard: The Interwar Years 1919-1941" - page #15

"The priority was to create a dependable means of storing
fuel oil for the Navy on Pearl Harbor. A contract was
made with Pan-American Petroleum and Transport in April
1921, to construct storage tanks for 1.5 million barrels.
These thirty 50,000 barrel storage tanks were completed by
the end of fiscal year 1923, and were about half full.

Another set of contracts were made with Pan American for
more storage facilities to support 2.7 million more barrels,
with an expected completion date of January 26, 1925. This
new order included: seventeen 150,000 barrel fuel oil
tanks, one 80,000 barrel fuel oil tank, nine 225,000 gallon
gasoline tanks, and fifty-six 25,000 gallon lubricating oil
tanks. Not to mention the necessary buildings, pipelines,
pumps, electric equipment and wharf that was essential in
supporting these massive tanks."

As an aside from the topic under discussion, these tank contracts were a central part of the "Great Teapot Dome" Oil Scandal which rocked the American government for years after a high official was accused of taking a bribe from the owner of Pan American which was supposed to build and fill those PH oil tanks in exchange for government permission to tap still in the ground USN oil reserves in California etc ... at least that's how I understand it anyway ... for those interested, google is your friend.

So, we can now identify the 9 x 225,000 gallon avgas tanks built on Ford Island, the 17 very large 150,000 barrel fuel storage tanks built in the UPPER TANKFARM just to the east of the USN's submarine base (I have yet to locate a URL detailing their construction details but until I do, I'm going to ASSUME their height to also be 32' with a resulting diameter of approximately 180' - hey if Zimm can make several totally off the wall assumptions for his "expert analysis" then I don't mind making a single historically based and conservative one, until better data comes along.), and determine where MOST of the 30 x 50,000 barrel storage tanks were built. A bit more research remains to be done but for alternative history "what IF" scenario purposes, I am well satisfied, so far. Zimm SOLD people copies of his "book of deceptions" with less research done.

Please keep in mind that a 180' fuel storage tank diameter is TWICE the CEP of 90' with which Zimm credits the IJN's "Val" divebomber. TWICE. If I find an even larger storage tank I'm going to suggest that my "Val" pilot land on it, set a demolition charge, salute the Emperor with warm sake and then takeoff again for his KB aircraft carrier...

Next, the report found at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a439904.pdf provides us with:

"PROPOSED ACTION: Commander, Naval Region Hawaii (CNRH) propses to demolish and remove fifty-six (56), 25,000-gallon, (94,600-liter) steel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and ancillary equipment from the interior of Building 88, a former lubricating oil storage facility, and the related exposed piping underneath Mike wharves M3 and M4 at Merry Point, PHNC.

EXISTING CONDITIONS: The project area is at Merry Point on the PHNC waterfront. Building 88 was built in 1923 to provide storage for a range of lubricants prior to standardization of machinery and lubricant supply."

Thus we KNOW where the 56 lubricant tanks mentioned under that 1925 Pan American contract were built. Yet another important historical "factoid" which Zimm totally ignored in his book of deceptions "analysis" of just how badly an extended Japanese air strike on the Pearl Harbor shipyard facilities might have hurt the USN's Pacific Fleet. Just as he deceptively concealed the EXPLOSIVE potential of a historically avgas vapour filled USS Neosho on that dreadful day. The very same USS Neosho which shifted location from Fuel Dock F4 to Berth M3 at Merry Point DURING the Japanese attack, a location right beside Building 88, the USN's centralized lubricant storage building for all of Pearl Harbor. How does a Nation continue to operate a Fleet, let alone rebuild bombed and torpedoed warships, WITHOUT a lubricant stockpile ?? How long would your car run without engine oil ? Would it travel the same 2,400 mile distance that lay between Pearl Harbor and San Diego ? I'd doubt it.

Yeah, a mass USN "rearward advance" by the remnants of the Pacfic Fleet, to the safety of US West Coast supply stockplies seems more and more likely, the more research that I do. And none of this research has required more than a 5 minute google (or bing.com) search ... none of it.
Takao wrote:As for the photos, they do not prove much of anything unless you know their contents...
Considering that I have just recently shown, with the ironic help of Alan Zimm's own "book of deceptions", that Japanese bombs WOULD ignite American NSFO, I really cannot agree with your incorrect "off the cuff" statement.

HERE'S HOPING THAT A HAPPY BLACK "FRIDAY" WAS HAD BY ALL !
.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#457

Post by glenn239 » 01 Dec 2014, 16:18

Alan Zimm's own "book of deceptions"
“Book of deceptions” is unnecessarily provocative. If you’re going to attack Zimm’s integrity, I’d prefer you start a separate thread.
Please keep in mind that a 180' fuel storage tank diameter is TWICE the CEP of 90' with which Zimm credits the IJN's "Val" divebomber. TWICE
The tank area is four times Zimm's Val CEP. A 90’ CEP is (45^2)*3.1415 = 6361 square feet, while the 180’ tank is (90^2)*3.1415 = 25,446 square feet. In comparison, a carrier was maybe 90,000 square feet and the Neosho (which took 7 bomb hits out of maybe 30 attackers) was 41,000. The historical hit rate at Coral Sea was much less than a 90' CEP by Vals against those targets, but the ships were moving targets while the tanks were stationary. There seems but little question that either a dive or level bomber would stand a reasonable chance of hitting the biggest tanks, the question being more whether a standard 250kg bomb would ignite them or not.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#458

Post by OpanaPointer » 01 Dec 2014, 16:29

Additionally there is the matter of the discipline of the Japanese aviators. They knew exactly where Utah was and that they weren't to bother with her, but she still sponged up torpedoes that could have been used elsewhere. The idea that a whole attack would be expended on non-combatant targets while warships still fought back is simply amusing.

And, remember that every torpedo plane crew reported they had launched against a battleship. Every one of them so reported.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#459

Post by glenn239 » 04 Dec 2014, 20:20

Interesting article posted on Armchair General on oil at Pearl Harbor,

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4 ... onovan.pdf

The most interesting fact is on page 37 - the US Pacific Fleet burned 750,000 BBL of oil in the week after Pearl Harbor, and the total capacity of the fleet was 760,000 BBL.

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

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#460

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Dec 2014, 21:03

The lack of fleet oilers, like Neosho, hung like a large cement
albatross around the neck of Navy planners contemplating
operations in the Pacific before and after the Pearl Harbor raid.94
This dearth of oilers was a key vulnerability of the Navy. The
Japanese Navy, who had just seen how it would have been
impossible to carry out the Pearl Harbor attack without tanker
support, should have targeted these ships that were so crucial to
the Navy
Total garbage , channeling Fuchida/Prange and a bunch of other idiots.
Sure there were few oilers supporting the Pacific Fleet in PEACETIME :roll: , but the second war was declared it was a non-issue.Whoever wrote this has no clue about differences peacetime/wartime forces or even the simplest concepts of "war mobilization" The US could put 30-100 oil tankers by the beginning of 42, far more than the storage at Pearl and way more than needed. The USA was the largest producer of oil at the time and had a merchant fleet including oilers larger than any other country, and was building more at a rate, even subtracting U-boat attacks even in 1941, that simply "won the war".

US Tanker shortage in WWII, i.e. -1939-1945 ? , pure BS

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#461

Post by glenn239 » 04 Dec 2014, 21:39

As per Zimm, please take the inflammatory comments towards the author elsewhere; the Air Force Journal of Logistics is not a hack publication.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#462

Post by Rob Stuart » 07 Dec 2014, 13:16

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
The lack of fleet oilers, like Neosho, hung like a large cement
albatross around the neck of Navy planners contemplating
operations in the Pacific before and after the Pearl Harbor raid.94
This dearth of oilers was a key vulnerability of the Navy. The
Japanese Navy, who had just seen how it would have been
impossible to carry out the Pearl Harbor attack without tanker
support, should have targeted these ships that were so crucial to
the Navy
Total garbage , channeling Fuchida/Prange and a bunch of other idiots.
Sure there were few oilers supporting the Pacific Fleet in PEACETIME :roll: , but the second war was declared it was a non-issue.Whoever wrote this has no clue about differences peacetime/wartime forces or even the simplest concepts of "war mobilization" The US could put 30-100 oil tankers by the beginning of 42, far more than the storage at Pearl and way more than needed. The USA was the largest producer of oil at the time and had a merchant fleet including oilers larger than any other country, and was building more at a rate, even subtracting U-boat attacks even in 1941, that simply "won the war".

US Tanker shortage in WWII, i.e. -1939-1945 ? , pure BS
Christopher, you may have overlooked that the passage you've quoted refers to "fleet oilers", which I believe was a reference to USN-manned oilers capable of refueling at sea and fast enough to support a USN task force. While there may have been no shortage of slower tankers capable of replenishing the stocks at Pearl Harbor, in the early months of the Pacific War the US Pacific Fleet had very few fleet oilers. John Lundstrom's The First Team makes this very clear. In fact, on page 59 he notes that the sinking of Neches on 23 January by I-72 forced the cancellation of what would have been the first US carrier raid of the war. It was to have been launched against Wake.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#463

Post by OpanaPointer » 07 Dec 2014, 13:46

And how many of those were in Pearl that day?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#464

Post by mescal » 07 Dec 2014, 14:25

Neosho & Ramapo were at Pearl (berth F-5 for the former and B-12 for the latter)

The other replenishment oilers available to Pacific Fleet in December were
Brazos (heading to Aleutian on 7th Dec),
Neches (at sea between PH and San Diego on 7th Dec; sunk Jan 42),
Pecos (Cavite on dec 7th, sunk March 1st, 1942 in DEI)
Sepulga (at sea between PH and San Diego on 7th Dec)
Tippecanoe (in San Francisco on 7th Dec)
Trinity (Cavite on dec 7th)

All these ships were either small or slow.

There were only three fully modern AO in the PacFleet in december 41 :
Neosho (PH),
Sabine (either on the West Coast or at sea between West caost and PH)
and Platte (at San Diego, dec 7th).
They were joined early in 1942 by Guadalupe and Kaskaskia.
Olivier

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

#465

Post by Rob Stuart » 07 Dec 2014, 14:27

[Deleted. mescal's post proved mine wrong.]
Last edited by Rob Stuart on 07 Dec 2014, 14:36, edited 2 times in total.

Locked

Return to “What if”