Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#316

Post by phylo_roadking » 05 Feb 2009, 22:34

Just to close of a couple more loose ends...

At various points in the various incarnations of his WI, Robert suggested that the Chitose could be carrying out goodwill visits to Neutral Central or South American ports, or sending its flying boats as "aid" to a Neutral nation. Unfortunatley, as with SO many elements of this WI - Real Life dealt with that potential well in advance; at the Buenos Aires Conference of 1936 the American nations had agreed both to consult whenever external events disturbed the peace of the hemisphere and to foreswear any intervention in each other's affairs. The various nations reaffirmed that compact in 1938, and in the Declaration of Lima they agreed to convene a conference of American foreign ministers to consult on plans and policies in the event of a non-American attack on any one of them. Such meetings took place in Panama in 1939 and in Havana July 1940.

Echoing President Roosevelt's announcement that the defense of the hemisphere did not rest solely on the shoulders of the United States, the 1939 Panama Conference of Latin American Nations responded to the outbreak of war in Europe by promulgating the Declaration of Panama, which established a neutrality zone of 300 miles into the Atlantic and the Pacific from which all belligerent warships were to be excluded.

Here is the text of that Declaration -http://www.bobsuniverse.com/BWAH/32-Roo ... 91002a.pdf

Remember that in the international community, The Empire of Japan was regarded as a "belligerent nation" after its occupation of Neutral Fench Indo-China. No Japanese naval vessel would have been welcome in any Pacific-facing American port in the months leading up to December 1941.

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#317

Post by Simon K » 06 Feb 2009, 00:19

Glenn.. Robdab are you as one??????!!!!! :lol:


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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#318

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 01:40

And further to my answer to Sid - one of the features of the paucity of information on the Canal Zone as a whole that people MAY have noticed is the general LACK of personal, period "unofficial" photographs; in fact; ALL we have apart from modern tourist pics are "posed" Army photographs for publication...which has indeed made things very awkward for local historians interested in the period defences of the Canal Zone...

This is because of one tiny little regulation that was apparently VERY carefully policed from the day the Canal was opened and the U.S. Army became responsible for its defence...Army Regulation #348, issued locally on November 18, 1918, as Panama Canal Department General Order #48,
"The taking of photographs or other views of permanent works of defence [sic] will not be permitted."

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#319

Post by glenn239 » 06 Feb 2009, 01:54

ALL of these are on war alert after November 24th...AND as of December 7th are actually AT war. You expect a large infiltration force of several hundred or several thousand men to make their way UNOBSERVED through all that?
Don’t know. Don’t care. Not my baby. I don’t think it would fly and never thought so in the past. By process of elimination every other possible method of attack by Japan has been examined and debunked. The last possibility is an actual landing force, and if that too cannot work, then this myth is busted and we can change the channel.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10048
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#320

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Feb 2009, 02:14

glenn239 wrote:..... and if that too cannot work, then this myth is busted and we can change the channel.
What! End a pointless and endlessly flimsey thread ??? NO! Noooooo 8O

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#321

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 02:14

In THAT case...

July 24th, 1941 - Franklin Roosevelt issues the empire of Japan an ultimatum to leave French Indochina. As we know this did NOT happen.

July 26th 1941 - Franklin Roosevelt issues Executive Order 8832 under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 that freezes all Japanese assets United States. Technically an act of war, this is in reaction to what in international opinion turns Japan into a belligerent - it's refusal to leave French Indochina....

BUT BEFORE THAT...

July 5th 1941 - Franklin Roosevelt orders the Panama Canal closed to the Merchant Marine Fleet of the Empire of Japan, forcing Japanese vessels to make a seven-thousand mile detour around South America....

...and of course means no Japanese merchant vessel will be allowed to approach the entrances to the Canal unchecked or unintercepted by sea. IIRC five Japanese vessels actually waiting to use the Canal were turned away.

In other words - it won't be possible for a Japanese merchantman to even approach the coast of Panama unmolested to land an infiltration force.

In fact - possibly WORSE than that...
By the end of 1941, American defenses were arrayed basically in two great arcs. In the Pacific the defensive line stretched from the Aleutians, through the Hawaiian Islands, to Panama, with advance bases in the Philippines and strategic Pacific islands. In the Atlantic the defensive boundary now reached far into the ocean, from Newfoundland to Bermuda and then to Puerto Rico and the Windward Islands, which guarded the approaches to Panama. In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory." Recognizing that those instructions were vague, the President amended them on 11 September, when he announced a fifty-mile interdicted zone and a "shoot-on-sight policy."
Defence of the Americas, by Charles E. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Army Center of Military History

How many holes is it NECESSARY to poke in a single WI before it sinks??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 06 Feb 2009, 02:46, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#322

Post by Simon K » 06 Feb 2009, 02:15

Glenn the problem is the implausability of the chances of a clear run to the target, the net issue, which has posters in denial, and the high chance of a swift repair.
Rob it was an imaginative concept, but the range is too vast for such a precision attack. Better with scuttling some merchantmen.

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#323

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 02:27

Simon, see above...

Blockships actually have to GET there...

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ht ... istory.doc
Of the eight batteries constructed at Fort Grant, three were located on Naos Island. Battery Burnside, named in honor of
Major General Ambrose E. Burnside (Third U.S. Artillery), was mounted with two 14-inch rifles on disappearing carriages, and had a range of 18,400 yards. Battery Buell, named in honor of Major General Don Carlos Buell (Assistant Adjutant-General, U.S.A.), was mounted in the same manner as Battery Burnside. Battery Parke, named in honor of Major General John G. Parke (Corps of Engineers, U.S.A.), was equipped with two 6-inch rifles with a range of 6,000 yards. The guns, mounted on disappearing carriages, were constructed "on an unsinkable and steady platform, and they could be provided with unlimited protection and accurate range-finding devices." In addition to these fixed batteries, the defense sites at Naos Island were equipped with 12-inch mortars "of a new and powerful type." Battery Newton, located on Perico Island, was named in honor of Major General John Newton (Chief of Engineers, U.S.A.). Battery Newton was equipped with one 14-inch rifle with a range of 18,400 yards, mounted on a disappearing carriage. Flamenco Island, the most heavily fortified of the islands, was equipped with four batteries. Battery Carr was named in honor of Brevet Major General Joseph Bradford Carr (U.S. Volunteers)., Battery Merritt for Major General Wesley Merritt (U.S.A.); Battery Prince in honor of Brigadier General Harry Prince (U.S. Volunteers).- and Battery Warren for Major General Gouverneur K. Warren (Corps of Engineers, U.S.A.). Batteries Carr, Merritt and Prince were manned with four 12-inch mortars each. Construction of the batteries was begun in early 1912, and was completed (with equipment installed) by 1917. Battery Warren was equipped with two 14-inch rifles on disappearing carriages. These rifles "commanded the entire area of seaward approach," with the exception of a small blind spot on Taboga Island's southern side. The battery "included space for ammunition storage, control and plotting rooms, and a communications system. During construction of Battery Warren, an elevator was installed in a vertical shaft which was sunk 200 feet from the summit to connect with a horizontal tunnel which entered from the mortar batteries on the north side of the island."

As a side note, before the construction of the batteries at Flamenco (or "Deadman's") Island could begin, two cemeteries located there were moved in August of 1911 to Ancon Cemetery near Ancon Hospital. Many of those buried there were "soldiers who had died of tropical diseases while making the hazardous crossing of Panama en route to posts in California."

Although Fort Amador's primary function was to provide housing for the Coast Artillery units to manning the fortifications at Fort Grant, two batteries were constructed on the southern tip of the post. Batteries Birney and Smith, which were identical, were mounted with two 6-inch rifles on disappearing carriages. Although ineffective against a naval attack on the Canal, they were capable of firing on small vessels, such as a screening force, minesweepers, submarines, or landing craft." Construction of Batteries Birney and Smith was begun in 1913 and completed in 1917. Battery Birney was named in honor of Major General David B. Birney, U.S. Volunteers. Battery Smith was named in honor of Major General Charles F. Smith, Third U.S.Infantry. The defense of the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal was completed with the installation of fourteen searchlights "to facilitate night firing" at Forts Amador and Grant.

On December 22, 1913, Fort Amador and Fort Grant Coast Artillery Posts were initially manned. Among the first to arrive was the 81st Company, Coast Artillery, followed by the 45th (107 men) and the 144th (105 men) Companies on September 18, 1914. Additional troops arrived in 1915, including the 40th and 116th Companies; in 1916, the 8th, 73rd and 87th Companies arrived for duty at Fort Grant.

Although the guns were fired on a regular basis, between 1929 and 1939 "shortages of funds and personnel resulted in many of the big seacoast guns being placed in caretaker status... In the years immediately preceding the U.S. entry into World War II all guns were rehabilitated, tested, and placed in service status."


Hence all the nice official pictures of really BIG guns!!! :lol: The approach of hostile shipping was the ONE thing they were REALLY prepared for...
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 06 Feb 2009, 03:45, edited 1 time in total.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10048
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#324

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Feb 2009, 02:44

phylo_roadking wrote: How many holes is it NECESSARY to poke in a single WI before it sinks??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dunno :?

How many Limpet Plugs can be cobbled together to drop down over the holes? :lol:

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#325

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 03:02

Then let's take an axe and chop ANOTHER hole in it's already leaking bottom....

http://www.combinedfleet.com/chitosesp_t.htm

The service history of the Chitose....now, take a CLOSE look at 1940 into 1941...
15 October 1940:
Arrives at Sasebo. CHITOSE undergoes overhaul and repairs. The CO of battleship KONGO, Captain (later Vice Admiral) Tanaka Raizo, assumes temporary command of CHITOSE as an additional duty.

15 November 1940:
Captain (later Rear Admiral) Yamamoto Chikao (former CO 15th Air Group) assumes command.

20 August 1941:
Captain (later Rear Admiral) Furukawa Tamotsu (former CO of KAMOI) assumes command.

November 1941:
CHITOSE is in Rear Admiral (later Vice Admiral) Fujita Ruitaro's (former CO of FUSO) 11th Seaplane Tender Division with MIZUHO. CHITOSE's aircraft are coded "YI-xx".
Notice the big gap???

In the first half of 1941 - I don't have precise dates...Chitose was in drydock for a fast conversion into a Midget Submarine Carrier!!! HALF her aircraft hangerage was partitioned off to provide workshop and storage space for mini subs, and a pair of doors were cut in her stern for launching them.

IN OTHER WORDS....not ONLY was Chitose valued by the IJN as a Washington Treaty buster for its rapid conversion potential to a through-deck carrier - it WAS given a THIRD role...as a midget submarine carrier!!! She has JUST undergone an expensive conversion to this additional role in early 1941...now THIS is to be compromised by plonking a huge crane AND it's below-decks counterweight, steamlines etc. - probably totally bollixing the mini sub stowage and facilities belowdecks at that location that the IJN WANTED???

Time to find ANOTHER condidate for your flyingboat tender, Robert...I'm actually quite amazed that with all your research you weren't aware of this expensive and very recent change ALREADY to Chitose's role in the IJN....

(yes, that was a sandbag...)

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#326

Post by robdab » 06 Feb 2009, 05:00

glenn239,

Sorry for not being around for the last three days. The family dog of 15 years sickened on Monday, lingered thru Tuesday, died on Wednesday and was cremated earlier today. A major trauma for all involved.

If they have binoculars, wires and a battery, yes. - And the correct location. The Canal profile to be seen at
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historic ... -c-216.jpg clearly shows that there are many portions of the Canal that are too deep (and wide) for the maximum mine results that you would want. Are you thinking 6 x 1,800lb mines carried in by "China Clippers" ?

Secondly - can an "inflitration party" CARRY what it would need for a charge suitable enough for that AND carry food/weapons/munitions etc - From what I know of Panama's terrain, lack of roads and the numbers/skills of the US Army defenders and tropical jungles found there, I would think an overland Japanese leg "raid" of any size to be very unlikely to succeed. I'd think that a Mavis drop would be the only practical way in with the weight of mines needed to sink a sigificant US ship of any type in a position to block the Canal, even in the short term. The twin lock design of the entire Canal would prevent any such success at any part of the channel save the single lane "Cut" area. Constantly ongoing US dredging operations in that area would also greatly increase the odds of a mine drop off being noticed. A note needs to made here that the Japanese didn't AFAIK have an air dropable mine at this stage of the war that could be lifted by a Kate and therefor by a Mavis wingstrut. Perhaps a Mavis wingstrut could lift more than 1,850 lbs, but ... ?

I have read of two different Allied experts who toured the Canal and came back with reports stating that the Gatun Dam was vulnerable to bombing but as of yet I have not located copies of their reports so as to be able to understand how/where/why they both felt that to be the case. The search goes on ...



Just for the sake of interest, a shallow water torpedo slung from a Mavis wingstrut can be seen at
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/H6K-7s.jpg

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#327

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 05:47

Are you thinking 6 x 1,800lb mines carried in by "China Clippers" ?
Robert, he's not thinking of airborne delivery; there may be slight problems actually getting them OUT of the fuselage of a Mavis...
Perhaps a Mavis wingstrut could lift more than 1,850 lbs, but ... ?
Not until later in it's development, when the max output Kinsei 53 engines were fitted in early 1942. And by 1942 the Canal Zone has its full radar coverage, its full USAAF complement, and USN bases at the Galapagos and Salinas flying deep ocean reconnaissance. Very early in 1942 ANY theoretical window for an aerial sneak attack on the Canal has vanished.
I have read of two different Allied experts who toured the Canal and came back with reports stating that the Gatun Dam was vulnerable to bombing but as of yet I have not located copies of their reports so as to be able to understand how/where/why they both felt that to be the case.
I think in the end you'll find only what is missing from that sentence....but which you DID mention before; that the Dam's vulnerability is only relative to the rest of the Canal system...
Just for the sake of interest, a shallow water torpedo slung from a Mavis wingstrut can be seen at
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/H6K-7s.jpg
Odd fitment, it appears to be made of relatively thin metal rather than wood; It's also pre-war at a guess; the surfaces are silver, not camoflaged.

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/H6K-6s.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/H6K-3s.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/H6K-9s.jpg

There's something ELSE very odd about that pic; compare it with torpedo-carrying Japanese aicraft at Pearl; the Type 91 here is mounted horizontally - the waterbrake-modified Type 91's shallow-levelling effect depended on it entering the water at both low height AND a specific angle of incidence which took months of experimentation to determine and hence the Type 91s mounted at a severely nose-down attitude UNLIKE HERE.

Whatever THAT is on that torpedo...it's never going to work as a shallow-levelling water-brake.

Just a couple more thoughts on actually using naval mines in the Canal;
1/ as mentioned before, the Japanese never developed a magnetic mine in WWII - even though the captured some British ones at Hong Kong!!! Major oversight;
2/ a FLOATING mine is obviously a bit self-defeating in the old "covert" stakes;
3/ Did the Japanese develop acoustic mines?
and OF COURSE 4/...
Mines "laid" by aircraft etc. have a severe disadvantage of being random; iit's FAR more likely the NEXT ship along the Canal is one of the eponymous dredgers, or a cargo ship...the random chance of it actually being a US surface unit is notably small...

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#328

Post by robdab » 06 Feb 2009, 06:37

phylo_roadking,
By the end of 1941, American defenses were arrayed basically in two great arcs. In the Pacific the defensive line stretched from the Aleutians, through the Hawaiian Islands, to Panama, with advance bases in the Philippines and strategic Pacific islands. In the Atlantic the defensive boundary now reached far into the ocean, from Newfoundland to Bermuda and then to Puerto Rico and the Windward Islands, which guarded the approaches to Panama. In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory." Recognizing that those instructions were vague, the President amended them on 11 September, when he announced a fifty-mile interdicted zone and a "shoot-on-sight policy."
Defence of the Americas, by Charles E. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Army Center of Military History
Up to your usual tricks I see. By selective presentation you have managed to change the meaning of the quote completely. In reality, the full quote on page #9 of http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... index.html is

"By the end of 1941, American defenses were arrayed basically in two great arcs. In the Pacific the defensive line stretched from the Aleutians, through the Hawaiian Islands, to Panama, with advance bases in the Philippines and strategic Pacific islands. In the Atlantic the defensive boundary now reached far into the ocean, from Newfoundland to Bermuda and then to Puerto Rico and the Windward Islands, which guarded the approaches to Panama. In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory." Recognizing that those instructions were vague, the President amended them on 11 September, when he announced a fifty-mile interdicted zone and a "shoot-on-sight policy." Thus by late October American forces were committed to destroying any German or Italian ships or aircraft that appeared anywhere in the western Atlantic zone."

which is of considerably different meaning to what you claimed. Japan is not mentioned at all.

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

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#329

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 16:20

Robert - I neither do tricks NOR alter reality; it's your speciality to ignore it.
"By the end of 1941, American defenses were arrayed basically in two great arcs. In the Pacific the defensive line stretched from the Aleutians, through the Hawaiian Islands, to Panama, with advance bases in the Philippines and strategic Pacific islands. In the Atlantic the defensive boundary now reached far into the ocean, from Newfoundland to Bermuda and then to Puerto Rico and the Windward Islands, which guarded the approaches to Panama. In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory." Recognizing that those instructions were vague, the President amended them on 11 September, when he announced a fifty-mile interdicted zone and a "shoot-on-sight policy." Thus by late October American forces were committed to destroying any German or Italian ships or aircraft that appeared anywhere in the western Atlantic zone."
You will note the word "TWO" referring to the TWO defensive arcs INCLUDING the Pacific arc down to and including the defences of Panama. You will ALSO note the use of the word "ALL" in the phrase "ALL base commanders". It's quite clear that in his two sets of orders FDR made NO distinction between Pacific or Atlantic. As of late October, however, only overtly hostile German submarine forces were as yet operating within EITHER of those two arcs, in the Caribbean.

I see NOTHING that says that those orders were NOT sent to base commanders in the Pacific arc including Panama. Quite the reverse, it specifically says "ALL base commanders".

And note - you have been told many times now that as of July 1941, the Empire of japan was indeed recognised by the U.S. as a "belligerent power" - as in
In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory."
The wishful thinking is on YOUR part, I'm afraid.

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#330

Post by Simon K » 06 Feb 2009, 16:33

The blockships would be ordinary merchant ships infiltrated through, to be scuttled at a pre arranged time. Now that would be impossible to anticipate.
Were Japanese merchants barred from the canal?

Locked

Return to “What if”