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

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

#466

Post by glenn239 » 02 Mar 2009, 20:17

Is there an existing thread that has not been corrupted or shall the original author wish to resummarise and start afresh? Loads of great research and a coherent WI operational plan was drafted. I cant see this attack being in any way critical to the main Hawaiian operation.
That thread did not mention Panama because it was deemed at the time (and now) that there was no realistic chance of the Canal being shut.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#467

Post by Sid Guttridge » 03 Mar 2009, 13:33

Hi Guys,

I would point out that there is no separate Galapagos airbase issue. As far as I am aware, this subject has never been a point of discussion outside this thread anywhere, ever.

The Galapagos were integral to the opening post of this thread:

"On the evening of Dec.6'41 she (and her 3 IJN submarine escort) would quietly anchor instead in a deserted lee bay somewhere in the numerous Galapagos Islands, which were owned by Ecuador. That South American nation had a substantial Japanese population in 1941, many of whom were fishermen or guano miners out on the Galapagos. Both being good covers for the pre-war scouting of a suitable anchorage for Chitose and her 3 big new flyingboats."

They still are unless the parameters of the original post setting up this thread are retrospectively altered.

Cheers,

Sid.


David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

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

#468

Post by David Thompson » 03 Mar 2009, 20:17

I have finished moving the posts which were entirely or almost entirely devoted to the Galapagos airbase discussion to that thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=150312 . Here is a hyperlinked list of all posts (in chronological order) in both threads which refer to the Galapagos Islands, along with their authors (those moved from this thread are in bold type):

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1284972 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1286378 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1287004 (Robert Rojas)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1287176 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1288223 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1288409 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1288568 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1288601 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1288671 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1288987 (Alaric)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1289005 (LWD)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1289020 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1289094 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1289105 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1289216 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1289918 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1289987 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1290080 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1290108 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1290238 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1290279 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1290400 (Alaric)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1290422 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1290537 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1291034 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1291151 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1291178 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1291400 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1291408 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1291506 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1291567 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1291656 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1291664 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1291838 (Alaric)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1291883 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1292257 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1293094 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1293514 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1293556 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1293954 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1293962 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1293977 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1293980 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1294332 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1294404 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1294756 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1295980 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1296216 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1296720 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1297591 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1297870 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1298102 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1298231 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1299459 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1299553 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1301250 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1301271 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1301292 (Andy H)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1301306 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1301653 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1301667 (Andy H)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1301671 (Andy H)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1302093 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1302460 (Andy H)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1302466 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1302470 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1303522 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1303978 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1304009 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1304036 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1305025 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1305056 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1305080 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1305081 (David Thompson – warning post)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1305139 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1305146 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1305210 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1305375 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1305388 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1305472 (glenn239)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1305488 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1305685 (David Thompson)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1305688 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1305692 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1305697 (David Thompson)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1305705 (David Thompson)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1305776 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1305806 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1305861 (David Thompson)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1305887 (RichTO90)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1305931 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1305947 (David Thompson - announcement that new thread has been started.)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1305973 (robdab)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1305988 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1306310 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1306330 (Sid Guttridge protest post)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1306866 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1306876 (phylo_roadking)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1306892 (David Thompson – post announcing transfers to other thread)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1306897 (phylo_roadking, referring to other thread)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1307163 (David Thompson – post announcing transfer to other thread)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1307158 (Sid Guttridge)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1307434 (Sid Guttridge protest post)

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

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

#469

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Mar 2009, 01:16

Wow David,

You tryin' to win "member of the month" or somethin' ?. :P :lol: ,

Chris

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 !

#470

Post by Simon K » 04 Mar 2009, 01:48

That is a scary list indeed.

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 !

#471

Post by Simon K » 04 Mar 2009, 02:24

Way upthread I cited a 2005 thesis paper which contained a reference to the existence of torpedo netting emplaced in the aftermath of the highly significant Fleet Problem IX attack on the Canal.This was enclosed in a December 1933 JCs discussion
on the Canal defences.
From the evidence I believe the existence of the nets should be a given, and there is no evidence to prove their absence on December 7th. This is the critical point of the discussion. This is the one issue which is tangible and if they are there will stop the torpedoes. Game over for theory. I understand your reasoning P, but I believe this is the decisive point.
I dont really believe this most damaging piece of evidence to this schemes impossibility has not been addressed.
Unless some indication from Robdab that he has evidence to disprove their emplacement at the time of the attack, we should freeze the thread till this evidence comes up. Then we can move on to the larger and more significent issues.
Simon
Last edited by Simon K on 04 Mar 2009, 02:57, edited 3 times in total.

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 !

#472

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Mar 2009, 02:40

...and Simon - we have to note that Robert still hasn't given any document numbers for his supposed material from NARA on the Canal defensive plans that would assist us in that...

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 !

#473

Post by Simon K » 04 Mar 2009, 02:42

I assume Robdab will be on presently to discuss these points. These points should be resolved first.
I cited Joint Chiefs material from 1933 proving there were nets! Go upthread to look readers, those of you who have read the thread would have seen it already. Its on pgs 7-8. We are now on pg 33. Christ. :lol:
I will repost the quote if required.

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

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

#474

Post by robdab » 04 Mar 2009, 10:20

Simon K, you wrote,

Way upthread I cited a 2005 thesis paper which contained a reference to the existence of torpedo netting emplaced in the aftermath of the highly significant Fleet Problem IX attack on the Canal.This was enclosed in a December 1933 JCs discussion on the Canal defences.
From the evidence I believe the existence of the nets should be a given, and there is no evidence to prove their absence on December 7th. This is the critical point of the discussion.
No it isn't. Please see below ...
This is the one issue which is tangible and if they are there will stop the torpedoes. Game over for theory. I understand your reasoning P, but I believe this is the decisive point.
I dont really believe this most damaging piece of evidence to this schemes impossibility has not been addressed.
Unless some indication from Robdab that he has evidence to disprove their emplacement at the time of the attack, we should freeze the thread till this evidence comes up. Then we can move on to the larger and more significent issues.
Simon
Back on Feb.19/09 I posted the following which addresses your claim to have provided the decisive point against ...
Wrt your 1934 torpedo net installation at the Gatun Dam's spillway, I would refer you to page #36 of Goldstein & Dillon's "The Pearl Harbor Papers". There is recounted Genda's account of the planning of the OTL Pearl Harbor raids.

When the question of anti-torpedo netting inside of PH came up, it was proposed that already developed net cutters be mounted on the Japanese torpedoes but that idea was rejected because the additional nose weight would cause such torpedoes to initially dive more deeply that the 35'-40' dredged depths found inside of PH.

With at least 77' of water depth in front of the Gatun Dam's spillway this flaw would not have been important to Japanese Panama attack planning. A method of defeating any such netting (if it was in fact still in place on Dec.7'41) was available to my ATL Japanese.

This solution does not however reduce the ability of the Madden Dam to temporarily replenish water lost if the Gatun Dam's spillways were badly damaged/destroyed. My ATL scenario is not yet off of "life-supprt" but it is now healthier than it just recently was.
Thus my own error wrt my Madden Dam source was the decisive factor in torpedoing (pardon the pun) my originally posted ATL Panama attack scenario, not at all the possible presence (or not) of anti-torpedo netting at the Gatun Spillway.

Only by determining a method of more deeply draining the waters of Gatun Lake well below the 69' asl level of the sill of that spillway, can the Canal be knocked out to transit traffic for a significant time.

That several methods DID indeed exist to accomplish that goal is revealed by pages 299 & 300 of http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-8.html which state among other things:

Early in March 1942, both Secretary of War Stimson and Watson-Watt, the British expert, examined Panama defenses and reported the existence of disturbing weaknesses. The Canal, in the opinion of the British observer, fully justified the concern being shown for it's safety, for it was "unique in the world, possessing only four vital points, each of small area, but each so fragile that a single projectile on any of the four could cut this vital line of communications, and two projectiles on any one of three could prevent its re-establishment within two years."

unfortunately without revealing the precise details of those methods/locations. i have suggested that the western wingwall adjacent to that spillway was one such vulnerable weak point and will present further evidence to that effect here shortly ...

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

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

#475

Post by robdab » 04 Mar 2009, 10:31

phylo,
...and Simon - we have to note that Robert still hasn't given any document numbers for his supposed material from NARA on the Canal defensive plans that would assist us in that...
I have never claimed to have any NARA documents on Panama's defence plans that are relavent to this discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Btw, how goes your effort to provide us all with a source in support of your own claim that Akiyama was able to "liberate" his own copy of the entire Panama defense plan ? The MAGIC source does indicate that a couple of maps were sent back to Japan but a couple of maps was by no means the entire defense plan. A couple of maps could just be the directions to favoured military "fishing holes".

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

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

#476

Post by RichTO90 » 04 Mar 2009, 16:49

Genda is notoriously unreliable for details on Japanese planning and operations. Japanese aerial torpedoes were never deployed with net cutters because tests of the various designs found that excessive cavitation from the cutters caused rudder disturbance. (J.M. Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War II, p. 204.)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

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

#477

Post by David Thompson » 04 Mar 2009, 17:51

A number of posts on the subject of Galapagos Islands airbases were moved to the thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=150312 . Please post any discussion of that issue on the designated thread, rather than here.

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 !

#478

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Mar 2009, 18:44

When the question of anti-torpedo netting inside of PH came up, it was proposed that already developed net cutters be mounted on the Japanese torpedoes but that idea was rejected because the additional nose weight would cause such torpedoes to initially dive more deeply that the 35'-40' dredged depths found inside of PH.

With at least 77' of water depth in front of the Gatun Dam's spillway this flaw would not have been important to Japanese Panama attack planning.
Incorrect...for you have not given figures as to HOW deep the wirecutter made the torpedoes dive before levelling. That is a serious ommission and renders that just a personal and unsubstantiated opinion.

And of course I would be VERY interested in knowing what these did to the accuracy of a torpedo so equiped.

EDIT: I've only just noticed Rich's comments on this "Japanese aerial torpedoes were never deployed with net cutters because tests of the various designs found that excessive cavitation from the cutters caused rudder disturbance. (J.M. Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War II, p. 204.)"
have never claimed to have any NARA documents on Panama's defence plans that are relavent to this discussion.
Robert, whether they are relevant or not is NOT the case; YOU claimed you had material from NARA on the 1941 defense plans, though not complete because of the alleged and apparently unfounded issue over scanning larger material. You were requested and given opportunity to confirm this by providing document numbers etc. from what you said you had. You did not, therefore readers are forced to assume you don't.

Therefore you CANNOT say that something is relevant or not.
Early in March 1942, both Secretary of War Stimson and Watson-Watt, the British expert, examined Panama defenses and reported the existence of disturbing weaknesses. The Canal, in the opinion of the British observer, fully justified the concern being shown for it's safety, for it was "unique in the world, possessing only four vital points, each of small area, but each so fragile that a single projectile on any of the four could cut this vital line of communications, and two projectiles on any one of three could prevent its re-establishment within two years."

unfortunately without revealing the precise details of those methods/locations.
...for which reason it doesn't count. As we now know thanks to yourself, Stimson's report did NOT mention an attack by a single projectile, but by a carrier-sized air group. I would love to know what qualifications in the field of heavy construction Robert Watson-Watt had to come up with a statement like THAT :lol: :lol:

So far, over five weeks has passed and nothing supporting that claim has yet surfaced.

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 !

#479

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Mar 2009, 19:16

As for THIS statement
Only by determining a method of more deeply draining the waters of Gatun Lake well below the 69' asl level of the sill of that spillway, can the Canal be knocked out to transit traffic for a significant time.

That several methods DID indeed exist to accomplish that goal is revealed by pages 299 & 300 of http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-8.html which state among other things:

Early in March 1942, both Secretary of War Stimson and Watson-Watt, the British expert, examined Panama defenses and reported the existence of disturbing weaknesses. The Canal, in the opinion of the British observer, fully justified the concern being shown for it's safety, for it was "unique in the world, possessing only four vital points, each of small area, but each so fragile that a single projectile on any of the four could cut this vital line of communications, and two projectiles on any one of three could prevent its re-establishment within two years."
....that is a non-sequitor; you are merely assuming that the weaknesses mentioned are to do with draining Gatun lake, with the assistance of the Fleet Problem result that proposed that it was a weakness.

In addition to this, the passage you quote does NOT specifiy at all what these "several methods" are; YOU have not managed to find them yet, and so you cannot say categorically that they have anything to do draining Gatun Lake below the Spillway sill. You have yet to determine a successful way of even removing the gates and allowing it to drain down TO the level of the sill, let alone ANY way of draning it BELOW that level.

Conversely, a whole canon of material exists on what it takes to damage/exacavate dams of all types courtesy of the RAF and Barnes Wallis which you are continuing to disingenuously ignore because it doesn't suit your ideas - work that Watson-Watt will not have been aware of.

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

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

#480

Post by robdab » 04 Mar 2009, 19:19

RichTO90, thank you for that source even though you claim that,
Genda is notoriously unreliable for details on Japanese planning and operations. Japanese aerial torpedoes were never deployed with net cutters because tests of the various designs found that excessive cavitation from the cutters caused rudder disturbance. (J.M. Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War II, p. 204.)
I note that you could have made all of our reader's lives easier/faster by posting that your sourced page is viewable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TpJTNm ... t=ALLTYPES

You neglected to mention that it does also state there that OTL Japanese experimentation had improved the cutter equipped torpedo performamce to the extent that depth recovery then took only 800 yds instead of 380 yards.

I am reluctant to call upon ATL weapons modifications for my ATL scenarios but in this case i can only suggest that had my Japanese actually decided to attack the Canal, knowing that the spillway had been fitted with anti-torpedo netting back in 1934, then perhaps they might have begun to study the cutter issue much earlier than they did in the OTL ? With a reduction of that 800 yds being the desired result of some 7 years of possible experimentation time. Obviously there can be no proof of that ATL modification but the readers here will have to decide if they feel such to be a likley outcome in light of the other engineering efforts successfully completed by the Japanese just prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks of the Kido Butai.

i would also note for my other reades that page #36 of "The Pearl Harbor Papers" that i sourced in an just earlier post is also viewable at http://books.google.com/books?id=q2pFnA ... t=ALLTYPES

I don't see the two sources as reporting greatly dissimilar facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: but that page does report that the OTL torpedo cutter test work was done in October and early November. If the Panama Canal were on the ATL Japanee attack list then surely they could have begun experimentation much earlier ?
Last edited by robdab on 04 Mar 2009, 20:38, edited 1 time in total.

Locked

Return to “What if”