The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Dec 2014 03:21

robdab wrote:If we assume that Neosho and Ramapo are b...
OpanaPointer wrote:How about we start with the Japanese having an atomic bomb, eh?
You hit it on the head OP. If we assume that pigs had wings... :roll: :roll:

So now the Japanese target two vessels they didn't actually give a damn about and somehow destroy all oil storage facilities on Oahu, which was such a priority they hadn't even bothered to plot them on their maps. This idiocy truly is never ending. :roll: :roll:

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by robdab » 19 Dec 2014 23:50

.
Pearl Harbor's 150,000 Barrel Fuel Storage Tanks

I was looking for their details in the "Upper Tank Farm" section where they were first built in 1927 but didn't the SeaBees move this one in 1944 ... damn.

Fuel Tank #43 became instead "Fuel Tank #3, Structure S88" over in the Pearl City Fuel Annex as detailed at
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habsha ... 43data.pdf

My previous assumption of a 34' height was mistaken as 40' high is listed. This resulted in only a 160' diameter rather than the 180' which I had calculated

What will no doubt upset OpanaPointer is "In 1944, the original cone shaped roof was removed and a Horton floating roof was installed by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company." which proves that yet again, Alan Zimm DECEIVED his readers, when he assumed floating roofs for his "Operational Research" based analysis of the Japanese air attacks at Pearl Harbor on Dec.7'41.

As previously, this source was produced for: "Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, Western Region, Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California, 94107
.

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by robdab » 26 Dec 2014 22:12

.
Page #291 of "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" by Goldstein & Dillon provides the following quotes for those still doubtful of Alan Zimm's claims that Japanese bombs would have ignited Pearl Harbor's fuel stockpiles, as I detailed in my November 14/14 posting here:

"(e) 98-type 250 kg. bombs for land operations with attached instant fuses could destroy and set fire to a lot of parked planes on aprons."
"(f) 97-type 60 kg. bombs for land operations and 99-type 60 kg. bombs proved effective to set fire to inflammable objectives on the ground."

If a 60 kg. Japanese bomb could start a fire, then why wouldn't a 250kg. Japanese bomb start an even larger fire ?
.

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 18:46

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by gurn » 26 Dec 2014 22:53

Different materials used? Perhaps a different ratio of ingredients? Also parked planes would likely have av gas in them, with a much different flash point than oil. Final thought- could the larger explosion actually blow out fires ?
Boxing day musings.

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by robdab » 26 Dec 2014 23:55

.
gurn wrote:Different materials used? Perhaps a different ratio of ingredients? Also parked planes would likely have av gas in them, with a much different flash point than oil. Final thought- could the larger explosion actually blow out fires ?
Boxing day musings.
All being points just recently discussed here save for your 4th, which was originally suggested here by Chris, ... do you suggest that one bomb could both start AND blow out a fire at the same time ? Does sucking and blowing really exist ?

My scenario has always been that a single KB "Val" divebomber would attack each large fuel storage tank separately, releasing 1 x 250kg tankbuster AND 2 x 33 kg incendiary bombs on each tank, to ensure ignition of the fuel within. There would be no intentional 2nd 250kg detonation on any already ignited storage tank.

I am aware of oil well fireflighters who have used very precisely crane placed explosive charges immediately beside a flaming wellhead pipe to momentarily starve an oil fire of all oxygen but in a dropped bomb situation over a large pool of flaming oil, I would doubt that all of the oxygen could be blown away from all of the flames ... perhaps you provide a source which describes when and where that such a bomb has historically accomplished what you suggest ?

As much as I hate to use wiki as a source for anything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire provides a basic introduction to explosive based oil fire fighting techniques ...
.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4803
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by OpanaPointer » 27 Dec 2014 00:14

How many Vals were in KB? How many of them would have hit what they aimed at? How many hits would have started fires?

And it's all irrelevant anyway, the total destruction of the fuel onhand would not have hampered USN operations.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 18:46

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by gurn » 27 Dec 2014 23:08

robdab wrote:.
gurn wrote:Different materials used? Perhaps a different ratio of ingredients? Also parked planes would likely have av gas in them, with a much different flash point than oil. Final thought- could the larger explosion actually blow out fires ?
Boxing day musings.
All being points just recently discussed here save for your 4th, which was originally suggested here by Chris, ... do you suggest that one bomb could both start AND blow out a fire at the same time ? Does sucking and blowing really exist ?

My scenario has always been that a single KB "Val" divebomber would attack each large fuel storage tank separately, releasing 1 x 250kg tankbuster AND 2 x 33 kg incendiary bombs on each tank, to ensure ignition of the fuel within. There would be no intentional 2nd 250kg detonation on any already ignited storage tank.

I am aware of oil well fireflighters who have used very precisely crane placed explosive charges immediately beside a flaming wellhead pipe to momentarily starve an oil fire of all oxygen but in a dropped bomb situation over a large pool of flaming oil, I would doubt that all of the oxygen could be blown away from all of the flames ... perhaps you provide a source which describes when and where that such a bomb has historically accomplished what you suggest ?

As much as I hate to use wiki as a source for anything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire provides a basic introduction to explosive based oil fire fighting techniques ...
.

The great thing about using question marks is I made no statement of fact, therefore I don't need to look anything up.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2555
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by T. A. Gardner » 08 Jan 2015 19:58

Bombing the oil facilities would have made little, if any, difference to operations. The US likely would have done the exact same thing they did with the fleet train in the mid Pacific a bit over a year later:

They would have towed a bunch of barges and pontoons to Pearl Harbor to use as temporary oil storage facilities while things were repaired. This is what the USN did in the Solomons and Gilberts to facilitate forward fueling of ships along with resupplying them with ammunition and stores. The barges and pontoons acted as floating warehouses, were cheap, plentiful, and easy to manufacture. They got towed full of supplies to an anchorage then were simply refilled on a continuing basis.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4803
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 Jan 2015 11:14

We were refueling the escorts from the large ships before the war started for us. Keep them topped up and the rest is SOP. The Japanese understood this, they didn't waste their time on the tanks.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Jan 2015 15:21

And it's all irrelevant anyway, the total destruction of the fuel onhand would not have hampered USN operations.
Total destruction would have not impacted immediate defensive operations, convoys, and raids – these could have been accomplished from California, and since the IJN didn’t return to the eastern Pac in strength until June 1942, it hardly mattered.

The South Pacific might have been a different story though. USN logistics there were out on a limb in the first half of 1942, even with Pearl’s infrastructure intact. Would US carrier TF’s be able to deploy to the Coral Sea by March 1942 if the USN tankers were being used to replace lost stock at Pearl, and could the communications to Australia have been established as quickly if Pearl Harbor was a shipping priority due to heavy damage to infastructure?
The barges and pontoons acted as floating warehouses, were cheap, plentiful, and easy to manufacture.
That would be an efficient temporary solution, but I wonder if available barge resources would have been more than a fraction of the original tank storage capacity.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8847
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 09 Jan 2015 15:38

That last post is one of the reasons I've inquired about storage in Australia & new Zealand. Related is a question of the number of Allied oil tanker in the S Pacific in those months.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Jan 2015 17:39

On a different note. Here,

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-50.html

And the annex here,

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/I ... e_50-1.jpg

In the blue chart, the operational losses for torpedo and dive bomber types is given as 53+93=146 aircraft for the last 4 months of fiscal year 1941.

The second graph gives total losses for these types in 1941 as - is it 175? I can't make it out. It's interesting because this second figure is all of 1941, hence includes the peacetime attrition rate. If it says 175, then that's about 30 aircraft lost on an operational strength of around 605 aircraft over 8 months of 1941 peacetime flying, or an annual attrition rate (peacetime accidents and wear-out) of about 6.5% of strength.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by RichTO90 » 09 Jan 2015 18:11

glenn239 wrote:The second graph gives total losses for these types in 1941 as - is it 175? I can't make it out. It's interesting because this second figure is all of 1941, hence includes the peacetime attrition rate. If it says 175, then that's about 30 aircraft lost on an operational strength of around 605 aircraft over 8 months of 1941 peacetime flying, or an annual attrition rate (peacetime accidents and wear-out) of about 6.5% of strength.
Sorry, but look again. The second chart is also for "December 1941 to..." it is not for "all of 1941". That is an accident-to-total loss rate of 29/175 = 16.57% for that month, which is more congruent with most air forces experience during the war. For example, the USAAF lost 13,873 aircraft to accidents alone during World War II (45 months). Total losses to all causes was 65,164. So 21.29% of the total were due to accidents.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Jan 2015 22:34

The blue chart gives the non-combat losses for carrier bomber types for the month of December 1941 - it was 24 aircraft. 93 aircraft lost non-operational overall, December to end of March 1942. (93 out of roughly 650-700 planes translates into a non-combat attrition rate of about 35%-40% per year during wartime ops.)

The white chart gives the production figures for B5N2 and D3A1 in 1941 - something around 175 aircraft is what I make out. That's way too high for just December, 1941. Looks more like the whole year's production. Meaning that the attrition rate will be for the same time period. If so, up to December the Japanese lost about 30 aircraft to attrition in 8 months, but built something like 120, so gained maybe 90 units. December to end of fiscal year, they lost about 145 aircraft and produced only about 60 units, a loss overall of about 85 carrier bomber units.

At Pearl Harbor KB had 207 bomber aircraft authorized strength. By the end of the 1941 fiscal year, this dropped to 153 - a difference of 54 units. The light carriers were slated for re-equipping with D3A1 and B5N2, but I don't think any had done so by the end of March 1942. This implies a reserve of about 30 aircraft for KB in December 1941 - the difference between the 85 lost and the reduction of 54 in the carrier units.
Last edited by glenn239 on 10 Jan 2015 15:16, edited 2 times in total.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8847
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: The invasion of Oahu, December 1941.

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 10 Jan 2015 01:59

Was there any use of the carrier aircraft over China in 1941? I remember Saburo Saki describing his air combat there sometime from 1938 or later. That is could any B5N2 or D3A1 been lost in combat there?

Return to “What if”