History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Pearl Harbor Sub Found
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 10:25 PM UTC
Don't know if you guys have seen this yet...

Japanese Sub Found at Pearl Harbor
The Associated Press
Aug 29 2002 5:39AM

HONOLULU (AP) - Nearly 61 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, researchers say they have found evidence that the U.S. military fired the first shot against Japan with the discovery of a sunken Japanese submarine.
The 78-foot sub was found Wednesday by two research craft on routine training dives about three miles from Pearl Harbor, in an area described as a ``military junkyard'' about 1,200 feet below the surface.

``To actually come across it was a sobering moment, realizing that was the shot that started the Pacific war,'' said Terry Kerby, chief pilot of the Pisces IV deep-diving submersible.

Although the surprise Japanese aerial attack is most widely associated with Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military has long asserted that an underwater skirmish occurred first.

The military says it inflicted the first casualties when the USS Ward sank the approaching Japanese sub at 6:45 a.m. on Dec. 7, 1941, about an hour before the aerial attack.

Historians have had no proof of the sinking until Wednesday's discovery, researchers said.

Although it has been known the submarine was somewhere outside the harbor, previous expeditions - including a November 2000 National Geographic expedition headed by the team that found the wreckage of the Titanic - failed to locate it.

``The thing is quite difficult to find because of all the massive amounts of junk out in the area, and we were simply fortunate because we've run our test and training dives through here and know where a lot of the junk is,'' said John Wiltshire, associate director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, which found the sub.

``Local boys make good sometimes,'' he said.

Underwater video of the sub shows the hull rusted and slightly leaning to its port side with the periscope up. Two Japanese crewmen are believed still inside.

The sub led four other Japanese midget submarines to Pearl Harbor before the Sunday morning attack by Japanese planes that lasted two hours and left 21 U.S. ships heavily damaged, 323 aircraft damaged or destroyed, 2,390 people dead and 1,178 wounded.

Wiltshire said the crew is certain that the sub was sunk by the Ward because of a bullet hole in the conning tower and because it still has both torpedoes. Three of the subs have been previously accounted for. One is still missing, but it had fired both its weapons.

Until the submarine was found, historian Daniel Martinez said, eyewitness accounts were unconfirmed. Martinez, a historian for the USS Arizona Memorial, has interviewed the crew who fired the first shot, and a pilot who saw the submarine sink.

``What they saw and what they felt was their recollection, now the proof has been found,'' he said.

Immediately following the sinking of the midget sub, the USS Ward sent the message: ``We have attacked, fired upon and dropped depth charges operating in defensive sea area.''

But the military base and ships were not immediately placed on alert, which would have prepared the United States for the ensuing attacks.

``They notified the Navy headquarters (in Washington) and they needed confirmation before they would act,'' Martinez said. ``Remember, there was nothing to tell them that it was a Japanese submarine. It could've been anybody and it could've been friendly.''

Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a historian at Tokyo's Chuo University, said the finding was not likely to change historians' interpretation of the Pearl Harbor attacks. It was already well known that Japan had sent subs to scout the harbor before the attack.

``The finding is an important piece of historical evidence because it backs up Japan's attempt to conduct a surprise attack,'' he said.

On the Net:

Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/hurl.html

USS Arizona Memorial: http://www.nps.gov/usar/index.htm

08/29/02 05:38 EDT
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 11:44 PM UTC
That is an interesting discovery. Did you see the National Geographic search? It amazed me that anything survives among all that junk. Have they ever concluded if any of the midget subs entered the harbor and fired torpedoes? Most sources I read kinda blow it off as possible but highly improbable. If you ever go to Oahu and see the width of the mouth of the entrance, you can appreciate how narrow it is and how tough it would be to get through.
DJ
ladymodelbuilder
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 26, 2002
entire network: 1,218 Posts
KitMaker Network: 325 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 12:54 AM UTC
WoW!!! Thanks for the links, Sniper. This is a very interesting find...
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 02:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

That is an interesting discovery. Did you see the National Geographic search? It amazed me that anything survives among all that junk. Have they ever concluded if any of the midget subs entered the harbor and fired torpedoes? Most sources I read kinda blow it off as possible but highly improbable. If you ever go to Oahu and see the width of the mouth of the entrance, you can appreciate how narrow it is and how tough it would be to get through.
DJ



DJ,

Going back to our earlier discussions, it always amazes me that the Japanese tried to use subs to get into the harbor. If suprise was so important on December 7, why risk trying to take a mini-sub into one of the busiest harbors in the Pacific?

This is something that has never made much sense to me. Maybe someone out there can clear it up.

Steve

PS - I think the idea that a sub did get into the harbor and launch torpedoes is still just a theory, I might be wrong though...
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 02:41 AM UTC
Steve--the use of the subs was controversial to the plannners also. In the war games, the IJN always lost several ships to the Americans. So, some "wise" planner decided to forestall a pursuit by the American fleet by inserting midget sub into the equation. When you see the mouth of the Harbor it is amazing narrow. I sat there one day and thought the passing FFG was going to plow directly into the bank. So I can see how sinking a ship would have caused damage. As I recall, the one sub tries to follow a ship (either a garbage scow or a tug) into the Harbor. This is the one that the Ward shoots at and apparently hit. The other scatter in various locations. They ground one over at Bellows which is a fair distance from Pearl. Navigation must have been a real challenge. I am hoping that COB will comment. He forgot more about subs than I'll ever know. I will defer and look forward to that fine gentleman's commentary...
DJ
drewgimpy
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 835 Posts
KitMaker Network: 350 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 03:06 AM UTC
I saw the original NG show also, hopefully they will do anther one on the finding of the sub. Thanks for posting the info, very informative.
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 03:22 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Steve--the use of the subs was controversial to the plannners also. In the war games, the IJN always lost several ships to the Americans. So, some "wise" planner decided to forestall a pursuit by the American fleet by inserting midget sub into the equation. When you see the mouth of the Harbor it is amazing narrow. I sat there one day and thought the passing FFG was going to plow directly into the bank. So I can see how sinking a ship would have caused damage. As I recall, the one sub tries to follow a ship (either a garbage scow or a tug) into the Harbor. This is the one that the Ward shoots at and apparently hit. The other scatter in various locations. They ground one over at Bellows which is a fair distance from Pearl. Navigation must have been a real challenge. I am hoping that COB will comment. He forgot more about subs than I'll ever know. I will defer and look forward to that fine gentleman's commentary...
DJ



My Dad salvaged a Japanese mini sub that hit a reef off some Pacific island (can't remember where he said it was). They brought it up onto the beach. Have some photos. He said it was so small that he had trouble even getting through the hatch and he was a pretty small guy.

Those were some brave men who rode in those things...

Steve
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 03:46 AM UTC
Steve--you have that right. The British employed the mini subs on a variety of mission also. One memorable one was there use off the Normandy invasion beaches. If you see that particular photo, the sub is level with the water and is might dang small.....braver men than I
DJ
Cob
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 05:41 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Going back to our earlier discussions, it always amazes me that the Japanese tried to use subs to get into the harbor. If suprise was so important on December 7, why risk trying to take a mini-sub into one of the busiest harbors in the Pacific?

This is something that has never made much sense to me. Maybe someone out there can clear it up.



No one has ever proved that any of those subs actually made it into the harbor. As to why they would even attempt it I can think of a couple of reasons.

1. If your Navy is getting ready to conduct an attack on this scale and you are in charge of (fill in the blank) weapons platform, you would do everything you could to get a piece of the action. It doesn't make sense but it can and does happen.

2. Pearl is relatively shallow and visual detection would be a problem ...today. In 1941, ships routinely discharged oil and raw sewage overboard in port for the simple reason that the ships had no holding tanks and we didn't even know how to spell environment . Depending on the tide (flood,slack or ebb, the water could have been very murky allowing a relatively small vessel to infiltrate. I've heard that much larger vessels have operated submerged in tighter quarters. The entrance is fairly narrow and the water is not too deep but if someone was determined to get in there and complete a miision they felt was important it could be done.

3. Imagine what damage they could have accomplished during and after the air attack amidst all the confusion. Several more ships could have been sunk and valuable after action intelligence gathered.

Having said all that, I don't think any midget subs got in that day. At least one was sunk and several beached. One of the beached subs was used later as backfill by construction crews who were building a new pier at the subase.

v/r,
Cob
arawata
Visit this Community
Australia
Member Since: January 23, 2002
entire network: 19 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 06:46 AM UTC
Just a thought - maybe the subs planned to use the narrow entrance to the harbour to their advantage. If they waited outside the entrance and sank the first ship trying to leave harbour, that would essentially block the way and trap remaining ships in harbour. Bottling up the navy for some period of time.

arawata
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 07:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Going back to our earlier discussions, it always amazes me that the Japanese tried to use subs to get into the harbor. If suprise was so important on December 7, why risk trying to take a mini-sub into one of the busiest harbors in the Pacific?

This is something that has never made much sense to me. Maybe someone out there can clear it up.



COB---don't they have one of the Japanese midget sub in New London? Seems to me I saw one in my travels. I recall how small it looked on the outside, the torpedoe warheads were exposed from the tubes. I am think of the drag that much weight caused. I looked up a refernce this afternoon and it pointed out the difficulties of navigating that bugger before the days of GPS. If nothing else, those guys were truly gutsy.
DJ

No one has ever proved that any of those subs actually made it into the harbor. As to why they would even attempt it I can think of a couple of reasons.

1. If your Navy is getting ready to conduct an attack on this scale and you are in charge of (fill in the blank) weapons platform, you would do everything you could to get a piece of the action. It doesn't make sense but it can and does happen.

2. Pearl is relatively shallow and visual detection would be a problem ...today. In 1941, ships routinely discharged oil and raw sewage overboard in port for the simple reason that the ships had no holding tanks and we didn't even know how to spell environment . Depending on the tide (flood,slack or ebb, the water could have been very murky allowing a relatively small vessel to infiltrate. I've heard that much larger vessels have operated submerged in tighter quarters. The entrance is fairly narrow and the water is not too deep but if someone was determined to get in there and complete a miision they felt was important it could be done.

3. Imagine what damage they could have accomplished during and after the air attack amidst all the confusion. Several more ships could have been sunk and valuable after action intelligence gathered.

Having said all that, I don't think any midget subs got in that day. At least one was sunk and several beached. One of the beached subs was used later as backfill by construction crews who were building a new pier at the subase.

v/r,
Cob

TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Member Since: January 12, 2002
entire network: 5,000 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,210 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 08:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Just a thought - maybe the subs planned to use the narrow entrance to the harbour to their advantage. If they waited outside the entrance and sank the first ship trying to leave harbour, that would essentially block the way and trap remaining ships in harbour. Bottling up the navy for some period of time.

arawata



That was my first thought too.
Cob
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 09:10 AM UTC
I seem to remember both a German and a Japanese mini-sub in Groton., The Undersea Warfare museum in Keyport, WA has a Japanese mini-sub. I can't recalll which version off-hand but the hull is only about 4 feet in diameter. Limited range, rudimentary navigation instruments and questionable hull integrity...It's seems to have more in comman with the CSS Hunley than a 20th century warship.

As far as blocking the harbor - that's a very good point. The USS Nevada got underway during the attack but was purposefully run aground when the crew realized what could happen if they were hit in the channel. One of the crew, Donald Ross Capt USN (ret) , was awarded the Medal of Honor for getting the boilers up and providing electrical power and propulsion pretty much by himself - a job that normally takes several dozen people.
Folgore
Visit this Community
Canada
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,109 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 09:16 AM UTC
Me too, Tread and arawata, and IIRC, the American captains at Pearl Harbor were afraid of this very occurrence, so they didn't try to make a run for it. Sinking ships at the mouth of a harbor was not a new idea. One example that comes to mind was actually an error, and aided the defender. During the Crimean War, the British and French fleets destroyed the Russian one at Sebastopol. However, the Russian ships sunk at the mouth of the harbor prevented the Allies from entering and bringing a swift end to the siege of the Black Sea port.

Nic
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 10:10 PM UTC
Here we go with another what "if" point. The USS Ward saw sub and sank same. They followed proper procedures and reported it to their headquarters. However, there were several sightings and depth charging prior to that Sunday morning and this report was treated pretty much as routine traffic. Now, the question is if at the time of sinking (which as I recall is about two hours before the aircraft arrive) an alert had been issued----would the attack have been as successful as it was?
DJ
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 11:07 PM UTC

Quoted Text



No one has ever proved that any of those subs actually made it into the harbor. As to why they would even attempt it I can think of a couple of reasons.

...

2. Pearl is relatively shallow and visual detection would be a problem ...today. In 1941, ships routinely discharged oil and raw sewage overboard in port for the simple reason that the ships had no holding tanks and we didn't even know how to spell environment . Depending on the tide (flood,slack or ebb, the water could have been very murky allowing a relatively small vessel to infiltrate. I've heard that much larger vessels have operated submerged in tighter quarters. The entrance is fairly narrow and the water is not too deep but if someone was determined to get in there and complete a miision they felt was important it could be done.

v/r,
Cob



My Dad dove in Pearl doing some salvage and said you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. The water was filthy. Don't think it's like that anymore...

I thought one reson to have the subs was recon. Weather, ship movements. Not theat the Japanese didn't have contacts on the island...

Steve
Greg
Visit this Community
Oregon, United States
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2002 - 04:50 AM UTC
Well, DJ, I'll suggest that if the warnings had been properly heeded the results would still have been similar. Lots of ship sunk and airplanes blown up. However, a US military establishment on alert would probably have inflicted somewhat greater losses on the attackers. Not enough to radically alter the outcome, though, IMO. We had no combat experience, had generally inferior weapons, and training that was not yet adequate. I would guess that more AA fire and more fightere in the air would have helped the loss ratio some but would not have changed the course of the battle.

One thing nobody else here has mentioned, so I'll bring it up for folks to ponder over the long weekend. My morning paper reported on this, and noted that elements of the Japanese far-right-wing political spectrum are trumpeting this find as "proving" the US started the war. Dangerous revisionism, this. Apparently these fellows wish us to assume that those subs operating in the defensive sea area were simply there on a sightseeing mission to Waikiki, and were blown away by the imperialist American aggressors. Seems that by the tenets of this point of view there's no such thing as being allowed to defend an active military installation against an apparent threat until war is actually declared. A dangerous doctrine, and one that thoughtful Americans and Japenses both should attempt to discredit. Getting down from the soapbox now....
Greg
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2002 - 06:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Well, DJ, I'll suggest that if the warnings had been properly heeded the results would still have been similar. Lots of ship sunk and airplanes blown up. However, a US military establishment on alert would probably have inflicted somewhat greater losses on the attackers. Not enough to radically alter the outcome, though, IMO. We had no combat experience, had generally inferior weapons, and training that was not yet adequate. I would guess that more AA fire and more fightere in the air would have helped the loss ratio some but would not have changed the course of the battle.

One thing nobody else here has mentioned, so I'll bring it up for folks to ponder over the long weekend. My morning paper reported on this, and noted that elements of the Japanese far-right-wing political spectrum are trumpeting this find as "proving" the US started the war. Dangerous revisionism, this. Apparently these fellows wish us to assume that those subs operating in the defensive sea area were simply there on a sightseeing mission to Waikiki, and were blown away by the imperialist American aggressors. Seems that by the tenets of this point of view there's no such thing as being allowed to defend an active military installation against an apparent threat until war is actually declared. A dangerous doctrine, and one that thoughtful Americans and Japenses both should attempt to discredit. Getting down from the soapbox now....
Greg



Greg---if I correctly follow your thought than the lack of training and the inferiority of various weapon systems rendered any short notice advanced warning a mute point. Interesting observation. The only BB to move is Nevada which as COB told us was underway due to the heroic actions of a very junior officer who was rightly recognized by a greatful Nation. There are several tales of power supplies being cut when someone axed the wrong lines to the dock. You might have been able to save Oklahoma which had all its compartments open for a Monday morning inspection. She rolls and is a total loss along with Arizona. Move the aircraft and getting into the air would have required a herculean effort. Trust other will comment.
I also read the commentary you referred to and was flabbergasted. Are those guys that far out to lunch????

DJ
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2002 - 08:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

...

One thing nobody else here has mentioned, so I'll bring it up for folks to ponder over the long weekend. My morning paper reported on this, and noted that elements of the Japanese far-right-wing political spectrum are trumpeting this find as "proving" the US started the war. Dangerous revisionism, this. Apparently these fellows wish us to assume that those subs operating in the defensive sea area were simply there on a sightseeing mission to Waikiki, and were blown away by the imperialist American aggressors. Seems that by the tenets of this point of view there's no such thing as being allowed to defend an active military installation against an apparent threat until war is actually declared. A dangerous doctrine, and one that thoughtful Americans and Japenses both should attempt to discredit. Getting down from the soapbox now....
Greg



Greg,

Heard about this when I got home from work tonight. To be blunt about it, it pisses me off! Just amazing people can think like this. I don't even know if Pearl Harbor is mentioned in Japanese school text books.

If one were to use the recent Disney 'Pearl Harbor' movie to get their history, they would think WWII with Japan was started because the evil U.S. wouldn't sell oil to the poor peace loving Japanese. Hey, they didn't want to freeze in the Winter so they were forced into a war they didn't want!

Sorry, but this really amazes me. Gee, I knew it was our fault all along!

Steve
BlueBear
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Member Since: August 26, 2002
entire network: 414 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2002 - 08:56 PM UTC
I remember reading an article in either my Dad's Veterans of Foreign Wars or American Legion magazine that there was now some evidence to back a theory that one of the midgets managed to enter the harbor, position itself without being detected, and successfully fired on either the USS West Virginia or the USS Oklahoma. Based on overhead pictures taken by Japanese aircrew, there were torpedo tracks showing in the water that could not be accounted for by the number of Kates that were in the pictures. There's still that fifth mini-boat that is unaccounted for somewhere down there. The USS St. Louis reported she was fired upon when she sortied at 0930 from the South-East loch by a submarine in the channel mouth. Two torpedo tracks were sighted, but both torpedoes detonated on lava heads near the shore.
I was last in Pearl when Constellation stopped over on our way back home from WESTPAC in 1995. The water is still a muddy blue-green, even in the Healawa Canal, next to the USS Arizona Memorial Visitors Center and the USS Bowfin/ Nimitz Museum and that empties into the carrier berths.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2002 - 09:06 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I remember reading an article in either my Dad's Veterans of Foreign Wars or American Legion magazine that there was now some evidence to back a theory that one of the midgets managed to enter the harbor, position itself without being detected, and successfully fired on either the USS West Virginia or the USS Oklahoma. Based on overhead pictures taken by Japanese aircrew, there were torpedo tracks showing in the water that could not be accounted for by the number of Kates that were in the pictures. There's still that fifth mini-boat that is unaccounted for somewhere down there. The USS St. Louis also reported that she was attacked by 2 torpedoes fired from the direction of the entry channel mouth when she sortied at 0930 from her mooring in the South-East loch. Both detonated on lava heads near the shore



Blue--I read that same theory years ago. I think someone actually found several torpedoes in the Harbor that they attributed to a sub, but I never read any conclusive proof. There is probably so much junk and debris in Pearl Harbor and the surrounding waters as to make one wonder how it could ever be sorted out.
DJ