How many torpedo hits has as ship survived historically?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

German Battleship Scharnhorst is claimed to have been hit by 10-14 torps + many Artillery hits of various caliber.

Really? I have never seen numbers like that - more like four hits and some more possible but unable to verify because they were fired into a pall of smoke at night and no one could actually see Scharnhorst. After torpedoes were fired the guns opened up again on radar bearings, so they would have masked the explosions of torpedoes. I think the firing only ceased when the Scharnhorst disappeared off radar.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

ORIGINAL: wdolson

At Midway a US sub scored a couple of hits on the Akagi after she was set on fire, but those didn't explode either.

I didn't realize any US subs fired torps at any of the CV's that day. Wasn't Hiryu the only one that was actually possible to save?

I think it was the Nautilus. All the IJN CVs were still water tight when scuttled. They all had such extensive fire damage above the waterline there was little left to save. The Kaga was the worst damaged. Eye witnesses said that a big chunk of the ship amidships was just gone, the fires burned away several decks of steel. The Soryu had the deepest damage, a 1000 lb bomb penetrated deep into the ship before exploding.

Oh one ship that was saved after multiple hits was the USS California. It took two torpedoes at Pearl Harbor and then beached to save the ship. That's the only one I can think of that took more than one torpedo the same day and was put back into service, but the damage was extensive enough if she hadn't been in port she would have been lost.

Bill

[BBfanboy]

I thought Nevada was the only BB that got moving at PH?

All this talk of Japanese CVs at Midway makes me think the first three hit are the champion torpedo takers - all the torps on their Kates exploded on board so you could say they were hit by torpedoes!

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
I think it was the Nautilus. All the IJN CVs were still water tight when scuttled. They all had such extensive fire damage above the waterline there was little left to save. The Kaga was the worst damaged. Eye witnesses said that a big chunk of the ship amidships was just gone, the fires burned away several decks of steel. The Soryu had the deepest damage, a 1000 lb bomb penetrated deep into the ship before exploding.

It was USS Nautilus, although she described her target as a "Soryu" class carrier. Four torpedoes were ordered fired, three successfully left the
tubes toward a motionless Kaga 2700 yds away. Two of these torpedoes "ran errantly" (according to the book Shattered Sword) and the last
struck home but failed to explode.

On the upside, Nautilus could probably put a claim in for the eventual sinking of both the Kaga and Akagi anyway as the submarine's determined
but unsuccessful efforts against KB earlier in the day had led the destroyer Arashi to remain behind to keep the Nautilus down when KB moved off.
McCluskey's spotting of Arashi as she later made her way back to rejoin KB is considered one of the pivotal events in how the battle then unfolded.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One must keep in mind the power of differing torpedoes in order to say which ship survived the most destructive attack. The airborne torpedo the Japanese used had a far smaller warhead than a sub or surface launched torpedo. One recent article stated that the reason why the USS Oklahoma was the only ship at Pearl on the 7th to turn turtle was because she was the only one hit by a submarine launched torpedo which did extensive damage well within the ship. All other ships struck by torpedoes at Pearl and "sank" did so on an even keel. This "evidence" supports the belief that a midget sub DID penetrate Pearl and did launch it's torpedoes at battleship row, striking the Oklahoma at least once. Photos of the Oklahoma, once raised in Pearl, do show that she was the only ship to have her armored hull breached during the attack. Again suggesting that she was hit by something far more powerful than a torpedo launched by a Kate. My point is that if struck by many airborne torpedoes is not the same as being struck by one surface/subsurface launched torpedo (especially if one is using a magnetic device that detonates below the keel).

"... A newly declassified photograph taken by a Japanese plane during the attack appeared to show a mini-sub firing a torpedo into Battleship Row. A report to Congress in 1942 by Adm. Chester W. Nimitz describes an unexploded 800-pound torpedo recovered after the battle. That's twice the size carried by the torpedo bombers."

[Buckrock]

Zimm in his "Attack on Pearl Harbor" spends a chapter on this, concluding that while it is impossible to disprove that the fifth midget submarine
didn't enter Pearl Harbor and launch its torpedoes at something, the evidence does not support a likely submarine torpedoing of any US battleships
at Pearl.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Zimm in his "Attack on Pearl Harbor" spends a chapter on this, concluding that while it is impossible to disprove that the fifth midget submarine
didn't enter Pearl Harbor and launch its torpedoes at something, the evidence does not support a likely submarine torpedoing of any US battleships
at Pearl.

I think the declassified photo shows a distinctive "rooster tail," i.e., the spray kicked-up when the stern of the mini-sub is pushed upward as the bow is pushed down right after its torpedo is launched.

[Buckrock]

Zimm does deal with the photograph showing the "object", its three "rooster tails" and also the "torpedo tracks" that appear to be
emanating from the "object".

Zimm's view was that previous investigations of the photograph demonstrated the visible water plumes could not have been produced by a
porpoising midget submarine as that type moved too slowly to produce plumes that high.

He also stated that a midget submarine could not have been responsible for the multiple torpedo tracks in the photo as it was incapable
of firing more than one torpedo per minute (ie no salvos) and finally, there were no witness reports mentioning any "porpoising submarine"
in that area, including any from those personnel in a boat seen in the photograph only some 20 yards from the "object" and its "rooster
tails".

I'm not suggesting Zimm has to be correct but he is an acknowledged authority on the Pearl Harbor attack so I thought it was worth
mentioning.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Zimm does deal with the photograph showing the "object", its three "rooster tails" and also the "torpedo tracks" that appear to be
emanating from the "object".

Zimm's view was that previous investigations of the photograph demonstrated the visible water plumes could not have been produced by a
porpoising midget submarine as that type moved too slowly to produce plumes that high.

He also stated that a midget submarine could not have been responsible for the multiple torpedo tracks in the photo as it was incapable
of firing more than one torpedo per minute (ie no salvos) and finally, there were no witness reports mentioning any "porpoising submarine"
in that area, including any from those personnel in a boat seen in the photograph only some 20 yards from the "object" and its "rooster
tails".

I'm not suggesting Zimm has to be correct but he is an acknowledged authority on the Pearl Harbor attack so I thought it was worth
mentioning.

The photo and discussion I saw online clearly showed a torpedo track emanating from a shape in the water while Kates were dropping their torpedoes from just a little further away from battleship row, so one track was from the mini-sub and there were several from the Kates. As for eyewitnesses - they would have been looking at the Kates, not the hard-to-see dark spot in the water. Furthermore, investigation of the mini-subs found within PH shows that they no longer had their two torpedoes in their tubes.

[adarbrauner]

Where this photo is, can it be displayed?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Zimm does deal with the photograph showing the "object", its three "rooster tails" and also the "torpedo tracks" that appear to be emanating from the "object".

Zimm's view was that previous investigations of the photograph demonstrated the visible water plumes could not have been produced by a porpoising midget submarine as that type moved too slowly to produce plumes that high....

If not a midget sub, what did Zimm attribute the rooster tail to?

[Rising-Sun]

Well torpedoes are number one ship killers, even in modern world, as right now. Back in WWII, believe Japan had the best torpedoes there is and later got an upgrade with magnetic devices from the Germany. Imagine if Japan had those with tracking device with long lance, now that is scary.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Where this photo is, can it be displayed?

Google is your friend [;)]




Source

See also this article

However, this is hardly a "newly declassified photograph"...

[Buckrock]

I wonder if that other object just above the word "FEATURES" in the zoom map is the nearby ship's boat Zimm was referring to.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
If not a midget sub, what did Zimm attribute the rooster tail to?

Zimm mentions alternative explanations by others (such as those in LargeSlowTarget's linked article) but his own possible explanations were
AA shell splinters or an errant AA shell skipping across the water (he refers to a near identical series of "rooster tails" from a "skipping" AA shell
seen in a different photo taken during a pre-war training exercise).

He acknowledges though that there is currently insufficient evidence to either completely prove or disprove many of the "fifth midget sub" theories
going about online and elsewhere.

[Lecivius]

While I am no expert, I always found it intensely curious that there is a straight line in the water from the rooster tail directly into the concussion on the Oklahoma. There are, of course, lots of possibilities. But Nature abhors straight lines (grunts get taught this, as a matter of fact). And there are several in this pic.

<edited> because my typing sux

[wdolson]

At Pearl Harbor there were a lot of small craft moving between ships when the attack started. I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with a Pearl Harbor vet who was driving a motor launch between ships the morning of the attack. He said a lot of guys on his ship were visiting friends and family on other ships in port. It was common practice on Sunday mornings in peacetime.

In the blown up picture there appears to be a stationary boat. At least some of the wakes might be from small craft with their motors cranked wide open trying to get out of the way.

Just throwing out another possibility. I think it might be possible it's one of the midget subs. There was so much chaos that morning and when the shooting started most people were looking up. It was hard enough to believe the air was full of enemy planes, the idea there were subs too was probably not something anyone considered (except the crew of the Ward who knew better).

Bill

[Chickenboy]

The fact that the minisubs were found sans torpedoes doesn't mean much to me. They could have jettisoned those for ballast before scuttling or fired them elsewhere in order to 'use 'em or lose 'em'.

It's inexplicable to me that a minisub-having successfully penetrated harbor defenses-would have waited until the main body of the IJNAF TBs attacked to likewise attack at that exact moment. I seriously doubt that the minisub commanders would have been told the precise timetable of the aerial assault-or even if there was going to be any assault at all. Why a minisub that penetrated the harbor hours ago would have waited until the air was full of attacking airplanes, aerial torpedoes, bombs and AAA to attack is inexplicable.

Until it can be proven as a near certainty that this photograph captures a minisub torpedo attack, this rates as 'very unlikely' in my book.

Which is not to say that a minisub attack never occurred within the harbor. It very well may have. It's just very unlikely that this photograph is capturing said attack.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

The fact that the minisubs were found sans torpedoes doesn't mean much to me. They could have jettisoned those for ballast before scuttling or fired them elsewhere in order to 'use 'em or lose 'em'.

It's inexplicable to me that a minisub-having successfully penetrated harbor defenses-would have waited until the main body of the IJNAF TBs attacked to likewise attack at that exact moment. I seriously doubt that the minisub commanders would have been told the precise timetable of the aerial assault-or even if there was going to be any assault at all. Why a minisub that penetrated the harbor hours ago would have waited until the air was full of attacking airplanes, aerial torpedoes, bombs and AAA to attack is inexplicable.

Until it can be proven as a near certainty that this photograph captures a minisub torpedo attack, this rates as 'very unlikely' in my book.

Which is not to say that a minisub attack never occurred within the harbor. It very well may have. It's just very unlikely that this photograph is capturing said attack.

Oh ye of little faith! [:D]
The crew of the mini-sub that beached itself in a remote part of the harbour confirmed they were told to wait until 08:00 to launch so as not to spoil the surprise element for the incoming air strikes.

They were on a suicide mission (as far as their admiral expected) so there would have been no reason to keep Op Sec about the air strikes. They were expected to drown themselves with their subs if they could not exit harbour after the attack.

We will never have definitive answers one way or the other, but per Mythbusters, this one is "plausible".

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Oh ye of little faith! [:D]
The crew of the mini-sub that beached itself in a remote part of the harbour confirmed they were told to wait until 08:00 to launch so as not to spoil the surprise element for the incoming air strikes.

Yer right!

Do you have a source that states that the minisub crew was informed of pending airstrikes at 8am? I find that breach of OpSec for a 'disposable' asset implausible. Per Mythbusters, that's "Busted" until demonstrated otherwise.