USN CL Question

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: spence
The USS White Plains and USS Samuel Roberts both claimed a secondary explosion much larger than anything possible with their 5" guns on Chokai.

Where did you find mention of these "larger" secondary explosion claims by the two US ships? It's not in their official USN reports of the battle. The White Plains report mentions gaining some hits on a Japanese heavy cruiser that "appeared to decommission a forward turret" but nothing about secondary explosions. The Roberts' report mentions that a torpedo hit was gained on a Japanese heavy cruiser that resulted in flame and smoke at the waterline but that was almost an hour before the Chokai is supposed to have suffered the "incident" at 0859. Roberts' report also describes her later engaging several Japanese warships with gunfire, including one heavy cruiser that she expended 85% of her ammo on which "disabled" one of the cruiser's forward turrets, "badly holed" the bridge and set it on fire and also started several smaller fires abaft the bridge. But if this target was the Chokai, there is still no mention of large secondary explosions.

If you can let me know where you found your info, I'd be interested.

Although HIJMS Haguro was trying to keep a detailed log of the action against Taffy 3 and it disputes the claims by Samuel Roberts and White Plains it needs to be noted that its AAR notes it was caused 10 minutes earlier those ship's claims by an air attack that didn't happen (according to other ships in the IJN TF). Having personally "overseen" the writing of a ship's logbook (from which any subsequent AAR will be taken) in the midst of a particularly intense search and rescue and assistance incident I find that the exact times of things not immediately affecting the safety of one's own ship might well be "estimated" or not recalled in perfect sequence. It is well to remember that all involved (and others) were trying to kill one another at the time of the explosion.

I fully accept your point on logbooks and AARs. Times and events are often at odds. However, we still seem to be without any written evidence from either side that the Chokai's own torpedoes actually blew up at any point or that she was seen to suffer onboard explosions (other than American bomb related) on an equivalent scale to such an event.

Also while looking into this torpedo question I found that the HIJMS Abukuma also noted the explosion of its Type 93s from fires reaching its torpedo room subsequent to an air attack (which was subsequent to to its more famous torpedoing by PTs). That would make 8 IJN cruisers which may have been lost due at least in part to their own torpedoes.

8? I thought the Abukuma was already included in the 7 you previously mentioned. Or are you using a different list to that posted by DRF99?

[spence]

My mistake on Abukuma.

Although I can't find any specific reference to the secondary explosion on Chokai it would seem that the writers of the TROMs for the various cruisers did not make the secondary explosion on board up out of whole cloth. The TROMs were compiled from Japanese and American records and have been revised multiple times as new information has come to light.

As it stands the "oxygen propelled" torpedoes used by many IJN cruisers seem to have contributed substantially to the loss of 15% or so of those cruisers. The attacks on Mogami and Mikuma at Midway present the clearest contrast between the fate of those two ships and the dispositions of their torpedoes following nearly identical bomb hits in the vicinity of their torpedo mounts. "Shattered Sword" describes this in some detail noting that Mogami suffered greater damage in their initial collision but by jettisoning its torpedoes saved itself.

[spence]

BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

(I don't think they let Chemistry teachers demonstrate the power of peanuts like this anymore - anything fun is prohibited I guess.)

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: spence

BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

(I don't think they let Chemistry teachers demonstrate the power of peanuts like this anymore - anything fun is prohibited I guess.)

How about some Mentos and Diet Coke? [:D]

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: spence
Although I can't find any specific reference to the secondary explosion on Chokai it would seem that the writers of the TROMs for the various cruisers did not make the secondary explosion on board up out of whole cloth. The TROMs were compiled from Japanese and American records and have been revised multiple times as new information has come to light.

As far as I can tell, the TROM is likely following Tully's "probable" explanation of events as described in his Warship International article (Sept. 2000) and then used by Hornfischer in his "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors". Therefore it may well be described as a "secondary explosion" rather than put down to some other potential cause, such as the single bomb hit described in the Haguro's report from this period. And as with most of the battle evidence, reported times and identities of targets aren't always certain (as you touched on before). Generally I'd always go with what their TROM's state over almost anything else and it may well be their own research has uncovered clear evidence of a secondary explosion on the Chokai but since the "own torpedoes" as a cause is mentioned only as probable, I personally wouldn't put it in the same league of certainty as the Mikuma, Aoba, Mogami and Suzuya incidents.

BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

My Junior Mad Scientist Kit was destroyed by fire some years back but having read some of the reports by the US airmen and the Japanese involved, I can take a wild guess as to what would happen to the test tube if it was sealed.