Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:11 am**

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
And I think mdiehl might want to research exactly what the letters "AOCS" in sandman455's sig line means.

Chez

Reminds me a bit of stories my SO have been telling me. She is both a Psychologist and an attorney (just a bit of an over achiever [:D]). She's been working in this counseling agency for the last year for an idiot who thinks he knows everything. In staff meetings he will make pronouncements about the law and when she says she has researched it and the law actually doesn't say that at all, he tells her she's flat out wrong. Everyone knows she's a practicing attorney. I wonder what the rest of the staff is thinking when he (with no law degree) is telling an attorney she's wrong about something she works with every day.

Lately he's also been doing some video editing with another counselor who used to have a music and video business and is an expert in audio and video production. He has told my SO that the bozo has been doing the same thing with the video editing.

I don't claim to be an expert on petroleum, but my sister is a petroleum geologist and I have a friend who is a geophysicist in the oil biz. I've picked a bit from them over the years. I do know that once you get the stuff burning, it's usually pretty tough to put out.

I don't know what the viscosity was of the fuel stored at Pearl. Some of it was av gas, which would have burned quite easily. Bunker sea it tougher to get burning, but I would not be surprised if vapor pressure builds up in those tanks. The sun does beat down on them all day which would make them fairly warm inside. The attack did happen early in the morning in December, but Hawaii is not known for cold nights.

Some kind of fire source like an incendiary bomb would probably work better than HE to get the tanks going, but that was not unknown technology in 1941. I believe the RAF was using them by that point. The IJN fashioned AP bombs for the attack from battleship shells, even if they didn't have incendiaries normally on the KB, they could have devised something for the raid.

But again, nobody was thinking about the tank farm in 1941 on either side. Taking out logistics is not the Japanese style of combat. And it may have made delayed the offensive a little, but not dramatically. We also can't know for sure how fast the tanks could have been replaced if that had gone up. The US did show amazing initiative when needed during that time. Replacing the tanks may have delayed some west coast ship building, and replacing the fuel lost would have diverted some fuel destined for the South Pacific and Australia which would have delayed operations there. But overall, it would only have bought 6 months at the outside.

The American strategy was to focus most resources on the Pacific until Japan's advance was checked, then to switch to Europe. More resources may have been diverted to the Pacific in 1942, which may have resulted in a very similar outcome.

As you said, all roads lead to failure for Japan. No matter how you slice it.

Bill

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:46 am**

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
BTW, were there any similar incident during WWII Pacific where similar large oil tanks were targeted / attacked?

Image copyright: Copyright expired - public domain
ID number: OG3048
Photographer: Harrison, John Thomas
Object type: Black & white
Physical description: Black & white
Collection: Photograph
Description: BALIKPAPAN, BORNEO. C. 1945-07. AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF WRECKED OIL STORAGE TANKS.

Permalink: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/OG3048

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:53 am**

Probably not the primary target....

Note the proximity of other undamaged storage tanks.

Image copyright: Copyright expired - public domain
ID number: 027348
Photographer: Sanders, William Charles
Object type: Black & white - Film original negative nitrate other
Collection: Photograph
Description: DARWIN, NT. 1942-10-19. AERIAL VIEW OF BURNT OUT OIL TANKS, SET ON FIRE IN A BOMBING RAID ON 1942-06-16.

Permalink: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/027348

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:01 am**

The more you dig....

This was the result of RAAF B-24s I believe.

Image copyright: Copyright expired - public domain
ID number: OG2672
Photographer: Harrison, John Thomas
Object type: Black & white
Physical description: Black & white
Collection: Photograph
Description: TARAKAN ISLAND, BORNEO. C. 1945-05. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF BOMB CRATERS AND DESTROYED OIL TANKS.

Permalink: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/OG2672[b][/b]

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:30 pm**

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

You summed it up quite nicely Bill..., but no amount of rational explanation is going to keep the JFB's on the forum from searching for some kind of "magic bullet" that could make Japan's hopeless inferiority tenible. You're facing "the power of wishfull thinking"... [8|]

JFB's? I think we have found someone who has out researched mdiehl.

I know many of you weren't in the military. It really does have it's quirks, but for the most part it is no different than any other company, fraternity, church, or collection of bipedal primates. And all branches are all pretty much all run exactly the same way. Hollywood has done a lot to spread the misconceptions of the military. I have found even junior military members who have limited access, get some bizarre impressions of how things run closer to the top.

If we could go back to 1938 or so, and sit in on some war planning sessions you would probably get to hear some O-3/4 spitball about the fuel farm at pearl harbor. The O-5/6 who would be running the session would (or wouldn't) consider the "wild idea" and shoot it and everything else up the chain of command (CoC). Eventually it would end up on some O-7/8's desk (CO of Docks and Yards in 1938, any guesses?) who would pick out the interesting parts and fire it back down the CoC for more indepth analysis. Eventually the guy who opened his mouth (N.A.V.Y = Never Again Volunteer Yourself) about the fuel farm will be tasked to go get smart on the subject. This O-3/4 wants nothing more to be left alone, collect his pay, get his promotion, etc. He is now stuck writing an assessment that could either make him look like an idiot or not. There is no upside other than some name recognition among guys who don't sign his FITREP. So like any guy trying to save his butt he sets off to find someone who has a clue about tank farms. He would contact the construction company, the designer, the weapon schools, anyone and everyone that would might help his project because he doesn't want to look like an idiot.

"Ummm. . . did you build those tanks on Oahu?"
"Yeah we got the contract for that back in the early 30's"
"Well I need some help with their survivability"
"Oh we built those things to with stand 90 mph winds and a 6.0 earthquake"
"No not the kind of survivability"
"Uhhh, say what?"

Eventually he would get a collection of answers from pretty much anyone and everyone about storage tanks and report it back to either the O-5/6 or O-7/8 via a paper. This paper would contain both the best and the worst assessments, because the author would being trying to cover his ass as best he could. From this point on, everyone would be referencing the stuff in the paper. Why? Because they too don't know jack about some fuel farm!

So what I'm telling you is this. The line I am about to quote yet again, is not the assessment or idea of the man who said it. Original ideas from flag officers are like signing your own retirement papers. It represents the thoughts of the engineer who designed them, or the general contractor who built them, or some officer who went out and shot at something like them. This very phrase was utter and repeated through the CoC because when you are in the navy, you can't get away with BS'ing for long. It's like any other company, fraternity, church or even this forum. There is always someone that wants your job or at the very least would love to make you look foolish.

So here it is again, the immortal words of the ORIGINAL JAPANESE FAN BOY:

"Fifty-caliber incendiary machine gun bullets could have wiped them out."
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:01 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455
JFB's? I think we have found someone who has out researched mdiehl.

I know many of you weren't in the military. It really does have it's quirks, but for the most part it is no different than any other company, fraternity, church, or collection of bipedal primates. And all branches are all pretty much all run exactly the same way. Hollywood has done a lot to spread the misconceptions of the military. I have found even junior military members who have limited access, get some bizarre impressions of how things run closer to the top.

If we could go back to 1938 or so, and sit in on some war planning sessions you would probably get to hear some O-3/4 spitball about the fuel farm at pearl harbor. The O-5/6 who would be running the session would (or wouldn't) consider the "wild idea" and shoot it and everything else up the chain of command (CoC). Eventually it would end up on some O-7/8's desk (CO of Docks and Yards in 1938, any guesses?) who would pick out the interesting parts and fire it back down the CoC for more indepth analysis. Eventually the guy who opened his mouth (N.A.V.Y = Never Again Volunteer Yourself) about the fuel farm will be tasked to go get smart on the subject. This O-3/4 wants nothing more to be left alone, collect his pay, get his promotion, etc. He is now stuck writing an assessment that could either make him look like an idiot or not. There is no upside other than some name recognition among guys who don't sign his FITREP. So like any guy trying to save his butt he sets off to find someone who has a clue about tank farms. He would contact the construction company, the designer, the weapon schools, anyone and everyone that would might help his project because he doesn't want to look like an idiot.

"Ummm. . . did you build those tanks on Oahu?"
"Yeah we got the contract for that back in the early 30's"
"Well I need some help with their survivability"
"Oh we built those things to with stand 90 mph winds and a 6.0 earthquake"
"No not the kind of survivability"
"Uhhh, say what?"

Eventually he would get a collection of answers from pretty much anyone and everyone about storage tanks and report it back to either the O-5/6 or O-7/8 via a paper. This paper would contain both the best and the worst assessments, because the author would being trying to cover his ass as best he could. From this point on, everyone would be referencing the stuff in the paper. Why? Because they too don't know jack about some fuel farm!

So what I'm telling you is this. The line I am about to quote yet again, is not the assessment or idea of the man who said it. Original ideas from flag officers are like signing your own retirement papers. It represents the thoughts of the engineer who designed them, or the general contractor who built them, or some officer who went out and shot at something like them. This very phrase was utter and repeated through the CoC because when you are in the navy, you can't get away with BS'ing for long. It's like any other company, fraternity, church or even this forum. There is always someone that wants your job or at the very least would love to make you look foolish.

So here it is again, the immortal words of the ORIGINAL JAPANESE FAN BOY:

"Fifty-caliber incendiary machine gun bullets could have wiped them out."
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN

Astoundingly well described, sandman455! [&o]

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:07 pm**

ORIGINAL: Reg

The more you dig....

This was the result of RAAF B-24s I believe.

Interesting pictures, Reg. The Darwin pic especially looks as though the developers / construction had the foresight to have the tanks in their own revetments, partially shielded from the others "just in case".

Does anyone have a picture of the US tank farm on Pearl circa 1941? It would be interesting to see whether one melting tank would have made a molten lake of burning oil or if it would have been (designed) to stay put and not damage the others.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:38 pm**

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Reg

The more you dig....

This was the result of RAAF B-24s I believe.

Interesting pictures, Reg. The Darwin pic especially looks as though the developers / construction had the foresight to have the tanks in their own revetments, partially shielded from the others "just in case".

Does anyone have a picture of the US tank farm on Pearl circa 1941? It would be interesting to see whether one melting tank would have made a molten lake of burning oil or if it would have been (designed) to stay put and not damage the others.

CB, there's at least one posted earlier in this thread, of the tanks near the sub docks.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:40 pm**

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

You summed it up quite nicely Bill..., but no amount of rational explanation is going to keep the JFB's on the forum from searching for some kind of "magic bullet" that could make Japan's hopeless inferiority tenible. You're facing "the power of wishfull thinking"... [8|]

well said mike. Those Poor Dumb Japanese!!!!!!!

[8|]

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:42 pm**

I know many of you weren't in the military. It really does have it's quirks, but for the most part it is no different than any other company, fraternity, church, or collection of bipedal primates. And all branches are all pretty much all run exactly the same way. Hollywood has done a lot to spread the misconceptions of the military. I have found even junior military members who have limited access, get some bizarre impressions of how things run closer to the top.

You should write a book. [:)]

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:45 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455
Ever hear of Red Hill? Sadly, I must now consider that an epic boondoggle, seeing how I learned yesterday that the tank farm was quite impervous to all IJN weapons and Nimitz didn't know how hard it was to blow stuff up. [8|]

Sadly.....without resorting to Google or Wiki....It doesn't strike a bell immediately. (or a fuel tank) Can I bother you to share some details? I'm Wiki challenged. [;)]

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:38 pm**

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that the usual wingnuts will attack me personally when their arguments don't withstand the slightest test. The usual guys derailing the discussion AS USUAL. Hey Chez, this bud's for you: ..l.,

As to the matter at hand:

I don't know what the viscosity was of the fuel stored at Pearl. Some of it was av gas, which would have burned quite easily. Bunker sea it tougher to get burning, but I would not be surprised if vapor pressure builds up in those tanks. The sun does beat down on them all day which would make them fairly warm inside. The attack did happen early in the morning in December, but Hawaii is not known for cold nights

.

The tanks did not contain avgas. It was all bunker grade. Stuff that makes ships go. AVGAS would be alot more volatile for sure. The rest of your comment is more or less germane but consider that bunker grade has to be heated to 150+ degrees to make it useful as fuel. Cooler for pumping. I doubt that the tanks were allowed to build up substantial vapor pressure considering that they were double walled. I also wonder whether they had any fire suppression other than water. It'd be nice to know more than merely general contents, basic construction, and the presence of those berms.

Some kind of fire source like an incendiary bomb would probably work better than HE to get the tanks going, but that was not unknown technology in 1941. I believe the RAF was using them by that point. The IJN fashioned AP bombs for the attack from battleship shells, even if they didn't have incendiaries normally on the KB, they could have devised something for the raid.

Exactly. But they'd have to have made in depth studies of that and might even need some experience. The USAAF did not find it so easy to burn down refineries (and their fuel tanks) using much greater tonnage of bombs than could be loaded onto six CVs. Who knows whether there was a good way to carry loads of WP or thermite (did anyone have thermite in 1941 or was that a mid-war development?) on the Japanese CVs. Under that load out, one bomb hit could really ruin a CV skipper's day in the worst possible way.

But again, nobody was thinking about the tank farm in 1941 on either side. Taking out logistics is not the Japanese style of combat. And it may have made delayed the offensive a little, but not dramatically. We also can't know for sure how fast the tanks could have been replaced if that had gone up. The US did show amazing initiative when needed during that time. Replacing the tanks may have delayed some west coast ship building, and replacing the fuel lost would have diverted some fuel destined for the South Pacific and Australia which would have delayed operations there. But overall, it would only have bought 6 months at the outside.

Exactly. 100% agreement there.

The American strategy was to focus most resources on the Pacific until Japan's advance was checked, then to switch to Europe. More resources may have been diverted to the Pacific in 1942, which may have resulted in a very similar outcome. As you said, all roads lead to failure for Japan. No matter how you slice it.

So, I have tried to imagine how I would solve the problem if I had to fuel Pacific Fleet without the use of most of those tanks. As I see it, the solution is to make a peramanent quay of some sort where you basically a dozen or so large bulk fuel ships. New deliveries of fuel to PH get pumped from the delivering ship to the receiving "parked" ships. Logistically speaking, this is a substantial nuisance for operations in North Africa I think because in 1942 the US and UK armed forces in all services needed fuel everywhere at the same time.

This in turn changes some of the construction priorities. You'd need a bunch more T2-T3 container ships to make up for removing a dozen of them from service.
As for the effects on PacFleet --- no one was going to use the old BBs in 1942 for anything other than defense even if they'd not all been sunk at their berths. They burned too much fuel for even the PH oil tank farm to sustain them operationally; even though several were available and returned to PH in Sept 1942, they weren't used in the Guadalcanal campaign because they just burned too much oil to sustain operationally. So in the end the question reduces to this:

How much fuel was required to sustain the Pac Fleet CV contingent and their escorts?

That's how much fuel you need one way or the other at PH in 1942. If you can do it in parked tankers, then the need is met.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:40 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455

So here it is again, the immortal words of the ORIGINAL JAPANESE FAN BOY:

"Fifty-caliber incendiary machine gun bullets could have wiped them out."
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN

sandman 455

Is it possible that Nimitz was simply trying to illustrate, with a description that nearly everyone would understand, the extreme vulnerability of a key resource to fleet operations by this statement versus expressing the results of a detailed assessment...

Additionally, your description of the military decision making process for changes to base support operations is not consistent with my experience. The issue of protecting the tanks was almost certainly one of time, money and competing priorities. It is unlikely to me the leadership did not recognize the issue.

Mike

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:50 pm**

Is it possible that Nimitz was simply trying to illustrate, with a description that nearly everyone would understand, the extreme vulnerability of a key resource to fleet operations by this statement versus expressing the results of a detailed assessment...

Exactly.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:50 pm**

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

sandman 455

Is it possible that Nimitz was simply trying to illustrate, with a description that nearly everyone would understand, the extreme vulnerability of a key resource to fleet operations by this statement versus expressing the results of a detailed assessment...

Additionally, your description of the military decision making process for changes to base support operations is not consistent with my experience. The issue of protecting the tanks was almost certainly one of time, money and competing priorities. It is unlikely to me the leadership did not recognize the issue.

Mike

Only if you believe that he was ready to shrug off the laughter he would have gotten from those who new better. I don't know? Who would have known better? Who sits around thinking about blowing up tank farms?

I know my ex-professional opinion means nothing. I also know that includes all that is posted here, and everywhere else. It includes all who came up with computer models (man I'd like see that programming session) and stuck it in books, and whatever.

We have not talked to the guys who built and designed the farm, we didn't go out and fire incendiary rounds, we didn't do anything but "research" which translates into not much seventy years after the fact.

No, you have to take the man and his employer at their word.

Red Hill was a tank farm started in 1940, on the island of Oahu. It was completed in 1943. It was designed to remedy the situation that the admiral and his navy incorrectly assumed existed. It has been described by those who do that stuff for a living as an engineering marvel. If you type into Google:

"Red Hill Fuel Storage Tanks"

The number one hit is some engineers powerpoint presentation. I can't vouch for the accuracy. It says enough though that it was planned and started a good time before 12/7/1941.

[:(]
Let's get back to some WitP/AE related stuff. I only jumped into this thread because I thought I saw some rather alarming data being presented. Turns out it didn't do my research. Besides, tanks farms are boring.

Now, what are my chances of getting some Rita's R&D by mid 1944? And I have this idea of landing in on the west coast of Canada in late 43, running down and taking Vancouver, bring in a bunch of AO's and tankers and stealing all the Number 6 fuel oil thats stockpiled there. Of course I wouldn't bomb the tank farms, duh. Best part is I'll set up a level 4 airfield real quick and take my Bettys and Nells and night fire bomb Boeings B-29 plant in Seattle to make it look like Tokyo circa 1945. Will it work?

JFB only please.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:40 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455

Only if you believe that he was ready to shrug off the laughter he would have gotten from those who new better. I don't know? Who would have known better? Who sits around thinking about blowing up tank farms?

I know my ex-professional opinion means nothing. I also know that includes all that is posted here, and everywhere else. It includes all who came up with computer models (man I'd like see that programming session) and stuck it in books, and whatever.

We have not talked to the guys who built and designed the farm, we didn't go out and fire incendiary rounds, we didn't do anything but "research" which translates into not much seventy years after the fact.

No, you have to take the man and his employer at their word.

Red Hill was a tank farm started in 1940, on the island of Oahu. It was completed in 1943. It was designed to remedy the situation that the admiral and his navy incorrectly assumed existed. It has been described by those who do that stuff for a living as an engineering marvel. If you type into Google:

"Red Hill Fuel Storage Tanks"

The number one hit is some engineers powerpoint presentation. I can't vouch for the accuracy. It says enough though that it was planned and started a good time before 12/7/1941.

I'd say your ex-professional opinion means something. Thx for the Red Hill info. [:D]

[:(]
Let's get back to some WitP/AE related stuff. I only jumped into this thread because I thought I saw some rather alarming data being presented. Turns out it didn't do my research. Besides, tanks farms are boring.

Now, what are my chances of getting some Rita's R&D by mid 1944? And I have this idea of landing in on the west coast of Canada in late 43, running down and taking Vancouver, bring in a bunch of AO's and tankers and stealing all the Number 6 fuel oil thats stockpiled there. Of course I wouldn't bomb the tank farms, duh. Best part is I'll set up a level 4 airfield real quick and take my Bettys and Nells and night fire bomb Boeings B-29 plant in Seattle to make it look like Tokyo circa 1945. Will it work?

JFB only please.

well as a game fanboy.....i'd tell you......but the Banana does not give out details of his nefarious plans to invade North America. THIS time i will WIN!

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:59 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455

... Let's get back to some WitP/AE related stuff. I only jumped into this thread because I thought I saw some rather alarming data being presented. Turns out it didn't do my research. Besides, tanks farms are boring.

Now, what are my chances of getting some Rita's R&D by mid 1944? And I have this idea of landing in on the west coast of Canada in late 43, running down and taking Vancouver, bring in a bunch of AO's and tankers and stealing all the Number 6 fuel oil thats stockpiled there. Of course I wouldn't bomb the tank farms, duh. Best part is I'll set up a level 4 airfield real quick and take my Bettys and Nells and night fire bomb Boeings B-29 plant in Seattle to make it look like Tokyo circa 1945. Will it work?

JFB only please.

Assuming there was a 10% serious element to the question, you might want to have a look at this thread regarding your evil design on the Boeing plant.[:)]

tm.asp?m=2620232&mpage=2&key=emergency%2Creinforcements?

Alfred

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:29 pm**

ORIGINAL: sandman455
JFB's? I think we have found someone who has out researched mdiehl.

I know many of you weren't in the military. It really does have it's quirks, but for the most part it is no different than any other company, fraternity, church, or collection of bipedal primates. And all branches are all pretty much all run exactly the same way. Hollywood has done a lot to spread the misconceptions of the military. I have found even junior military members who have limited access, get some bizarre impressions of how things run closer to the top.

If we could go back to 1938 or so, and sit in on some war planning sessions you would probably get to hear some O-3/4 spitball about the fuel farm at pearl harbor. The O-5/6 who would be running the session would (or wouldn't) consider the "wild idea" and shoot it and everything else up the chain of command (CoC). Eventually it would end up on some O-7/8's desk (CO of Docks and Yards in 1938, any guesses?) who would pick out the interesting parts and fire it back down the CoC for more indepth analysis. Eventually the guy who opened his mouth (N.A.V.Y = Never Again Volunteer Yourself) about the fuel farm will be tasked to go get smart on the subject. This O-3/4 wants nothing more to be left alone, collect his pay, get his promotion, etc. He is now stuck writing an assessment that could either make him look like an idiot or not. There is no upside other than some name recognition among guys who don't sign his FITREP. So like any guy trying to save his butt he sets off to find someone who has a clue about tank farms. He would contact the construction company, the designer, the weapon schools, anyone and everyone that would might help his project because he doesn't want to look like an idiot.

"Ummm. . . did you build those tanks on Oahu?"
"Yeah we got the contract for that back in the early 30's"
"Well I need some help with their survivability"
"Oh we built those things to with stand 90 mph winds and a 6.0 earthquake"
"No not the kind of survivability"
"Uhhh, say what?"

Eventually he would get a collection of answers from pretty much anyone and everyone about storage tanks and report it back to either the O-5/6 or O-7/8 via a paper. This paper would contain both the best and the worst assessments, because the author would being trying to cover his ass as best he could. From this point on, everyone would be referencing the stuff in the paper. Why? Because they too don't know jack about some fuel farm!

So what I'm telling you is this. The line I am about to quote yet again, is not the assessment or idea of the man who said it. Original ideas from flag officers are like signing your own retirement papers. It represents the thoughts of the engineer who designed them, or the general contractor who built them, or some officer who went out and shot at something like them. This very phrase was utter and repeated through the CoC because when you are in the navy, you can't get away with BS'ing for long. It's like any other company, fraternity, church or even this forum. There is always someone that wants your job or at the very least would love to make you look foolish.

So here it is again, the immortal words of the ORIGINAL JAPANESE FAN BOY:

"Fifty-caliber incendiary machine gun bullets could have wiped them out."
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN

The Navy doubted Pearl could be attacked by air, even though Admiral Reeves proved it in the 1920s. This is a great book on the early days of naval aviation:

http://www.amazon.com/All-Factors-Victory-Origins-Carrier/dp/1574884867/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318447406&sr=8-1-spell

Reeves trained some of the guys who were flag officers in WW II. Some of his tactics are still doctrine today.

Bill

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:33 am**

ORIGINAL: oldman45

They actually did a great job burning the fuel sitting in the tanks at Polesti, what they didn't do was cause enough damage to completely shut the plant down. That was the disappointment of the raid.

There was a tank fire in Charleston SC in the late 80's, its not a really fair comparison because it was a gasoline storage facility. Even with the help of the AF and Navy it still took them over 2 days to put the fire out. The point I am making is, if there was a 3rd raid that went after the tank farm, they could have got it burning. Shrapnel causing leaks and direct hits on a couple of tanks and sooner or later there would be enough build up of fumes that something would ignite. The nightmare is if there is aluminium around and the fire is hot enough to get it burning. [u]The Brits learned the hardway what happens when ships with aluminium superstructures start to burn. We had many training sessions to learn how to combat shipboard fires involving aluminium. [/u]

Go back and check out the wreck of the Belknap when she collided with the JFK in 1975... Lost most of her superstructure because, as were almost all ships at that time, the superstructure was made of aluminum. Nasty stuff onboard ships..

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:08 am**

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: sandman455

JFB's? I think we have found someone who has out researched mdiehl.

I know many of you weren't in the military. It really does have it's quirks, but for the most part it is no different than any other company, fraternity, church, or collection of bipedal primates. And all branches are all pretty much all run exactly the same way. Hollywood has done a lot to spread the misconceptions of the military. I have found even junior military members who have limited access, get some bizarre impressions of how things run closer to the top.

If we could go back to 1938 or so, and sit in on some war planning sessions you would probably get to hear some O-3/4 spitball about the fuel farm at pearl harbor. The O-5/6 who would be running the session would (or wouldn't) consider the "wild idea" and shoot it and everything else up the chain of command (CoC). Eventually it would end up on some O-7/8's desk (CO of Docks and Yards in 1938, any guesses?) who would pick out the interesting parts and fire it back down the CoC for more indepth analysis. Eventually the guy who opened his mouth (N.A.V.Y = Never Again Volunteer Yourself) about the fuel farm will be tasked to go get smart on the subject. This O-3/4 wants nothing more to be left alone, collect his pay, get his promotion, etc. He is now stuck writing an assessment that could either make him look like an idiot or not. There is no upside other than some name recognition among guys who don't sign his FITREP. So like any guy trying to save his butt he sets off to find someone who has a clue about tank farms. He would contact the construction company, the designer, the weapon schools, anyone and everyone that would might help his project because he doesn't want to look like an idiot.

"Ummm. . . did you build those tanks on Oahu?"
"Yeah we got the contract for that back in the early 30's"
"Well I need some help with their survivability"
"Oh we built those things to with stand 90 mph winds and a 6.0 earthquake"
"No not the kind of survivability"
"Uhhh, say what?"

Eventually he would get a collection of answers from pretty much anyone and everyone about storage tanks and report it back to either the O-5/6 or O-7/8 via a paper. This paper would contain both the best and the worst assessments, because the author would being trying to cover his ass as best he could. From this point on, everyone would be referencing the stuff in the paper. Why? Because they too don't know jack about some fuel farm!

So what I'm telling you is this. The line I am about to quote yet again, is not the assessment or idea of the man who said it. Original ideas from flag officers are like signing your own retirement papers. It represents the thoughts of the engineer who designed them, or the general contractor who built them, or some officer who went out and shot at something like them. This very phrase was utter and repeated through the CoC because when you are in the navy, you can't get away with BS'ing for long. It's like any other company, fraternity, church or even this forum. There is always someone that wants your job or at the very least would love to make you look foolish.

So here it is again, the immortal words of the ORIGINAL JAPANESE FAN BOY:

"Fifty-caliber incendiary machine gun bullets could have wiped them out."
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN

Great read - thanks! [:)]

Leo "Apollo11"

Matrix Games Forums

Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor

RE: Question re Pearl Harbor