An article I found. Not for JFB's.

[BLUESBOB]

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=74

It talks about Japanese torpedo and bomb accuracy at the beginning of the war.

[Big B]

Interesting article.[X(]
Too bad it wasn't written until after WitP was designed..[8|]

B

[denisonh]

Sound analysis.

[scott64]

Nice [:'(]

[scott64]

Interesting article on MacArthur [X(]

[Charles2222]

Just a small note: I think this would back my point that the US ships in PH are burning FAR too little when we see them the next day (always single digit fires).
 
This from the same source on the Nevada:

3 Fire engulfs all the compartments on the second and main decks in the fore of the ship following the direct hits scored in this area. It will continue to burn fiercely for 48 hours.

 

[wild_Willie2]

ok, what s wrong with this section:

Japanese pilots practised bombing from 8,500 feet using steel sheets the same thickness as US battleships' deck armor as targets. From this exercise it was learned that the bomb weight needed to be increased to 800 kg to provide enough kinetic energy to penetrate. There was not time to design and manufacture an 800kg bomb, so the Japanese improvised, welding tail fins onto 16-in. naval gun shells. Then they had to design and build new bomb racks because their older planes had racks which were too small to carry the larger projectiles. These new racks insured that the improvised 800 kg bombs would swing clear of the propeller arc after release. The bombing problem was solved.


It mentions "bombs swinging clear of the propellor", a torpedo bomber, bombing a target from level flight doe not NEED this feature. This feature is only needed in dive bombers, to avoid hitting the prop. As we ALL know that valls carry 250 KG bombs, this is a VERY strange refference....... 

[Rob Brennan UK]

Gret article .. thanks .

Wild Willie .. maybe they did a sort of shallow glide bombing that might have clipped props, although i am completely unaware that they ever did such a manouvre.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Gret article .. thanks .

Wild Willie .. maybe they did a sort of shallow glide bombing that might have clipped props, although i am completely unaware that they ever did such a manouvre.

The Japanese are said to have conducted some glide bombing attacks at Midway (according to Shattered Sword), so i guess it was in their repetoire...

[joey]

Thanks, this is an interesting website. Lots of good articles.

[anarchyintheuk]

He also states that the Pennsylvania was sunk.

Good article tho.

[Terminus]

Well, she was... On 2/10/48...

[ChezDaJez]

Not sure how much faith I put in his conclusions. He has made several factual errors concerning Pearl Harbor.

The first is Pennsylvania was not sunk, she was in drydock and suffered only slight-moderate damage.

Second, the wooden fins on the torpedoes were not for buoyancy. As they were only installed at the rear of the torpedo, they would tend to make the torp angle downwards if buoyancy was the issue. The fins were angled upwards to allow the torp a shallower water entry, dive and run.

Thirdly, the Kaga departed Saeki Bay on 19 November and joined the fleet on 22 November in the Kuriles. All the carriers arrived on 22 November and departed 26 November for Pearl.

His numbers, however, appear accurate and I won't dispute them. But he does cast doubt on the overall accuracy of his article by not checking easily verifiable facts.

Chez

[spence]

Second, the wooden fins on the torpedoes were not for buoyancy. As they were only installed at the rear of the torpedo, they would tend to make the torp angle downwards if buoyancy was the issue. The fins were angled upwards to allow the torp a shallower water entry, dive and run

 
Careful reading suggests that the "buoyancy" idea relating to the wooden fins is quoting the report of the Japanese Asst Naval Attache in Berlin.  I have no idea of his area of technical expertise.  He simply may have added a simplistic technical appraisal to his important finding that the British had modified their torpedos by attaching wooden fins to the torpedos.  The technical experts in the IJN undoubtably would have figured out what the true advantage of the modification was.
 
It is interesting to note that a Japanese factory engaged in war work prior to PH could have a "No overtime policy" when the authorities were contemplating taking on the whole world in just a few months (regarding the production of the modified torpedos).
 
 

[ChezDaJez]

It is interesting to note that a Japanese factory engaged in war work prior to PH could have a "No overtime policy" when the authorities were contemplating taking on the whole world in just a few months (regarding the production of the modified torpedos).

Hi Spence,


Seems like some of the national stupidity we had with some unions in the States. I know we weren't alone. Was it Australia that had dockworkers going on strike or refusing to unload ships right about the time of Coral Sea?

Chez

[Nikademus]

No.

French workers at New Caledonia (Nomeau)

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

No.

French workers at New Caledonia (Nomeau)

i think there was some problem with the Australian dockworkers as well, but maybe not at the time of Coral Sea...

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

No.

French workers at New Caledonia (Nomeau)

i think there was some problem with the Australian dockworkers as well, but maybe not at the time of Coral Sea...

IIRC there were US merchant sailors refusing to work overtime to help unload their own ships in Noumea during summer 1942.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

No.

French workers at New Caledonia (Nomeau)

i think there was some problem with the Australian dockworkers as well, but maybe not at the time of Coral Sea...

This is from a history of the 808th Eng. Av. Bat. "The 808th was moved from Port Moresby (Relieved by the 857th Engineer Aviation Battalion) to Sydney for rest and refitting 2 April 1943 to 22 May 1943. They were greeted by a dock workers strike at Sydney. This meant that details from the 808th had to unload ships for at least part of their R&R."

[mdiehl]

One of the problems in rearming Kates for anti-ship duty after initially arming them for attacking ground targets was that the munitions rack had to be removed from the airplane and replaced with a different rack. Real cludgey stuff.
 
The wooden fins on the torps did not change the entry angle. They increased the drag after the torp hit the water, in effect increasing it's buoyancy. The idea was to prevent the torps from plunging to their normal plunge depth (how deep it goes into the water before the depth mechanisms could bring it to normal operating depth). Had they been less effectively buoyant they may have had problems sticking into the mud in the relatively shallow harbor.