Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Two Sunken Japanese Submarines Found Off Hawaii

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the toro-toro-and-we-don't-mean-lawnmowers dept.

The Military 239

Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that two World War II Japanese submarines, including one meant to carry aircraft for attacks on American cities, have been found in deep water off Hawaii where they were sunk in 1946. Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the US East Coast — perhaps targeting Washington, DC and New York City — the 'samurai subs' were fast, far-ranging, and some carried folding-wing aircraft. Five Japanese submarines were captured by American forces at the end of the war and taken to Pearl Harbor for study, then towed to sea and torpedoed, probably to avoid having to share any of their technology with the Russian military. One of the Japanese craft, the I-201, was covered with a rubberized coating on the hull, an innovation intended to make it less apparent to sonar or radar; it was capable of speeds of about 20 knots while submerged, making it among the fastest diesel submarines ever made. The other, the I-14, much larger and slower, was designed to carry two small planes, Aichi M6A Seirans that could be brought onto the deck and launched by a catapult. The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good. 'It's very moving to see objects like this underwater,' says Hans Van Tilburg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 'because it's a very peaceful environment, but these subs were designed for aggression.'"

cancel ×

239 comments

Tour a sub. (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089280)

Speaking as a guy who's spent time on modern boats, anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.

Re:Tour a sub. (2, Informative)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089422)

Yeah touring subs are pretty neat. I know of ones in Portland, Galveston, and Pearl Harbor? Any others?

Re:Tour a sub. (4, Informative)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089554)

How about the Submarine Force Library & Museum in Connecticut? I toured the Nautilus several years ago and it is definitely worth the trip if you are in the North-East.

Aboard NAUTILUS, experience first-hand the thrill of being a submariner as you walk the decks that made Naval history: the world's first nuclear powered vessel, first ship to go to the North Pole and first submarine to journey "20,000 Leagues under the sea." Explore the spaces where the crew of this amazing ship worked, ate, slept, and entertained themselves on their long voyages far beneath the ocean's waves.

Link [ussnautilus.org]

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089758)

Sweet, I'll go check it out. Ever since playing way, way too much silent service on my NES, I've had a fascination for subs.

Re:Tour a sub. (3, Interesting)

Landshark17 (807664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090274)

Amen to that, thank you for posting it.

My family drives from New Jersey to Massachussetts every year, and it's tradition to stop in Groton at the Nautilus for a long break. The museum is excellent and the tour of the sub gives you a feel for history that can never be matched by books or documentaries. I have a lot of fond memories of the place, from when I was very young being completely in awe of this boat that could go underwater, to growing up and understanding the history surrounding its creation, and truly appreciating the sign on one of the nearby houses in Groton that encouraged visitors to be mindful of the fact that, for all the marvelous engineering and history surrounding the ship, it was a ship made for war.

Re:Tour a sub. (4, Informative)

chaim79 (898507) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089628)

U505 at Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. It's Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page, and it's Museum [msichicago.org] page.

Re:Tour a sub. (2, Interesting)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090314)

The U505 is impressive but the tour is far too short. You really don't get a good opportunity to experience the sub and examine all its workings. The tour guides rush you from room to room, tell a little story in each, and then hustle you out. I would have preferred to go at my own pace, but I understand the need to keep the line moving since it's such a confined space.

Re:Tour a sub. (2, Interesting)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090470)

The new U-505 exhibit it outstanding! The tour maybe short but try to go on a weekday, I've been there several times and on the weekend the tour gets sold out very quickly (within a few hours) The rest of the exhibit is worth a lot of time too. All kinds of neat stuff. original torpedo cut away model. enigma machines on loan from the NSA. I spent 2:30 hours even before the tour started just looking around and reading all the information that's there.

Re:Tour a sub. (3, Informative)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089642)

U-boat in Chicago.
Growler Submarine in New York City
Submarine Force Museum in Groton CT has the USS Nautilus

There are others.

Re:Tour a sub. (2, Informative)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089664)

You can't go inside it, but the HA.19 [wikipedia.org] , one of the Japanese midget submarines that participated (ineffectually) in the attack on Pearl Harbor, is on display at the National Museum of the Pacific War [wikipedia.org] , in Fredericksburg, Texas.

Re:Tour a sub. (4, Informative)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089676)

The USS Torsk (SS-423) [usstorsk.org] is on display in Baltimore MD at the Inner Harbor.

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089692)

There is one in Mobile alongside the USS Alabama. Been to both, was pretty interesting. You are also likely to find some on display at some sub bases. Think Groton, CT has some on display.

Re:Tour a sub. (4, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089736)

You can organize a tour group and get a tour of Bangor in Washington State. I went as a Boy Scout and it was an amazing trip. We toured a huge active-service nuclear missile sub and I believe our troop exhausted that particular sub's supply of soft-serve ice cream within about 20 minutes. :-) It was amazing to walk around and touch the big vertical missile tubes, too. Ever since then I've been fascinated with submarines.

And, looking at my gut, I'm guessing the soft-serve experience did something to me as well.

Re:Tour a sub. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090004)

OK... I can't help it... Going AC...

You were in a long black tube in Bangor. The most memorable things were getting to feel a big vertical shaft and getting cream in your mouth? And now that memory has created a life-long fascination? I'm having trouble not reading between the lines here.

Sorry for regressing to 12-years-old there. I'll try to grow up a little now. Truthfully, I'd love to let my boys tour a sub. Next time we're in Portland I'll see if I can line it up.

Re:Tour a sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090074)

Not anymore. Bangor's pier access is now severely restricted.

That's how it should've been all along. Tour groups were a PITA; especially when they ate all the ice cream.

Re:Tour a sub. (3, Informative)

srollyson (1184197) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089814)

The USS Cod [wikipedia.org] is docked next to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. I went there this summer and was amazed by how small the living quarters were. Apparently the best bunks were above the torpedo tubes in the bow of the submarine because they're furthest away from the diesel engine. Bunks elsewhere were stacked three high about a foot apart and only wide enough for your shoulders. Cramped!

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089876)

Yeah touring subs are pretty neat. I know of ones in Portland, Galveston, and Pearl Harbor? Any others?

You can tour a Soviet sub in San Diego.

Re:Tour a sub. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089960)

There's one parked next to the aircraft carrier Intrepid in NYC... The Growler [intrepidmuseum.org] ... one of the first to carry nuclear tipped missiles

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

CuriHP (741480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090030)

Until recently there was a Russian sub on display in Providence, RI. Unfortunately it was swamped in a storm and it looks like it's being sold for scrap.

http://www.saratogamuseum.org/juliett/index.html [saratogamuseum.org]

Re:Tour a sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090294)

Charleston, SC has an old WWII sub that you can tour. There is also a WWII aircraft carrier that you can wander around too!

Patriot's point.

USS Silversides (SS-236) (3, Insightful)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090384)

USS Silversides (SS-236) [wikipedia.org] Active in WWII from April of 1941 to July 1945, and saw quite a bit of action.

Can be seen at the Great Lakes Naval Memorial & Museum [discountasp.net] .

In Muskegon, MI. They have several "overnight" programs for Cub Scouts and Indian Guides and such so you can spend the night sleeping in the bunks, as well as eat in the galley, watch Das Boot, etc. Very very very cool for kids and adults both.

Re:Tour a sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090422)

I think I recall one being in or around Duluth, MN.

Re:Tour a sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090478)

WWII submarine Becuna is at the Independence Seaport Museum in Philadelphia, along with the Olympia - the oldest steel warship afloat, and the United States' flagship in the Spanish American War. Both are incredible walk-throughs, and the restoration staff frequently works during open hours. If you go, take the opportunity to talk to them, they have some great insights and are very friendly. http://www.phillyseaport.org/

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

spurious cowherd (104353) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090484)

The USS Torsk [usstorsk.org] , a Tench class sub, is docked permanently in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD
It's part of the Baltimore Maritme Museum [historicships.org] which includes some other wonderful ships to tour also

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

himself (66589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090602)

I went through U-505 in Chicago at the Museum of Science & Industry when I was a wee lad, and it was among the highlights of a very good visit.

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

himself (66589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090646)

Battleship Cove in Fall River, Mass., has the USS Lionfish: http://battleshipcove.org/ss298-history.htm [battleshipcove.org]

Also, they have the battleship USS Massachusetts, two PT boats, an East German (Russian) missile corvette, and a bunch of other stuff.

USS Pampanito, in San Francisco. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090692)

WWII fleet sub, pretty awesome to see. There's a Liberty ship right next to it, which is also pretty neat.

The USS Nautilus is in Groton, Connecticut.

The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089760)

Re:The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090584)

In Europe, there's one in Deutsches Museum in München http://www.deutsches-museum.de/en/collections/transport/maritime-exhibition/u1/

Re:The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090790)

[Sigh] Though that page repeats the (completely false) urban legend that Blueback was used in The Hunt for Red October...
 
There's also the Submarine Museums [navy.mil] page from the USN, which links not only to submarines on display, but to other museums with submarine exhibits.

Re:Tour a sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089798)

At Bavarian film studios [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria_Film_Studios] you can get in the scale model used to film Das Boot.
Awesome.

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

asicsolutions (1481269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089836)

Portsmouth, NH - USS Albacore

San Francisco, CA (Fishermans Warf) - USS Pampanito

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090018)

Somehow, I don't think these particular subs would be very good for that.

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090310)

...anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.

That is a difficult task after the USS Greeneville Incident. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Tour a sub. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090500)

Don't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.

Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means.

Scorpion Soviet Sub at Queen Mary (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090534)

http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=scorpioninformation [queenmary.com]

You can go through the entire sub from front to end.
I have done this a couple times and take relatives down to it when they come in town, than you can go right next to the Queen Mary all here in Long Beach, CA.

Lots of ducking your head and pipes everywhere, a plumber would get a hard on walking through it all.

in other news (0, Troll)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089304)

two shrunken heads were also found

a bit wrinkled though

So, who's fault is it? (0, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089320)

The whales and dolphins, or the chickens and cows?

Re:So, who's fault is it? (1)

pengin9 (1595865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089694)

I believe that currently cow and Chicken are souly responsible for any sunken subs. whale and dolphin were sadly the scape goat for too many years!

Re:So, who's fault is it? (1)

FallinWithStyle (1474217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089788)

Come on! It's not thaaat [southparkstudios.com] offtopic

Launched by catapult? (1)

ClosedEyesSeeing (1278938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089344)

Sounds kind of interesting, but I haven't heard of it. How does that work? I assume it's not like the typical medieval catapult.

Re:Launched by catapult? (2, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089450)

How does that work? See this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Launched by catapult? (4, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090162)

A little tangential here, but it may be interesting to engineering nerds.

I got a description of some of the workings of standard carrier catapults from a co-worker who used to be stationed on one. This is maybe 20 years old, so our tech may have changed since then. Apparently they have (had?) a supply of hour-glass shaped steel widgets on board color-coded to match the aircraft being launched. When it was time to launch, they would grab the appropriate size/color and insert it as an intentional weak-link in line with the cable before firing up the winch. When the cable was properly tensioned, the steel widget would break and release the cable throwing the plane into the air.

Kind of a neat design idea if you can't just haul the cable along fast enough to throw the plane.

Re:Launched by catapult? (2, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090642)

I am no expert, but my impression is that aircraft cat systems haven't changed significantly in those 20 years.

But in the US Navy's next carrier class [wikipedia.org] , it will [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Launched by catapult? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089490)

think of it more like a slingshot.

Re:Launched by catapult? (2, Informative)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089514)

No, like the catapults on aircraft carriers. Similar concept, hence the term catapult.

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089550)

Our (USA) current nuclear powered air craft carriers use catapults to launch fighters... You are correct, they are not medieval technology based.

I can't remember but they are either hydraulic or steam catapults.

Re:Launched by catapult? (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089778)

Currently steam for the launchers, though electromagentic rails are being designed as upgrades.

The hydralics are used to slow the arresting cables down. And for the big elevators.

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089604)

I've got to read The Fine Article, but I wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility. Could it be another type of Kamikaze mission?

Also... I wonder if two aircraft would be all that affective with conventional weapons. It reminds me of M.A.S.H.'s 5 o'clock Charlie.

Re:Launched by catapult? (3, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089908)

wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility

It was. The aircraft were fitting for water landings and the subs had cranes to lift them back on deck.

Re:Launched by catapult? (3, Interesting)

FallinWithStyle (1474217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090196)

This reminded me of some of the more bizarre German aircraft's [greyfalcon.us] of the period (see the vertically launched Bachem Ba 349 Natter). Some of the proposed methods of aircraft/pilot recovery were pretty interesting (from using the plane as a suicide bomber, to breaking off the wings and opening a rear-mounted parachute when fuel runs out). It's also interesting to point out that many of the Japanese submarines were intended for suicide missions themselves [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Launched by catapult? (5, Interesting)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089634)

Back in tha day, they had to use a big boom arm for ships without a deck. For recovery, the aircraft would land next to the ship/sub and a big crane would just hoist them out of the water. this page [ussslcca25.com] shows a pretty similar process for an old OS2U-3 Kingfisher. Some pretty cool pix at the bottom of the page. I wouldn't want to be the pilot during recovery.

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090184)

Presuming there even was truly intended recovery for the aircraft launched from these subs.

I was fortunate enough to see one of those aircraft at the Paul E. Garber restoration facility of the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum back when it was open. It was one of the many craft that astounded me. I've toured subs and seen the limited room, squeezing a couple planes in there too seems unimaginable, yet there was the perfectly viable plane sitting in front of me.

However I was also "fortunate" enough to see one of the "planes" (I use the term loosely) flown by kamikaze pilots. I had previously imagined a normal plane loaded with ordinance in my mind. Those aircraft were nothing of the sort (later in the war). Picture a missile in your mind, long tube, pointed nose, tiny fins. Now add extra space to barely house a human and a bit of glass for him to see out of.

There is NO way you were getting into one of those things without knowing it was a one-way trip and your sole purpose was keeping it on course.

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090654)

The floatplanes were actually recon aircraft (the Yokosuka E14Y Glen [wikipedia.org] which were in fact recovered after missions. TFA mentions that they were actually stowed in the conning tower. I believe the were also used on straifing and/or bombing missions - the bombs were small incendiaries intended to just start forest fires.

Suicide aircraft were actually made by the same company (Yokosuka MXY7-K1 Ohka "Cherry Blossom"). The sad part was that Japan was so short on pilots that most of the "aviators" were highly untrained, possibly children. I don't think they did very well - I seem to recall reading that not one was ever used successfully.

Re:Launched by catapult? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089696)

A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator. Not very much used now-- see CATOBAR

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089934)

"A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator. Not very much used now-"

How do you think the navy gets its planes airborne from carriers?

Re:Launched by catapult? (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089772)

Imagine Bart Simpson, a re-bigulator and a catapult. That, and the airplace is all you need.

Wha? (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089362)

And this is news for nerds because?

The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs. In fact, at 2600 feet deep, these subs aren't even as deep as the Titanic (12600ft).

This whole story provoked a "oh, that's nice, good for them" feeling. Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot. Didn't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough?

Re:Wha? (4, Insightful)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089410)

some nerds like history.

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089524)

Since when does Rupert Murdoch own the NYT?

Re:Wha? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089556)

We're talking about the (re)discovery of a submersible aircraft carrier here, a presently defunct offshoot of military technology. I'd say it qualifies (and I'm sure everybody who's ever played Supreme Commander would agree with me).

Re:Wha? (2, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089584)

Well, it's a teaser. It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were. (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)

American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.

Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.

Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.

Re:Wha? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089728)

British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine

Jet engines aren't much use to the army.

Re:Wha? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090420)

Helicopters. Tanks. Nit-pick if you want that a turbo-shaft engine is not the same as a "jet" engine, the idea is the same.

Re:Wha? (5, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089754)

Well, it's a teaser. It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were. (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)

American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.

Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.

Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.

Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially. A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.

Re:Wha? (2, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089902)

The fact that you dont also seem amazed at the arrogance of the Japanese general staff, the German high command, etc. or any officers of those countries seems to indicate that you haven't had an in-depth study of the war. Or any war, for that fact. War is arrogance.

The axis forces of WWII made many arrogant mistakes, like not believing in convoys (Japanese), not believing allies had broken their codes (Japanese and German), not believing that their own governments could come up with anything like a "death camp," etc. Arrogance ran up and down the command structure on both sides of that particular war.

And even though it's more exciting to talk about secret Japanese and German technology, don't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes, Germany was mastering the infrastructure of genocide, and so on.

Re:Wha? (1)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089986)

Hehe. You missed the part about "same could be said for all participants". My point was that as vicotrs, the Americans got to write about their achievements, while minimizing the achievements of others, and glossing over their mistakes.

History is seldom written from the perspective of the losing side; if it's written it's called a hostorical novel or fiction.

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090318)

I call bullshit. There were plenty of Japanese and German survivors of WWII, and they wrote plenty about their perspective of the war.

The time in which the losers were all killed and only the victors remained is long past.

But you keep up with your rabid anti-American whinging. You wanna make a fool of yourself, who am I to stop you?

Re:Wha? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090340)

...don't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes...

Actually, for the purposes for which they were designed, "suicide planes" were a pretty practical weapon. They knew that many planes weren't coming back. A piloted plane diving onto a boat is both dangerous and terrifying. It inspires local forces as much as it intimidates the enemy. AFAIC, it's a great example of hive think. And, simultaneously, a travesty of humanity and an example of focusing on strategy and practicality to the point of completely neglecting any other goals.

Re:Wha? (3, Interesting)

mrisaacs (59875) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090402)

The Japanese were convinced that Dolittle's raid was conducted by submarine launched bombers to such an extent they spent an enormous amount of effort developing them.

Like many such items during the war - these subs attempted too many innovations in one jump and were not reliable. The Germans and the Japanese had a penchant for attempting to produce super weapons as opposed to incremental improvements in existing stuff. Some of what they produced was incredible, but none of it was really ready for prime time, or available in sufficient quantity to significantly have any effect on the war.

One of the most draconian decisions of the war was on the part of the US - it was recognized that the Sherman was no match for the heavier German tanks. There were some improvements, but the US counted on the fact that we were producing and delivering tanks at a rate that outstripped the Germans ability to destroy them or replace their own.

Re:Wha? (4, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090658)

The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum. The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar, strategic bombers such as the B-17, Avro Lancaster and B-29, fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2, Bazooka, Katyusha MLRS, code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts. Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example.

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090252)

If you don't think history and geekiness can mix, I recommend you read Cryptonomicon which will change your mind. ISBN is 978-1-4395-0179-5, it's also online (for example here [misto.kiev.ua] )

Submarines, underwater? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089380)

It's very moving to see objects like this underwater

Compared to those damn flying submarines...

Re:Submarines, underwater? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089752)

Compared to those damn flying submarines...

Red October, standing by.

http://img65.imageshack.us/i/screenshot84zw7.png

Re:Submarines, underwater? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090410)

Not a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO? SkyDiver! [wikipedia.org]

There was a third sub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089418)

There was also a third sub. This one had 8 tentacle arms, and loved to rape pixelated pussies with them. Instead of sending it off to war like the others, the Japanese found it to be cute, and kept it as a pet.

Disappointed (3, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089500)

When I first read this headline, I thought they had located the missing midget submarine used to attack Pearl Harbor. (See this [wikipedia.org] ) This is not the case. That ship still remains lost.

Re:Disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089572)

So was I. But somehow, I doubt they'd tell us if they had found those...

This can only mean one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089528)

Gojira!!!!

Re:This can only mean one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089706)

forgot to keep moving your fingers on the keyboard for three seconds after you typed that.

Hey, i know this one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089592)

And The First Sub Says, "sup sub?"
Second sub says, "Sub witchoo"

I know, right?

OMG! (1)

hades.himself (1678062) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089614)

Gojira!!!!

Re:OMG! (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089644)

Are 4 bangs part of the name? All of the Gojira posts have 4 bangs.

Re:OMG! (2, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089964)

4 bangs are required because 3 would leave you with "sanpatsu," and everyone knows that giant reptilian monsters don't need haircuts. It's a matter of cultural sensitivity, my friend - 4 bangs or more.

In the year 2199... (4, Funny)

tekrat (242117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089662)

Earth's only hope for survival will be to resurrect these two subs as spaceships to kick some Gamilon ass.

"Leader Dessslok, it's as if we're fighting a ghost ship! How can an old Earth submarine defeat all of Gamilon?"

Hurry Starforce, there are only 57 days before all life on Earth becomes extinct!

Re:In the year 2199... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089892)

No, I think you mean to use the Douglas DC-8. And they aren't taking them away from Earth but bringing them here, to be stacked up next to volcanoes, and blown up with nuclear bombs. Afterwards, their ghosts will attack humans. We'll have to develop meters that can detect these ghosts, and charge enormous sums to eliminate them.

Wait, that sounds familiar, somehow.

Re:In the year 2199... (2, Informative)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090486)

Go rent Starblazers. It will all become clear.

Re:In the year 2199... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090040)

I gave you a mod point because as soon as I saw your comment, I knew exactly what you were referring to and it gave me a much needed laugh.

For all its cheesiness, Starblazers (Space Battleship Yamato) is one of the leading reasons for manga and its ilk in this country. It had every conceivable storyline all in one: wet-behind-the-ears heroes, crusty father-like leader, talking robots, attractive woman who gets involved with a crewmember, evil, human-like beings bent on destroying/taking over Earth, fantastic technology (where's my wave motion gun dammit!), space marines, space tanks, mysterious being who can save the planet*, an all out, toe-to-toe slugfest with the enemy**, and much, much more!

If ever someone needs to be introduced to Japanese manga, start with Starblazers.

*If she can send the instructions for creating a wave motion engine, why couldn't she send the instructions for how to create the machine which would rid the Earth of the radiation? Why make us make the trip? Oh right, plot.

**This is my one guilty pleasure. Whenever the scene where the Yamato descends into the Gamilon planet and haves at it with the Gamilon forces, I always watch that scene late at night in a dark room with the volume up high. If you have a tendency towards epileptic seizures, I advise you not to do the same. I've never timed it, but I think it's close to a minute of nothing but explosions, gunfire, flashing/blinking lights, screeching missiles arching through air and a whole lot of wanton destruction. Fun times to be had by all!

Re:In the year 2199... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090298)

Isn't it weird that gamilon is prounounced exactly the same as gamelan [wikipedia.org] which is the name for a type of south-east asian orchestra.

It makes random starblazers quotes utterly surreal when read outloud.

Article is wrong: Japanese DID attack US mainland (5, Informative)

gnunick (701343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089746)

Although they may be talking specifically about this class of submarine and sub-launched aircraft, the Japanese did attack the US mainland, both with sub-mounted artillery, and sub-launched aircraft.

And yes the aircraft were recoverable by the sub crew: they were seaplanes, and would be picked up by a crane aboard the sub.

You can read a summary of US-mainland attacks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II#Japanese_assaults [wikipedia.org]

Clive Cussler wrote about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30089770)

Clive Cussler has written quite a number of excellent thrillers; one of them is about a sunken Japanese sub containing a biochemical warfare agent. So maybe we're only getting half the story... :-)

Well worth reading, IMO.

Thank God (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089868)

Thank God those whales and dolphins bombed Hiroshima or we might have had to face more of these things.

Someone has got to say it (2, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089940)

The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.

Re:Someone has got to say it (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090100)

That's not what your girlfriend said.

Re:Someone has got to say it (2, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090600)

The only real insight was Freud's obsession with the phallus, and his lack of consideration for basic physics.

Re:Someone has got to say it (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090774)

The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.

Especially when it contains lots of seamen.

price of failure (-1, Troll)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30089984)

If only these submarines would have been able to carry out their missions! It's possible that they could have killed military or political ringleaders whose decisions led the the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world history. All that serves to be learned from WWII is that the rules are written by the victors to punish the defeated and "war crimes" are only committed by the losers.

Re:price of failure (3, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090524)

Like Japan wasn't bombing civilians? Or Germany? Or Britain? Or Russia? Or _ANYONE ELSE_?

That's how wars were fought in those days. Get over it. We didn't have smart bombs, we couldn't take out a specific building, or even a specific city block. And their war industries were located right in the middle of their major cities. We had no other choices. The only way to stop their military was to carpet bomb their cities, or though a direct ground assault. And do you realize how many _more_ people would have died had we not dropped those bombs? We would have kept carpet-bombing their cities (killing civilians), we would have been stuck in war taking these tiny little islands for _months_, possibly _years_ (killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and plenty more civilians), and with the Japanese mindset at the time we likely would have had to march our troops right up to the emperor's palace before they would have surrendered. These are the same people who were using Kamikaze aircraft. Do you really think they would have surrendered, ever? Yes, it was a horrible act, but it was the best option we had at the time - though I will admit we should have waited before dropping the second bomb - from what I've heard they didn't even fully know what the first one did before we dropped the second. From what I've heard they basically ignored the initial reports because they didn't think such a thing was even possible.

Today, yes, killing civilians is a horrible thing to do. But that's pretty easy to say when you have the capability to fire a missile from hundreds of miles away and take out a single room of a building without harming anything around it. It's easy to criticize when you're 60 years away. But by your logic every single army in history, including those acting in defense, and civilian militias, are guilty of horrific and cowardly atrocities. In those days, when a nation went to war, _the entire nation_ went to war. There really were no civilians in the sense that there are today. Every single citizen was in some way involved in the war effort.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki (-1, Troll)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090438)

And we're supposed to feel bad about nuking the Japanese to end the war?

Fuck them. If they didn't want to die, the didn't have to attack us.

Read "On the Bottom", by Edward Ellsberg (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090708)

Great book about salvaging the S-51, in 1926.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...