The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi
» Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf
» Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102
» Topic:
First Blood Pearl Harbor
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3307
After reading the posts about that awesome Pearl Harbor diorama, I find there are some discrepancies about the PTs that were at Pearl on 7 December 1941 both in the water and on the deck of the oiler U.S.S. Ramapo at the time of the attack. At the start of the attack, GM1/c Joy Van Zell de Jong & TM1/c George Huffman were sitting on the deck of PT 23 / Ron 1 which was moored alongside a covered barge with 5 other PTs at the Sub Base. They jumped into the 2 50 cal turrets and open fire at an approaching torpedo bomber. After scoring several hits, they watched as it crash near Kuhua Island thus taking down possibly the first Japanese aircraft of the Pacific War. Two miles from the Sub Base, PTs 27, 29, 30, and 42 on the deck of the oiler and the 26 & 28 boat in cradles alongside were able after some effort to get their guns in operation as well. Considering that most if not all of the ammo was locked up on the larger ships at the start of the attack, it would have taken some time to get those guns in action where the PTs were locked and loaded in a rather short amount of time.
I have also discussed this moment in time with my friend Tom Freeman about doing a painting of this event. He wasn't aware of this when he did the painting "Sub Base" and was very intrigued when I explained what was going on right behind his perspective when he did that painting. We'll see where that goes when he gets back from his trip to the Coral Sea this summer.
Anyway, I would love to know more details about this moment in time on that Sunday morning so long ago.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 11, 2013 - 10:10am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Hello Roy.A V Stockdale was at Pearl Harbor that fateful day. He lives in Arizona. He is 98 years young. Forgets a lot .We were on the 107 August 2nd when the 109 was sunkIt was his birthday. I called him a few weeks ago and reminded him of that date. Outa here John W Sullivan 3rd class G.M.
Posted By: John Sullivan | Posted on: Aug 15, 2013 - 12:52pm
Total Posts: 46 | Joined: Oct 11, 2006 - 6:57pm
Hi John,
Man would I love to sit down and talk with you about your time at Rendova. I also live in AZ and might try to contact Mr Stockdale. I had the extreme pleasure of meeting Skipper "Bud" Liebenow and the torpedoman Welford West from the 157 boat last May. What a thrill to listen and record their stories. Where are you located John?
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 17, 2013 - 7:38am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Aloha Roy,
On April Fool's Day, 2011, the ongoing dredging of Pearl Harbor was shut down. A skull had been dredged up in Southeast Loch. After many weeks of analysis, an announcement was made in July that year.
They cited an article "Torpedoing Pearl Harbor", MILITARY HISTORY, Dec 2001, which detailed the destruction of a Japanese B5N2 when its torpedo exploded from a direct hit on the warhead.
The early August followup newspaper article noted my effort to recognize the person whose skull it probably originated. JPAC and CILHI are STILL going thru the motions to have a DNA analysis and a human gynome lineage defined before confirming details of the report I submitted to them.
This report was published in Japan in MARU magazine, Nov 2011. The English text has been awaiting the CILHI confirmation before going to press...sigh.
The unpublished details notes every report which made claim for this plane...and cites each gunner...and oral histories also added to the whole picture. Yes, the PT Boat in question has the added weight to cause the balance to shift in its favor as victor.
Yet, there is so much more to that history which takes the plane to the mainland...!
Keep the decks clear for this broadside when CILHI makes its report.
Hope this help,
Cheers,
David Aiken,
a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.
http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Posted By: David Aiken | Posted on: Aug 18, 2013 - 1:57pm
Total Posts: 3 | Joined: Aug 18, 2013 - 1:33pm
David;
I hope the dredging is still continuing. Isn't there still a missing midget sub, the one that supposedly got into the harbor?
Also where did the Kate that the PT's shot down end up?
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 18, 2013 - 3:44pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Aloha Ted,
The B5N was coded AII-356...and found its way to the Naval Aircraft Factory in Pennsylvania,
The "missing" 5th midget was located by University of Hawaii's Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL) off the coast of Oahu in the area where the many ship reports stated it should be.
Oh, not to dredge up a fervor...if a midget fired on BB Row, the sub leader surely needed a US medal for blocking the path of Japanese aerial torpedoes FROM hitting the BBs (which actually hit).
Cheers,
David Aiken,
a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.
http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Posted By: David Aiken | Posted on: Aug 18, 2013 - 4:12pm
Total Posts: 3 | Joined: Aug 18, 2013 - 1:33pm
My name is John W Sullivan. I am located in Danville,Illinois I wrote the story about A.V. Stockdale. being at Pearl Harbor when the war started for Roy Forbes as an answer tohis requiestI am 90 years old.Married and 3 grown childrenai was on the 107 for aaafor about 18 months. Outa here ole JWS
Posted By: John Sullivan | Posted on: Aug 18, 2013 - 5:38pm
Total Posts: 46 | Joined: Oct 11, 2006 - 6:57pm
Hello John. Man do I wish you lived close. I would love to record some of your stories and adventures on video.
David, it's nice to see your response. I understand that 5th sub, after firing it's 2 Long Lance torpedoes at possibly the West Virginia and the Oklahoma, and escaping a run-in with a Navy Mine Sweeper made it to the West Loch where the crew scuttled the boat. She was later found when the Navy was cleaning up the mess after that ammunition exposition on LST 353 sinking itself along with 5 other LSTs on 21 May 1944. All that wreckage along with the 3 sections of sub #5 was taken 3 miles south of the entrance to the harbor and dumped. We plan on making a trip to Pearl on the way back from the Solomons in May of next year and would love to hook up with you for a bit. Do you know if there is access to the West Loch by boat?
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 21, 2013 - 3:31pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Hey Roy, no offense meant, but your post made my head hurt!
The long lance is a name given to the Type 93 torpedo. The Midgets fired the Type 97 at Pearl Harbor. The Type 93 was 24 in diameter and was armed with a 1,080 lb warhead - the Type 97 was 17.7 in diameter and had a 772 Lbs warhead - less than 75% of the long lance.
The rest of your paragraph is a theory advanced without any sort of proof. No conclusive evidence of a Type 97 hit was found on any ship, and no documentation has surfaced that explains where and when the sub itself was found. The facts behind this boat are a total mystery at this point - please ask for proof if anyone states otherwise!
I have researched this subject at two branches of the National Archives and traded more than a couple of e-mails with Parks Stephenson. While I don't claim to know everything or have seen everything, I would consider myself competent in the subject and willing to answer any further questions anyone has.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 21, 2013 - 10:25pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Good morning Tracy. I suggest, urge and recommend that you pick up a copy of the PBS NOVA documentary done in 2010 titled Killer Subs in Pearl Harbor and update your research accordingly. It address the issues you have missed.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 22, 2013 - 6:59am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
No, it doesn't.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 22, 2013 - 12:27pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Hear is a video of the PBS Nova documentary Roy was talking about. It is very interesting - take a look:
Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Aug 23, 2013 - 9:31am
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm
Some interesting footage, although I always hate it when the show Jap dive bombers that are really SBDs. Makes you wonder what else in inaccurate.
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 23, 2013 - 1:26pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
Thanks for that Dick - I've seen the show, but don't have a copy. I wasn't going to take the time to try and refute the points I vaguely remember taking issue with sans a copy.. but I'll try and do that this weekend.
The overall issue I have is that they build one theory on top of another and then say the last level is the most likely because of all of these other reasons (which are just theories. They can't PROVE it, but continue on like each theory was proven. Points to Parks for his St. Louis midget thoughts, but there are just too many fundamental flaws that aren't addressed. Like I said though, I'll try and drop some more specific items here sometime this weekend.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 23, 2013 - 2:49pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Thanks Dick, that was very interesting. Tracy, no offense meant, I've seen how 60 Minuets and other news shows can bend and distort things to get their point across. But if I was sitting on the jury of a murder trial and that much circumstantial evidence was introduced , I think the guy would hang.
Posted By: Bob Butler | Posted on: Aug 23, 2013 - 5:31pm
Total Posts: 192 | Joined: Mar 23, 2013 - 11:58am
This is history and not justice. We don't have to render a verdict NOW, if ever, truthfully. We can, actually, say "we don't know." That's my whole beef with this movement, TV shows don't get sold to present a messy, inconclusive history, so they go in to tell a concrete story, even if one doesn't exist.
Catching up on some model building and music right now, will start watching the show and taking notes in an hour or so.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 8:05am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Hi Tracy,
Wait a minute let me get this straight, so you are saying that you cant rewrite history just because things are convenient or popular? And that facts should have some bearing on what history is actually written? What a novel concept! I can think of about 100 examples of the opposite being the case in terms of 'accepted history". Isn't it funny how the story that the TV producers want to be true ends up being widely regarded as the God's Honest Truth? Pesky things those facts tend to be huh? I too share a healthy amount of caution when it comes to accepting the story on a TV Show especially when it comes to Pearl Harbor theories. (Or anything out of the current administration like say Benghazi for instance) It is hard to know which director or editor is leaving out critical parts just to make his theory seem more plausible.
Thanks Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 25, 2013 - 4:07pm
Total Posts: 1473 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Right on, Jerry.
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 25, 2013 - 4:22pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
Spoilsport Jerry, I bet you don't believe in area 51 or the YETI either!!!
You can't let a little thing like the truth or facts to prove such get in the way of a good "truthful" TV show.
Shame on you!!
(tongue firmly in cheek please note)
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Aug 26, 2013 - 4:01am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
According to the Nova show the minisubs carried 1000 lbs warhead torpedoes.
One was found on the harbor bottom according to testimony of Adm Nimitz. The other is theorized to hit the West Virginia.
the thoery is that the sub moved to the West Loch and was scuttled with the crew inside the sub.
In May 1944 there was a explosion on a LST that spread to other LSTs in the West Loch. Over 200 sailors were killed in hte explosion and resulting fire. The Navy needed to clear the Loch and the wreckage was taken from the sea floor, and dumped outside the harbor
That is why the 5th minisub is on the bottom of the sea outside PH, where the salvaged wreckage of the West Loch disaster was dumped.
So it is one of two things -- either the sub was scuttled there on Dec 7 or 8th 1941, or moved there in 1944. Either way the 5th sub has been found.
JG
Posted By: JBG327 | Posted on: Aug 26, 2013 - 7:19am
Total Posts: 74 | Joined: Sep 29, 2012 - 2:40pm
Glad you enjoyed the show JB and welcome aboard.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 26, 2013 - 11:32am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Maybe that is the West Loch Ness Monster....
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 26, 2013 - 12:42pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
OK On Jap mini Subs,
Sydney harbour was attacked by a number of mini Subs launched off a mother sub.
All but one of these Subs were found at or after the attack however one was lost and thought to have made it back to the mother Sub.
Records after the War proved that she did not.
There have been a large number of theories of were she may be also there have been a number of TV shows that have DISCOVERED her, even to the stage of having parts of the supposed Sub sent to Japan to prove that they have come from the her.
Interesting enough a small group of divers from the Central Coast quietly announced that while diving in a particularly deep area off our coast they had found her.(I have met and talked to them, interesting)
Sitting slightly at an angle to the sea flour and largely intact this Sub and its two man team has taken 68 years to find.
There is no question this is her as she is sitting proud of the sea flour and unlike the TV shows that had her covered over with tons of silt with only small parts visible she is there for all to see.
She is now a maritime no go area so the two inside her can rest in peace.
Theories are great but until someone can produce photos or records to show that the Hull was moved or at least found then she remains lost, TV shows not withstanding.
Yours
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Aug 26, 2013 - 2:45pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
Hey David - I do believe that they have found Midget E. However, the rest of it is a load of supposition sold as fact.
Sorry for the delay everyone - I had watched the show and taken notes, but a busy work week got in the way. Funny how real life can rudely take precedence over hobbies!
After a week, I think I'm actually going to largely ignore the show and focus on the underlying problems with the theories it tries to sell.
The core of the problem is that they build results on "perhaps." "Perhaps this happened. Because this happened, then that must have happened." A midget is found near some LVTs, so that means it must have been in West loch, because a bunch of LVTs were lost there and dumped. We have no proof that ANY of those LVTs were from the west loch disaster, or that the midget was dumped at the same time, but obviously it MUST have come from there!
Yes, circumstantially there were a high number of LVTs dropped off from the West Loch, but does that PROVE anything?
The only piece of evidence that is held up for shots on battleship row is one photo. No offense to Arnold Bauer and Don Stratton, but Arizona was not hit by a torpedo. Their eye-witness reports aren't credible in the face of the evidence against it. But that photo itself is an awful piece of evidence.
With *ALL* of the eyes around the harbor that day, not one sailor reported seeing a submarine on the surface at least twice, for at least thirty seconds each time? How about the whaler that's visible near whatever artifact is purported to be a midget. Let's not forget the Kate pilots, who had to pay close attention to the water in order to drop right, NONE of which reported a midget directly in their drop zone.
When this is brought up, the contrary response is "they were watching the ships," Horse puckey. People watching from the Navy Yard would have had to have looked OVER and THROUGH that area to see the ships, and they certainly would have seen a submarine. Additionally, two buoys were taken under fire as midget sub conning towers during the attack, so we know that sailors were looking around on the water.
Parks Stephenson (one of the heavy-hitters in the midget theory group and showed quite a bit in the show) did bring up some excellent points, don't get me wrong. He cast good, credible doubt on St. Louis' midget sighting. But all that does is leave us with a messy aspect to the attack, one of thousands of messy facts and unknowns. History is like that though, and there are many things that we don't KNOW. Americans like to know things, we work hard at it. But we shouldn't pervert history by claiming to KNOW things that are merely theories.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 30, 2013 - 10:43pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Well done Tracy, until someone can I.D. something that looks like a sub, has a known location and the item shows the age that this sub would it is still one more mystery of the sea.
I know the board does not like to mention a certain PT Boat so I will just say finding a certain part of a PT boat lying on top of a pile of silt does not mean that you have the rest of the PT Boat under the silt.
Same problem, 'I (BB) have found a piece of wreckage on the sea floor, ergo I (BB) can declare that I (BB) have found the whole Boat ".
Sorry I still do not think he has proved that he has found the final resting place of that PT Boat !!!!
Someone tried the same reasoning here with our sub but that was proved wrong so a pile of silt is just that a pile of silt.
Sorry I'll get off my soap box now that's just my personal beef.
Go for it Tracy, out of interest the main problem with finding the sub from Sydney was they were just looking in the wrong place, and the main reason for this was that there were so many ideas and stories floating around it became impossible to sort them all out !
Good luck,
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Aug 31, 2013 - 5:56am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
Oh sorry I forgot to add the guys that found the Sydney sub were just out doing a deep dive that day and she popped out of the murk, I won't put down what they said but at first she scared the sh** out of them as they thought she was a modern sub on her way out of Sydney and they wondered if they would be pulled into the props, but that soon changed and they then realised what they had stumbled onto.
That's the way it happens sometimes.
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Aug 31, 2013 - 6:04am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
I've spent a *little* time looking for mention of Midget E at NARA San Bruno, where Pearl Harbor Navy Yard's records are located. I've spent a lot more time just looking through PHNY's records in general, but not nearly as much as Kathleen O'Connor, who was responsible for those records as a NARA employee for many years. Neither of us was able to find anything in "obvious" places. If any primary records are going to be uncovered, it's most likely going to be like the Sydney Midget - an accident. I just hope that whomever stumbles across such documentation recognizes it for what it is instead of flipping past it while keeping focused on their original goal.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 31, 2013 - 11:16pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Hi Tracy
I don't know how much or what type of information is held in the records that you have mentioned so I will ask, also how much if any records from the Japanese side are there or have you been able to access.
It may be interesting to note that three Mother Subs released one Midget Sub each to the north of Sydney, and the final resting place of the lost Midget Sub would put it on course to return to its Mother Sub before for whatever reason it sank with its two crew.
So It may help to know were the Midget Sub was released and if it was planning to return to that location or another to be picked up.
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Sep 1, 2013 - 2:05am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
I live near the Seattle regional branch of the National Archives and research there regularly. It contains records for local commands, mostly. so no midget sub data there (yet that I've found). That's given me nearly a decade to hang out (part time, I'm not a full-time researcher) and learn a bit about how the Navy structured things and wrote correspondence, etc.
I have specifically looked for information on midgets in the San Bruno / San Francisco regional branch<.A> as well as the main branch in College Park, Maryland (AKA NARA II). Different locations contain different records, but these are essentially records of the US government. Not a lot from the Japanese Navy, which is just as well as my two years of high-school japanese is long behind me and I'm about as rusty as the midget in question!
I've gone through records of the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard at San Bruno, but not the 14th Naval district yet. I've gone through the war damage reports for the various battleships at NARA II. I haven't hit any of the Chief of Naval Operations files from Record Group 38. There are still many areas to look.
With regards to rendezvous location; there's a lot of deep ocean to look through, and I don't think it would have much bearing on where the sub turned up - it would have had to have been someplace relatively shallow and close to Pearl Harbor.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 1, 2013 - 10:24pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Tracy,
Well you are certainly working your way through a pile of paperwork and that as they say can lead in many directions.
As I had no personal idea on the Midget Subs at Peal Harbour I did a little searching to see what I could find re. these Subs
I won't go into the Peal harbour phase as that is pretty well covered on the net but I wanted to "Find" the subs after the fact and so to speak site or put my hand on one identifiable part of each Sub that could not be misidentified as possibly from another Sub.
This can only be the Sail or Conning Tower of the Sub "only one per Sub"
Also as the numbering system seems to be all over the shop I will only list the Subs 1-5
So here goes;
Sub 1. Returned to Japan and is on display.
Sub 2. At Pacific War Museum on display.
Sub 3. Found and still lying intact at 1,312 feet a few miles off Pearl Harbour.
Sub 4.Forward section removed then remainder used as land fill at Ford Island.
Sub5.This Sub appears to have been raised ( from somewhere) cut into sections taken out to sea and then dumped bar a small section of around 15 ft. which may or may not be in the same area but not found yet, according to the web sites that I have found. I would say that the evidence used to identify this Sub is pretty conclusive and that this is the fifth Midget Sub.
Subs 1-4 have plenty of traceable history so one can easily follow them from Pearl to were they are today.
No. 5 seems to have left the mother Sub in 1941 and then in 2001 turned up on the bottom of the sea off Pearl Harbour having been cut into a number of sections and with large cable used to lift each section still attached to each section, with no apparent traceable history which with the story of each of the other Subs is rather odd.
It would appear that at this time there has been no openly known raising of a Midget Sub in or around Pearl Harbour during the last 70 od years, this event would have been quite well broadcast if it had happened as just as in Australia there has been great interest in finding the missing Sub.
So that leaves us with two options,
1. A very private well funded effort set out to find and raise the Sub in secret which it did and when finished with it cut it up and dumped it at sea. (not really that possible given that many Military areas would have to be searched and such a search would surely attract a lot of attention from the public, one would think, more to be found in a Clive Cussler adventure novel !! )
2. A Military option, they have the time, manpower, equipment and other resources needed to find and raise the Sub and they also have the ability to stop ANY information about such an operation getting out to the general public be it War time or Peace time. However such an operation would have to be reported on in the Militaries own way as they have to account for such an operation, as such these reports may have been classified to a high level and therefore information for this operation would have to be concentrated in declassified material or even material that is still classified.
As such searching through the General Archives would prove fruitless.
Ok that's my two cents worth I'm not going to go over what happened in 1944 as no one has come forward with any concrete evidence so it holds no interest until proved otherwise, the rest though is rather interesting and to myself does lead me to believe that at some stage there was some form of cover up, unless I want to go along with the adventure novel idea !!!
For what its worth,
Yours,
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Sep 2, 2013 - 5:38am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
Tracy,
A little info I put together that may help,
Rear Admiral John F. Shafroth, Jr. was the COI during the 1944 event he wrote a number of letters that Rear Admirals tend to do some of them cover 1944.
These letters and other paperwork are held at the Herbert Hoover Library, as you spend a little time at various archives you may be able to obtain the letters that cover that period of time easer than I can.
Hope this helps.
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Sep 2, 2013 - 6:06am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
OK, now my head hurts. Super Secret privately funded multi-million dollar expeditions to locate and then recover a relic, possibly deadly, when one was already in hand on 8 Dec 1941. Only to be dumped back overboard...hum. Or how about a Military Black Project to locate and recover an item, one of which was already in hand graciously delivered by the early morning waves. I think there was more pressing issues in the days following the 7 Dec attack. And if you are think about a multi-million dollar private undertaking of that magnitude sometime after the war. Once again I ask to what end? Oh, then lets throw it back into the water. Wow.
So lets see, Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham) is a principle used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The application of this principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.
I suspect we do agree there was an explosion in the West Loch in May of 1944. Six LSTs were sunk (LST-39, LST-43, LST-69, LST-179, LST-353, and LST-480), two already carrying smaller, fully loaded Landing craft tanks (LCT-961, 963 and 983) lashed to their decks. Several LSTs were damaged and/or ran aground. Four (including LST-205 and LST-225) could not be repaired in time for the invasion. [b]Seventeen tracked landing vehicles (LVT)[/b] and eight 155 mm (6.1 in) guns were destroyed. Other sources place the total number of destroyed LSTs at nine.
It is very possible and most likely that the salvage operation undertaken to clear the loch after the disaster inadvertently lengthened the hunt for the "fifth midget submarine" involved in the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. After three pieces of a cable wrapped midget submarine were discovered three miles south of Pearl Harbor among the wreckage of many LVTs, a working theory was proved that this was the only submarine in a group of five Japanese Ko-hyoteki class submarines involved in the attack that had not yet been accounted for. Researchers posited that it had penetrated the harbor to attack Battleship Row, before escaping into West Loch and being scuttled by the two-man crew. Lying on the bed of the loch, it was then salvaged along with the remains of the LSTs, LCTs and LVTs and then dumped at sea. It surely could not have made it back out to sea wrapped in those cables on it's own.
On a side note here, if I was in that Whale boat approaching Battleship Row that morning, I might be looking in shock at the remains of my Pacific Fleet under attack in front of me and most likely would have missed that tiny 5 foot black sail some distance behind me that was bobbing in the water for maybe 30 seconds. Sometime simple logic and common sense is the pathway to the truth. Not stories made up or spun to add smoke and confusion to draw us away from the very simple and obvious facts that are right in front of us.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Sep 2, 2013 - 9:55am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Not stories made up or spun to add smoke and confusion to draw us away from the very simple and obvious facts that are right in front of us.
Which is precisely what a lot of the midget sub fired on battleship row proponents seem to do. With regards to the whale boat - I'm sure they'd never have looked back to watch the next plane coming in at the sound of the engine roar building.
The fact is that the harbor is regularly dredged and has been for many, many years. In fact, a torpedo section now on display at the visitor's center came up in a dredge in 1991 - much to the consternation of its crew! The West Loch theory is just one possible explanation, yet it is touted as the only most likely solution due to the LVTs.
I have no problem with the theory; there's certainly nothing that stands out in y mind that would disprove it on the face. However, I find the certainty with which you initially told me to update my research ill advised. Many counters to the proofs have been given - we should approach this with a scientific styled examination of theories. That's not something a TV show wants to do; ratings are better when you present a new truth to the audience.
I've been involved in another Pearl Harbor controversy - that of Arizona's paint scheme and colors at the time of the attack. I have been at the forefront of the research for the last five years (simply because no one can make money off of it - it takes someone with a passion for the subject). With all that involvement, I don't have any hard answers; I simply tell people it's messy and we don't KNOW anything for certain at this point. There is no problem or shame in saying that we don't have all the answers to a question or subject yet.
David, there has been a more-or-less accepted labeling of Pearl Harbor midgets for many decades now, based on the order of discover/contact. The NOVA program did not follow this convention, probably because its explanation really would not have added much to the show.
Midget A was the first, which USS Ward sank
Midget B was second, which Monaghan rammed and sunk
Midget C was third, and was the one that wound up on Oahu's eastern shore.
Midget D was fourth, and was not discovered until 1960, when the new runway for Honolulu International Airport was being built. It was raised with photographic documentation.
Midget E is the one in question.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 2, 2013 - 7:32pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Roy,
I appear to have stepped on your tail and stirred the tiger within, please accept that this was not my intention in making the comments within my last post, just my way of changing perspective of the discovery of the Sub in sections off Pearl.
Tracy,
Apart from the need for proof about the operation that found and moved the Sub that you have stated,are there any other questions in your mind that need answering?
Yours,
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Sep 2, 2013 - 9:52pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
No harm taken Dave. I live just 88 air miles from "Groom Lake" and trust me, I am first in line for a good conspiracy or "Black Project" streaking across the night sky out here. I just thought that this sub issue was starting to go over the deep end when all the proof is sitting right there. I hope there are some published still photos out there that were taken during the NOVA dive along with all the video. For me, both the whale boat and 5th sub issue have been solved and are on the shelf.
I never expected this post that was started seeking information about the PT's actions and kills that December morning would turn into such an interesting discussion and generate so many views.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 2:24pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
I hear you Roy, I still don't know the colors of the American built Vosper in my 'Future Projects post.
Posted By: Bob Butler | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 2:38pm
Total Posts: 192 | Joined: Mar 23, 2013 - 11:58am
If you guys painted everything mauve, at least you wouldn't have all of the experts telling you what shade of mauve it should be.....
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 4:11pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
All;
While I did raise the question of the "missing inside the harbor mini sub" I am now swinging over to my equally devious brothers(WILL) point of view, we beat the dead cow here, PT 23 GM 1/C Joy Van Zyll de Jong and TM1/C George Hoffman shot down the first Japanese plane for PT Boats. It was a Kate which crashed in flames near Kuahua Island. END of story.
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 6:05pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
No Ted! I want to beat this dead horse a lot more!
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 6:29pm
Total Posts: 1473 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Hey Dave - I'll answer your post and then opt out as I believe the rest of the membership is tired of two people who won't agree (Roy and I).
I still have lots of questions. Where did Midget E's torpedoes go? When/Where was the midget found, and what were the details of the salvage (just general interest). Was the torpedo that Nimitz mentioned from Midget B or E? There's just a ton of details about this aspect of the attack that we don't know. I'd like to help out, but I've got other projects I've invested more time into that need to be finished first.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 7:14pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Right on Ted. Finally conformation to my original post. Ooh Rah for the PTs ! Now I would have named that boat [red]"First Blood"[/red]
OK Jerry.... lets go....
Dave, here are a bunch of awesome photos I found of the 5th sub taken during several of the Hurl dives. This is an awesome site with a bunch of great info on the subject.
[url]http://i-16tou.com/hurl/[/url]
Do you know if the West Loch is open to the general public.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Sep 3, 2013 - 7:22pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
It's not.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 4, 2013 - 8:46pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Thanks Roy that's one of the sites that I have visited to help answer a number of questions that I had.
As to West Loch Tracy is correct, there are a number of reasons for this but the main thing is that it is closed.
Tracy, good luck with your other areas of research.
Yours,
D.buck
Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Sep 5, 2013 - 4:40am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am
Burl Burlingame authored his ADVANCE FORCE treatise on the midget subs of Pearl Harbor....and asked me to review the text...and noted my additions.
Further, before the final printing, he cited an addition to me when he and I met again at the 50th Anniversary activities. This addition was the midget firing on BB Row. I suggested that he really review his sources. He went ahead and printed that item.
The Park Service supported this addition later with a huge press conference.
The hunt for the WARD and ST LOUIS midgets was on going.
A rare few folks that had viewed the source material suggested that the midget CO be awarded a high US Medal for racing into the harbor...given the launch times and launch corrdinants of the midgets... making a 180 degree turn in the shallow South East Loch in the MIDST of the aerial torpedo attack THUS during that turn, absorbed the hits by any aerial torpedo from hitting BB Row. Heroic at best.
Cheers,
David Aiken
Cheers,
David Aiken,
a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.
http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Posted By: David Aiken | Posted on: Sep 26, 2013 - 9:09am
Total Posts: 3 | Joined: Aug 18, 2013 - 1:33pm
If anyone is interested in further reading on the Pearl Harbor Mini-Subs, Sea Classics magazine has a good article in the July 2013 issue on the debate.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Oct 7, 2013 - 8:00pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
I'm always up for a good chuckle - I'll try and find a back issue.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large
Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Oct 11, 2013 - 5:33pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered