Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Aircraft-Carrying Super Submarine From WWII Located Off Hawaii

Posted by Soulskill on from the sunken-history dept.

Freshly Exhumed sends this story from Reuters: "Scientists plumbing the Pacific Ocean off the Hawaii coast have discovered a Second World War era Japanese submarine, a technological marvel that had been preparing to attack the Panama Canal before being scuttled by U.S. forces. The 122-meter 'Sen-Toku' class vessel — among the largest pre-nuclear submarines ever built — was found in August off the southwest coast of Oahu and had been missing since 1946, scientists at the University of Hawaii at Manoa said. The I-400 and its sister ship, the I-401, which was found off Oahu in 2005, were able to travel one and a half times around the world without refueling and could hold up to three folding-wing bombers that could be launched minutes after resurfacing, the scientists said."

24 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. I for one by xevioso · · Score: 4, Funny

    welcome our new Japanese over...oh, wait...

    1. Re:I for one by real+gumby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      welcome our new Japanese over...oh, wait...

      Actually I thank you guys in the USA (well your grandparents) since if you had not fought that war I would not have been born. My mother had the "pleasure" of actually having Japanese overlords, and while my dad didn't it was only because the US occupied the country before the Japanese could do more than lob a few shells at it.

      For that matter my inlaws were in a country run by the Nazis and would likely not have met either...and the US really didn't have to enter that war at all. Nor did they need to spend the money rebuilding the place.

      So every time I see some boneheaded american thing (and it's a big place so there's no shortage of stupidity, shitheads and whatever) I remember that they are capable of greatness.

      (apologies for the serious response to the flippant remark)

    2. Re:I for one by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, Hitler actually declared war on the United States first, not the other way round,

      The US was well involved in the war against Germany already. They just don't like _declaring_ war. At least not on countries, just abstract nouns.

  2. Captured at the end of the War by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because it isn't clear from TFA: The US was in control of the sub when it was scuttled by Hawaii. It had been captured when Japan surrendered.

    This is really cool because it's a piece of history and an engineering accomplishment but the only reason it was 'lost' was because the US sank it and then pretended that they forgot where they sank it so that they didn't have to give it back and have the Soviets study it.

    1. Re:Captured at the end of the War by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't stop reading that last sentence of yours... I mean, I'm no grammar expert, but I can't tell if it really needs any punctuation in it. Hell, I don't *want* it to have any punctuation in it!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    2. Re:Captured at the end of the War by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      the US sank it and then pretended that they forgot where they sank it so that they didn't have to give it back and have the Soviets study it.

      Had nothing to do with "giving it back".

      The USA and USSR had an agreement during the War that they would share in the spoils of war (like this submarine), and the USA didn't want to turn two of them over to the USSR (because the USSR didn't enter the war against Japan until after the Nagasaki bombing, but more importantly because we didn't want the USSR to get any "free" technology transfers). The USSR was a land power and not a sea power, we wanted to keep things that way....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Captured at the end of the War by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US actually sank three of these subs to keep them out of Soviet hands.

      Only four where ever started, one was bombed in the ship yard and abandoned before it was finished and the other three where scuttled by US forces in various locations to keep the Soviet's from inspecting them. The end of WW2 was an interesting time to say the least.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Captured at the end of the War by xevioso · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a very interesting take on the Soviets entering the war against Japan. They did it very very late, and were actually still fighting the Japanese for a few days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The details on these engagements, from the Soviet perspective, can be found here.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAAb8Plf20I

      That whole series on the Soviet perspective is amazing.

    5. Re:Captured at the end of the War by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kim Jong Il was born in the Soviet Union, where Kim Il Sung commanded a Soviet military unit. Those two countries had a very strong relationship for many decades.

    6. Re:Captured at the end of the War by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The USA and USSR had an agreement during the War that they would share in the spoils of war (like this submarine), and the USA didn't want to turn two of them over to the USSR (because the USSR didn't enter the war against Japan until after the Nagasaki bombing, but more importantly because we didn't want the USSR to get any "free" technology transfers). The USSR was a land power and not a sea power, we wanted to keep things that way....

      Which has more to do with postwar paranoia than anything else. Even the USN had given up on these boats after less than a year of studying them, as they were complete turkeys.* Despite their huge size, they weren't particularly advanced technologically and the aircraft carried were fairly short ranged with unimpressive payloads. They were extraordinarily vulnerable due to their poor handling characteristics and the need for extended periods on the surface to launch or recover their aircraft. Even minor flooding in the hangar could lead to a severe list and loss-of-control.
       
      I got to spend an afternoon once with one of the guys who brought the I-400 to Hawaii from Japan. According to him, they were scared for their lives the entire trip due to it's poor performance and handling characteristics.
       
      Though aircraft carrying submarines have been briefly examined from time to time since WWII, nobody has tried to build one. The submarine simply imposes too many restrictions on the aircraft and vice versa. Cruise missiles and soon drones are the exception that proves the rule - they're encapsulated and fit into standard torpedo tubes and thus do not impose notable restrictions on the boat.
       
      *By comparison, some of the German boats taken over at the end of the war were in service for trials well into the 1950's.

    7. Re:Captured at the end of the War by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Soviets started fighting Japan as fast as they could

      No.

      Stalin stalled as long as he could about attacking Japan (we started nagging about it right after VE Day), but suddenly changed his plans when Hiroshima was destroyed. He ordered an attack with whatever was available as soon as possible so he'd have some justification for an occupation role in Japan (Uncle Joe wanted to divide Japan the way Germany wa divided).

      Then the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. Shortly after, the Russians crossed the border into Manchuria to beat up on already beaten Japanese troops.

      Then Japan surrendered.

      And when Stalin said he wanted to station troops in Japan, MacArthur (who was effectively Shogun at the time) told him to pound sand....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Captured at the end of the War by ArbitraryName · · Score: 5, Informative

      North Korea was enslabed by ... a north korean dictator, or by China, but certainly not by Russia!

      Are you serious? Are you familiar with the history of Korea post WW2 and leading up to the Korean War? Japan occupied Korea until the end of WW2. After their surrender, the US and Soviets split occupation at the 38th parallel (much like how Germany, whose history I hope you are familiar with, was divided). In brief, the Soviet Union installed the Communist system and Kim Il-sung in power.

      North Korea could not have been more directly enslaved by the Soviet Union.

    9. Re:Captured at the end of the War by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It took the Soviets months to position over a million troops around Manchuria, moving them from the Western front after V-E Day along the Trans-Siberian railroad along with tens of thousands of artillery pieces, tanks etc. Marshal Vasilevsky who planned and organised the operation is regarded by some as the greatest general in history for just this achievement. The attack took place exactly 90 days after Germany surrendered as Stalin had promised at Potsdam, the timing was in no way related to the US using its first nuclear bombs.

      The Japanese and Manchurian troops the Russians faced had never actually been in combat, they were quite well supplied with equipment from local factories and fuel was abundant and they were well dug-in having had months to prepare for an attack they knew was coming. Unfortunately for them they were up against the soldiers who had taken Berlin, the toughest bastards in uniform that walked the earth at that time.

      As for MacArthur neither he nor the Japanese forces positioned there could stop the Russians taking the Kuril and Sakhalin islands, the only opposed landing of foreign troops on Japanese soil apart from Okinawa. They also grabbed off a large chunk of Korea into the bargain and many historians claim that only running out of supplies stopped them taking the rest of the peninsula.

    10. Re:Captured at the end of the War by CCTalbert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (Richard Rhodes) has a lot of interesting information, and different perspectives, on the atomic bombings. There's the traditional "we would have so many causalities" argument that's always made. But there were some other possible motivations that are very interesting, and the cynic in me tends to give them a lot of credence.

      (Oh, and the book is fascinating, I think, a very good "geek" read. Things like the Nagasaki bomb having never been tested- there was so little Plutonium available they didn't want to waste any on a test, and they were *that* confident in the design they didn't feel a test was necessary. They just did the math.)

      First, the development of "The Bomb" had been horrendously expensive, and mostly a "black" project. It was all going to come to light after the war. People involved in it needed a win- you couldn't have spent all that money for no reason and not expect to be crucified when it became known. So- "Bomb something, do it quick, we have to use it to justify having developed it!" Political CYA.

      Also, there was a huge amount of concern about the Soviets. They had developed this huge army, and we didn't like how they thought- they were becoming the enemy. We needed to demonstrate that we had the ultimate big-stick so there wouldn't be any mistaking who the toughest kid on the block really was. Chest-thumping on a massive scale.

      And also, there was concern about having to share the control of Japan after they surrendered. Things weren't going so well in Germany and we simply didn't want to have to include the Soviets in the process. If the war went on the Soviets involvement would necessitate including them... if we ended it quickly though, before they were really involved, we could leave them out. Like not sharing these subs :)

      Personally I suspect all of these issues (and more) played into it. I think the "too many american lives would be lost" argument isn't really sufficient on it's own. But second-guessing secrets from 60-some years ago... who knows?

    11. Re:Captured at the end of the War by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whole lot of wrong there but "American chest-beating" after the war fed into the history books which took a very parochial view of the entire affair -- for example the Germans took 90% of their casualties in the East, the Allied landings at Normandy and liberation of Western Europe were a sideshow as far as they were concerned. So it is with the Japanese theatre of the war and latterly the use of nukes there. BTW the Nagasaki plutonium implosion bomb design was the one actually tested at Trinity, it was the Hiroshima uranium bomb that was considered simple enough it didn't need a test shot.

      The nukes were a new wonder-weapon in a war filled with wonder-weapons, they were ready for use and they were used, that's all. The Allies already had city-killers, they were thousand-bomber raids causing firestorms that killed more people in a night in places like Tokyo than the Hiroshima bomb ever did. Sure the nukes were super-effective at the hypocentre, melting concrete and glass with the heat flash but the effects died away with distance whereas mattress-bombing with ten thousand tonnes of conventional explosives and 4lb incendiaries destroyed a much wider area. Here's an interesting thought -- bomber losses over Japan were tiny compared to the German campaign and in September the Boeing plant in Seattle built 300 B-29s and that's after the Japanese surrendered. It took them months to stop the production lines. All those bombers would have been available to continue conventional attacks on Japan even without the nukes.

      As for scaring the Soviets, they had been fucked over by experts and in the end it was the hammer-and-sickle that flew over what was left of the Reichstag, not the swastika over Red Square. Nukes didn't scare them; if you want to play that game try getting a map of the Soviet Union at the end of 1945 and draw a few dozen two-mile-diameter circles, the effective damage area of a 20 kilotonne nuke on it and then look at what's left. That's assuming the US could actually make that number of nukes and deliver them to target -- Moscow was out of range from western Europe using B-29s and the greater-range B-36 was still getting debugged by the time 1946 rolled around.

    12. Re:Captured at the end of the War by able1234au · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read up on the Okinawa campaign and how costly that was. There was no indication that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the invasion of Japan would create a much higher potential loss of military and civilians on both sides. Morally there is no difference between a nuclear bomb and conventional bombing. Dead is dead.

      The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the effect of saving the Japanese from themselves. They were preparing to have civilians attack the invaders with pitchforks, spears and machetes. Imagine how that would have gone. The "they would have surrendered without the bomb" argument is a more recent one. The U.S. expected to be fighting into 1946 and so did the Japanese. The loss due to starvation would probably have exceeded military losses.

      The moral issues on the bomb came up after the war. Particularly when we realised there were enough bombs to wipe out humanity, and still are. Also, there has been a lot of whitewashing of the Japanese since the war. If you read up on their actions in China and the Pacific you will probably feel a lot less sorry for them. Their humanity was severely lacking. Luckily it is a different story today. But the Japanese do not fully acknowledge what they did in the war and a lot of the history is not taught to the young. This contrasts with Germany which basically acknowledged what was done and set about purging it from society. That is not the Japanese way, though.

  3. Calling All Arpeggio of Blue Steel fans: by Hartree · · Score: 3

    I-401?

    They've found Iona! (If she was on the bottom, this doesn't bode well for the ending of the latest episode.)

    But I thought she was still closer to Iwo Jima.

  4. DAYUM! by new+death+barbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    "able to travel one and a half times around the world without refueling"

    Even their SUBMARINES get great mileage!

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

  5. HuffPost has video by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/japanese-submarine-world-war-ii_n_4375090.html

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  6. Re: Japanese, your Lord ! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Clearly buying from companies like Ford, the huge multinational corporation with a vaguely English sounding name primarily owned by international banks that makes cars in the US from mostly foreign parts is far more patriotic than buying from companies like Honda, the huge multinational corporation with a vaguely Japanese sounding name primarily owned by international banks that makes cars in the US from mostly foreign parts.

  7. Toyota and Honda are NOT owned by banks ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unlike Ford or GM, Toyota and Honda are definitely NOT owned by banks !

    Toyota is owned by the group of inter-connected companies that is controlled by the Toyoda clan of Japan.

    Same with Honda - owned by the group of inter-connected companies that is controlled by the Honda clan of Japan.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Toyota and Honda are NOT owned by banks ! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The clan owned zbaitsu did not last past WWII, having failed to survive the twin blows of Japanese nationalization and the US occupation. Like most big Japanese enterprises, the Toyota Group is a keiretsu, a group of interlocking business built around a bank and a trading company. In the case of the Toyota Group, the bank controlling everything is the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group.

      Which in turned is owned by companies like Mellon Bank, State Street Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.

    2. Re: Toyota and Honda are NOT owned by banks ! by Jeeeb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Close. Toyota is part of the Mitsui group with Mitsui Sumitomo at the center. Although Mitsui's stake in Toyota is relatively small and they are not the only bank. The remainder is cross holdings from other Mitsui Keiretsu members or publicly traded stocks. SMFG is in turn publicly traded on several stock exchanges in Japan and the NYSE. That said the head of Toyota is still from the Toyoda family. MUFJ is head of the Mitsubishi group which includes Mitsubishi motors. They also are publicly listed in several Japanese exchanges and the NYSE. Japan has huge amounts of capital and foreign exchange, so foreign holdings of Japanese corporations is low. It mostly goes the other way.

  8. Engineering the I-400 SuperSub by mybecq · · Score: 4, Informative

    PBS has a great documentary about its design and construction. You can even watch it online for free. (Cookies probably required.)