Wich country sunk the first japanese warship

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Jester
If the midget sub doesn't do it for you - the Japanese Fleet Sub I-70 was sunk North of Hawaii on December 10, 1941 by aircraft from the carrier U.S.S. ENTERPRISE CV-6.

my my... we would be playing with words now... this depends on whether you can call a submarine a warship (at least that is what this thread is for).  Sooo...

Originally posted by GScholz
A submarine, midget or not, is by definition not a warship. It's a boat. JFYI

By GScholz's definition, submarines are not warships.

From Nihon Kaigun on I-70
The I-70 is the first Japanese combatant ship sunk by United States aircraft during World War II.

The phrase used is combatant ship, not warship.

From Webster's Dictionary
warship - n. any ship for combat use, as a battleship

Are submarines considered to be warships?

Originally posted by Rafe35
Three days after Pearl Harbor attack, with the defenses of the Philippines crumbling all around, Capt. Colin Kelly of USAAF, took surviving B-17 "Flying Fortress" from Clark Field on a mission to bomb an aircraft carrier reported off Luzon, but did not find IJN Carrier and decide bombed at Battleship Haruna, but that what they thought they sunk Battleship Haruna. After sunk the Japanese vessel, Capt. Kelly B-17 were shot up badly damage and he told his crews to bailed out, but Capt. Kelly did not bailed out and was killed in the ensuing crash.

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for sinking the vessel and was probably was killed by Legend Saburo Sakai who was one of the Zero to shot down B-17. So, Capt. Kelly immediately became America's first air war hero during after 3 days of Pearl Harbor attack.

I don't doubt the Capt. Kelly was a hero, but did he sink a ship during this attack?

From Nihon Kaigun on ASHIGARA
11 December 1941:
Covers the invasion landings at Vigan. The ASHIGARA is attacked unsuccessfully by five USAAF Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortresses" of the 14th Squadron. (The Americans later claim erroneously that Captain Colin P. Kelley sank the battleship HARUNA in this attack).

According to the same website, the battleship HARUNA was sunk at the end of the war at Kure.  ASHIGARA was sunk on the Sumatran coast in June 1945.

Did Capt. Kelly sink something else?

[GScholz]

Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.

If the question is who first sank a Japanese naval vessel, then the midget submarine would probably be the first (unless the Chinese sank a Japanese PT boat or rubber dingy earlier). If the question is who first sank a Japanese warship, it would have to be the US action at Wake Island, the US action in the Philippines, or the K XVI.

IMHO.

[MiloMorai]

Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat.

Is that why American and British submarines had the prefex United States Ship and His Majesty's Ship?

warship: any vessel constructed or equipped for use in battle.

Does this mean PT boats did not participate in battles.

'Patrol' vessels only had numbers.

Submariners belonged to a seperate branch of the naval service.

The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line.

Though they might be still on the books, I did not know that HMS Victory and the USS Constitution did war patrols with the fleet. WW2 submarines did operate with Japanese and American fleets in the Pacific.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.

Considering that German subs nearly brought Britain and the US's war effort to it's knees, and the US subs crippled the Japanese war effort as well, with several hundred million tons sunk, it is fair to say that a submarine is indeed a warship.  

Websters online says: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warship

2 entries found for warship.
war·ship    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôrshp)
n.
A combat ship. Also called man-of-war.

n : a government ship that is available for waging war [syn: war vessel, combat ship]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Now IMHO that pretty much says that a sub is a warship in my book.  But if you choose to split hairs, and the sub a boat (US Navy budgeting calls subs ships) then lets look up the definition of a ship:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ship

"A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation."

considerable size would seem to include a 311 foot submarine displacing 1870 tons.

then I think we can safely call a sub a ship even if it is different tradition to call it a "boat" and it also concludes that a ship is a vessel.  Well, to conincide websters says a sub is a vessel too:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=submarine

Lastly, GScholz is wrong to state that subs never worked in concert witht the fleet at all.  US Subs worked on many occasions with fleet battle groups.  Notably in fleet air rescue, as well as outlying radar pickets.  So, a sub is just as much a ship as is the rest of the fleet.

[Jester]

Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.

I don't know where you get your information but you are mistaken Sir;

In the US NAVY (during WW2 and still today) - the definition of a BOAT is any vessel that can be carried on a larger vessel. If it is too large it is called a SHIP.

While you could load several PT Boats on a cargo ship - I doubt very seriously you could carry around a US WW2 Fleet Sub on one.

BTY, They were called "Boats" out of tradition because that was what the early WWI subs were called.

[BUG_EAF322]

So the midget sub was a "war" boat.

[GScholz]

A boat, like a ship, is a buoyant vessel designed for the purpose of transporting people and possibly goods across water. A boat is usually smaller than a ship. Some boats are commonly carried by a ship or on land using trailers.

A boat consists of one or more buoyancy structures called hulls and some system of propulsion, such as, oars, paddles, a sail or a motor

A ship, like a boat, is a vehicle designed for passage or transportation across water. It is usually large enough to carry its own boats, such as lifeboats, dinghies, or runabouts. A rule of thumb saying (though it doesn't always apply) is "a boat can fit on a ship, but a ship can't fit on a boat". The exact size at which a ship becomes a boat is often defined by local law and regulation. Submarines are always called boats.

A submarine is a specialized boat that travels under water, usually for military purposes. Most major navies of the world employ submarines. Submarines are also used for marine and freshwater science and for work at depths too great for human divers. U-Boat is the abbreviation of Unterseeboot, the German name for German submarines (first commissioned in WWI). Another submaritime device is the diving bell.

Submarines and submariners seem to attract a variety of interesting names. Perhaps some of that stems from being a "service apart".

Why is a submarine called a "boat"?

One reason might be that because the submarine was known as a boat from the earliest conception of something that could travel beneath the surface. A German poem of around 1200 - Salman and Morolf - mentions a diving boat built of leather with a long tube supplying air, and an Englishman, William Bourne, in a 1578 treatise entitled Inventions and Devices describes: "It is possible to make a shippe or boate that may goe under the water unto the bottome".

Bourne's boat solved the problem of achieving negative buoyancy - that is, making the submarine sink - by allowing water valves to fill leather bags. A mast let in air and when the boat needed to ascend the operator squeezed out the bags, thus expelling the water.

Cornelius van Drebbel, a Dutch physician, amazed London in 1620 by submerging to 12 feet in an "oar-powered boat" and rowing it across the Thames. He did not know of Bourne's technique, however, and had problems making the boat stay down. Despite this he managed to persuade King James VI to come for a ride.

The Turtle, a US vessel used in an underwater attack against the British during the American War of Independence, was described as a boat in letters of the time. She was shaped rather like a pineapple and her designer, David Bushnell, equipped her with a snorkel, a depth gauge and a detachable explosive with a fuse. A valiant attempt was made by her commander Ezra Lee to manoeuver her underneath a British ship. This failed due to propulsion difficulties and Lee was detected. In his escape he cut loose the explosive and it went off causing the British fleet to take some alarm at the first attempt at submarine warfare.
Perhaps, therefore, the first submarines were called boats because they were small. Some descriptions say that a boat is a vessel that is routinely removed from the water. A ship is one that usually stays in the water, except for unusual occasions: dry-docking, careening, running up on a sandbar etc. Another interpretation is that a boat is any vessel that can be placed on another vessel.

Like ship's boats early submarines and diving bells were often stowed ashore or on the deck of a ship and they were indeed very small. The Turtle, for example, was a single-man craft. Fulton's submersibles of the Napoleonic era were no larger than a ship's launch. The Hunley, a submarine of the US Civil War, and the first to sink another ship - the Housatonic - carried a crew of nine. All were boats but not ships.

Although many designs were tried and tested in the following years by various navies the designs of John Holland proved the most successful. Working alone and supported by Irish Fenian money Holland designed and built a small submarine powered by a steam engine. His idea was successful largely because it solved the problems of buoyancy and stability which had plagued other designers. Known as a "wrecking boat" the first was followed by another but then the backers lost interest and Holland faded from the scene, although his memory lives on in the organisation that bought him out - the Electric Boat Company.

By the start of WWI subs were quite big - AE1 and AE2, the Australian WWI boats, were 181 feet long - but many were smaller and therefore about the same size as small warships, most of which were also called boats - torpedo boats and gun boats, for example.

The submarine service of WWI was a new branch of navies and it sought to develop its own traditions much as the air forces of WWI did. One of these may have been the term "boat", a difference to be jealously guarded, along with submariners' slang, jokes and customs - such as flying the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones, when returning from a patrol that had seen a "kill". This custom might have arisen from the condemnation submarines had received when they first became conceived of as weapons of war. Leonardo da Vinci, who had once claimed to have developed an idea for a submarine, is said to have left no notes on the subject - as he did for other inventions such as the aeroplane - because he thought "I do not publish or divulge on account of the evil nature of men who practise assassination at the bottom of the sea". Interestingly, the Hague Convention of 1899 which had set up some rules of warfare had not included submarines and the ensuing conflict certainly saw submarines carry forward new ideas of "total war" by ambushing merchantmen.

Submarines were known during WWI and beyond also as "pig boats". Perhaps a reference to the dolphin sometimes known as a sea-pig. This may well have been because a submarine needed to surface often in the type's early days, partly for air and partly for a periscope sighting. Some more unkind references give the origins of "pig boat" as relating to the smell of submarines: a combination of diesel, battery fumes, sweat, cooking and more - all in unventilated compartments.

By WWII submarines had increased in size to several hundred feet and after the war with the development of nuclear power submarines became even bigger. Many modern submarines have been designed to the extent where their tonnage can now dwarf that of destroyers and even aircraft carriers - the American Ohio-class, for example, has a displacement of 18, 750 imperial tons.

It has been argued that the term "ship" has replaced "boat", especially given the size and destructive power of many modern submarines, especially the "boomers" - the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile submarine. However, it seems that in the world of submariners the old term is still the preferred one.

>>>

It all academic gentlemen. If you want to define a Japanese midget submarine as a warship ... go right ahead. I on the other hand recognize the SS-37 as the first that sank a Japanese warship in WWII.

The SS-37 was built and launched in San Francisco in 1918-19 and commissioned in San Pedro. Calif., in 1923. On Dec. 8, 1941, she sank the Japanese destroyer Natsushio, the first Japanese ship sunk by the U.S. during World War II.

And btw. the K XVI was not the first action by the Dutch that sank a Japanese warship.

In the early morning of December 17, 1941 a flight of 2 Vl.G.I, operating from Singkawang II airbase, found several Japanese ships near Miri. That same morning the 1st "Patrouille" (Flight Commander Van den Broek) of 2 Vl.G.I attacked these ships from 4,500 meters but claimed no hits. The crews reported heavy AA fire and two of the Glenn Martin bombers returned slightly damaged [1]. In the meantime, the word of the invasion had also reached Tarakan Island on the eastern coast of Borneo, where the three Dornier flying boats of Naval Air Group GVT-7 (Marine Luchtvaart Dienst) were immediately prepared for attack. These three aircraft, (with registrations X-32, X-33 and X-34) were Dornier Do-24K's, capable of carrying a payload of 1,200 kg. They attacked in the early morning of December 17. The flying boat X-34 (Luitenant ter Zee 3e klasse A. Baarschers) never made it to Miri. He had to made an emergency landing in the jungle, while it was heading for the Japanese invasion fleet near Miri. He later reached, together with two of his crewmembers, a refugee camp at Long Nawang, only to be massacred there by Japanese troops in August 1942. The other two flying boats X-33 and X-32 were able to attack the fleet. The X-33 (Officier-Vlieger 2e klasse J.G. Petschi) attacked Japanese transport ship without succes, while X-32 (Officier-Vlieger 2e klasse B. Sjerp - unit commander) did far better. He dropped 5 bombs of 200 kg each, scoring two hits on a IJN destroyer Shinonome and a near miss. The latter apparently did most of the damage, as the target was immediately rent by a thunderous explosion, and fires broke out aboard. A few minutes later, when the smoke cleared, the waves closed over the Shinonome, who had disappeared beneath the surface, taking below its captain, Commander Hiroshi Sasagawa, and the entire crew of 228 men.

[sonar732]

Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats.
 

I don't know who told you this...but coming from a sonar tech aboard the USS ALASKA SSBN732 (B), you call my boat a ship and you'll pay.   Boats are made to sink...ships aren't!:D

Also,

There are no more "boomers" in the fleet...only "Tridents".  The boomers were named after the 41 for Freedom class.  Once the Ohio was commisioned, all future SSBN's were nicknamed "Tridents" because of the Trident intercontinental missile that was carried.

[MiloMorai]

Considering that German subs nearly brought Britain and the US's war effort to it's knees

U-boats only sunk 1% of all the shipping that crossed the Atlantic. This is hardly bring Britain and the USA's war effort to its knees. There was some short periods when they did cause some distress, though.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
U-boats only sunk 1% of all the shipping that crossed the Atlantic. This is hardly bring Britain and the USA's war effort to its knees. There was some short periods when they did cause some distress, though.

After mid 43 the Uboat menace was effectively neutered, prior to that it did cause situations to be very dire indeed... hence overall war stats are not a good indicator of the success of the German Uboat campaign to begin with.

[GScholz]

Sorry Sonar732, didn't mean to offend you.

[sonar732]

Originally posted by GScholz
Sorry Sonar732, didn't mean to offend you.

No harm taken...just submariner pride as your other quote shows!

[Mathman]

Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk.  The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Mathman
Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk.  The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.

golfclap!

[Flyboy]

Originally posted by Mathman
Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk.  The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.

i dont thing "beating the crap out" is quallified is beating sorry.
maybe its spanking.

the first plane to deliver a beating is the F4u!