Author Topic: Submarine Aircraft Carriers  (Read 1371 times)

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2010, 12:10:39 PM »
I presume that you are inferring that the aircraft is stowed on the deck. Wrong. The aircraft is hangared with wings folded. The sub surfaces, and the aircraft can be launched within 15 minutes.

Piece of crap, no, as the U.S. Navy took serious interest in them immediately after WW2. Much of what they learned about the I-400 class was used on the Grayback class Regulus missile submarines in the 50s.

However crazy this request is, the I-400 was not a piece of crap.
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline warphoenix

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 565
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2010, 04:57:25 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a modified I-400 lanch midget subs on Pearl before the air assult?
P-39 FREAK

B-26 Marauder driver

Offline Ruah

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2010, 06:47:30 AM »
ssly, for all the things to wish for. . . .

lets try to get some more japanese airplanes before we ask for japanese subs.  And russian planes, and italian planes and. . .well you get the idea.

Kommando Nowotny
I/JG 77, 2nd Staffel
Mediterranean Maelstrom
HORRIDO

Offline waystin2

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10196
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2010, 07:07:09 AM »
I presume that you are inferring that the aircraft is stowed on the deck. Wrong. The aircraft is hangared with wings folded. The sub surfaces, and the aircraft can be launched within 15 minutes.

Piece of crap, no, as the U.S. Navy took serious interest in them immediately after WW2. Much of what they learned about the I-400 class was used on the Grayback class Regulus missile submarines in the 50s.

However crazy this request is, the I-400 was not a piece of crap.

Absolutely correct Herne.  The US Navy studied the hell out them, before scuttling them off of the Island of Oahu.
CO for the Pigs On The Wing
& The nicest guy in Aces High!

Offline jay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2010, 08:37:58 AM »
you know why they destroyied them??? because  the russians also wanted to study them but america didnt want them to
"He who makes a beast of himself Gets rid of the pain of being a man." Dr.Johnson


Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2010, 09:06:54 AM »
Wow - military historians abound I see...  :uhoh

Jay, the Russians made no efforts to procure any of the I-400s. They were far too busy rounding up intelligence on the German Type XXI subs and aircraft from the German jet program. The demobilization of war assets was number one on list of priorities in the immediate post-war. When you consider the Bikini Atoll tests and the ships that were expended there (incluing battleships, fleet carriers, etc), scuttling a couple of large enemy subs into deep water was no big deal.

Warphoenix - Close. The subs that launched on Pearl were the I-20 and I-16, of the Ko-hyoteki class. The I-400s, to put them into perspective were as large as a Fletcher Class destroyer. I wrote an article for Proceedings (Naval Historical Center) about 15 years ago on the history of submarine launched aircraft. Somewhere in this mess I call an office, I have original sketches of an I-400 that were done by a US Naval Commander, since no photos were allowed to be taken at that immediate time.
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline Mus51

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2010, 09:27:09 AM »
Interesting stuff Jherne.
Regards,


DutchGuy

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2010, 11:24:33 AM »
ssly, for all the things to wish for. . . .

lets try to get some more japanese airplanes before we ask for japanese subs.  And russian planes, and italian planes and. . .well you get the idea.
M-18 :noid
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2010, 11:27:20 AM »
LOL Bar - I'm with ya.  :salute
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2010, 11:28:18 AM »
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline JBJB710

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2010, 08:12:25 PM »
you know why they destroyed them??? because the Russians also wanted to study them but America didn't want them to
They should destroyed all but one, by faking the sinking of one of those subs and hiding it from the Soviets so they could study it, do you agree?
Cipher (a.k.a. "The Demon Lord")
108th Tactical Fighter Squadron
"Wardog Squadron"

Offline warphoenix

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 565
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2010, 11:10:37 PM »
They should destroyed all but one, by faking the sinking of one of those subs and hiding it from the Soviets so they could study it, do you agree?
Soviet Union spies is why they didn't do that
P-39 FREAK

B-26 Marauder driver

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2010, 01:58:31 PM »
Why keep a foreign military asset around, soaking up resources in both manpower to maintain it, guard it, study it, etc., when you already have the information you need from it? In 1945, no one wanted anything that was Japanese or German to be sitting around.

All of the useful technology, construction design, etc., research was done by the time they were scuttled.
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline RoGenT

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2010, 11:13:58 PM »
I say don't bother with the subs, just add in the Aichi M6A Seiran. And that plane can only be upped at Ports, but will be unavaible if the VHs are knocked out.
:salute Your fellow pony dweeb today!
Offical Knight Morale Officer
#1 Punk Knight on Vtards Hit List
Proud Pig!

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Re: Submarine Aircraft Carriers
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2010, 11:38:52 AM »
Wow - military historians abound I see...  :uhoh

Jay, the Russians made no efforts to procure any of the I-400s. They were far too busy rounding up intelligence on the German Type XXI subs and aircraft from the German jet program. The demobilization of war assets was number one on list of priorities in the immediate post-war. When you consider the Bikini Atoll tests and the ships that were expended there (incluing battleships, fleet carriers, etc), scuttling a couple of large enemy subs into deep water was no big deal.

Warphoenix - Close. The subs that launched on Pearl were the I-20 and I-16, of the Ko-hyoteki class. The I-400s, to put them into perspective were as large as a Fletcher Class destroyer. I wrote an article for Proceedings (Naval Historical Center) about 15 years ago on the history of submarine launched aircraft. Somewhere in this mess I call an office, I have original sketches of an I-400 that were done by a US Naval Commander, since no photos were allowed to be taken at that immediate time.

As I recall, one of these subs actually did launch their aircraft off the west coast of North America late in the war, where it dropped a couple incindiary bombs on a forest somewhere near Seattle.  It was the only direct air attack against the US mainland during the war.  Something like three subs of this class and configuration were made operational before the war ended, and they did see combat (after a fashion).  In fact, there was also a Clive Cussler novel ("Black Wind", IIRC) that revolved around a ficitional (though plausible) plot to use this weapon system to deliver a bio weapon against the US west coast cities.  In real life, the primary practical purpose for the aircraft were not as attack aircraft (there were too few); rather, they could serve as a scouting platform to help the sub locate targets for its torps and guns.  This was the same reason cruisers and battleships carried aircraft. (Modified) In 1944, plans were drawn up to use them to attack the Panama Canal, as only a few bombs could cause extensive damage. The plan called for two I-400 subs and two smaller fleet subs, carrying a total of 10 aircraft. (End Modified entry)

In regards to the tanker subs, they were used for refueling recon flying boats and float planes.  During the run up to the Battle of Midway, a Japanese recon mission float plane was supposed to meet up with a tanker sub, so they could scout Pearl and confirm that the American flattops were still there.  A USN ship happened along, forcing the Jap sub to submerge, and causing the cancellation of the recon mission.  The rest is, as they say, history.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 02:37:22 PM by Sabre »
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."