Exactly WHY did the Japanese think the entire flawed strategy of submarine screens as dedicated capital ship killers was a good idea? Yes they were trying to make up for limited capital ship numbers, but they had far saner ideas for it such as their advancement of carrier strike doctrine. Even their ultimately infeasible massed night torpedo attack doctrine ended up being somewhat more viable than their submarine doctrine. Why not stick to those ideas instead?
What can you say on active sonar on WWII Submarines? I found some stuff on the internet but nothing in books i own. Maybe you have more? Or did i just miss a video about it?
If a 4th ship of the Olympic-class was build and ended up being captured intact in a German port at the start of WW1 what would Imperial Germany have done with her?
Have you done anything on the midget sub attack against Sydney? Not so much the attack but the supporting mother subs. There was 3 midgets and at least one scout plane. That makes probably 4 full size submarines, and where had those come from?
@@bkjeong4302a Pacific strategy of commerce raiding doesn't really work. Once you've captured all the major ports. Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila. What trade are they to interdict really? You could have enforced a submarine campaign to isolate Australia perhaps? But the Navy has other priorities.
... there were a LOT of them. A good chunk of IJN subs (the various Type A and Type B classes) had limited floatplane capacity, using a single smaller one rather than the larger Seiran that the I-13 and I-400 classes could use.
IJN, always come up with the perfect ship design, just 2 years late. Imagine what these long range subs and the Akizuki class could do if they are in mass production 1942.
@@bkjeong4302 I mean if the Mobile Force were completed with Akizuki class and they were phasing out the Mutsuki class for second line duty in 1942, IJN would love to have those 20 extra DDs on hand.
I think the I-13 went a bit too far. 16-17 kt on the surface is just a bit too slow to catch merchant shipping and to run away (ignoring the doctrine they were used under).
They couldnt do diddly squat at that point. IJN couldve had a decent and capable navy if they didnt waste time on sci fi anime projects like this one. Ah well.
You can file all of these aircraft carrying subs under "effective execution of an impractical idea". Yes, it is impressive that they designed and built subs capable of launching and recovering aircraft but that capability not only proved utterly useless in actual service it made those subs big, fat targets and these subs weren't ordered until after there was plenty of real-world experience that showed the whole concept was impractical, which just doubles the waste factor.
The Japanese were so creative with their submarines. I am requesting a guide on the I-201class of high speed underwater submarines of the Japanese navy.
Looks like many of the photos were taken after the end of the war, judging by the US flags and sailors on board the Japanese subs and USN ships in the background. Note at 4:17 the USN Gato or Balao class sub alongside the I-14 and I-400s, the size difference is enormous.
It always bothers me how inconsistent the translation of the word kai (改) is in military history. Sometimes is left as is like in the case of the N1K2-J Shiden Kai, sometimes it's translated as "mark" or "mod", but it isn't agreed upon if kai 2 should be mk 2 or mk 3 (with the original being considered the mk 1 in the latter case). In the case of the Type AM submarines, the "M" is actually the word "mod", so the I-13s really should be Type A mod 2 or similar, but no one can decide on a single standard.
In their efforts to make languages more understandable, translators often overcomplicate things. If you ever get to watch anime dubbed with original subs, it tends to be rather amusing. Changes to kai (improved) are relatively minor
In my experience "Kai" is usually left as-is, as translating it tends to require too much liberty in the "using a different nation's military terms" sense. But since you're referring to a "broadly over time by different people" sense, yeah, western/English authors/sources have historically been really awful about applying (usually American) naming conventions to foreign things, or just straight up not getting them right because reasons. For an example of _not_ doing this, I believe Drach is correct in naming her I13 without the dash, as that's a western/English addition. Much like replacing the space in German sub names with a dash as well, for example a certain recently-visited museum sub is correctly named U 505.
I think the sortie by the Saiun delivered by I-14 was one of the last recon sorties ever flown by Japan. It actually flew over Ulithi and managed to come back
Was looking forward to this one! Cruiser submarines are such a fascinating design niche. The IJN submarine program in general was full of incredibly impressive engineering.
This was the Kiwi and Moa Bird Class ramming incident right? I think they also capture the Code books and machine that lead to the assassination of Yamamoto right?
@@sobersubmrnr she was lost in battle with them but although damaged the combat ended when, in attempting to reach Guadalcanal or escape, she ran aground.
The I-class submarine were interesting class of diesel-electric subs. These could carry a bolted-on midget submarine with a communication hatch. At least two I class submarines was responsible for the 3 midget submarine attack on Sydney harbour on May 31, 1942. All two man midget submarines were lost in the attack, and the only casualty was the HMAS Kutterbul, a Barrack ship that was moored next to a wharf that was hit by a deep running torpedo which sank her with 19 naval ratings loosing their lives. The I-24 (one of the mother ships) went on the shell Northern suburbs of Sydney with little damage except one injury and the I-21 shelled Newcastle the next night with no lives lost and little damage done. No RAN vessels were available to conduct ASW outside of Sydney harbour, when the "Iron Cheiftain" bulk carrying steamer off NSW coast was sunk by I-24 on June 4, killing 12 of her crew. Japanese submarines and U-boats did continue to raid shipping mainly off Australia's Eastern coast from 1942 to 1944. The most infamous of these raids was the sinking of the HMAS Centaur, a hospital ship off South Stradbroke Island.
They never really did, no. Big ocean, limited submarines, Indian ocean was a better hunting ground. And then various factors saw submarines not being used with the main fleet used for supply runs. Japan never had enough ships for its needs, especially the smaller ones.
IJN submarine doctrine (all of it) always makes me wonder why the hell the Yamatos get so much grief when this sort of bizarre nonsense was not only far more of an issue with the IJN, but (unlike the basically universal problem of building and commissioning new battleships at a time battleships were becoming obsolete) also something no other navy got wrong to nearly this extent.
The IJN doctrine on everything had SO many problems that you could make an hour long video just describing them. The blinding lack of understanding required logistics for a long war appears in multiple locations.
@allangibson8494 You can call it "Tsushima disease" and "Fighting the last war syndrome". What's the point of long war if the enemy is going to surrender after a decisive battle? Surely they will surrender, and we will get that decisive battle....... right?
@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863 To be honest in this case it was also partly based on the truth that they had no way to win a long war anyways, but then they (or rather Yamamoto specifically) somehow came up with a plan that would ENSURE a long war without any decisive battles (namely, the PH strike and the rapid expansion across the Pacific), while throwing away the aspects of the Kantai Kessen doctrine that (as flawed as it was) at least had a chance at bringing the US to a decisive battle quickly, even if that wouldn’t have let Japan win.
@@tim2024-df5fu Wasting money and resources on battleships was a mistake EVERYONE in WWII made. My point is that people tend to latch onto a mistake that literally everyone made and consider it to be the fatal flaw in IJN doctrine in particular that cost them the war, while completely ignoring equally if not more severe IJN doctrinal issues (especially in regards to submarines, both their own and enemy) that really were basically unique to the IJN and had far more of a bearing on their defeat.
The Us had cruiser minelayers with the designation CM and the Terror was the fifth in this group. It seems strange that the US would use cruisers in this mission but it might make a good video.
Looking the sails of those subs, it appears that the names are not e.g. "I14" but "イ14," which character is pronounced like the "ee" in "tree." Just FYI. (The Japanese vowels are アイウエオ in katakana, romanised as "a i u e o" but pronounced as "ah ee oo eh oh" are in English orthography.)
The issue of IJN submarine doctrine has come up. The USN also used submarines in fleet actions for scouting, and sinking carriers. The IJN was forced to use the bulk of their submarines only for supply missions for troops stranded on islands where the allies had control of the seas and/or air. The submariners were not happy but could see the clear need as it was do it or troops would starve and have no ammo. Who knows how they would have been used if they were otherwise available.
For their command staff it must have been a nightmare. With relatively few submarines they had to: 1) organize recon patrols-picket lines, 2) supply isolated or bypassed outposts, 3) deploy submarines squadrons for fleet operations 4) attack enemy shipping when possible.
Big differences American subs were sent to sink shipping over scouting Japanese subs sent to scout over sinking unless a suitable target came by Let oilers and supply ships pass looking for the BBs and CVs that weren’t their missing their chance to cripple the Americans by sinking their supplies
Has anyone made a video detailing the logistics of readying a plane to dive/fly after being strapped to a submarine? I’m kinda surprised a plane could be usable after being submerged…..
I still believe it was a huge Injustice that we did not invest more into the idea of a "submarine carrier" whether it be a submarine that launches aircraft or a submarine that launches super fast underwater submarines armed with torpedoes... I think either option would be a great boon to any Navy.
I have pondered if Japan had instead of focusing these for attack planes, they used the smuggled V-1 technology from Germany to turn these subs into cruise missile launchers.
@@thatkancolleguy Surcouf was 361 feet in length and 3,250 tons displacement surfaced. The I-13s were 372 feet in length and 3,603 tons displacement surfaced.
@@WALTERBROADDUS It may have been a good idea in the twenties or thirties. With the widespread availabilty of landbased long range patrol aircraft and escort carries they were much to vulnerable.
It’s so weird how Japan entered the war having one of the best submarine fleets in the world, may be even superior to German one, but it has totally failed in terms of impact on the war effort due to poor doctrine and planing.
Germans had a relatively small submarine fleet at the start of the war. They, however produced a huge number during the war, while Japan produced only a modest number.
Germany: We will win the war with super- weapons. Japan: We will win the war with quirky innovative weapons. Allies: So, how many generic, work-a- day weapons can the U.S. produce?
It ruins the joke but I'm not sure it's entirely fair since the US was starting to deploy unmanned aircraft ahead of its time and built the nuclear super weapons. They were big fans of all three approaches.
@MediumRareOpinions The U.S. was open to all options. But plan A was swarm them under. The nukes being ready avoided the need to invade Japan, but the allies were prepared to if they had to.
An FYI on Japanese pronunciation. There are only 5 vowel sounds in Japanese: a - ah; i - ee; u - as in 'to'; e - eh; o - oh, in that order. They are pure vowels, whose sound never changes (unlike the chaos of English vowels) and diphthongs do not exist. Each vowel is pronounced with its given value. Thus Aichi = ah-ee-chee and the Seiran (Mountain Haze) = seh-ee-rahn,, said quickly sounds like 'say-rahn;. The other foldable floatplane carried on a number of subs was the smaller Yokosuka E14Y1, used on subs イ 7 to イ 11 and イ 15 to イ 35. The イ is the Japanese 'i' in katakana, as seen at 2:54, but is almost always given its English equivalent, as does the inestimable Drach. The E14Y, given the Allied code name Glen, is famous for being the only enemy aircraft to drop bombs on the US mainland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_E14Y
" Sar-Ann " 😉 I dont believe there were huge American logistics to attack by Japanese submarines like the far stretched Japanese Pacific forces bases needed. Many were so large they no doubt could have been easily detected under and above water by American aircraft even if they wanted to imo.
Actually, there would be a lot of traffic from the US to Australia, to US island bases, to Hawaii, to the Persian Corridor that supplied the Soviet Union (one of several sources of supply), and to India where supplies would be transported to China to support the Chinese army and the US forces that fought alongside them. Staggering amounts of traffic, in fact. Every US soldier and sailor and airman in the Pacific or Indian Ocean theater needed food to eat. Mail was also important. So were spare parts and ammunition and chemicals like fuel and lubricants. I highly recommend *Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton* by Martin van Creveld to understand why the supply levels required for WW2 exceeded that of every previous war. Most of these goods were carried by ship. It wasn't just US logistics. There was also a lot of British Commonwealth traffic from Australia and New Zealand to support the campaign in Africa, and in British Malaya, and the Middle East, plus the normal trade to/from Australia and New Zealand. A lot of troops from Australia and New Zealand would end up fighting far from their homes, as an important component of the British effort. These troops needed the same things US troops needed, which had to be supplied long distance via shipping. For people or goods going to destinations on the Indian Ocean, they often chose to route ships via the Pacific instead of going around Africa because it avoided the terrible weather of the Cape of Good Hope, and it also avoided most of the U-Boat threat. Both the Germans and Japanese would operate raiders in the Indian Ocean, but not that many and not that often. The Pacific route required a longer journey but the journey was less dangerous. The Pacific route was vulnerable to attack by long range Japanese subs (and surface raiders) - but the Japanese never really took advantage of that. It's easy to forget how vast the oceans are. The effective range of WW2 active sonar was 1-2 miles, so it wasn't all that easy to detect even a large sub underwater, especially during the early years of the war when equipment and training and tactics were all fairly primitive. Relatively few aircraft had radar in 1942, and none would be able to deploy sono-buoys until much later in the war. It really wouldn't be until 1943 that ASW operations by the Allies really became effective (and even in 1943, there were periods where German U-Boats were quite effective). So a commerce raiding strategy by the Japanese would likely have been very effective if carried out properly during 1942, and even in 1943 would have put considerable stress on the numbers of available escorts and ASW aircraft, quite possibly adding another year to the war.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Exactly WHY did the Japanese think the entire flawed strategy of submarine screens as dedicated capital ship killers was a good idea? Yes they were trying to make up for limited capital ship numbers, but they had far saner ideas for it such as their advancement of carrier strike doctrine. Even their ultimately infeasible massed night torpedo attack doctrine ended up being somewhat more viable than their submarine doctrine. Why not stick to those ideas instead?
What can you say on active sonar on WWII Submarines? I found some stuff on the internet but nothing in books i own. Maybe you have more? Or did i just miss a video about it?
If a 4th ship of the Olympic-class was build and ended up being captured intact in a German port at the start of WW1 what would Imperial Germany have done with her?
Have you done anything on the midget sub attack against Sydney? Not so much the attack but the supporting mother subs. There was 3 midgets and at least one scout plane. That makes probably 4 full size submarines, and where had those come from?
@@bkjeong4302a Pacific strategy of commerce raiding doesn't really work. Once you've captured all the major ports. Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila. What trade are they to interdict really? You could have enforced a submarine campaign to isolate Australia perhaps? But the Navy has other priorities.
I knew of the I-400's. I wasn't aware there was a whole other class of aircraft carrying subs.
... there were a LOT of them. A good chunk of IJN subs (the various Type A and Type B classes) had limited floatplane capacity, using a single smaller one rather than the larger Seiran that the I-13 and I-400 classes could use.
@@mindwarp42 I was aware of various one offs and experimental subs with aircraft. Just not that there was a whole class other than the 400's.
IJN, always come up with the perfect ship design, just 2 years late.
Imagine what these long range subs and the Akizuki class could do if they are in mass production 1942.
@@yaki_ebiko the Akizukis were already starting to enter service by 1942-a reminder that Teruzuki was sunk during the Guadalcanal campaign.
@@bkjeong4302 I mean if the Mobile Force were completed with Akizuki class and they were phasing out the Mutsuki class for second line duty in 1942, IJN would love to have those 20 extra DDs on hand.
I think the I-13 went a bit too far. 16-17 kt on the surface is just a bit too slow to catch merchant shipping and to run away (ignoring the doctrine they were used under).
They couldnt do diddly squat at that point. IJN couldve had a decent and capable navy if they didnt waste time on sci fi anime projects like this one. Ah well.
You can file all of these aircraft carrying subs under "effective execution of an impractical idea". Yes, it is impressive that they designed and built subs capable of launching and recovering aircraft but that capability not only proved utterly useless in actual service it made those subs big, fat targets and these subs weren't ordered until after there was plenty of real-world experience that showed the whole concept was impractical, which just doubles the waste factor.
The Japanese were so creative with their submarines. I am requesting a guide on the I-201class of high speed underwater submarines of the Japanese navy.
Looks like many of the photos were taken after the end of the war, judging by the US flags and sailors on board the Japanese subs and USN ships in the background. Note at 4:17 the USN Gato or Balao class sub alongside the I-14 and I-400s, the size difference is enormous.
Thank You for pointing that out, first I assumed it was a tender boat.
It always bothers me how inconsistent the translation of the word kai (改) is in military history. Sometimes is left as is like in the case of the N1K2-J Shiden Kai, sometimes it's translated as "mark" or "mod", but it isn't agreed upon if kai 2 should be mk 2 or mk 3 (with the original being considered the mk 1 in the latter case). In the case of the Type AM submarines, the "M" is actually the word "mod", so the I-13s really should be Type A mod 2 or similar, but no one can decide on a single standard.
In their efforts to make languages more understandable, translators often overcomplicate things. If you ever get to watch anime dubbed with original subs, it tends to be rather amusing. Changes to kai (improved) are relatively minor
I know kai usually as custom or modification.
@@panzerdoga7402 kai improved, often used as you said say
In my experience "Kai" is usually left as-is, as translating it tends to require too much liberty in the "using a different nation's military terms" sense. But since you're referring to a "broadly over time by different people" sense, yeah, western/English authors/sources have historically been really awful about applying (usually American) naming conventions to foreign things, or just straight up not getting them right because reasons.
For an example of _not_ doing this, I believe Drach is correct in naming her I13 without the dash, as that's a western/English addition. Much like replacing the space in German sub names with a dash as well, for example a certain recently-visited museum sub is correctly named U 505.
I think drach also discusses this in the longer video on the Unryu/Ikoma classes
Thank you, Drachinifel.
I think the sortie by the Saiun delivered by I-14 was one of the last recon sorties ever flown by Japan. It actually flew over Ulithi and managed to come back
At least they didn't wait till they had Super Saiuns...
Last time I was this early to a Drachinifel video, the Russian 2nd Pacific Fleet was looking for torpedo boats... lol
Admiral Rozhestvensky has entered the chat with his Binoculars.
Maybe the real torpedo boats were the friends we made along the way
@@samkitto3146Well there WAS that trader that sold the Russians opium - laced tobacco on Madagascar lol...
Wait, do you see torpedo boats?
@@TheEDFLegacy Is the law on my side if I say aye?
It makes the I400 look very inefficient if this can carry 2/3 of the aircraft.
Thanks Drach
Did the AM have better range but were poorer quality over the FM?
... I'll see myself out. 😅
That Hertz… 😂
Careful, you might get radio'd
AM has range but easily distorted
FM is more line of sight
Sounds like a DAB joke.
Was looking forward to this one! Cruiser submarines are such a fascinating design niche. The IJN submarine program in general was full of incredibly impressive engineering.
I love these sub videos. Early subs from ww1 and ww2 are realy interesting.
So many roads here in the United States are named after IJN submarines…
Underrated comment 😂
And some many sites named after American Indians after driving them off.
Very interesting! I knew nothing of these ships!
Saturday night and July Patreon Drydock and a 5 minute guide. Perfection.
Hey Drach, the previous I-1 was sunk by the Kiwis, not due to grounding.
This was the Kiwi and Moa Bird Class ramming incident right? I think they also capture the Code books and machine that lead to the assassination of Yamamoto right?
@@sobersubmrnr she was lost in battle with them but although damaged the combat ended when, in attempting to reach Guadalcanal or escape, she ran aground.
A single M6A1 Seiran has been preserved and resides in the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.
Thanks drach
Thanks!
Where can we find a spreadsheet of asked Drydock questions?
2:32....yep, "say-ran"...:)
The I-class submarine were interesting class of diesel-electric subs. These could carry a bolted-on midget submarine with a communication hatch.
At least two I class submarines was responsible for the 3 midget submarine attack on Sydney harbour on May 31, 1942. All two man midget submarines were lost in the attack, and the only casualty was the HMAS Kutterbul, a Barrack ship that was moored next to a wharf that was hit by a deep running torpedo which sank her with 19 naval ratings loosing their lives. The I-24 (one of the mother ships) went on the shell Northern suburbs of Sydney with little damage except one injury and the I-21 shelled Newcastle the next night with no lives lost and little damage done.
No RAN vessels were available to conduct ASW outside of Sydney harbour, when the "Iron Cheiftain" bulk carrying steamer off NSW coast was sunk by I-24 on June 4, killing 12 of her crew. Japanese submarines and U-boats did continue to raid shipping mainly off Australia's Eastern coast from 1942 to 1944. The most infamous of these raids was the sinking of the HMAS Centaur, a hospital ship off South Stradbroke Island.
Did the Japanese submarines ever try to interdict shipping between the USA and the US bases at Guam, and Hawaii?
@@akula9713 no, because their sub doctrine was garbage for reasons touched on in this video.
@@bkjeong4302 Tell that to Hornet....
@@scottgiles7546Or the Indianapolis...
@@scottgiles7546 That doesn't have anything to do with what the original post was about.
They never really did, no. Big ocean, limited submarines, Indian ocean was a better hunting ground. And then various factors saw submarines not being used with the main fleet used for supply runs. Japan never had enough ships for its needs, especially the smaller ones.
IJN submarine doctrine (all of it) always makes me wonder why the hell the Yamatos get so much grief when this sort of bizarre nonsense was not only far more of an issue with the IJN, but (unlike the basically universal problem of building and commissioning new battleships at a time battleships were becoming obsolete) also something no other navy got wrong to nearly this extent.
The IJN doctrine on everything had SO many problems that you could make an hour long video just describing them.
The blinding lack of understanding required logistics for a long war appears in multiple locations.
@allangibson8494 You can call it "Tsushima disease" and "Fighting the last war syndrome". What's the point of long war if the enemy is going to surrender after a decisive battle? Surely they will surrender, and we will get that decisive battle....... right?
@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863
To be honest in this case it was also partly based on the truth that they had no way to win a long war anyways, but then they (or rather Yamamoto specifically) somehow came up with a plan that would ENSURE a long war without any decisive battles (namely, the PH strike and the rapid expansion across the Pacific), while throwing away the aspects of the Kantai Kessen doctrine that (as flawed as it was) at least had a chance at bringing the US to a decisive battle quickly, even if that wouldn’t have let Japan win.
They were both a waste of money, time and resources that Japan didn't have. Germany made the same mistake.
@@tim2024-df5fu
Wasting money and resources on battleships was a mistake EVERYONE in WWII made. My point is that people tend to latch onto a mistake that literally everyone made and consider it to be the fatal flaw in IJN doctrine in particular that cost them the war, while completely ignoring equally if not more severe IJN doctrinal issues (especially in regards to submarines, both their own and enemy) that really were basically unique to the IJN and had far more of a bearing on their defeat.
The Us had cruiser minelayers with the designation CM and the Terror was the fifth in this group. It seems strange that the US would use cruisers in this mission but it might make a good video.
That image with a US fleet boat alongside gives telling proof of how large these monsters were
The US boat was dwarfed!
Were these submarines equipped with _"Long Lance"_ torpedoes?
Wasn't the sub which the US brought back for study later scuttled off Hawaii because the Soviet Union demanded the chance to study it as well?
@@samadams2203 that was the I-400, a later literation of submarine carrier.
Looking the sails of those subs, it appears that the names are not e.g. "I14" but "イ14," which character is pronounced like the "ee" in "tree." Just FYI. (The Japanese vowels are アイウエオ in katakana, romanised as "a i u e o" but pronounced as "ah ee oo eh oh" are in English orthography.)
The issue of IJN submarine doctrine has come up. The USN also used submarines in fleet actions for scouting, and sinking carriers. The IJN was forced to use the bulk of their submarines only for supply missions for troops stranded on islands where the allies had control of the seas and/or air. The submariners were not happy but could see the clear need as it was do it or troops would starve and have no ammo. Who knows how they would have been used if they were otherwise available.
For their command staff it must have been a nightmare. With relatively few submarines they had to: 1) organize recon patrols-picket lines, 2) supply isolated or bypassed outposts, 3) deploy submarines squadrons for fleet operations 4) attack enemy shipping when possible.
Big differences
American subs were sent to sink shipping over scouting
Japanese subs sent to scout over sinking unless a suitable target came by
Let oilers and supply ships pass looking for the BBs and CVs that weren’t their missing their chance to cripple the Americans by sinking their supplies
Has anyone made a video detailing the logistics of readying a plane to dive/fly after being strapped to a submarine? I’m kinda surprised a plane could be usable after being submerged…..
Before Skydiver and Gerry Anderson, the Japanese were building Submersible Aircraft Carriers!
I think it's "Say-ran".
Yep, Drach got it on the first attempt. The second attempt, had been correct, would be spelled "Sairan".
I-1: I assume the IJN was hoping to declare this when they won the war?
Is it only one high quality target for all these submarines?
I mean Panama channel?
That was the original plan for them, yes.
I still believe it was a huge Injustice that we did not invest more into the idea of a "submarine carrier" whether it be a submarine that launches aircraft or a submarine that launches super fast underwater submarines armed with torpedoes... I think either option would be a great boon to any Navy.
I can't imagine using a submarine as a command vessel. Modern(ish) 688s are extremely cramped, and they're roughly twice the displacement of this.
In a case like this, you just gotta ask.What were they thinking!
For a country that had the industrial revolution forced upon them, they caught up real fast.
I can't leave home without my Drachinifel
Nobody can´t accuse the japanese for not thinking big.
I have pondered if Japan had instead of focusing these for attack planes, they used the smuggled V-1 technology from Germany to turn these subs into cruise missile launchers.
I saw a drawing of a V2 submarine launcher in a book years ago.
✌️🍀
@@KARLMARX56 I saw a drawing of a submersible towed V2 launcher once. Had not seen one for a submarine itself, but that sounds very interesting.
@@downix
Yes, that's the one
It seems almost a shame that the Japanese managed to build such impressively massive submarines, but never managed to do much of anything with them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is I-13 the largest submarine lost in WWII?
That would be surcouf, the French submarine with a floatplane and dual 8 inch guns built during the interwar years.
@@thatkancolleguy Surcouf was 361 feet in length and 3,250 tons displacement surfaced. The I-13s were 372 feet in length and 3,603 tons displacement surfaced.
Super Subs !🐿
These aircraft-carrying submarines weren't the SALVATION the IJN was looking for.
They are not a bad idea though. They are just using the wrong technology.
Germany has learned that Wunderwaffe can't win the war for them.
World of Warships will come out with these at some point.
@@WALTERBROADDUS It may have been a good idea in the twenties or thirties. With the widespread availabilty of landbased long range patrol aircraft and escort carries they were much to vulnerable.
⚓
It’s so weird how Japan entered the war having one of the best submarine fleets in the world, may be even superior to German one, but it has totally failed in terms of impact on the war effort due to poor doctrine and planing.
Germans had a relatively small submarine fleet at the start of the war. They, however produced a huge number during the war, while Japan produced only a modest number.
Everytime Drachinifel posts a sub video I make bratwursts and watch Das Boot (Auf Deutche, naturlich).
IJN Yubari!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seiran is pronounced 'luxury-yacht' I'm kidding. I have no idea.
#MakeJapanImperialAgain
75th, 27 July 2024
Seiran is pronounced "say-ron"
Japanese battleship admirals misused their subs
The IJN in general had no idea what to do with their subs. Also, every single WWII navy was plagued by battleship admirals.
Germany: We will win the war with super- weapons.
Japan: We will win the war with quirky innovative weapons.
Allies: So, how many generic, work-a- day weapons can the U.S. produce?
It ruins the joke but I'm not sure it's entirely fair since the US was starting to deploy unmanned aircraft ahead of its time and built the nuclear super weapons.
They were big fans of all three approaches.
@MediumRareOpinions The U.S. was open to all options. But plan A was swarm them under. The nukes being ready avoided the need to invade Japan, but the allies were prepared to if they had to.
:)
2nd
0:32 Is "histriography" the British way of spelling "historiography"?
An FYI on Japanese pronunciation. There are only 5 vowel sounds in Japanese: a - ah; i - ee; u - as in 'to'; e - eh; o - oh, in that order. They are pure vowels, whose sound never changes (unlike the chaos of English vowels) and diphthongs do not exist. Each vowel is pronounced with its given value. Thus Aichi = ah-ee-chee and the Seiran (Mountain Haze) = seh-ee-rahn,, said quickly sounds like 'say-rahn;. The other foldable floatplane carried on a number of subs was the smaller Yokosuka E14Y1, used on subs イ 7 to イ 11 and イ 15 to イ 35. The イ is the Japanese 'i' in katakana, as seen at 2:54, but is almost always given its English equivalent, as does the inestimable Drach. The E14Y, given the Allied code name Glen, is famous for being the only enemy aircraft to drop bombs on the US mainland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_E14Y
1st!
Oh hai, drunk sub waifu and her sober unlucky older sister.
Based KC enjoyer
Always happy to see more KC ship guides. :)
" Sar-Ann " 😉 I dont believe there were huge American logistics to attack by Japanese submarines like the far stretched Japanese Pacific forces bases needed. Many were so large they no doubt could have been easily detected under and above water by American aircraft even if they wanted to imo.
What did you smoke
The fleet was supplied by ships
Actually, there would be a lot of traffic from the US to Australia, to US island bases, to Hawaii, to the Persian Corridor that supplied the Soviet Union (one of several sources of supply), and to India where supplies would be transported to China to support the Chinese army and the US forces that fought alongside them.
Staggering amounts of traffic, in fact.
Every US soldier and sailor and airman in the Pacific or Indian Ocean theater needed food to eat. Mail was also important. So were spare parts and ammunition and chemicals like fuel and lubricants. I highly recommend *Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton* by Martin van Creveld to understand why the supply levels required for WW2 exceeded that of every previous war. Most of these goods were carried by ship.
It wasn't just US logistics. There was also a lot of British Commonwealth traffic from Australia and New Zealand to support the campaign in Africa, and in British Malaya, and the Middle East, plus the normal trade to/from Australia and New Zealand. A lot of troops from Australia and New Zealand would end up fighting far from their homes, as an important component of the British effort. These troops needed the same things US troops needed, which had to be supplied long distance via shipping.
For people or goods going to destinations on the Indian Ocean, they often chose to route ships via the Pacific instead of going around Africa because it avoided the terrible weather of the Cape of Good Hope, and it also avoided most of the U-Boat threat. Both the Germans and Japanese would operate raiders in the Indian Ocean, but not that many and not that often. The Pacific route required a longer journey but the journey was less dangerous. The Pacific route was vulnerable to attack by long range Japanese subs (and surface raiders) - but the Japanese never really took advantage of that.
It's easy to forget how vast the oceans are. The effective range of WW2 active sonar was 1-2 miles, so it wasn't all that easy to detect even a large sub underwater, especially during the early years of the war when equipment and training and tactics were all fairly primitive. Relatively few aircraft had radar in 1942, and none would be able to deploy sono-buoys until much later in the war. It really wouldn't be until 1943 that ASW operations by the Allies really became effective (and even in 1943, there were periods where German U-Boats were quite effective).
So a commerce raiding strategy by the Japanese would likely have been very effective if carried out properly during 1942, and even in 1943 would have put considerable stress on the numbers of available escorts and ASW aircraft, quite possibly adding another year to the war.
The imperial navy 🇯🇵 🇯🇵 🇯🇵 🫡
...got destroyed. 😂👍
@@douglasharley2440The only reason why America even exists right now is because the Japanese let you. Operation PX.