Timeline for answer to On 1941 Dec 7, could Japan have targeted the Panama Canal instead of Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack? by Schwern
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 20:36 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix the list of Japanese carriers. Emphasize the effects of Japan not having fleet carriers.
|
| Jan 3, 2024 at 19:33 | comment | added | Schwern | @DJClayworth My numerous acknowlegments of your descriptive linguistic assistance. I will correct the offending passage forthwith. | |
| Jan 3, 2024 at 19:30 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo
|
| Dec 22, 2017 at 15:31 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | In re-reading, an additional point comes to mind. The U.S. had good information on when the fleet carriers arrived in and departed port in Japan. Disappearing completely for a period > 3 or 4 weeks really narrows the possible targets, because very little of strategic importance is that far from Japan. | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 22:44 | comment | added | user18963 | Note also that the route taken was specifically chosen to take advantage of the fog at those latitudes at that time of year. The much more southerly route to Panama would not have given them that additional cover. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 21:20 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | A minor quibble - I believe that the tankers would have to be sent out in advance, due to their extremely slow speed relative to the battle fleet. Also, as drag varies as the square of the speed, I believe that at least one if not two additional refuelings would be needed on the return journey in order to maintain a suitable speed. Getting back promptly would be essential. | |
| Mar 28, 2017 at 18:49 | comment | added | Bruce James | @Schwern - No, I was thinking of the I-351 class submarine. | |
| Mar 28, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | Schwern | @BruceJames You're referring to the I-400. That wasn't a seaplane tender, the Japanese used conventional submarines for that, it was a full submarine aircraft carrier. As for a submarine attack on the canal, they probably did consider it, and considered it ineffectual suicide. The canal zone was well guarded against submarine attack. Any conventional submarine trying to enter the canal would be spotted immediately in the shallow, narrow waters. | |
| Mar 28, 2017 at 18:12 | comment | added | Bruce James | One would think that the planners of the Pearl Harbor attacked would have also considered a covert submarine mission to the Panama Canal. To do that the IJN would have had to have an early requirement for a submarine tanker and cargo ship. Such a submarine was planned and built in 1942 and 1943, but it was to be used to support long-range sea planes. Two were built and production was stopped because Japanese sea control had shrunk significantly after the Battle of Midway, and the need to refuel sea planes at distant locations had ceased. | |
| S Nov 7, 2016 at 17:17 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Just a couple of typos
|
| Nov 7, 2016 at 17:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 7, 2016 at 17:17 | |||||
| Nov 6, 2016 at 22:33 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Switch to ibiblio.org. history.army.mil blocks a lot of countries.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 22:23 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Separate primary and secondary sources. Add more about spillway gates.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 22:17 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Separate primary and secondary sources
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 21:47 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added another source.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 19:11 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Note the Hwacheon Dam attack
|
| S Nov 6, 2016 at 17:53 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Nov 6, 2016 at 17:53 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 14:17 | vote | accept | DrZ214 | ||
| Nov 6, 2016 at 6:57 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add a section about the Gatun Dam.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add a section about the Gatun Dam.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 5:09 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add the great circle distance of the central pacific route.
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:55 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 113 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:34 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 420 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:28 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:22 | history | answered | Schwern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |