USS Indianapolis found!

[sherpa]

 

More likely Hamburg. Either was considered...but Hamburg had a distinctive coastline that showed up well on radar for bombing in poor conditions (which, in Northern Europe, was the rule). Berlin was a much, much tougher blind target.

 

But considering that there was no plane in the ETO that could deliver either bomb, and all the B-29 production was headed to Indo-China more than a year before the bomb was ready, it's probably safe to say that neither was ever seriously planned for,

 

Not to quibble, but given the nature of the weapons, I doubt any radar delivery would have been acceptable or approved, and Berlin summers are not too bad.

In addition, Germany was already occupied by Allied forces.

The real goal of these weapons was to prevent the massive casualties resulting in a Japanese mainland invasion.

Edited August 20, 2017 by sherpa

[Nanker]

First torpedo blew off her bow.

Second one slammed her amidships and all power was lost - but the engines were still running.

They couldn't control her or even slow her down, so she just plowed forward without a bow with the sea filling her compartments full force because there was no time to close the water-tight hatches.

[The Poojer]

i really know nothing about this, but i did hear a war buff talking yesterday who said it was a perfectly moonlit night and they even brought in the japanese commander of the sub to the court martial hearing, and i thought i heard him say the commander said zig zagging on that clear of a night would have been completely useless.

 

 

 

It would have helped in that I-58 intercepted her by sheer dumb luck - he surfaced and found Indianapolis in perfect position for an attack. Had Indianapolis been zig-zagging, at the very least she would have been elsewhere when I-58 surfaced.

 

If it would have helped tactically, during the attack...maybe. Plenty of torpedo attacks (sub and surface) in all navies were thrown off by last-minute zigs. But the attack in this case was practically a snapshot - 15-20 minutes from first sighting to firing, and I-58 had a good track on Indianapolis all that time - that it may not have made a difference.

 

Zig-zagging in poor visibility was at the commander's discretion at that time and place, btw. On an overcast night like when Indianapolis was sunk, it wasn't required.

 

It should also be noted that Indianapolis was a pre-war treaty cruiser (build under the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty). As such...well, it basically sucked. Indianapolis wasn't the worst of the bunch, but she was still poorly protected with a high center of gravity (even before the war, but made worse by the enhanced radar and AA fitted to all ships over the course of the war). She was far from being the first US cruiser to have her bow blown completely off by Japanese torpedoes.

[DC Tom]

i really know nothing about this, but i did hear a war buff talking yesterday who said it was a perfectly moonlit night and they even brought in the japanese commander of the sub to the court martial hearing, and i thought i heard him say the commander said zig zagging on that clear of a night would have been completely useless.

 

 

 

Morrison says differently, and he used the official findings and an interview with the Japanese captain. The Indianapolis did manage to somehow get caught in the moonlight under a clear patch of sky when first sighted, though.

 

And zig-zagging was never useless - even regular course changes could throw off tracking data, not to mention complicating pursuit (a sub on the surface was not much faster than a ship at economical cruise speed...submerged, as most were late in the war to avoid radar - forget it.)

[DC Tom]

First torpedo blew off her bow.

Second one slammed her amidships and all power was lost - but the engines were still running.

They couldn't control her or even slow her down, so she just plowed forward without a bow with the sea filling her compartments full force because there was no time to close the water-tight hatches.

 

Electrical power was lost, probably from shock. The boilers and engines kept going.

 

And while the location of the second hit is debated (the first one is pretty conclusive - had her bow torn off. Not uncommon for that class of cruisers), the fact that her engines kept running is a pretty big clue it was at or forward of B turret and not amidships. An amidships hit would have taken out at least an engine and two boilers.

 

You can actually find old battle damage reports online. History.nav.mil has some, as does navsource.com. Never saw one for the Indianapolis, but if you look at some of the charts for other cruisers hit by Japanese torpedoes (e.g. the USS New Orleans, which had 100 feet of her bow blown completely off), you get an idea of how ridiculously powerful Japanese torpedoes were. Japanese doctrine planned for them to be used as long-range weapons to complement gunfire from the battle line, so they were large, heavy, and fast (24", 50kt at 22k yards, compared to 21" and some 35kt at 6k yards for the US - destroyer torpedoes. but the difference in submarine torpedoes was about the same.)

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Morrison says differently, and he used the official findings and an interview with the Japanese captain. The Indianapolis did manage to somehow get caught in the moonlight under a clear patch of sky when first sighted, though.

 

And zig-zagging was never useless - even regular course changes could throw off tracking data, not to mention complicating pursuit (a sub on the surface was not much faster than a ship at economical cruise speed...submerged, as most were late in the war to avoid radar - forget it.)

Maybe I am not following along... But I will throw it out there. Who is Morrison? The only Naval Morrison I've heard of... Was... Would that be THEE Jim Morrison's father?

 

LoL... Just tell me I am an idiot now and get it over with! :-)

 

Morrison says differently, and he used the official findings and an interview with the Japanese captain. The Indianapolis did manage to somehow get caught in the moonlight under a clear patch of sky when first sighted, though.

 

And zig-zagging was never useless - even regular course changes could throw off tracking data, not to mention complicating pursuit (a sub on the surface was not much faster than a ship at economical cruise speed...submerged, as most were late in the war to avoid radar - forget it.)

Maybe I am not following along... But I will throw it out there. Who is Morrison? The only Naval Morrison I've heard of... Was... Would that be THEE Jim Morrison's father?

 

LoL... Just tell me I am an idiot now and get it over with! :-)

[DC Tom]

Maybe I am not following along... But I will throw it out there. Who is Morrison? The only Naval Morrison I've heard of... Was... Would that be THEE Jim Morrison's father?

 

LoL... Just tell me I am an idiot now and get it over with! :-)

 

Maybe I am not following along... But I will throw it out there. Who is Morrison? The only Naval Morrison I've heard of... Was... Would that be THEE Jim Morrison's father?

 

LoL... Just tell me I am an idiot now and get it over with! :-)

 

Samuel Elliot Morrison, official naval historian who wrote the 20-volume history of the US Navy in World War 2. Most sources reference his description of the sinking - I do have one or two other independent sources, but couldn't find them last night.