Mother Nature Takes a Hand in World War 2

[oldpop2000]

There are times when Mother Nature takes a hand in wars. Here three examples that might be interesting.

On December 7th, 1944 ( Apropos considering what happened three years earlier at Pearl Harbor) an estimated 8.1 magnitude earthquake occurred on the Tonankai Trough. This earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami had a great effect on the Tokai District of Nagoya. This city was a large center for aircraft production with the Mitsubishi plant suffering greatly as its foundation was on reclaimed land and liquefaction had its effect. The quake jolted the factory and large cracks appeared in the floor and strains. All of the assembly jigs which are aligned carefully were thrown out of alignment and many of the important shops were destroyed. The production of Aichi and Mitsubishi aircraft were down for over a month. Six days later, B-29's from the Marianna's almost totally destroyed the Mitsubishi Engine Works in Nagoya and the aircraft works in Ohe-machi, Nagoya. According to Japanese sources, those factories never regained full production from the earthquake and bombings.

Mother Nature took a hand other times. Vesuvius erupted in March 1944, destroying and damaging far more aircraft of the Allies than the Germans. The 340th Bombardment Group of B-25's lost about 78-88 aircraft but all the aircraft were covered with hot ash. This is bad because of the fabric covered ailerons, it cracked Plexiglas, along with glazing and melting of the aluminum panels.

During the Japanese occupation of Rabaul on the Northern Coast of New Britain, the airfields in the area were always under the clouds of ash from the local volcanoes.

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature

[cv10]

Oct 5, 2017 10:05:35 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

There are times when Mother Nature takes a hand in wars. Here three examples that might be interesting.


It's not nice to fool Mother Nature

Let's not forget Typhoon Cobra. 3 American destroyers and just under 800 lives lost. Plus other ships were damaged, and many aircraft had to be written off due to storm damage. Gerald Ford was an lieutenant aboard the USS Monterey and he was almost thrown overboard after the ship rolled heavily. Admiral Nimitz claimed that it "represented a more crippling blow to the Third Fleet than it might be expected to suffer in anything less than a major action"

Japan had a similar occurrence before the war. 

[oldpop2000]

Oct 6, 2017 3:16:48 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Oct 5, 2017 10:05:35 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

There are times when Mother Nature takes a hand in wars. Here three examples that might be interesting.


It's not nice to fool Mother Nature

Let's not forget Typhoon Cobra. 3 American destroyers and just under 800 lives lost. Plus other ships were damaged, and many aircraft had to be written off due to storm damage. Gerald Ford was an lieutenant aboard the USS Monterey and he was almost thrown overboard after the ship rolled heavily. Admiral Nimitz claimed that it "represented a more crippling blow to the Third Fleet than it might be expected to suffer in anything less than a major action"

Japan had a similar occurrence before the war. 

Absolutely, my father-in-law was on a transport and went through that typhoon. He said one minute there was a destroyer sailing next to them, and one minute is was gone.

[steel selachian]

Oct 6, 2017 3:16:48 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Oct 5, 2017 10:05:35 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

There are times when Mother Nature takes a hand in wars. Here three examples that might be interesting.


It's not nice to fool Mother Nature

Let's not forget Typhoon Cobra. 3 American destroyers and just under 800 lives lost. Plus other ships were damaged, and many aircraft had to be written off due to storm damage. Gerald Ford was an lieutenant aboard the USS Monterey and he was almost thrown overboard after the ship rolled heavily. Admiral Nimitz claimed that it "represented a more crippling blow to the Third Fleet than it might be expected to suffer in anything less than a major action"

Japan had a similar occurrence before the war. 

The "Fourth Fleet Incident" of 1935 involved the IJN's Fourth Fleet getting caught in a typhoon while on maneuvers; while no ships were lost 54 crewmen were lost overboard and several light carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and other vessels suffered severe structural damage. The subsequent inquiry by the Japanese pinpointed design flaws in their ships; designs like the Fubuki-class DDs and Mogami-class cruisers were top-heavy with high superstructures and deck armament.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 7, 2017 20:24:03 GMT -6 steel selachian said:

Oct 6, 2017 3:16:48 GMT -6 cv10 said:

Let's not forget Typhoon Cobra. 3 American destroyers and just under 800 lives lost. Plus other ships were damaged, and many aircraft had to be written off due to storm damage. Gerald Ford was an lieutenant aboard the USS Monterey and he was almost thrown overboard after the ship rolled heavily. Admiral Nimitz claimed that it "represented a more crippling blow to the Third Fleet than it might be expected to suffer in anything less than a major action"

Japan had a similar occurrence before the war. 

The "Fourth Fleet Incident" of 1935 involved the IJN's Fourth Fleet getting caught in a typhoon while on maneuvers; while no ships were lost 54 crewmen were lost overboard and several light carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and other vessels suffered severe structural damage. The subsequent inquiry by the Japanese pinpointed design flaws in their ships; designs like the Fubuki-class DDs and Mogami-class cruisers were top-heavy with high superstructures and deck armament.

The September 1935 incident was an annual grand maneuver of fifty-eight warships in the Northwest Pacific between Honshu and the Kurile Islands. The fleet sailed right into 79 knot winds. The bridges of the Hosho and Ryujo were smashed and the amidships joints of Myoko and Mogami were damaged. The inquiry was as you said, the ships were top heavy and the longitudinal strength of the ships was weak in the Fubuki class destroyers.

This maybe one of the few times that Mother Nature helped the military, by showing them their design defects in their ships. It could have been worse had they been loaded for combat with extra weight, etc.

[oldpop2000]

Now, if you want to hear of a really bad way Mother Nature intervened, think about this. The second Atomic bomb was set to be dropped on Kokura. Unfortunately for Nagasaki, the planes were a half hour late and the city was covered by clouds and smoke. The bombers made three runs and no dice. So, with fuel low, they headed to the second target. Nagasaki was covered by clouds, but they found a small hole and, well the rest is history. It probably did save lives since the new aiming point was 2 miles from the original and that reduced casualties. So Kokura was saved but Nagasaki took the brunt of it.

[cv10]

A book I read said that one of the several reasons that the US destroyers were lost was that they did not have time to fully refuel, and as a result lacked enough ballast to be as stable as they ought to have been. The book also stated that a fair number of destroyers (but particularly the pre-war designs) were considered top-heavy due to having radar, new fire control systems, and other things tacked on to the superstructure after they were built. The USS Spence was a Fletcher-Class and the only one lost that was a wartime design: I can't remember the extent to which she was considered "top-heavy" (or if the author ascribed her as such) but she seems to have had a particular run of bad luck: her electrical systems went out and her pumps stopped working right before her rudder jammed.

Can anyone verify what this author said? I don't know enough about it myself to judge.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 7, 2017 22:17:39 GMT -6 cv10 said:

A book I read said that one of the several reasons that the US destroyers were lost was that they did not have time to fully refuel, and as a result lacked enough ballast to be as stable as they ought to have been. The book also stated that a fair number of destroyers (but particularly the pre-war designs) were considered top-heavy due to having radar, new fire control systems, and other things tacked on to the superstructure after they were built. The USS Spence was a Fletcher-Class and the only one lost that was a wartime design: I can't remember the extent to which she was considered "top-heavy" (or if the author ascribed her as such) but she seems to have had a particular run of bad luck: her electrical systems went out and her pumps stopped working right before her rudder jammed.

Can anyone verify what this author said? I don't know enough about it myself to judge.

In U.S. Destroyers by Norman Friedman, Page 133 the author states that by 1946 all large destroyers were marginal in their capacity for additional top weight and a decade later matters were considerably worse. Apparently the Gearings and Sumner class destroyers did not increase the hull volume to compensate for heavier batteries, and more personnel.

I haven't gone through the whole book, but this would seem to confirm your authors statements about the destroyers.  

[vonfriedman]

On March 1942, while returning from the 2nd Battle of Sirte, two italian DDs, Lanciere and Scirocco, were lost in a severe storm, also because of their state of wear, caused mainly by the war service.

[steel selachian]

Oct 7, 2017 22:05:43 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Oct 7, 2017 20:24:03 GMT -6 steel selachian said:

The "Fourth Fleet Incident" of 1935 involved the IJN's Fourth Fleet getting caught in a typhoon while on maneuvers; while no ships were lost 54 crewmen were lost overboard and several light carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and other vessels suffered severe structural damage. The subsequent inquiry by the Japanese pinpointed design flaws in their ships; designs like the Fubuki-class DDs and Mogami-class cruisers were top-heavy with high superstructures and deck armament.

The September 1935 incident was an annual grand maneuver of fifty-eight warships in the Northwest Pacific between Honshu and the Kurile Islands. The fleet sailed right into 79 knot winds. The bridges of the Hosho and Ryujo were smashed and the amidships joints of Myoko and Mogami were damaged. The inquiry was as you said, the ships were top heavy and the longitudinal strength of the ships was weak in the Fubuki class destroyers.

This maybe one of the few times that Mother Nature helped the military, by showing them their design defects in their ships. It could have been worse had they been loaded for combat with extra weight, etc.

I'm not sure I've read much about what measures the IJN took to address those concerns besides additional structural bracing, hull bulges, and abandoning electric welding on future ship classes. There are some notes that they tried to reduce topweight, but given the large bridge structures on a number of IJN ships and their focus on heavy gun and torpedo armament, I doubt they were able to do much there. Given some of the losses they took during the war it appears some of those design flaws were still there.

As for the US losses in Typhoon Cobra, by that point in the war most of the prewar DD and CA/CL designs had additional antiaircraft and radar systems fitted, and some of those classes were top-heavy to begin with. 

[oldpop2000]

Oct 8, 2017 12:42:58 GMT -6 steel selachian said:

Oct 7, 2017 22:05:43 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

The September 1935 incident was an annual grand maneuver of fifty-eight warships in the Northwest Pacific between Honshu and the Kurile Islands. The fleet sailed right into 79 knot winds. The bridges of the Hosho and Ryujo were smashed and the amidships joints of Myoko and Mogami were damaged. The inquiry was as you said, the ships were top heavy and the longitudinal strength of the ships was weak in the Fubuki class destroyers.

This maybe one of the few times that Mother Nature helped the military, by showing them their design defects in their ships. It could have been worse had they been loaded for combat with extra weight, etc.

I'm not sure I've read much about what measures the IJN took to address those concerns besides additional structural bracing, hull bulges, and abandoning electric welding on future ship classes. There are some notes that they tried to reduce topweight, but given the large bridge structures on a number of IJN ships and their focus on heavy gun and torpedo armament, I doubt they were able to do much there. Given some of the losses they took during the war it appears some of those design flaws were still there.

As for the US losses in Typhoon Cobra, by that point in the war most of the prewar DD and CA/CL designs had additional antiaircraft and radar systems fitted, and some of those classes were top-heavy to begin with. 

The Japanese strategic naval doctrine for war with the US, interceptive operations, dictated that their ships have good speed and heavy armament, but since originally the decisive battle was to be held near the Bonin's, range wasn't prioritized. By the time of Pearl Harbor, that whole strategic plan was no longer viable. So, now they had to suffer with light structures, heavy tops and had to increase the fuel capacity. These factors caused them many problems but the heavy fire power was a distinct advantage in the early Solomon's battles.