Japanese Bomb Oregon Coast Sept 9th 1942

Nice little article about Nobuo Fujita, the only man to bomb the US mainland during WWII.
70 years ago

Was it Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who said, "Don't ever try to invade the U.S. Mainland. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

He was very well aware of our Second Amendment.

Oh boy. If this is what they are talking about.I am not sure the true story is known today. These were balloons that were carried by the prevailing winds. Their results were kept so secret that the Japanese did not know they were working and they quit. Most started fire in the North West. Yes! one burned down the snow white grocery store (some where about tenth and tenth) in Greeley Colorado. Greeley daily tribune reported fire but not its true cause.
KennyP who read the Tribune every day and remembers it well.

Indeed, it was.

Dean

The float plane was launched from a submarine, sometimes called a submarine aircraft carrier.

Interesting historical footnote, UD.

Dean

No the story that UD posted is connected to the Japanese building water tight hangers on the deck of subs and being able to launch and recover Zeros fitted with floats. The sub would surface after dark, launch the Zero, submerge until the Zero was supposed to return and recover the Zero and pilot. Wasn't very successful for several reasons. It took a little time to launch and recover but also the sub had to run at periscope depth with an antenna deployed to transmit a homing becon. Made em pretty easy to detect.

Rick

Ken,
Of all the warring nations Japan had the largest fleet of subs that carried aircraft during the war. We never built any and Germany built a couple iirc. Japan had over 30 subs that could carry at least one plane and one class, the giant I-400 could carry 3 though the war was pretty much over before the 3 I-400s that were built ever put to sea.
The baloon bombs were a whole nother deal but yes they were used extensively by the Japanese and their use was highly censored during the war.
Very little damage was done by them though a few people were killed.
Real good article about baloon bombs here.

Not sure about the credibility of the threat to our coast, but dad was drafted into the National Guard in 1941, and before he was deployed overseas, helped build several gun emplacements on the Pacific coast at what is now Ocean Shores, Washington (west of Aberdeen, WA). Remnants of them could still be found in the sand dunes when we camped there in the 1960's. I don't believe they were ever used, but they were manned for several months, at least.

(quoted from post at 08:54:19 09/10/12) Not sure about the credibility of the threat to our coast, but dad was drafted into the National Guard in 1941, and before he was deployed overseas, helped build several gun emplacements on the Pacific coast at what is now Ocean Shores, Washington (west of Aberdeen, WA). Remnants of them could still be found in the sand dunes when we camped there in the 1960's. I don't believe they were ever used, but they were manned for several months, at least.

Click to expand...

I played on the coastal gun emplacements at Sandy Hook NJ when I was a kid. Really dumb idea. Fixed guns that have to be left behind should you be forced to retreat.

Rick

Thanks Dog. I did mot know that it was that well documented. I thought that only a few old timers like me remembered.
Ken

That's why you don't retreat.

I can't say I agree entirely Rick.
In their day a coastal gun emplacement was an effective means of controling harbor areas and natural landing sites.
In an area where a defending force could be deployed in depth and a flanking movement by a landing force was not easily made they were pretty effective in preventing a landing.
The big guns of Hitler's channel wall caused the Allied landing forces a lot of headaches on D Day.
Consider one of the more famous ones at Pont Du Hoc in Normandy. As the pictures show it took a huge amount of aeral bombing and naval gunfire to knock it out of action.
Also, they could not be turned upon the defenders like mobile gun emplacements sometimes were. And, it was not hard to destroy the breech of a gun to render them useless to the attackers.
Now in a situation like the Brits at so called "Fortress Singapore" they did not have the ability to deploy in depth so the Japanese simply rolled the Brit forces up from behind and conquered that place in pretty short order without the big coastal guns ever firing a shot.

(quoted from post at 11:14:26 09/10/12) That's why you don't retreat.

Click to expand...

Look where that got that guy with the funny mustache and his no retreat orders. Retreat not rout is a military tactic to conserve forces. Today that have fancy names for it.....retrograde movement.....withdrawl.....and others. The US military would most often trade terrain for time if needed.

I think it was Patton who said "fixed fortification are a monument to mans stupidity".

If those men manning a fixed gun stay and fight to the last man you not only have to replace a gun....but the crew too. The gun is the easy part....training a crew takes some time.

Rick

(quoted from post at 11:53:55 09/10/12) I can't say I agree entirely Rick.
In their day a coastal gun emplacement was an effective means of controling harbor areas and natural landing sites.
In an area where a defending force could be deployed in depth and a flanking movement by a landing force was not easily made they were pretty effective in preventing a landing.
The big guns of Hitler's channel wall caused the Allied landing forces a lot of headaches on D Day.
Consider one of the more famous ones at Pont Du Hoc in Normandy. As the pictures show it took a huge amount of aeral bombing and naval gunfire to knock it out of action.
Also, they could not be turned upon the defenders like mobile gun emplacements sometimes were. And, it was not hard to destroy the breech of a gun to render them useless to the attackers.
Now in a situation like the Brits at so called "Fortress Singapore" they did not have the ability to deploy in depth so the Japanese simply rolled the Brit forces up from behind and conquered that place in pretty short order without the big coastal guns ever firing a shot.

<img src="http://www.normandybattlefields.com/mapphotos/27-pointe_du_hoc.jpg">

Click to expand...

Ah but those guns were not effective enough to stop the allied forces on D Day. They only slowed em down for a few hours. Then those guns were lost forever to the German forces. Any time someone build a fixed fortification someone will figure out how to defeat it, be it by siege or knocking it out.

Rick

As long as the city and/or harbor aren't going anywhere neither should the fortifications.

Patton didn't seem to think the fortified City of Metz was so stupid. His Third Army only spent 3 months using an entire Corps trying to take a city held by a single under strengthed under supplied division.

(quoted from post at 14:37:12 09/10/12) As long as the city and/or harbor aren't going anywhere neither should the fortifications.

Patton didn't seem to think the fortified City of Metz was so stupid. His Third Army only spent 3 months using an entire Corps trying to take a city held by a single under strengthed under supplied division.

Click to expand...

You can build earth and log bunkers and place guns in them that can be moved if needed. But the time and effort put into hard fortifications only prove that they can be defeated in a lot less time it took to construct them. Look at the time it took the Germans to build the "Atlantic Wall". And the allies defeated it in less than a day. What a waste of materials and labor not to mention fuel. Look at the number of troops and guns lost never to be replaced. If you are rich in manpower, raw material and manufacturing you can afford to waste them. But Germany had to import almost everything. You don't have to fortify a town. Just force your foe to have to take an it inch at a time by fighting house to house and room to room with a good plan and defence in depth.

Forts have been defeated by starvation, mass assualt and destruction. If man can bore a hole through a mountain, divert a river and build a road over the top of it anything man can build can be defeated too.


Rick

If I recall the fortification was designed to only hold 6 guns that were never even installed. Asking an unarmed gun emplacement to hold off the onslaught of 6 divisions, the combined fire power two battleships, dozens of cruisers and an entire aircorps is a bit much.

Fort Mills on Corregidor Island is possibly a better example. They lasted four and a half months using 30 to 50 year old weapons to defend against a well armed and supplied modern enemy. With an American government that refused to support them in any manner they delayed the Japanese advance through the Pacific by months and possibly saving Australia from invasion.

Perhaps the best example would be "The Rock". Unlike the US in the Philipines the British spent real money to fortify Gibraltar and in 300 years of occupation the closest it has come to falling is from munity within.

That's because the Allies attacked where the wall wasn't. As I stated - if the point you are defending doesn't change fixed defenses work to a degree. With the Maginot Line, Germany simply went around it - it didn't do any good to build a fortified wall and have a hundreds of miles of open door.

(quoted from post at 14:58:39 09/10/12) If I recall the fortification was designed to only hold 6 guns that were never even installed. Asking an unarmed gun emplacement to hold off the onslaught of 6 divisions, the combined fire power two battleships, dozens of cruisers and an entire aircorps is a bit much.

Fort Mills on Corregidor Island is possibly a better example. They lasted four and a half months using 30 to 50 year old weapons to defend against a well armed and supplied modern enemy. With an American government that refused to support them in any manner they delayed the Japanese advance through the Pacific by months and possibly saving Australia from invasion.

Perhaps the best example would be "The Rock". Unlike the US in the Philipines the British spent real money to fortify Gibraltar and in 300 years of occupation the closest it has come to falling is from munity within.

Click to expand...

The Rock didn't fall in WWII because Spain would not allow the Germans access through thier country. Had Spain had confidence in Germany winning the war even Gibraltar would have fallen. Gibraltar has cliffs that would hard to scaled. It could be done. But the cost would be astronomical if your only option is by sea.

Corregador didn't really slow them up much. Air had for the most part destroyed their guns and there was no resupply of ammo. It was only a matter of time. The only reason they took it was honor. The defense of the Bataan peninsula slowed them down more than they expected. As far as the so called refusal to reinforce them.....with what? Where were trained troops ready to fight going to come from? How was the Navy after Pearl supposed to support and protect supply and troop ships? The plain fact is we had no way to do anyting at the time. Japan had total control of the air and seas.

Rick

By this date in 1942 the Japanese had already lost the war. Their navy was crushed in the Battle of Midway and they were being beaten on Guadalcanal. There was still a lot of blood to be spilled, but the outcome wasn't in doubt.

(quoted from post at 15:06:58 09/10/12) That's because the Allies attacked where the wall wasn't. As I stated - if the point you are defending doesn't change fixed defenses work to a degree. With the Maginot Line, Germany simply went around it - it didn't do any good to build a fortified wall and have a hundreds of miles of open door.

Click to expand...

In front of the Patton Museum there was/is an unusual tank. It was designed to break the Seinfeld line. They made 2. Development was stopped because the line was defeated before development was finished. The end around of the Maginot line has nothing to do with the big question, could it be breached? Simple answer, sure. The Germans destroyed it to see if the artillery and munitions they had designed would do the job. It did. Could be fire at long range and would penetrate the concrete before exploding. I have seen pictures of the damage and that little corporal inspecting the damage. The open door was because the guys in charge based the line on what they expected, not waht the enemy was capable of.

Fixed defenses can slow and attacking force down. At times through history the attacking force was defeated trying. But most have fail and have only slowed down and attacking force. The time and effort can be better spent preparing a defense in depth with multiple reinforced fighting positions. It will take 10 guys working hard to build one concrete bunker to house a machine gun plus several days. 10 guys with shovels, saws and sandbags can build a bunker a day.

It boils down to using assets wisely.

Rick

Given a large enough attacking force and the willingness to suffer high casualties you are correct that fixed fortifications will only slow down the attacker. Or in the case of a line of defense like the Maginot Line in France - built with so much boast and treasure - can be outflanked as the Germans did to France in their opening moves through the Ardennes Forest. Patton was obviously right.
Costal fortifications are a bit different though as you can not easily out flank them untill you have landed. And natural landing spots were the ones to recieve fortifications ala Normandy.
Being a tanker Rick you probably like rifles.
Coastal rifles were most of them old used guns that came from the old battleships which were scrapped in accordance with the Washington and London Naval Treaties in 1922 and 1930. The first arms limitations treaties.
All of the major powers reused their old guns as such.
The 5.5" island defense guns - used valiantly and effectively by our Marines at Wake Island and the 7" guns installed in such a haste before the battle of Midway - and fortunately, never used - all came off of pre WWI battleships.
The whole island of Britian was rimmed with used 5,8 and even 12" guns. Japan too.
In the US the Army built and operated our coastal defences. Them Army Guys must have been plumb happy to finally shoot the Big stuff. wink
It's all long gone now though.
Stationary defences and huge rifles both.
I'm sure the Army has the biggest guns these days.
How big are they in inches?
Sorry so long and rambling...
Jerry

He's an Old Tanker.
Them guys don't like remaining motionless.
Mechanized.
Move!