soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In article ,
> Bill Shatzer wrote:

>>Nautilus, after all, was unable to get a hit
>>at essentially point blank range on Kaga which was then almost dead in
>>the water.

> Didn't Nautilus get a hit on (already burning and dead in the water)
> Kaga, but it was a dud?

Well, perhaps I should have said "no effective hit".

The Nautilus claimed and was credited with a torpedo hit at the time but
none of the post-war interviews of Japanese survivors disclosed any
record of a torpedo hit.

There is some speculation that at least one of Nautilus's torpedoes hit
but failed to explode. However, it seems equally likely that the
torpedoes missed altogether or that the torpedoes were on course but
missed by passing completely under the carrier. US torpedoes had a
problem with depth control as well as problems with the exploders at
that stage of the war.

It's unlikely that the question will ever be satisfactorily resolved at
this late date. Still, the Nautilus fired three torpedoes at a
dead-in-the-water Kaga and inflicted zero additional damage on the carrier.

> Also, didn't Nautilus make an earlier attack (no hits) that indirectly
> helped VB-6 and VS-6 find the IJN fleet?

The earlier attack by Nautilus with similar nil results only adds
additional evidence to my supposition that US submarines might not have
accomplished all that much. And Brockman was apparently one of the more
aggressive of the early war submarine skippers.

Cheers,