Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sen Toku - The Super-Weapon Which Could Have Brought Down The USA

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Another source for those interested:

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Sen Toku was the most advanced submarine of the war. It was equipped with state of the art technology


It was? What "state of the art" technology was that? Yes, it could carry 3 seaplanes, but what else?


After all, most of the modern submarines are all influenced by the Sen Toku itself.


care to give a example?

I suggest you read Commander R Kissinger, USN, report on the I-400

Or Lcdr R.B. Lakin, RN. "Hopelessly under motored, and with small sized rudders they habitually carry their way with great persistance and are the very devil to stop or turn in a emergency..... while their huge and lopsided hamper make them prey prey to the lightest wind and veritable menaces whan at the mercy of strong winds"
edit on 21-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
This is the future of our aircraft carriers I bet,in huge stealth submarines.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Sen Toku was the most advanced submarine of the war. It was equipped with state of the art technology


It was? What "state of the art" technology was that? Yes, it could carry 3 seaplanes, but what else?


Watch the documentary i provided...

The Sen Toku was coated with a state of the art stealth material (which was invented by the Germans). The Sen Toku was also equipped with other bits of technology. Put it this way. It was the best submarine up until the construction of the USA's nuclear submarines.



After all, most of the modern submarines are all influenced by the Sen Toku itself.


care to give a example?

I suggest you read Commander R Kissinger, USN, report on the I-400

Or Lcdr R.B. Lakin, RN. "Hopelessly under motored, and with small sized rudders they habitually carry their way with great persistance and are the very devil to stop or turn in a emergency..... while their huge and lopsided hamper make them prey prey to the lightest wind and veritable menaces whan at the mercy of strong winds"
edit on 21-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


The United States took the Sen Tokus (I-400 class subs) to Hawaii and studied them. After destroying them, the US created some submarines which were influenced by the Sen Toku (e.g. aircraft carrying subs, and others utilising stealth technologies). Again, watch the documentary i provided for further information.
edit on 21-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Sen Toku was the most advanced submarine of the war. It was equipped with state of the art technology which was somewhat effective against the Western powers (A lot of the technology was proved effective by the Germans). The technology was so great that the USA took the submarines, studied them, gained all the technology and then sunk them. If it wasn't for the Sen Toku, the submarines today wouldn't be as great. After all, most of the modern submarines are all influenced by the Sen Toku itself.


I disagree the Sen Toku were technological dead ends, as no subsequent submarines class was modeled after them. Just because the US confiscated military equipment from a defeated enemy doesn't mean it was worth a damn.


Originally posted by daaskapital
Britain's morale was extremely low during bombing years. They were begging the USA for help (unbeknownst to them, the USA was actually supporting both sides during that time). The USA was actually hit directly by the Japanese, and a lot of people did freak out. If the Japanese advanced with the use of the Sen Toku's (against the USA) then the morale definitely would have been damaged.


But I didn't break them. Britain wanted the US in the war for obvious reasons. We were the most powerful country on Earth. Peopled were panicked but not demoralized, at best the Japanese get more roughly handled by the US than they did.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
I disagree the Sen Toku were technological dead ends, as no subsequent submarines class was modeled after them. Just because the US confiscated military equipment from a defeated enemy doesn't mean it was worth a damn.


What! Are you kidding me? " Just because the US confiscated military equipment from a defeated enemy doesn't mean it was worth a damn."


The Sen Toku was equipped with state of the art stealth technology (something that no one else besides the Germans had back then). If the Sen Toku was just a dead end, why was the USA so eager to destroy them once studying them? I'll tell you why. The Sen Toku was so advanced that the USA did not want Russia analysing it (which they had sent a team to do). The USA took all of it's technology (which was excellent for the time) and destroyed the remainder of the Sen Toku.

Also, a lot of the ideas were taken from the Sen Toku. After it's analysation, the USA came out with kick arse submarines which had stealth technology and were able to launch missiles (in place of planes).

I think what a lot of you are not understanding is that the Sen Toku was both a submarine and a weapons delivery system. If they had launched Biological weapons from the Sen Toku, then all hell would have broken loose. It wasn't just a dead end of a submarine, as it revolutionised the thought of what a sub is.


But I didn't break them. Britain wanted the US in the war for obvious reasons. We were the most powerful country on Earth. Peopled were panicked but not demoralized, at best the Japanese get more roughly handled by the US than they did.


No, the USA was not the most powerful country on Earth during WW2. Every country was basically even with the exceptions of Germany and Japan (which were both superpowers). The USA had every intention to sit the war out while supporting both sides. They only helped Britain when they did because it correlated with their interests at the time.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Sen Toku was equipped with state of the art stealth technology (something that no one else besides the Germans had back then).


Except it did not really work, had a lot of problems and was not used by anyone until the 1970's....


The USA took all of it's technology


Once again, exactly what 'technology" was that? You seem too be avoiding this question....



, the USA came out with kick arse submarines which had stealth technology


The USA did not use a Anechoic tile until the mid 80's.... so again you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


It was better than nothing, and was the basis of pretty much every stealth technology since then.

_________

How have i been avoiding your question? You didn't even bother replying to my first comment to you...

Have you watched the documentary i posted yet? I will break it down into simple words so you will understand.

Ready?

The. USA. acquired. the. Sen. Toku. and. analysed. it.

They. then. studied. and. took. technology. from. the. Sen. Toku. such. as. stealth. materials. and. others.

One. of. the. I-400. class. submarines. was. equipped. with. a snorkel. allowing. it to. run. its. diesel. engines. and. recharge. its. batteries. all. the. while. remaining. at. periscope. depth.

Watch the documentary and learn. The Sen Toku also inspired the USA to create other submarines which were able to launch large missiles...it wasn't only technology that the USA brought back with them.

_________

It would be correct to assume that the USA acquired the early Japanese material (off of the Sen Toku) and improved upon it before launching their subs in the 80's would it not?

_________

You seem to underestimate the potential power that this submarine had...is it your arrogance or your ego?

This submarine was a weapon launching device which could have annihilated US cities. You're just lucky they didn't use Biological weapons.
edit on 22-12-2012 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You are seriously overestimating the destructive capability of that platform.

My military background is in ordinance and I can confidently state that the chemical/biological weapons of that era were not such that any side could destroy a city in that day and age. You also need to take into account that planes of that era had a limited range and any plane launched from the see would be less capable than a land or carrier launched plane.

Your statement that they could destroy cities with that platform is pure hyperbole. There is positively no way they could have annihilated cities.

It would have still been an impressive weapon system but the its effective range would have been coastal cities and probably would have only been effective in the first strike after that the US would have reinforced its coastal and land based defenses that coupled with the radar systems of the era would have made that platform useless.

Edit to add

There most effective biological agents of that time was a strains of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases none of which could wipe out cities. They did launch biological weapons at the US utilizing weather balloons however none hit the US several were shot down by US fighter planes though.


edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You are seriously overestimating the destructive capability of that platform.


Perhaps.


My military background is in ordinance and I can confidently state that the chemical/biological weapons of that era were not such that any side could destroy a city in that day and age. You also need to take into account that planes of that era had a limited range and any plane launched from the see would be less capable than a land or carrier launched plane.


Are you serious?


Here is a list of agents which Japan was using and could has used against the USA:

Anthrax:

en.wikipedia.org...

Tularemia

en.wikipedia.org...

Bubonic Plague:

en.wikipedia.org...

Other diseases/agents being tested by the Japanese during WW2 were:

Cholera:

en.wikipedia.org...

Syphilis:

en.wikipedia.org...

Gonorrhea:

en.wikipedia.org...

Are you telling me that these agents aren't deadly and didn't have the potential to destroy a city?



Your statement that they could destroy cities with that platform is pure hyperbole. There is positively no way they could have annihilated cities.


See above.


It would have still been an impressive weapon system but the its effective range would have been coastal cities and probably would have only been effective in the first strike after that the US would have reinforced its coastal and land based defenses that coupled with the radar systems of the era would have made that platform useless.


Coastal cities were the original targets of the Sen Toku.

Edit: Oh, i see you edited your post


The agents/diseases had the potential to destroy US cities (population wise). The bombs would have been dropped by the planes flying from the Sen Toku, so it definitely would have been more effective than their ealier methods...
edit on 22-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Are you telling me that these agents aren't deadly and didn't have the potential to destroy a city?

With unrestricted access to the populace, over a period of years, Japan managed to kill only 200,000 Chinese with bioweapons. Japan would not have unrestricted access to the American mainland, it would not have years in which to carry out a biological campaign, and US public health was vastly superior to that of China at the time. A handful of flea bombs would not have destroyed cities, or "brought down the USA."



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Let me get this straight you are trying to tell me a specialist in ordinance and explosives that includes chemical biological weapons that your wiki knowledge is greater than mine.
That’s pretty funny.

You must have missed where I just listed those biological agents as well. Here is some more info for you.
In that era biological agents required special handling and many of the cultures used did not store or keep well. If they had tried to transport biological agents like those in a submarine the chances would have been greater that it would have infected the crew more than their ability to deliver those agents to the target. Those agents were all easily containable had they managed to use them on any city so the answer is no they would not have been any great threat to the US.

They had 0 chance of destroying cities. Let me repeat that they had 0 chance of destroying cities.

At best they could have caused an outbreak which would have been easily contained with quarantine. They were not super viruses.

Ammunition and explosives along with chemical/biological agents was my specialty in the military I will trust my knowledge over your limited understanding on this matter.

The bubonic plague would have been easily dealt with and anthrax strains at that time were not a great threat they could also be treated with atropene. Anthrax is not easily communicable the rest of the viruses they had were no great threat.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Let me get this straight you are trying to tell me a specialist in ordinance and explosives that includes chemical biological weapons that your wiki knowledge is greater than mine.
That’s pretty funny.


Yes



You must have missed where I just listed those biological agents as well.


No.


Here is some more info for you.

In that era biological agents required special handling and many of the cultures used did not store or keep well. If they had tried to transport biological agents like those in a submarine the chances would have been greater that it would have infected the crew more than their ability to deliver those agents to the target. Those agents were all easily containable had they managed to use them on any city so the answer is no they would not have been any great threat to the US.


Perhaps that was an underlying reason the use of Biological weapons was rejected. We will never know...but according to the official statement, using them would have caused "a war against all of humanity." It wouldn't surprise me if it was a reason for not using them (what you stated that is).


They had 0 chance of destroying cities. Let me repeat that they had 0 chance of destroying cities.


Using Biological weapons...perhaps not (in the physical sense). But they definitely would have affected the morale.


At best they could have caused an outbreak which would have been easily contained with quarantine. They were not super viruses.


Depends on different aspects. Regardless, if the Japanese had used Biological weapons, it could have damaged the morale of the USA and some infrastructure.


Ammunition and explosives along with chemical/biological agents was my specialty in the military I will trust my knowledge over your limited understanding on this matter.


Fair enough


I suppose your job in the military was interesting?
edit on 22-12-2012 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


It was plenty interesting I spent a year on Johnson island destroying biological agents which was kind of fun I enjoyed taking leave at Hawaii though. The simple fact is the biological agents of that age were not highly contagious and could be contained and in many cases treated fairly easy. They didn’t have any WMDs in that age so if they were able to build such a ship had they used it on civilian targets it would have been a waste they would have had more affect if they targeted strategic locations like weapons factories.

If they had targeted civilians it would have galvanized the populace even more and actually worked to the government’s advantage because at the time funding of the wars was primarily done through war bonds. More people would have supported the war in which case the Japanese would have essentially shot themselves in the foot.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by daaskapital
 


It was plenty interesting I spent a year on Johnson island destroying biological agents which was kind of fun I enjoyed taking leave at Hawaii though.


Sounds cool!


The simple fact is the biological agents of that age were not highly contagious and could be contained and in many cases treated fairly easy. They didn’t have any WMDs in that age so if they were able to build such a ship had they used it on civilian targets it would have been a waste they would have had more affect if they targeted strategic locations like weapons factories.


I guess that is why their last planned mission (the attack on Ulithi Atoll) was a better idea than attacking US coastal cities (which would have done some damage, but not directly to the war effort). By the time they were going to attack the Ulithi Atoll, it was too late, the nuke had dropped and the cease fire was given just as they were getting ready. Going for those major staging grounds form the beginning would have been more beneficial to for the Japanese.


If they had targeted civilians it would have galvanized the populace even more and actually worked to the government’s advantage because at the time funding of the wars was primarily done through war bonds. More people would have supported the war in which case the Japanese would have essentially shot themselves in the foot.


Perhaps. It could have been a mix of emotions. Some people would have been shocked or distressed...emotionally traumatised at such an attack. Others would have become determined to fight harder. Overall though, i do agree with you. The Japanese could have put the Sen Toku to better use against Pacific bases/staging grounds in the Pacific.

It would have been crazy if Japan had produced all 18 of them as originally planned.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The. USA. acquired. the. Sen. Toku. and. analysed. it.

They. then. studied. and. took. technology. from. the. Sen. Toku. such. as. stealth. materials. and. others.


have you even bothered to read the report from Commander R Kissinger? He was the USN officer detailed to examine and report on the I-400 's.... and they did not take stealth material from the submarine, it did not work very well. It was 40 years before the USN used Anechoic tiles.... and they may have gotten the concept of them from the germans (who were first to use it).

So what technology did they actually get from the submarines? Even the snorkel was in use in April 1945 by the USN, and these ships were not surrendered to the USN until 1800 hours 27/8/45 to the USN Weaver...



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Sen Toku was equipped with state of the art stealth technology (something that no one else besides the Germans had back then). If the Sen Toku was just a dead end, why was the USA so eager to destroy them once studying them? I'll tell you why. The Sen Toku was so advanced that the USA did not want Russia analysing it (which they had sent a team to do). The USA took all of it's technology (which was excellent for the time) and destroyed the remainder of the Sen Toku.


Denying information to an adversary gee why would the US do such a thing? Don't be so naive the US didn't get to a superpower by showing all its cards at once. Let the Soviets chase after the Japanese super sub. Let them waste time and resources on it. The US went on to develop nuclear powered subs without help from any other nation after the end of the Manhatten Project, and using the submarine to attack land targets is as old as the deck gun. As far as being stealthy the article you posted proves that was not the case. In fact they were quite noisy when submerged and awaiting the return of their aircraft.


Originally posted by daaskapital
Also, a lot of the ideas were taken from the Sen Toku. After it's analysation, the USA came out with kick arse submarines which had stealth technology and were able to launch missiles (in place of planes).


The US already had kick arse submarines and submarine tactics just look at what the US submarine fleet did to Japan's shipping capacity.


Originally posted by daaskapital
I think what a lot of you are not understanding is that the Sen Toku was both a submarine and a weapons delivery system. If they had launched Biological weapons from the Sen Toku, then all hell would have broken loose. It wasn't just a dead end of a submarine, as it revolutionised the thought of what a sub is.


All submarines are weapons delivery systems some operating at the tactical(SSN, SSGN) level some at the strategic(SSBN). Could you name one class of submarines that followed the construction methods of the Sen Toku? I can't.


Originally posted by daaskapital
No, the USA was not the most powerful country on Earth during WW2. Every country was basically even with the exceptions of Germany and Japan (which were both superpowers). The USA had every intention to sit the war out while supporting both sides. They only helped Britain when they did because it correlated with their interests at the time.


This is complete ignorance on your part. The US alone had over 50% of the global industrial production capacity. The US also had the highest oil production in the world. Yes we did help Britain because it correlated with our interests but you stated we helped both sides. I'd like you to prove that the US helped or intended to help the Axis powers



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
LOL! The thought of 9 aircraft bringing cities to thier knees is just stupid! Unless they carried biological or chemical weapons.... they could be easily countered.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


In short, no. The US had the Atomic bomb already. This thread is so far removed from reality it's rediculous. It takes some heavy anti-US sentiment to swallow this pill.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by vonclod
a few planes with 1 bomb each, bombing in those days was not very accurate as far as taking out any specific targets..not any kind of real threat imo..could be more of a terror weapon if they used biological weapons, or even conventional(shock value)..no way japan was bringing the u.s. to its knees with its endless resources..that japan didnt have..interesting idea though
cool thread


Thanks for the reply


If the Japanese had developed all 18 of the Sen Tokus (which was originally planned) on time, with 54 planes altogether, then i think they definitely could have been proven effective.

While they may not have brought down the USA physically, they definitely would have damaged the USA's morale. Using Biological weapons would have been insane, and it is fortunate that one of the commanders viewed it that way.


There are plenty of alternate history forums where this would be better debated. There were problems with Biological warfare during WW2 and it didn't prove overly effective. My question OP is that if Japan had done this, do you think for even one second it would have been as effective as a thousand american bombers dropping Mustard gas on a Japanese city? This would have brought retaliation on a major scale.
edit on 23-12-2012 by anton74 because: typo





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join