Maybe, maybe not. If the tanks were built anything like they are today, the tops are flexible to fit the amount of oil actually in the tank. So most of the stress would go up rather than out. That’s just a SWAG, though.
Pearl Harbor is a shallow harbor. So the Japanese had to design special torpedoes to work in the harbor and train their pilots in the use of those torpedoes.
I would assume that if the Japanese had decided to make the oil tanks a target, they could have and would have similarly developed a bomb that would have damaged them.
Nimitz might have thought the tanks were extremely vulnerable to carrier aircraft attack but they really weren’t.
Just as Patton though outfitting the Sherman Tank with another 1/2 dozen machine guns was a great idea, but it wasn’t.
Both good, if not great commanders, but talking about things that are outside their field, Nimitz moreso than Patton in my examples.
The Japanese AP bombs are meant to be mostly metal spears designed to penetrate the thin top hulls of Naval ships. They have an explosive charge , but nowhere near 700lbs. 66lbs is more like it. Enough to be messy on a battleship interior but if it penetrates the oil tank its going to just make a geyser of what looks like watered-down shoe polish.
And that is if you hit the tank, which is much smaller than a battleship.
If you hit an oil tank, you put a hole in the top of the oil tank, and some will spray out or whatnot. Way to go. Now do the same thing to the other 20-30 tanks on the field. You might actually have a measurable oil loss after the crew pumps all the oil into whatever reserve system they have.
A few miscellaneous points in no particular order to add to the (mostly) excellent responses preceding me.
-
During the Meiji restoration (following Perry’s visit) Japan sent envoys around the world to bring back examples of the West’s artifacts and methodologies and then pick-and-choose what it felt suited Japan best. One of the key lessons Japan learned from Western history was that the way to get out of a resource-poor economic slump was to seize neighboring resources. Call it colonialism, expansionism, imperialism, whatever, but it worked for Rome, Spain, Britain, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera# so Japan was willing to try it in order to get out of its own recession.
-
From the lectures and excruciatingly detailed books of Dr. Alvin Coox, I got the impression that eastward expansion wasn’t the original goal. Expansion was necessary to gain resources and stimulate the economy (see above) but the earlier attempt(s) to take on the Soviet Union via land went horribly for the Japanese and further attempts were either taken off the table or not even proposed. Pearl Harbor wasn’t a great idea, it was a less-bad idea.
-
From other course lectures I learned that Japan wanted to reach out as far as New Zealand and Australia – particularly because the latter had gold – but they suspected the USA wouldn’t sit by and do nothing if Japan was so near.%
-
Remember that Hawaii did not become a State in the Union until the end of 1959. Twenty years earlier, it was just an occupied territory where Anglo businesses were setting up plantations and pissing off the locals. Japan’s plan was to deliver a tactical kick-to-the-groin and, while the colonists were recovering from the shock, go take over the rest of the Pacific. Ideally, the colonists would be so shocked and demoralized from that groin-kick that they’d just abandon the Pacific plantations and leave the islands for Japan to rule.
-
As noted by others, the USA was in an isolationist phase and wasn’t even willing to enter the European theater. Japan was betting that, after a crippling surprise attack, the USA would be in no position to rescue or aid other countries in the Pacific, particularly if Japan had control of the resources left behind by US businesses and forces in Hawaii.
-
The American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) were former WWI pilots acting as semi-mercenary support in China against the Japanese after WWI and before the USA officially entered WWII.
-
We’ve pretty well established that Japan reasoned itself into imperialism because it was short on resources and going through a recession/depression.$ We’ve pretty well established that some of those resources were oil and rubber. Does anyone else not see how foolish it would be to destroy the Hawaiian tanks full of that critical-for-the-war-effort resource? Even if Hawaii’s ultimate utility was as a bargaining chip in the eventual peace negotiations (“Okay, you can have these islands back, but we want to keep Australia and New Zealand – I don’t care if they belong to the Queen, give them to us!”) It would sure make the war itself a lot easier for Japan if they could commandeer that oil and use it to supply Japanese vehicles. Of course, in order to refill them, they would want to get those vehicles staged in the harbor somewhere – perhaps along an undestroyed dock?
-
The Reich wanted control of Europe. Hitler didn’t even think he could understand the Asians so he was content to leave that to the Japanese since they were doing their imperialist stuff anyway. He also had no understanding or use for the Central and South American people. He sent a letter to the Mexican president, reminding him of the Texas Revolution (almost 100 years earlier) and offering dominion over the Americas in exchange for help against the USA. The Mexican president forwarded the letter to Washington D.C.
–G!
I’m hearing Yul Brynner’s voice echoing that phrase as I type it. It’s an odd coincidence because, in fact, Japan wasn’t the first to think that adopting and adapting Western habits and symbols could help keep western powers from simply taking over and steamrolling the native cultures into obscurity. And, when King Mongkut entered WWI with a new Flag of Siam bearing red, blue, and white in the same shades used by France, England, and the USA it was very clear he was trying very hard to have his nation considered part of the big league – kind of like D’Artagnan gaining a name for himself by managing (accidentally) to hook up with the infamous Three Musketeers.
% Kennedy and Reagan would later show such a suspicion was correct – and still thriving – in the USA’s dealings with Cuba and Central America, respectively.
$ So, for that matter, was the rest of the world. One of my history professors pointed out that the rapid turn-around that nobody expected from the US meant that the problem wasn’t a lack of resources or money, but a lack of will-to-spend on the part of the people with money. That, of course, was a self-fulfilling prophecy, with people holding on to their money (rather than spend) ‘because thing’s might get worse’ and things getting worse because money wasn’t getting spent. When the USA finally got into the war, nationalists had a cause to spend on and capitalists had War Bonds to invest in; money somehow got freed-up for military efforts and the economy started turning around.
Here’s a photo. I can’t really tell, but they don’t look like they have floating roofs. Or maybe they do – like the one in the lower-right. I just can’t tell.
Well, he was a Admiral, around at that time, and had access to many experts. So far, you have zero cites to back up this claim of yours.
Patton did no such thing.
Hardly outside Nimitz’s field.
Yes, indeed, the AP bombs specially made didnt have a large charge. But they had HE bombs too. Which had 211 pounds of high explosives. The Kates carried two of them.
And of course the fuel oil can certainly burn, and it did at Pearl, and was a large problem. Even if somehow the HE bomb didnt ignite the oil, the fires already burning would have:
https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11459
"HIGHLY FLAMMABLE: Will be easily ignited by heat, sparks or flames. Vapors may form explosive mixtures with air. Vapors may travel to source of ignition and flash back. Most vapors are heavier than air. They will spread along ground and collect in low or confined areas (sewers, basements, tanks). Vapor explosion hazard indoors, outdoors or in sewers. "
So, you’re wrong about the bomb, wrong about the fuel oil not burning and wrong about both Nimitz and Patton.
But if you come up with a source that says the oil tanks were never in danger since they were heavily armored and that oil wont burn- please post it.
Tanks were outside Patton’s field? He turned tanks around in some difficult maneuver I do not understand and relieved Bastogne.
Tanks are supposed to support infantry, having more machine guns sounds like a Good Thing. In tank on tank battles, the Sherman was in trouble unless it had superior numbers and could get very close to the rear end of Panzers, no matter how many machines guns it had.
Tank design was outside of Patton’s field. I forget the quote as it was quoted during the six-hour long ‘Think Tank’ session that Patton was noted as being so clueless about tank design and development that one wondered how he could use them so well.
We are talking about fixed machine guns, such as was in the Sherman’s first designs before everyone realized they were stupid.
I’m sorry, but this is mostly a myth. But we are already getting too far afield.
Suffice it to say the real war wasn’t ‘Fury’.
[quote=“DrDeth, post:86, topic:815089”]
Well, he was a Admiral, around at that time, and had access to many experts. So far, you have zero cites to back up this claim of yours.
[/QUOTE}
Sorry, but most of my info comes from ‘books’ not blurb pages and quotes from admirals who do not
Zimm, in his book “Attack on Pearl Harbor”, notes that if the Japanese attack the oil fields, and had their absolute best day (i.e. managed to match their best training runs with no opposing aircraft and AA fire) they might have made hits on 25% of the tanks.
They would not have started any fires with those AP bombs, and its not like all of the tanks were filled to the brim, and the Japanese had no way to know which tanks were empty.
He did. Patton was a a member of what is refered to by modern tank experts as the ‘cult of the machine gun’.
The man was not an engineer.
Which will be only so much rotten eggs splatting aginst a large, 3 inch-thick structural steel object. They might hope to deform the tanks. That’s about it.
There’s a reason why tanks shoot AP rounds at other tanks, and Oil Tanks don’t have crews to have Significant Emotional Events.
Spread thin, evaporating, and possibly heated. Not in bulk in a tank with no oxygen source or fumes issue.
You do realize that liquid petroleum products do not burn, yes? It is the vapors that ignite. That’s why cars have Fuel Injectors or Carberators.
I have highlighted the key word for your here. Oil tanks are designed to avoid vaporization They wouldn’t be much use if they didn’t.
$2.99 on Kindle:
I just read than in a book by a WWII tank driver. 
As Nicholas Moran recently commented in regards to one author’s claim that Sherman Tanks were ‘Death Traps’, he said he would ask: “of all the tankers you interviewed, how many were alive?”
Fact is, American tanks rarely encountered the ‘Big Cats’. Zaloga (of ‘Armored Thunderbolt’ fame, notes that there are only three absolutely confirmed encounters between American tanks and Tiger 1’s. (there were doubtless more, but it shows how rare the thing was). Brits had more encounters with them and it was often a mixed bag how things turned out.
As for the Panther, well, look up the Battle of Arracorte and see how they fared against the wimpy Sherman.
British studies post-war indicated that 80% of the time the winner of most tank-on-tank battles was the tank that fired first.
Oh, and I found the quote regarding Patton. It was from Bruce Clarke, an excellent tank commander in his own right. Clarke, in his memoirs, refers to Patton as knowing 'Less about tanks than any other general that he knew.". He was not referring to Patton’s tactical application of tanks, but rather that Patton knew almost nothing about tanks mechanically.
Here you can see Zaloga explain it in Operation Think Tank
We are back to tanks were to support troops, not fight each other.
They can. They did. Soviet and Late German designs were mostly aimed at Tank v Tank operation. (The Panther was particularly poor at supporting infantry as its HE round was weak for the gun size and its reliability was ‘questionable’ at best).
US doctrine definitely mentions using tanks to fight tanks.
Tanks were rarely single-purpose during WW2.
Umm, a version had two fixed .30 instead of the pintle mounted .30.I dont think it actually was produced in any numbers. However, Patton had nothing whatsoever to do with either varient.
Very nice, yes, you have linked to a book.:rolleyes: However, you do not have any cite that your information is IN that book. :dubious: A 'cite" need to be verifiable. So far, I have given you several verifiable cites including one from the big Expert- Admiral Nimitz, and you have given us no cutes whatsoever.
The tanks were made of 3" steel? :dubious: Cite? They were normally 10 or 12ga steel. That’s half a inch. This is completely false, they were not 3" thick.
Yes, the idea is the bombs burst the tanks, spreading the oil thin, which then vaporizes and then can ignite. You claimed “Finally, the vast, vast majority of the petroleum was Heavy Fuel-Oil, which has a notoriously high ignition temperature. The stuff actually needs to be heated before it can be properly burned in engines. This stuff wasn’t going to ignite easily. " whereas I showed you cites and even photographic evidence of that same oil burning quite merrily at Pearl Harbor. So, you were wrong.
Look, give it up, you are alone vs every expert on Pearly harbor. You have no cites, and try bogus crap like Patton designing Shermans with six machine guns, and oil tanks made of 3” of armor steel.
I’m sorry. I don’t have my copy around and I’m not going searching for a guy who thinks that an Admiral is an expert on Petroleum storage.
Sorry, he’s *just not an expert in that category
*
Small, bolted tanks maybe that thin. Larger Oil Tanks, especially military usage models tend to be more robust. Otherwise a stray bullet or a drunkin a jeep could break them wide open.
At best, the bombs puncture the tanks. The HE bombs would at most dent them.
Thin? The tanks were each in their own protected berm?
You compared apples to oranges… Oil, possibly preheated for , spread thin on a surface vs. contained in a sealed tank.
Every expert? You’ve read them all?!
So far all I’ve seen is you making invalid comparisons, ignoring conditions, and deciding that an Naval Admiral is a expert in Petroleum engineering.
I have given you cites. You handwaved them away.
First of all, you are misrepresenting what I said: Patton never designed a Sherman, its true, that’s not what I said. He was, however, quite clueless about tank design (despite being a tactical tank expert). I cited Zaloga’s comments on the matter via the youtube link when replying to carniverousplant.
He doesnt have to be. He was the freaken Admiral who had a hundred of them at his disposal.
Got a cite?
Every one on the internet.
Nope, not one verifiable cite. You can’t just say “it’s in a book, that’s my cite”. you have to quote it and we have to be able to see it in context.
“*Just as Patton though outfitting the Sherman Tank with another 1/2 dozen machine guns was a great idea, but it wasn’t.” * He never did anything of the sort.
If the Pearl Harbor attack had managed to strike its actual targets, the US carrier fleet?
Then YES, the US would have sought a diplomatic resolution.
At least for a couple of years, as without the Pacific fleet the US would have had no ability to interfere with Japan’s plans in the Pacific theater using military means.
But the attack missed the carriers, and took out only the battleships. Thus greatly injuring the US fleet’s pride, but leaving its strength untouched.
The rest is, of course, history.
An angered but still strong US navy, with the industrial might of the mainland, was very much an awakened giant.
And you are certain he talks to every single one of them about he probability of a single bullet igniting an inferno? Somehow I doubt it.
Oh, everyone? You’ve cited an Admiral, an economist, and a tourist webpage.
Sure. That’s everyone.
I didn’t just say it was in a book. I gave you the book’s listing. I’m sorry but as I said I don’t have my copy near me and I cannot buy the Kindle version because I am on an iPad. But this was a major point of Zimm’s book and more than just a few quotes.
Dude, I literally linked the video where Zaloga says this happened.:
What breakthrough in radar technology?
The US had radar before the war started (indeed we saw the Pearl attack coming on radar but the warning was ignored).
The US laid an ambush because we had partly broken the Japanese naval code and knew they were going to attack “AF”. We suspected an attack on either Hawaii (again) or Midway. To be sure we had Midway send a message in the clear that their water condenser (or some such thing) was broken and they were out of water. Later we decoded a Japanese message that said “AF” was out of water (“AF” was where we knew the attack was coming). And there you go…Nimitz knew where to send our carriers.
And even though we surprised them Midway was a close run thing. The entire battle till the fateful five minutes was the Japanese kicking our ass.