Why Didn't Hitler Resort to Poison Gas?

[Hail_Ants]

@AK84

Little Boy was about 3 meters long, 0.7 meters wide and weighed 4400 kg. It could easily fit in a submarine. And Japanese had some seriously long range subs, which also shelled the US Mainland

The Japs also had huge submarine aircraft carriers that they planned to attack the Panama Canal and possibly US cities with!

[mlees]

@t-bonham@scc.net

And given the distance, would they even have had enough oil to have made the journey?

Yes, Japanese I-boats had the range to cruise the West Coast. A couple even shelled the mainland.

American theater (World War II)

[wei_ji]

@Frostillicus

This is exactly what led me to think of the question in the first place. I am curently reading Rick Atkinson’s book about the Sicily and Italy campaigns and this exact point was mentioned, along with the fact that the ship was bombed by the Germans, causing a serious loss of life.

Here is a brief but good story on that WW II secret mustard gas disaster, with fine photos.

http://ww2today.com/2nd-december-1943-mustard-gas-disaster-in-bari-harbour

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
And given the distance, would they even have had enough oil to have made the journey?
[/QUOTE]

@mlees

Yes, Japanese I-boats had the range to cruise the West Coast. A couple even shelled the mainland.

American theater (World War II) - Wikipedia

Read it again, please. Especially the word oil.

[DrDeth]

@Lemur866

And not just fear of retaliation. Shooting and torturing enemy prisoners leads enemy soldiers to believe that surrender is pointless, so they fight to the death. In the process of fighting to the death, they are going to kill some of your soldiers. Allowing enemy soldiers to surrender isn’t just naive chivalry, it is a practical method for winning wars.

Santa Anna learned that from Houston.

[Hypno-Toad]

Yeah, you should always make sure that the enemy knows that if they surrender they will survive. Killing prisoners is a bad practice for practical as well as moral reasons.

[Dissonance]

@t-bonham@scc.net

That would have been difficult. I don’t think any Japanese submarine was large enough to hold a 1940’s atomic weapon. And given the distance, would they even have had enough oil to have made the journey?

@t-bonham@scc.net

Read it again, please. Especially the word oil.

It really does read like you are questioning if Japanese submarines had the oil capacity to have the range to make the journey since Japanese I-boats could easily have carried a 1940’s atomic weapon. In any event, submarines don’t require all that much oil. The Type-B Mod. 2 (I-54) had a fuel capacity of 842.8 tons and a range of 21,000 nmi (39,000 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h). The I-58, which survived the war and was returning from patrol when Japan announced its surrender on August 15th, was a submarine of this class best remembered for sinking the heavy cruiser Indianapolis as it was sailing from Guam to Leyte on July 29th, 1945 the day after it had delivered parts for the atomic bombs to Tinian. By way of contrast the Indianapolis needed 1,500 tons of fuel oil for a range of only 13,000 nmi (14,960 mi; 24,080 km) at 15 knots (17 mph; 28 km/h).

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Dissonance

It really does read like you are questioning if Japanese submarines had the oil capacity to have the range to make the journey since Japanese I-boats could easily have carried a 1940’s atomic weapon.

No, I’m questioning if Japan had that much oil available to fuel a submarine for such a futile mission in late summer of 1945. Everything I’ve read says that the American blockade of Japan had caused an extreme shortage of fuel in Japan by that time.