Talk:Type A Kō-hyōteki-class submarine

There seems to be some dizdfdssagreement over whether the fixed charge was intended and/or likely to be effective against other vessels. Can I ask what the evidence is either way? Was the demolition charge (as I have always heard it described) ever used against other vessels? Andrewa 12:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Proceedings article on which I based the first draft of this article was very clear: the charge was far larger than necessary to simply scuttle the ko-kyoteki itself -- clearly the Japanese designers intended for the explosion to accomplish more than that. --the Epopt 14:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't source the article offhand, but I have read that the Japanese Admiralty permission to use these submarines in the Sydney raid was conditional on them not being used as suicide weapons. This order was sufficiently effective that after the Sydney attack the mother ships waited for three days at the rendez-vous point off Port Hacking, an incredible risk for a formation of submarines to take and one from which they probably only escaped because it never occurred to the Australian defenders that they would do such a thing. Lacking any means of recharging their batteries, the chance that any midgets would return on the third day was remote.

I suspect that what has happened is that the Pearl Harbour submarines were fitted with far larger demolition charges than the Sydney ones. One of the two captured in Sydney did set off its demolition charge, the other was disabled by depth charges and captured with its demolition charge intact (and its motor still running). The effect of the demolition charge that was detonated was to destroy half of the submarine only. All four crew bodies were recovered (two from each wreck), as were the bow section of one submarine and the stern of the other (I can't remember which way around it was). There was enough left of the two wrecks to combined into one intact hull, which was mounted on a truck and toured New South Wales to raise war funds (it was called Tojo's Circus) and is now on display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

Various accounts have put the size of the charge fitted to these two submarines at 35 to 45Kg. Andrewa 23:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your rewrite about the size of the demolition charge! --the Epopt 13:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bit about the theory of some midget sub(s?) having made it inside Pearl Harbor being "completely disproven" doesn't provide any sources, and sounds a lot like editorialising to me.

I agree -- I am removing it until the comment has been sourced. --Draugen 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor mini-submarine mystery solved? Researchers think they have found the remains of a Japanese mini-submarine that probably fired on U.S. battleships on Dec. 7, 1941. Article dated December 7 2009. The remains of a Japanese mini-submarine that participated in the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor have been discovered, researchers are to report today, offering strong evidence that the sub fired its torpedoes at Battleship Row. The complete article can be viewed here. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia just announced they have discovered and dived on the third (and Missing Type A) outside Sydney Harbor. They are leaving the still intact submarine there as its not financially conceivable to raise it. It looks like it may of gotten caught in some fishing nets. After 65 Years Submarine Found Patrick Havens 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How were these mini-subs transported ?

I'd be inerested in knowing about how these mini-subs were transported.

Where they contained within the main sub, like a torpedo ?

Fastened alongside ?

Towed by a cable ?

I would think that carrying around one of these subs would create significant drag, and impair the main sub's ability to operate. Where they ever abandoned for this reason ?

Given what seems to be their very limited usefulness, I wonder what the japanese sub commanders thought about them. Travel speed, fuel-efficiency, etc...

Some photos or illustrating the mini-subs "in transit" would be very nice.

I also wonder about the "back-story". Was there a Japanese Officer that is credited for being their advocate, an equivalent of Billy Mitchell ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.232.9 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth submarine fired on CL-49 USS St Louis ?

According to the wikipedia entry on the USS St. Louis, and this Navy reference http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s17/st_louis-v.htm, one of the midget submarines fired on the St. Louis. Why is there no mention of this in the article? Jim Davis 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible error

The table under Characteristics states that type B and C could move faster under water than on the surface. It looks like these figures need to be switched to me. 86.87.73.104 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Landslide Pier?

What is a landslide pier, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.185.245 (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour Attack

Please provide refs for 2006 location of submarine #2, now a war grave. 121.44.185.245 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Fifth Pearl Harbor Midget Submarine Found in 2009?

I have a few questions about the paragraph beginning "In 2009..."

First, to my knowledge and reading, nothing has positively identified the submarine as being the fifth submarine. It is "believed" to be the fifth submarine, based on it's configuration, but the only way to prove it would be to raise it and look for identifying marks (like data plates).

Secondly the paragraph contains the sentence "When a series of explosions sank an amphibious fleet being assembled in the Loch in 1944, the remains of the sub were collected and dumped in the subsequent salvage operation, which was kept classified as secret until 1960." This needs to be documented. From everything I have read, no documentation of the submarine has been found in the reports of the salvage efforts after the West Loch disaster of 1944. That is part of the mystery. This sentence is misleading, because it sounds like there was documentation describing its salvage declassified in 1960.

It seems just as likely to me that this submarine was captured somewhere during or after the war, and that after study it was cut up and scuttled. A total of fifty of this model were constructed during the war, and only eight were actually used in combat. There is fairly strong evidence, from at least two ship's logs, that Midget E was the source of the torpedoes fired at USS St. Louis as she was exiting the harbor around 1000 hours, yet this event is not mentioned in the article. This is also mentioned in the Attack on Pearl Harbor and USS St. Louis (CL-49) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.147.160.16 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)