Talk:Ko-hyoteki class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ko-hyoteki class submarine article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

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)


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)