Timeline for On 1941 Dec 7, could Japan have targeted the Panama Canal instead of Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 10:02 | comment | added | John Dallman | The Gatun Dam is almost 400 metres thick at water level, and seem to be larger than any of the dams attacked in Operation Chastise. The point of the bouncing bomb was that it bypassed anti-torpedo nets in the reservoirs, but it was also large, at 9,250lb, with 6,000lb of explosive. The Japanese carrier-based strike aircraft are limited to much smaller loads. I think this dam is probably too big for them to destroy. | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:41 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:36 | comment | added | DrZ214 | I'm not sure I can believe that. A dive bomb attack using simple but large depth charges, set to detonate at a certain depth, could almost surely have gotten the job done. I thought the spinning bouncing bombs were invented to let the pilot release at a distance and not get too close to the Dam and the AA guns there. Alternatively, you could torpedo bomb the Gatun Dam. But I do not know how big or thick that Dam is. Wikipedia describes the Gatun Dam and an "earthen dam" or "embankmen dam", but does not specific its exact construction. | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:28 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 149 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:21 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @DrZ214: The Japanese never had the technology to successfully breach a large dam from the air (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise): "Wallis's breakthrough was to overcome this obstacle. A drum-shaped bomb — essentially a specially designed, heavy depth charge — spinning backwards at over 500 rpm, and dropped at a sufficiently low altitude at the correct speed and release point, would skip for a significant distance over the surface of the water in a series of bounces before reaching the dam wall.". | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 3:55 | comment | added | DrZ214 | +1 for the rest of your details. I'm making an edit to the OP because I recently discovered the Gatun Dam, a hydroelectric dam that provides electricity for the locks. Destroying the dam alone might put the whole thing out of business for half a year. | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 3:54 | comment | added | DrZ214 |
One note - it is probably better to sink vessels in the canal locks, turning them into sunken hulks, rather that the locks themselves. I had similar thoughts but rejected the idea. The Panama Canal at that time had 2 or 3 lanes of locks. I do not know if all those lanes were ever in use at one time, but I doubt it. If at least 1 lane remains open, your attack basically accomplished nothing. Even if you wanted to, you would need precise intel on exactly when and what ships were using the Canal at the right time. I don't think that's feasible for planning a strike 8000 miles away.
|
|
| Nov 5, 2016 at 18:35 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 630 characters in body
|
| Nov 5, 2016 at 18:02 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| Nov 5, 2016 at 17:54 | history | answered | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |