this is still a very consevercial question
2007-08-12 11:40:13 · 9 answers · asked by David L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
That is what the Department of the Navy says.. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd139.htm
2007-08-12 11:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by Ret68 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well seeing that on 28 August 2002 a team of scientists from the University of Hawaii found a Japanese mini-sub in about 1200 feet of water about 3-4 miles outside of Pearl Harbor kinda rests any controversies. The USS Ward hit it with two 4-inch shells in the conning tower and dropped depth charges about 1 hour before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I think the controversy here (if there is one) is whether these were the first shots fired by the US opening the war against the Japanese in WWII. The US did not declare war until the following day after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
2007-08-12 20:06:51 · answer #2 · answered by erehwon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Historical accounts from members of the Ward testify to firing on a sub just prior to the attack on pearl harbor. Reports say the first shot missed, and the second "Stuck the sub's conning tower just above the water line." They then dropped depth charges and report an oil slick consistent with a sunk submarine. Considered historical irony that the first casualties in the battle in and around Pearl Harbor were Japanese.
2007-08-12 19:53:26 · answer #3 · answered by Rav 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's so controversial? A Japanese sub violated the waters around Pearl Harbor and was sunk. It didn't matter if it was one day or one week before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had every intention of attacking the United States.
2007-08-16 15:28:02 · answer #4 · answered by crusty old fart 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would it be controversial? I do believe that there was one sunk and a second one grounded on a beach, or was caught up in a submarine net, or something like that. But there were 2 subs (that I am aware of). The one sunk and the one that the pictures were taken of.
Do you think that the controversy could be a lie about a U.S. ship sinking a Japanese sub, or something really dramatic like the attack by North Viet Namese gun boats that really helped us get into that war.
2007-08-12 19:26:33 · answer #5 · answered by RUESTER 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The remains of the sub have been located. It is also possible, if the Ward's depth charge and deck gun attack on the sub was as reported, we may have fired the first shots in the Pacific War rather than the aerial strike force of Japan's Combined Northern Fleet.
2007-08-12 20:18:36 · answer #6 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They found one sunk in the harbor. Do the math.
2007-08-12 19:03:14 · answer #7 · answered by Ironball 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe they sunk it with the second shot fired.
2007-08-13 14:56:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely.
2007-08-12 18:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋