USSBS Report 87, Effectiveness of Ammunition

8/3/2019 USSBS Report 87, Effectiveness of Ammunition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ussbs-report-87-effectiveness-of-ammunition 1/63



C O N F I D E N T



/ 1/ / I

c o N F lO E N T I A L

nus report .as writtenpr1JDsrlly to.r toh,ueQ ot tohl

u. s. Strategio Bombins S\U"veyn th8 preparation 0:1' turthtl'

reports of a mllre oomprehensive naturtl. MY OODolu:llons or

opinions exPressed iII: this report must be cODsiderel:l. 11:1

limited to the speoitio material oovered and as subjeot ~o

further interpretation inhe Ught ot turther etudies Qcnl:l.uot.a

by the survey e.

REPORT OF

SH IPS ' BOMBARDMENT SURVEY PARTY

U . S . STRATEG IC BOMB ING SURVEY

JAPAN

C O M M E N TS A N D D A T A O N

E F F E C T IV E N E S S O F A M M U N IT IOS H IP S ' B O M B A R D M E N T S O F J A P A N - 1 9 4 5

PUBL ISHED IN M AY 1946

COP IES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM

NAVY DEPARTMENT , W ASH ING TON , D . C . ENCLO SURE (I)



Repor t o f Ship, " Bomb. rdment Survey Por ty

Endo,ure ( I)

PART I

PART II

PART m

PART IV

PART V

PART VI

CONFIDENTIAL

CONTENTS

Page No.

-SUMMARY . 1

- .."INTRODUCTION AND DEFrNITIONS . 3

- SIXTEEN. rNCH PROJECTILES

Sect ion One ~Effe !l tivenes, s Agains t Buildings 5

S.e!l t!on Two ~Eff e! lt iveness Aga inst Machine Tools

Section Thl'e~Effectiveness Agains t Other Equipment and St ructure s 21

Sect ion Four ~ lncendiary Capabi li ti es 28

~EIGHT·INCB PROJECTILES . 25

-SIX·rNCB PROJECTILES 27

~FlVE·lNCH PROJECTILES........................................ 29

APPENDIX l~Gl"oups and Types of Iudustrial Buildings . . . . . . . ... .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . SO

APPENDIX 2~Damage to Machine Tools by Sixteen-Inch Projectiles 32

APPENDIX 3-Damage to Machine Tools by Non-Crataring Sixteen-Inch Projectiles 33

APPENDIX 4-Damage to Machine Tools by Cratering Sixteen-Inch Projectiles. . ..... 34

PAGE iii



--.~ --

Repotf of Ship•. Bomh.rdmonl SUrlier Party

Enclosureil-Patf ICONFIDENTIAL

PAR'r I-SUMMARY

This enclosure presen ts da ta on th e e ITe c ti v e -ness of projectiles used in naval surface bom-

bardments of Japan proper . .The bombardments

were executed during July and August, 1945,and data were collected by means of field obser-

vations in October and November of last year.

The studies show the ext ent of damage to

buil di ngs, machi ne tools and miscellaneous

equipment and structures inflicted by sixtean-,

eight-, six-, and f ive- inch projectiles, and at-

tern pt to evalua te the average res ult to be

expected fr om such pro j ect il e hits.

Sixteen-inch Projectiles

An analysis of incident s involving 105 build-

ings and 209 projectiles yields aver age ar eas

of structural damage and mean areas of effec-

iveaess forsixteeD·inch projectiles as pre-

sented in Table 1. In general, non-cratering hits

proved most effective.On the basis of the MAE shown in Table I,

forty.two hits, on the average, would be re-

quired to cause structural damage to fifty per

<lent of a hea.vystet'l frame building (Bl) 600

feet long and 150 feet wide.

'In fi ft een bui ld inga , 1 ,902 machine too ls were

exposed to damage f rom forty sixteen-inch PI"O-

[ectile hits. Mean areas of eJl 'ectiveness ·of the

pro ject il es agains t mach ine tools, as obtained

from smoothed data, are shown in Table ll.

Non-cratering projectiles appear to have a

slight advantage over erataring projectiles

against machine tools.

TABLE I

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEEN·INCH PROJECTILES AGAINST BUILDINGS

Bldg.

TypeDescription

Average Structural Damage I(Sq. ft.) Mean

Area ofPer DIrect Hit

Fer Effectiveness

Grateringj Non~ Near iI'liss (sq. ft./projectile)Cratering

5,800

Al.l Single s tory, s teel frame, saw-tooth

roof, no kave! ing crane.

A2.3 Sing le s to ry , s teel frame , non-saw-

tooth roof, no traveling cranes.

HI Single story, s teel frame , with

heavy traveling cranes.H2 Single story, steel frame, with light

tra veling cranes,

D All single story buildings with plan

a reas of 1 ,000·10 ,000 sq . ft., except

those with wood frames.

Wl.1 S ingle s to ry , wood frame , p lan a rea

' lTea te r than 10,000 sQ. ft.

W1.2 Single story, wood frame , p lan a rea.

1,000-10,000 sq..ft.

W2 Two story wood frame, plan area

grea.ter than 1,000 sq. ft.

2,025 1,400 2,200

1,309 1,600

660 1,456 o 1,500

3,.952 o,231 2,800

1,16Q,200 520 2,100

3,250 033,025 4,4.00

7,600

2,575 1,733

NOTE: All figures fir" in aquare f""t o r plm\ area,

PAG E I



R , ep o r t o f S h ip s ' B omb ar dme n t S u ,y e y P a rt y

E n cl os ur e ( I'_ 'P a rt . I- fC o nt in uo d l .

TABLE II

EFFECT£\'ENESS OJ.'

SIXTEE .INCH .PROJECTlLES

AGAINST lIU.CHINE TOOLS

Mean Area of E1I"" tiveness(sq, ft. per projectile)egree of

Damage

Cra tering Non-C'I'3tl!lting

I

Destroyed

Heavy Damaga

Sl~ght Damage

I

2,053

4.1998,.001

2• .51 2

4.8489,517

Based on the llIAE for non-craterrng projec-

tiles inTable I I, the for ty· two hits, wlr ich·would

be expec ted to eause st ructur al dam age to fifty

per cen t of a heavy steel frame building 600feet long and 150 feet wide, CO uld be expacted

to destroys! the same time slightly less than

70]ler cen t o f the machine too ls in the bui ld ing.

European s tudies of HE bombing r esul ts ind i. -

eate tha t machine ry damage aver aged Ie5S thanone-half of building damage.

Direct hits by sixteen-Ineh pr~jecti les caused

serious damage to b la st fu rnaces, open hearth

furnacas, kilns, and coke ovens, A single hi t

on a baJtery of coke ovens destroyed four end

ovens, but damage was not severe enough to

preven t 0pera tion of the res t of t h e batteryaccording to the Japanese, ..

Sing le h it s on wel l-const ructed r einf orcedconcreta rughwa.l' bridges produced only short

traff ic inter ruptions . No direct hlts were scored

On steel brfdges. and a near miss was inefl'ec-!i~e,

Both di rect hits and fragment. from near

misses Were effective against chemical equip-

ment. conVl!yo~s,llra nes, eleetr ial eq uipment,eXP<lsed,gas 1101!l!.ocomotives, railroad cars,and rolling mill equipment.

Damage to railroad tracks and roads was

PAG E 2

CONHDENTIAL

eas ily r epai red and produced only sl ight delays

in traffic,

Water mains expos ed withi n, c ra ter s werebroken,

Sing le d ir ec t h it s on gasome te rs d id not pro-duce serious damage.Unless h ighly inl lammable vapor s or l iquids

were present, no evidence was uncovered of

f il 'es initiated by direct effect of the projectiles '

explosions, Fires inmost cases apparently were

started byoverturned eooldng f ires or electrical

short circuita.

Repott 01 Ship" a omb~ rd m en t S u, .. ey P . t t y

E n cl os ur e I II -P o rt I I

CONFIDENTIAL

PART IT- INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

Da ta presen ted inthis enclosure were gathered

b.¥ the physical damage group of Ships' Born-

bardment Survey Party during field examina-

t ions of naval bombardment target s a sdescr ibedin other enclosures of this report, Group in-

cluded two olfi ce rs with engineering t ra in ing,

one with architectural training, and one officer

expert in written and spoken Japanese. First

tfu 'ee off icers mentioned had done considerable

target a na Iysis prior to the survey a nd were

faml li ar wi th methods and defini tions in s tand-

ani use, Many photcgraphs of damage wel'e

taken during the course of the survey and have

been inc luded in o ther enc losure s,

SlTucrural bui lding damage was assessed by

ac tual g round measurement and examina tion ,

In the case of damage to machin e tools, tilis

p rocedure f requent ly was not poss ib le because

of removal of damaged and undamaged rna-

ell i1es pr ior to tiles urvey, In S1.l eh cases,loca tions of mach ines were obtained fr om 'plan t

drawi ngs and damage data. from plant records

or interroga tion of p lant . o ffi eial s.

In some instances, areas of buildings or dam-

age as shown in this enclosure may be at vari-

ance wit h figures shown in other enclosures of

the report. These differences are due to elimi-

nation of portions of a building in cases of

composite types of construction or correction

of e rr ors detected during the c lose examina tion

of da ta req uired in the com pletio n of this

e ncl osu re, In a II sl1ch cas e s, figures in thi s

enclosure are considered to supersede all others.

Standard definitions adopted by the U, S.

Stl'ategie Bombing Survey have been used

throughon L this report. For convenience, the

most important of t hese are listed below,

Damage to Buildings

S true tu r a I damage' Damage to prl ncipa I

load-carrying members (trusses, beams, col-

umns, load-bearing walls, floor slabs i n multi-

s tory buildings) l 'equir iJ1g l 'eplacemeutol' QX-

t arnal support dUl ing r epai rs , Light members

such as purlins are not included, Structural

darnaga is evaluated in terms of sqrmre feet of

p lan a rea a ffected p y damaga to a stru ctu I'llI

member. Thus, structural damage involving

the severing of II roof t russ which supports

purlins and roofing over an area of 1,000 square

feet would be stated. as 1,000 square feet; 01',

desl1:uction of a column which supports four

beams, each of which in turn anppor ts roof

trusses overan area of 1,000 square feet, would

be listed as 4,000 square feet of structural

damage,

Supe rfi cial damage : Damage to purl ins and

ether light members, st ripping of roofing, and

!lamageto non-load-bearing exterior walls,

Damage to glass and interior part itions are not

included,

Damage to l \i ach inery and Equipment :

Dest royed: Not worth repa ir .

Heavi ly damaged : Requi ring repai r beyond

capac iy of normal main tana nee s talf; us ually

returned to manufacturer.

Sl ight ly damaged: Requiring r epai r within

capaci ty of norma l ma in tenance s ta ff,

Crate ring Hit: Projectile detonating at or

below ground 01' floor level,

Non-eratering Hit: Projec ti le detonat ing

above ground or 11001' level.

E ll ed iveness of pro jee fi le s aga inst bu ildings

is li sted in two ways, ei ther as the average area

of structural damage, or as the mean area of

effectiv·eness. The a verage area of damage i s a

s imple a ri thme tic aver age obtained by div id ingtotal area of structural damage by the total

numbei- .of pro ject il es cont ribu ting to thi s dam-

age, The mean area of effectiveaess (or MAE)

may be defined as the mean equivalent area

about a pl'Cljectile hit wi thin which damage of

a apeelfied degree or grea tel' will result to a

target of specified vulnerabili ty, II the build-

i ngs invol ved were of infinite extent and tllere

was no overlapping of damage caused by adja-

cen t pro ject il es, the aver age a rea of damage per

hit would be equal to the mean area of effec-

ti veness. Sine e these conditions do no t often

apply in practice. it is usually necessary to

PAGE ]

Eight-Inch Pro jectiles

A gains t s teel f rame OJ ' concrete ind ustrial

buildings, eigh t-ineh projectiles were ineffective

in causing structural damage, On .s· ingJ. ..s tory,

wood f rame, indust ri al bui ld ings the ave rage

a rea of s tructural damage per direct hit II'as

373 squa re feet ; on two-s to ry wood bui ld ings,

the average damage per direct hit was 650square feet of plan area.

Incidents of damage to machine tools and

other equi pment wen t oo few to permit draw-ing of generalconel usions.

No evidence of fires initiated by dlreet ex-plosi ve efj"ectwas uncovered,

Six-inch Projectiles

No s ix -inch pro ject il es were ·fi red a t indus-

t ri al t ar gef s, Direct h it s caused seve re damage

to li)l: h t, wood frame houses 01' barraeas. No

fi res re su lt ed f rom hit s by s ix -inch pro] ec ti les ,

Fh'e-jnch Projectiles

Dir ec t h it s were ine ffect ive agains t a ll types

of industrtal buildings, Single hits on other

than very 81110 .11 dwellings did not accomplish

ca rnage se rious enough to render thesestrue,

tures uninhabitable. No incidents againsb

maehina tools were recorded, One dil'ect hit

d~d not cause serious damage to a stack, Two

hl, ts on a,gasometer caused onJy slight damage,Direct hits on chemica] andojl stal·age tank

blew holes i n them from two to ten feet across.

Ther~ was no evidence that fires resultedf rom du'cct effect of explosions.



It.port of SIIip" Bomb.rd""",' Su rv ey P . r ty

End .. . . .. . (Ij--J'.r! II-{Continued)

uti lize dat a involving overlappi ng ruts. near

miss es . and hi ts just within the bui lding l ine in

order to arrive at a reasonabl e estimate of themean area of effectiveness.

There are several methods of cal culatingmean areas of effectiveness" in this report,

where applicable, MAE's against buildings have

been calculated by the USe of the exponential

formula;

F", 1_-MIiA or M", A log. ( __ 1_. )n I I ! ! 1 - F

where f: ;;;;;: th! " bASe 01 natural loga,rithmsM= the lILl.E of the projeedl.

n : ;; ; ;; : ;n um be r o { projeetile hib3 em bu- i ld ings

an d ' f' ri i hiD r L a J" m.iss ma:xg111

A.:;;:; Aru. o f b ui J di o g and near miss margin

F' = = fruction of stnl-cw'i"al damage

Wldth of the near miss margin was deter-

mined by ascer taining the grea te st r ecorded

dis tance at which a pro-jectl le caused structural

damage to a part icular type of building, Al lproj ecttles falling with in this distance are re-

gar ded as nea r misse s, whe ther Or not struc-

tural damage was caused by each projectile.

For building types D, Wl.l, W1.2, and W2

where USe of the exponential formula Willi not

deemed advisable because of the nature of

the data, MAE's have been calculated by the

P AG E 4

CONFIDENTIAL

formula:

M = Ild + Dn ( i ; - r''''here Dd= n~er3g,eana ot structural damage

per d i . . . t hit

Dn .= u\"enge area. of struetuml damageper near mtss

.A~ = area of near miss n1argili:

AI := area I J I r bLl.ilding

Effectiveness of projectiles against machine

tool s h as been Co m pu ted by the an n ula r ri ng

me thod. Concent rl e c irc le s wer e drawn around

points of detonat ion with radi i inc reas ing by

t en foot interval s. Number damaged and U.8-

damaged machines in each annulus was counted

a nd r ec or de d. Results ·o.f individual projectiles

were comblned to g ive composi te re su lt s baaed

on a nUrnbel' of pro] eet i! e s, Her e, as in the case

of buildings, the MAE is the mean equivalent

urea about a projectile in which damage to a

specified degree or greater wiII resuIt to mac hin etools.

Buildings have been c l!i sg jl led in gene ra ! inaccordance with the Jo in t Ta rget Group c las si -

fications in use by other units of the U. 8.

Strategic Bombing Survey. Several categor ies

have been added to provid e fo r wood frame

buildings which proved to be very common in

the targets examined, See Appendix 1 forbuilding clasaifications.

Repor ! c f Ship" Bomb~,dma ,,1 Survey Por ly

Enclosure [lJ-P~r! .111

CONFIDENTIAL

PAR1' II1-SIXTEE -INCH PROJECTILES

Sect ion On_Effe .c tivenes s Aga inst Bui ld ings for analysls, Graatest recorded distance at

which a Dear miss did structural damage to

this type of building was fourteen feet. Build-

ing 27 at 'Mlto Works, Hita.chi Arms Co., Ltd.,

was the s tructure involved .

Building Type Al.I

Table III below summarizes data on this type

of building for incidents which were suitable

TABLE In

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEEN-INCH PROJECTILES AGAINST TYPE AU BUILDINGS

I ! Dcacriptdon : Single "tory, .t.,,1 frame, """'·tooili roof., DO g!l1ltry ('""vel;"g) cranes, "pam; ge:nenlily I.,.. than1]'5 feet. heigh ts a t eaves general ly I~S iS ihan 25 feet ; a .Tle s.o f lOtOOO square :feet 01 mere,

Ana of . Mea O f l No" Projectiles

B I d g . + Sm.c- Direcl Hits I Il4'Margin . tural Non- NeaT Total

(Sq. Pt,) Damage C r _ a - Cra- Ilti~LnJ(A) (Sq. Ft.) tonng tering

=====-2 0 2

4 0 4

2 0 l!

1 0 1

3 1 5

o 1

ReferenceRe'

1--_--1 ported

En01.. Part Fusing

A:rea ofBuilding

(Sq. Ft.)

Bldg.

N o _lant

1=

,Ritoclli Manufacturing C m PD S0 9 13.' l,iiOO

Co., Taga Works 321 111,000

16 141,000

Hitaohi. Arms Co., C IX PD 18 141,000

Milo Works 27 loU,DDO

28 141,000

'Total '80S,500

155,800

131 , lWO

16>1, 100

164 , 100

164,lOO

164.100

o

ooo

3,300

8,801}

4.1DO

2,700

G,800

1,300

13 15

F = . 0334

M = 2,200 "quare f~.t per pro'j""ti le

Cra tering Hits: NQ data.

No~,C"'teling H:it.: A~,,-.age Stru.ctursl Damng\l '" 2,025 " lUU"! feol per projectile (based 00'12 proj ec,til".1

Near Mi"se~: .'l.~erage Shu eturaI Dam age '" 1,~OO&Inare r " " t p'>rp rojeotile (based on1rojectile)

PAGE 5



Report of Ships' Bombardment S u . . .. . y P a r ty

Enc l o s ure ( I )- po r t I I I- {Con tinue< l )

CON F I D E N T I A L

Building 'l'y{ws A1..2 lhru A2..2

No incidents wer . . observed on bui ldings of

these types,

involved, Table IV below summarizes data, No

near misses wluch did structural damage were

recorded against buil di ngs of this type. How-

ever, for purposes of calculatton o£ the MAE,

the near mi ss distance was assumed equal tothat recorded for Type Al.1 buildings, or four-

teen feet.

Building 'l'ype At.aOnly f ive buildings of this type were suitable

for analysis and only seven prujediles were

TADLE rv

EFFECTI \'ENESS OF Sl l"TEEN-JNCH PROJE.CTILES AGAINSTTITE A2,.3 BUILDINGS

Description. Single story. Steel .frame, ng gunt.1" } ' (tml,"eliflg) cranes, fi.Q!l-saw~toot.h :roofs, ~pa.n:Benerally Jess

than 7 !J . 'e -e t~ heigh ts a t eaves : generol Jy lese than 25 fe~t, a rea o f IO.O( )OS.qUE1TC feet Or mere,

truss ccnatructfon.

ReferenceI ,. Area of A. re n of

No. Prcjeetiles

Re- Bldg. ,-"' ",_ + 'm, I ' " " " " .PanL

portedNo. BIlUding !14'lItnrgin. turoJ Nan- Near 'TotoJ

End PartFu.rng (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Fl.J I Damage Cr.n-

Cra- Miss"" C n)

(A) (Sq.F t.) tel'll1g toring= I

I-- =

JapaDlron Co~ A ill PD, BD 3lJII 'U,500 28 ,500 2,00 0 0 1 0 1

Kamaishi Iron Works :!iiI 15,100

I23,800 1,000 1 1 Q 2

~6B 13;100 2I,OOQ 2,600 0 1 0 1

Impe:ri.ol Gort. Rai 1- B DI .PD, BD 53 21 , 1110 32,EUO 1,260 0 1 1 2",a~rs,HanuiD"rtSll

Locomotr.>e W""ksI Japan lronCo., 'E

Iur BD ZZ 19 , 000 I :JU,8( l {1 0 0 1 0 1

Wani.hi 'Iren W""ks ----- -- -- --I

'Total 88,700 136,400 G ,86U 1 6 I l 7 IF =_0";1:1

/ of '" 1,(;00 "I" ~7 "eet p.' projeeUI.Cratertng Kit.: Ave""g" Stroctllral Damage", 0 square feel per projeetile (based on 1 projecclte}

Non·C",toring rots; Average Structural Damage =1,3()9"lI1lar·. feet per prnjeetfle (based on 6 projeolilos)

N•..,. M i s , , , , ,, A~emge Structural Dameg" = = 315 .'IUS"" feet per projeotile (based 011 1 proje.tiT.)

R ep or t 0 1 Ships' Bombardm""1 SU"' ey p ~ rt y

. E nd o ' " r e (J)-P. rt I II -( C c n ti n ued)

Building Types A2,·land A2.5

No incidents were observed on buildings of

these types.

Building Type BI

'I'his t ype was the most rugged encounterad

on which sufficient data were gathered to war-

rant calculation Q f an MAE. Since observations

covered eight buildings and involved f ll l' ty-four

projectiles, the estimate is considered fairly

r eli ab le . H o we ve r, it must be pointed out that

in the gr ea te r p -ort ion of inc iden ts stud ied, dam-

age was confined in the mai n to roof t russ es and

rarely in vol ved serio us damage to h eavy steel


columns or beams as such members were darn-

aged usually only by direct hits on the members.

In no case was damage to the heavy frame

which supported the eraneways considered

serious. This fact must be borne in mind when

compari sons ar e made between the pro ject il es

and large cratering bombs which were found

capable of doing serious and extensive damage

to heavy f rames support ing v ital c ranes .'

No incidentswere observed in which a near

miss by a sixteen-inoh projectile definitely

caused structural damage to a building of this

type. For the purpose of ca lculat ing the MAE,

a near miss distauce of fourteen feet was as-

sumed. Table V below summarizes data (In

these, buildings,

TABLE V

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEEN·INCR PROJECTILES AGAINST TYPE Bl BUILDINGS

Description! Single stor-y, steel frame, ecnbains run'..: a , ; 1 ' s .for h e , < l ' T Y gantry {traveling) er.mes(cap.acitl' 25 tonsOr mere), area 10l u o a square feet Ormore,

1l.efe·",mee.A_T~a .g f I Ares of N·o. .Projectiles

Re- BId I A rea o rBldl)". + Struc- Dtreet Bits

PlaIltported No~ ' Bui ld ing H' .lII!lrgin tu.ml

NtIl1~ Near- Total

EneL I Part Fusing (Sq. Ft.) (,sq. Ft.) Damage ern-CJB~ M i ss e s (nl

CA) (Sq. Ft.) terln,.-termg

j= 1===

Ja pan ir on ce ., A III PD,.BD 15 10:;,900 130 ,900 18,400

I

0 lOlL 0 10

Kamaishi hunWorks 18 , 19

84'

800

1nO,900 5,800 Q 4 0 4

Irnperlnl Govt. Rail- II m P D, E D 33 U6,600 2()2,100 17,300 3 7 1 II

ways~Harnamuteu

Leccmctive Works

lfitaohi Ma"u.f acturing' C V PD ~ 108 , . 600 138,IOO 0 n 1 0

Co., Y..mete Plant192,70Q 2Z4,600 3,.300 3 0 •apan Iron Co., El 11 1 13D 1 1

Wanishl Iron Works 7 ~6,500 63, 10D 0 1 1 1 3

Japan Stoel cs., E IV BD 34 us.son251,4QO l,200 4

~0 S

M Ur o f "n _ n W 0 rka 38 1&5,600 194,1;00 7,200 2 0 3

Total 11 . 088 , 70U 1 , 3 1 5 ,7 0 0 1 5 3 ,2 0 0 10 32 2 44

"C(mi..ains one AP project :Ue..

F == .0489

III = = 1,500 sque re fee t per p ro jeot i I0

Cr sle dng RH: .: Avc11l g<! St ruet urnl Damnge = G60 squnre foet peT projectile (based on HI projectiles)Ncn -Cra te riug Hit s, Ave rage S truewr ll J DRIll"g" = 1,456 .quare toot per prcjectlle (base<! on 32 proje-t lles)

Near Jlli•• co: Average Structural Dnmege = 0 "qua", f , • • t l"'T projectile (b"".d on2 p ro je -t ll . .. )

'Enelesu •• Ie), Pa rt IV .

PA&i 7



Report of Ships ' Bombardment S"",ey Party

E n c I . . . . . . . . (Ip.rt III-{Continu.d)

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL

Building Type B2

Al though the gTe8 test recordl'li distance atwhich a near miss damaged B2 buildings was

twelve feet' , a fourteen foot margin was usedfor the near miss area just as fo r Al.l and Bl

buildings. As with HI bui ld ings , st ructur al

damage was confined Largely to roof trusses,

and steel frames, for craneways were not seri-

ously damaged in any case. A summary of

data on 82 buildings i s g iven in Tabl e VI below.

TABLE VI

EFFECTIVENESS OF IXTEE..~-IN H PROJECTILE AGAINST TYPE B2 BillLDING

Description: tngle :story, steel frame, centalns run\\'U)l'sfor light gantry (traveling) cranes (eapaeity less

than 25 tons), anm 10,000 square {ee t o r more.

A rea of I Are a of'No. Projecttl ••

Re!ere.nc~Re- A",a .1 Bldg. + Struc- Dlreet HJts

Bldg.

W· ...... wm ' I NM . I . - -I""tported

No.Building

Encl. Pa:rtF'u!iing (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. FL) Damoge Cr.". e r n - M i . "" . (n)

(A) (Sq,Ft.) termg tori" g

==1

2,3,4,51=~===

Japan 1n>n Ca. , A ill PD.BD 291,4flO 31);),800 68 ,OUO 9 10 9 22

Kamais.b.i Iron Works 6,7,8,ll

9.10 73,000 96,s00 17,400 7 2 1 10

H 29,400 49,200 12,700 4 2 1 1I Imperial Gilvt Rail- B ill PD, BD 52 17,200 26,000 gOp 1 0 0 1

way s , H am am -a l su 54 39,500 33, 800 3,200 2 1 0 3

Lommotiv~ \\'omJapan Iron Co., E ill BD 3 67,600 93,600 0 0 0 1 1

Waniohi Iren Works 5 54,100 75,700 5,900 3 0 0 3

8 25,900 36,400 0 1 0 0 1

, 21 41,600 55,400 3, 600 0 1 0 1

,33 25,100 36;100 0 1 1 0 2

Japan Steel Ca. , E IV BO I 29177,800 207,200 2,800 3 2 1 6

MnronmWow ----------- -- ----, Total 842,500 1 , 093, 900 114,400 31 19 7 51

F = = .13ii8

M = = 2,800 square 1et per projectile

Cratering Rita: Average Stru.tnraI Damage =1,231 square feet per projectile (based On 26 proje.tile.)

Non-Cratering Hib!: A.erage Structural Damage =3,952 square feet per projectile (based On 17 projectile.)

Near 141_0: Average Stru.tural Damage = 0 square I""t per prcjaet+le (ba.ed on 6 projectile.)

'Buildlng I, Japan [ron Co., Kamai>lhilron Works.

lASE 8

Report o f Ship" Bombardment Survey P4rty

E.nclosure (I)-Part III-(Continued)

Bui ld ing TYl'es Cl. I thru C3


these types .

square feet plan area, most of which are of

light steel frame. Buildjngs of wood construc-

tion have been excluded. Table VII below sum-

marizes the data. Greatest near miss distance

was taken as twent y feet based on Bui ld ing 57,Hamamatsu Locomotive Works, Imperial Gov-

ernment Railways.

Building Type D

This category Includes a variety of miscel-

l aneous smal l bui ld ings of f rom 1,000 to 10,000

TABLE VII

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEE ·[NCH PROJECTILES AGAIN T TYPE D BUILDINGS

De.s~ri'ption: All single story building. of I."" than 10~100square feet but greater than 1,000 square [""t plan

area except those with wood frame a.

MOS of "'.rea ofNo. Projectiles

ReferenceBe-

llldg.Area of Bldg. + Sm.•· Direct Hits

Plantported

:No .Building 20' ~.largin t1:mll

e r n - I Non-Near Tot el

Enel. Par tFusing (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Damage

tezing en- Misses (n)

(A) (Sq.FL)

taring =Japan I ren Co. , A ill PD, BD 23C 8,300 17,200 1,700 0 1 0 1

Kamaishi Iron Works 24B 1,::;00 6,400 G O O 0 1 0 1

25A 5,000 14,900 1,000 0 I 0 1

26B 4,600 11,800 1,800 1 0 0 1

28B 9,000 18,500 100 0 1 0 1

29B 2,700 17,800 500 0 1 0 1

30F 1,400 8..600 1,400 0 1 0 1

30G 8,100 16,900 2,000 0 3 0 3

300 1,600 7,700 800 1 0 0 1

S6K 3,100 9,300 0 0 0 1 1

89 C 7,400 18 , 300 1,700 0 2 0 2

45 8 7,200 16,.600 5,400 0 2 0 2

46A 3,000 9,100 1,500 0 1 0 1

Irnpari III Govt. Rail- B III l'D,BD 55 2,100 7,400 1,000 1 0 0 1

ways, Hamamutsu 56 2,700 7,900 0 0 0 1 1

Locomotive Works 67 2,000 7,900 2,000 0 0 1 1

59 2,400 8,300 60 0 0 0 1 1

Hitachi Mining Co.; C X BD 324,600 121200 900 0 1 0 1

Hitachi Mine,

Relining Se.tion

Japan Iron Oo. , E III UD 1B 2,700 ,600 0 0 0 1 1

WaDi.hi Iron Works --- --- --- -- -- -- --Total 79,300 222,41>0 23,600 3 15 6 23

Crat.ring Hits:

Non·Oratering lIi t. :

Nea r Mi••e s:

M = 2,100 aqua re feeL per projectile

Average Structural Dnmuge =1 ,200 .qua . .. ( ee l per p ro ject il e, (ba sed on 3 projectiles)

Avorago Strnttunl Damage 0= I, L60.qua re r •• t per projecti le (based 0n 15 projecti I . . ,Avnrllgl! Structural Dnmnge = 020aquure!...per proje.tile (based on 5 projectileB)

PA &E ,



R~rt of Ships' Bombardment Su..... y Party

fncIosqre (iJ---$'"rt fll-{Continuotd)

Building Type El


this type.

BlIlJdlng Type E2

Hits were observed on only one building

typ ical o f thi s cons truct ion. The inc iden t in-vo-Ived the seven-stcry, reinforeed concre te ,

Matsubishi Depar tment Store which receivedtwo direct ruts.' One projectile st ruek a pent-

house. but the other per fo ra ted an outside

w all a nd d eto na ted just inside the building

immediately below the six th f lo cr . Ap-proxi-

mately 600 square feet of concret e HOOTwa s

demolished. and 1.9+1 square feet of Hool."area

wa s structurally affected by fra gm en t d am ag e

to reinforced concrete beams.

Blr llding Type Fl

No inc iden ts were obse rv ed on buildings ofthis type.

Building Type F2

Building 47A, Kamaishi Ir on Works , J apan

I ron Co. , a sma ll two-s to ry st ruc tu re of 1,000

feet plan a rea completely dest royed by a d ir ec t

hit, "'lIS the only structureo! this type on

which an incident was recorded.

Special Structures S

Blast fumaeese Two cases of direct hits on

blast furnaces OCClI. JTedat Kamais hi I ron Works,

Japan Iron Co.' In neither instance did the

pro ject il e penet rate within the furnace proper

before detonation, but instead exploded on

structural members or equipment on the outsideof the furnace, In one case, an important

heavy structural member encircling the furnace

was dl! ll troyed. Japanese had not completely

assessed the damage; but were of the opinion

CONF I DENT I A L

tha tit would 11r obablv be necess ar y to I'Il,1lI ove

the Inrnace lining in order to make repall's.

Damage in the second case was ul so severe .

Coke ovens: At Kamnishl Iron Works of

Japan Iron Co. , a s ix teen-mch pro ject il e deto-nated within th e second oven from the end o f

Battery No. 6 after 'passfng through concrete

and brick roof and heavily damaged fOUL' end

ovens . Japanese r epor ted these four ovens

cou Id n (It be .repaired bu t battery eou ld be

onerat ed by blanking of[ t he damaged ovens.

No other di rect hits on coke ovens proper wer e

observed .. A coke Tam was heavily damaged by

II direct l1H. Other coke oven equipment was

damaged by direct hits and by fragments from

ncar rnisses.'

Open hearth furnaces: One projectile, s tr fk-

ing the top of a tilting furnace, completely

demolished the brick roof; Fragments fromnear misses damaged the brick gas port of

anot her furnace:' N I) other fu rnaces were dam-aged.

Soakingpj Is: Direct hit by proj eet il e d .e-

moli shed conside rable brick work of a soaking

pit at Kamalshi Iron Works of Japan Iron Co.'

This was thee nIy soak ing p it whick 5U ffered

direct damage.

Stacks: Stacks of a ll types were found to be

par ticularly vulnerable to s ixteen-inch projec-

t il es, At Kamaish i I ron Works, five re in forced

concra te s tac k s with brick Iini ngs reeei ved

direct hits; in each case the stack WIIS cut off

or holed so badly as to render it useless.' One

stack was destroyed at Wanishi Iron Works

of Japan Iron Co. ' At leas t one masonry stack

in the urban area of Hamamatsu was darnel -ished. Fragments from neal' misses were found

capa bl e of cu tting off sm all steel staCks 1)1 ' per.

forating them so badly as to seriously impair

the draft.

'Enol••ure (B), Part XVII.

'E1IcIOllI1l'e (AI, Part Tn.

'Enel"""", (AI, p"rt 1lI.

'Enelosure (A), Part m."EDcloou", (AI, Part Ill,

'End0llUrl! (A), Part Ut'ED.oJ_ (El, Part m.

CONF . I D ENT I A LRe,F'<>ri ·"fSh ip.' Bemb. rdme" IS" rvoy Par ty

E,ncio,ure I.I)-Pori Ill-[Contin"edl

Building Type WI.l

This type of structure was found to be quite

common i n the i ndustrial targets studi ed. Many

were framed in a manner resembling that fre-quently used in Iigh t s teel Industr ial buildings

a nd co u ld not b e dis tinguis h e e l f rom steel s true-

tures on aerial photographs, Data are sum-

mar iz .ed in Table VII I below. Near miss dis tance

was established at forty feet based on a pro-

jecti le which caused strucrural damage to Build-

ing 392 a t Taga Works of Hitachi r. :hmufactul '-

ing' Co.,

TABLE vm

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEEN-INCH PROJECTILES AGAINST TYPE wi.i BUILDINGS

Deseripticn : Single story, weed 1ramet \\'ith plan a,rea g-reater than 101000Square feet.

Area of Area ofNo. Proje.tit""

Reference'Ile- Area of Bldg. ,Stru.- Di.red IDt.. Ildg, -r-

Plantported

No.lluilding; 40'lbrg\h tum.1

NOD~ Nmu Total

Fusing (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Damage Crn- Cra_ Miss'S (n)Enol. Part (AI (Sq,Ft.) taring

termg

-----Hitachi Matmfactu ring C IU PD III 22,400 54,900 S O D 0 1 0 1

ce. , Tags Wo,k. 1 1 2 22,400 54,900 2,100 0 0 1 1

11 9 10,900 3,2/700 0 0 0 1 1.

126 22,400 54,900 4,200 0 1 0 1

127 22,400 54,900 4,700 0 1 0 1

157 22.;3:00 54,81){ ) 2; lOO 0 1 0 1

159 25,100 52,900 800 1 0 0 1

aN 94,800 7~,300 1,600 0 1 0 l.

355 n,200 39, 800 6,000 1 0 0 1

385 12,700 37,SOO 12."iOO 0 2 0 2

39 2 37,1>00 89,11){) 7'00 0 0 1 1

Hitach iMan ufa.ctl. lring C V I I I PD 2 26,700 6'1,600 0 0 0 1 1

ce, Mit", Wo,ks 4 82, 100 73,700 1,600 0 1 2

Hitac:hi .Arms COOt C IX PD n 34 , 800 7.2,900 l~OO 0 0 1

Mit" Work,.

Japan Iron Co., E ITt BD 12 10;'100 44,900 7,300 2 0 1

Waniahi 1ron. Works 96A 75,900 98,600 3.500 0 0

Total 424,400 956,100 49'MO 10 6 20

1 1 - 1 =4,400 square £.. . r per proj.d:ilc

Ctat,,'ing Hits: A""'lIgo Structural Damage = 3, 025 equure !ee~ perprojec ti le (ba sed on4 p",j~etil~.)Non-Crot;oriug HitS: Avernge S'tl'U.tur:~1 nam!lge =3,260 square teet p~T proi""t1I" (based on 10 prole.tiles)Near Mias ", ", Avemg'eS t1 'l l. tuTa lDamage =9113 square red par projectile (based on Gprojectiles)

'En.losuro (C), Pnrt rtt,

PAGE II



Report of Ships ' Bombardment Survey P.•rty

Endo.ure (I}-part III-(C<>nti"ued)

Building Type Wl.2


AIthough observa tions wen> recorded on

thirty-three buildings of this type, the MAE

determined is considered to ind icate only thegeneral order of magnitude, The r.L~ for

sixteen-inch projectiles against Type W1.2

equal s or exceeds the ar ea ofmany of the bui ld .

ings. Where such condit ions hold, the annularring method is best suited, However , incidents

stud ied usua lly involved i so lated bui ld ings , in-

stead of closely bui lt-up areas of similar con-

struction. This prevented use of the annular

ring method. Data are summarized in Tuble IX

below. Near miss distance was assumed equalto that for Wl.l structures or forty feet. Be-

cause area of damage often equalled area of

bu ilding, no aver age a reas of damage have been

computed.

TABLE IX

EFFECTIYENESS OF SIXTEEN-INCH PROJECTlLES AGAINST TYPE WL.2. BUlLDINGS

Oeaenption: Wo<>d tram... iringl. 0 1 : " ' " plan urea less rban 10,000square leet but greater than 1,000squera f•• t.

.Uea of

Area of isIdg_+Building 40' M&rgin turnl I Near Total(Sq. FI..) (Sq. FL) Damage e r n - NC· on - Mi . . n" (_-)

(A) (Sq.Ft.) Iering t._~~~ . - ~~ n

=====:===="===============

' Ja pa n I ron ce., A

Iill

IPD' iBDI 1,300 0 1 0 1

XamaiohUnID Worb 1,500 0 1 0 1

3.200 1 00 1

2,000 0 1 0 1

400 0 1 0 1

1,100 0 1 0 1

400 0 0 1 1

S,200 1 0 1 2

1,SUO 1 0 0 1

1,100 1 0 0 1

2,600 1 0 0 1

1,800 0 1 0 1

0,900 1 0 0 1

1,~OO 0 0 2 2

a o o 0 0 1 1

500 0 0 1 1

1,000 1 0 0 1

2.800 0 0 1 1

1;200 Q 1 0 1

700 0 0 1 1

600 11 0 1 1

4.100 0 0 1 1

Plant

Reference IBe-

1----' ported

End. Fart IFusing

Imperial Govt. RaJl-

w a ys • . E { . am. am. a ts u

Lcecmctfve Worb

ill 'PD, itD

I

Japan M1I! ioa I I tr s tru-

ment Wg.ce,HeadOlll""PlBllt

v S Q, B D

Hitachi M lIlIufacluring

Co., Taga Worb

I:Iltachi ..... ulacturing C

I

V PDC o. , Y am .a to P I a nt

fiitaohi Anno Co., C IX PDMito Works

Japan Iron Co~, E III BD

WanlMtl Iron Works

IVapan Steel Co.,

Mmuran WorksE

Bldg.No.

Area of 1---,;;:::;-~N~D~,~P:_:r :_:°Tje:_:o.::ti.:.:I·=·.--_ 1Strue- Direot Hits

PD

iBD

12

13 4,100 a6,l100 1,200 1

21 6,700 29,100 2,600 0

Zf J 6,300 27,900 G,300 014 4,!100 21,300 2,000 1

37 3,200 2 : 5 , : 2 0 1 1 1,100 0

~6 2,000 17,900 2,{10Q 0

60 8 ,1! !10 36,.400 2;600 I)

8JR 7,000 ZII,9O!J 0 ()

8213 5,50Q 27,900 0 0

87C 9,{100 33,200 4,000 0

36 6,500 29.,500 1,300 0

--- --_ ~ --Total 141,700 121;.100 62,21)0 9

n

1

oo1

1

1

nn

1

IJ

CON F I D E N T I A LReport 01 Ship,'B om'ba rdmont Survey Party

Enelcsure 1 1 1 - 1 ' a r i III-lContlnued l

Building Type W2 an MAE on a floor area basil; f or two-s to ry W2

buildings" Data are summarized in Table X

Seven buildings of t hi s type suffered incidents below. Neal' miss distance (twenty-eight feet )

suitable for analysis. MAE was computed on was established by damage to BUi ld ing 34 .A ,

plan area basis. Doubling this figure will give Mito Works, Hitachi Arms Go.

TABLE X

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEEN·U.'CH PROJECTILES AGAINST TYPE W2 BUILDINGS

De scriprion: Wood frame, b:o-story" I

PlanNo. Prejeetdles I

Reference \ \A rea of Area of

n e e - Bldg. Area of I 13ld.~.+ Struc- .Di"..1 Hits

Plantported

No. Building .!!8' Marg:;"1 rural Non- \ Near TotalFusing I (Sq. Ft.) \ (Sq. FL) Damage C~- I ern. 11&",," (n)

Enel. Purt -(A) '(Sq. Ft.)

tettng .

=ten"g ,

Hitachi lIfanufactarin g C III l;'D 413 12,300 32,000 2~OO 0 1

I

0 1

Co., Tl\ga Works II

Hita.o hi Manu!ao tu :< ing C vm I'D H ~.400 IG,4110 700 0

II 0 1

Co., Mito Works

IIi ta .h i Arms Ce. , C IX PO 3~"'" 18,900 68,800 1,250 0 0 1 1

Milo Works 85 07,.600 138,900 1,&50 0 0 1

1

l

62 la,GOO .3,100 2,10 0 0 0

I1 1

I

63 13;600 ~3,lOO 3, 700 0 1 0 1

64 13,600 I 43,100 3.,100 0 1

I0 1

--~-~-- -- - 7 1otal J34 ,000 385,400 15,500 0 4 3

111= !i,80 0 squar e feet por projectile (plan area]

Cl"aierin,g Hits,: No data.Non- Cr at er in g' H it .: Average Structu re1 Damage = 2,575·oq.ua~e f.eet per projeetile (b.osedon 4 projectiles)

Nea t Mi. ss es :: Average Stt-uemrral Damage = 1,733 square fee. per projectile (based on3 projectiles)

0 1

II 12 20 1

0 l

0 1

0 11 1

1 10 1

1 1

----15 a n

PAGE 13M8£ 12

M ~ 7,6()() .qua ru reot 1 ' ' ' " pmJeotile



R.port of Ships'BombardmentSurveyPorty

EnclosureI)-port III-{Continued)

CONFIDENTIAL

Report of Ships'BombardmentSurveyI'arty

Encio,ure(I)-Part III-{Conlinued)

CONFIDENTIAL

Building Type WI.2 tudied u ually involved isolated buildings , in-

stead of closely built-up areas of similar con-

struetion. This prevent ed use of the annular

ring method. Data are summarized in Table IX

below. Neal" miss dis tance WIlS assumed equal

to that for Wl.l structures 01"!ol'ty feet. Be-

cause area of damage often equalled area of

bui ld ing, no average a reas of damage have been

computed.

Although observations were recorded on

thi rty-three bui ld ings of tills type. the MAEdetermined is considered to ind ica te only the

general order of magnitude. The MAE "for

s ixteen-inch projectiles against Type W1.2equals or exceeds tile area of many of tile build-

ings . Wher e such condi tions hold, the annu la rring method is best suited. However, incidents

EFFECTIVENESS OF

TABLE IX

IXTEEN- INCH PROJECTILES AGAINST TYPE W1.2 BUILDINGS

Desorlption! Wood . tnme , s in gl e s to ry , p la n a na l es s than 10,000 square f•• but g reater than 1 ,000 square t••t.

IRole,....e I R..

~reg of Area ofNo. Projectile.

Bid);I A raa 0,1 Bldg. + Struc- Direct Hits

Pant ""rled No.. Building 40·lIargin tural c r a - I Non-Ne:o:r Total

Ellcl.1 Part Fusing(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Damage

Lering C.....Misses (n)

(A) (Sq. Ft.)

~ termg-

Japan LrunCo., .0\

Iill PD, BD 5D l,llOO lS,400 1,300 0 1 0 1

Kamaishi IronWDr"" !!!IB 1,500 14,100 1.,500 0 1 0 1

r

27B 3.,200 19,600 3,200 1 0 0 127D 3,100 lS,700 2,000 0 1 0 1

48A 8,600 29,900 400 0 1 0 14811 2,600 15,600 1,100 0 1 0 1491 1,000 14,100 400 0 0 1 1

Imperial Govt. RaiI- B

IH1 PD,BD 32 9,900 42,100 3,200 1 0 1 2

ways, Hamamarsu 33B 1,800 15,700 1.800 1 0 0 1

Loeomotive: Works 58 1,100 13,700 1,100 1 0 0 161) 2,600 !!!I,900 2,600 1 0 0 1

~.pan IIfmi.... Instru- B V SQ, l iD 109 1,800 15,200 1,8(10 0 1 0 1ment Mfg. c e . , 11 0 5,900 21,000 5,900 1 0 0 1Head Ollie. Plant 113 6,000 27,000 1,700 0 0 2 2

U8B 1,000 ll,700 300 0 0 1 1un 1,000 18,500 500 0 0 1 1

120 1,000 13.000 1,000 1 0 0 1H.Itaclti lIfanufacturin g C III PD 101 2,800 14,5IJO 2.800 0 0 1 1Co., TagB Works 155 6,400 26,01/0 1,200 0 1 0 1

351 1,41>0 11,800 ?flQ 0 0 1 1379 8,400 31,600 60 0 0 0 1 1

Hllaclri Manufacturing C V PD 12 4,100 15.100 4.100 I} 0 1 1Co., Yamate Plant

HItachi Arm. Co., C IX PD 13 4,100 26,900 1 , 200 1 0 0 1Mlto Work. 21 6,700 2,9,100 2,600 0 1 U 1

26 6,300 27.900 6,:100 0 I} 2 2Japan Iron Ce. , E III BD 14 4,800 21,100 2,000 1 0 0 1WaniJlhi Iron Works 37 3,200 25,201) 1,100 0 1 0 1

46 2,000 17,900 2,000 0 1 0 1!is 8,800 36,400 2,600 0 1 0 18IR 7,0011 28,000 0 0 0 1 182B 5,600 27,000 0 0 0 1 1

!Japan Steel Co.,87C 9,000 33,200 4,000 0 1 0 1

E rv BD 36 6,600 29,500 1,300 0 0 1 1Muralan Workl ----------- ------

Total 141,700 727,300 62,200 9 12 15 36

M6.E 12M _ 7 .6 00 aqu ar e f ee t p er p ro jo ct Jl e PAGE Il

Building Type W2 an i\lAE on a floor area basis for two-story W2

buildings. Data are summarized in Table X

below. Nea r miss d istance (twenty-e ight feet )

was established by damage to Building 34A,

M.ito Works, Hitachi Arms Co .

Seven buildings of this type suf fered incidents

suitable for analysis. MAE was computed on

plan area basis. Doubling this figure will give

'l'ABLE X

EFFECTIVENESS OF SIXTEE ,[NCH PROJECTILES AGAIN T TYPE W2 BUILDING.

Wood .frame, two-story,escrlptlon:

IPIM No. Projectile.

Areaof Areaof1--.---. -.:,...-----1

Bldg. area of Bldg. + Stru _ Due.t Hits INo. Building \28'Marg;n tllJ"~ jNo.n- Near Total

(Sq . Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Damage Cr."- Cra- lIfisses (n)

(.0\) (Sq.Ft.) tertl'lg toning

I=--==---=I============'=

Referenc.eRe·

ported

Part FusingPant

End

.Jl i t:achi Manur ac tudng C ill PD 4.13 12,300 32,000 2,200 0 1 0 1

Co. , Taga Works

Hitachi Manufacturing C VlTI PD 11 4,400 16,400 700 0 1 0 1

Co. ,Milo Works

Illtachl Arm. Oo. , C IX PD 301A 18,900 88,800 1,250

l0 0 1 1

Mi,o Works 35 ,7,600 IS8,900 1,850 0 0 1 1

52 13,500 43, 100 2,100 0 0 1 1

53 13,600 43,100 3, 700 0 1 0 1

54 13,500 43,100 3, 700 0 1 0 1

--- --- --- -- -- ----Total 134,000 385,400 15,500 0 4 3 1

M = 5, 00 s quare fect per prcjecti le (pl "n a rea)

era ler! nS"Hlts: No data.Non-Cratering Hits: .o\,'orage Structural Damage = 2,575"quare leet pe r pr oj"di l~ (based on 4 projectile.)

Near Mis."., Average S trudural Oa, ." age =1 ,733 square fee t per p ro j"et ile (based on 3 pro ject ile. )



R ep Oft o f Ships' B om b. 1r dm o nt S ur ve y P .r ty

e. .~lo."", (IJ-Port Hi--1Continu"d]

Sect ion Two-E lhdivenes s Ag-a inst ~ tl lchine

Tools

Considerable data were gathered on damage

to machine tools in fifteen buildings subjected to

naval bombardment. I n these inc iden ts , a total

of 1,90:2 mach; ne tool s Were exposed t" damage

from forty projectiles, the overall data being

pre sen ted in Appendix 2and plo tt ed in Figure I,with curves f it ted by inspection.

lI'IAE's calculated both from the rough data

and from smoothed data cbtained from the

curves are 1'1 ' .. sen ted in Tahie XI below.

TABLE XI

EFFECTIVENESS OFSIXTEEN-INCH PROJECTILES

AGAJNST MACHINE TOOLS

MAE (SQ. ft.)

Troe

DamageRough

DataSmoothed

Data

DestroyedHeavy

Slight

2,437

4,930

9,34.7

2,357

4,30010,398

I

PA6E 14

CONFIDENT IAL

An eff ort was made to compar e the ef fect ive-

nes s of en te ring and non-c ra ter ing pro ject il es

against machine tools . All data 0[1 non-era tering

proj acti Ies have been comp il ed in A ppendi x 3and plotted in Figure 2 ,11 smooth curve being

fitted by inspection.

I n Tab le Xli, MAE' ,s fo r nou-c ra te ring s ix -

teen-inch pl'ojectH~s, calculated from rough data

and from the smoothed data, are compared,

TABLE XU

EFPECTIVE1>.mss OF NON-CRATERINGSIXTEEN-iNCH PROJECTILES

AGAINST MACHINE 'TOOLSMAE (sq. ft.)

Type Rough

I SmoothedDamage Data Data

Destroyed 2,529 2,512Heavy 4,786 4,848SI.ight 8,.94.4 9,517

R CONFID ,ENl iALf

II I I r

LEIS. iWD

- .. - Dest,oyed

.. - - - De.t,cyed pl., He .v;ly Damag eO '

X --- D.",oy.d, Huvily.nd Sl i 9hl ly D. ",0ged

Hor~lont~'1Distence T o l. 1 N umbe r 01Fro m Poi",! 01 M . o hi ne T oo l.

P ro je ,= li Je D et on d ie n Leceted In

(feet] A n n u' r" r R i ng

ij·IO 17

10·20 29

20· 3 0 56

30 - 0 1 { ) 77

40-S0 93

50·/'0 95

60-70 1 01

70-80 1 , 14

80·90 In90- 1 00 1 10

1 0 0 - 11 0 11 4

1 10 · I~ O 90

1 20 - 1 30 '06

1 30 - 1 40 BB

1 40 - 1 50 10 2

1 50 - 1 60 90

1 60 - 1 70 111 70 · IB O 93

I

I BO · 1 90 10

190 . 200 60

200·210 62

210 ·220 62

220·230 s o230- 240 33

I

----

Tel..l 1 , 902

X

-e,

.J ¥ ) II )-I

_xi_ _ . . . "':210X

220 " 230 240'" 170 180 (90 200-:il\!)

-<"-

Data em era tering sixtee'lFinch projectiles are

presea bed in Appendix < 1 and plotted in Figil t"fl3,

11 . smooth curve h,avillg been fitted by inspection.

Near misses are Included in. the compilation.



R.J!Orl of S h ip " B omb. o rc lm . nt S ur v ey P . rt yE n i I o t . . . Ilpart III-{Continued)

Figure I

DAMAGE TO MACHINE TOOU ii Ii!;' lIorT. N·INCI'I' PltOJBCTlLES

(b.oiud"" ..II ".," ,uilnhl" ,fo, .~ ..)

IOO~

90 \\ \

80\ \~\

'\\

0\ \

I&J 70(!I

\ \ \l~cl

\ \~\I)

60.J

\\ \ A-

I&J • \ ~::r 500 \

~

clX

~1 \ \u,

\IIJ 40

\ .!I

~ \ -,IIJ \ \,II::I&J soa ..

\"

l>.0 -, "~. . . . . .

<,

~. "~ A ~

~10 •'., ~

<

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - ' 1I~

"--'_ . . . . . . . . . . _r- :t_-

I- X'J C l x · ~ " _X,.). _ . . . _

. . '. ::..}:.:~_-l- A - I~, . . J

00~~=-.//4-'1-

10 20 so---:e==- ,-~- - : 1 : 1 .

40 50 60 70 80._- 140 ._ 150

90 100 110 120 130 160 170 180

HOR I ZON TA L D I S TANCE F RO M P OIN T O F P RO JE CT IL E D ET ON AT IO N - F EE T



c .o H-----+--o

:IN)

01-+-----11---a

~H_-----+--o

x

IN)

1\')1+-----+--a

\ I I I I I I

X

. .III

0 0(II (II

! : I . . '".. .. .. . .0

-< -e01 01

s- c . . .

. : 1 :"tl

i:(II . .II

: : 5 . :I:-e : !II

Qo

!II : : 5 .:::I - < " .0-

~ 0

.0'!II

::r3

+ !II

-s : ..001

0a..

lit

3Qo

..0!IIe,

•o~,. . . .-.o-<!IIc...

Fm(j)mZo

-NNN---·-----_WN-O~~~~m~wN-o~m~~m~wN-000000000000000000000000

I

NNNNN----------~~~~m~wN_~..WN-O~.~.·~ .•~.m~w.N-8oooo000000000000000000·0

. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . - ' . . . . . .W~~~~_~~~O~O~-_N_O~~~~NWONNOow~O~OO~O~OWA-~W~~~~

-

_ .

-

I\')

~I-------+--------+--------+-------+-------~--------~------~--------~------~--------ia

8 L - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~

ooZJ:!omZ::!> -r



Rep 'o r t o f Sh ip s ' Bomb .J rdme n t Su rv e y P e rt yEnC l o su r e( I) - P ar t I I I- {Cont inuad) Figure 1

DA~ &10TO MACHINE TOOLS BY IXTEEN(I o J . • CH prWJECITLu udes nil dRln .Uilubl" for uIlIv.;')

10

::!

~00

:a

' "s

o

" ")4~4o

(/)

...Joo~

" "z:z :o4~u,

o

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM POINT OF PROJECTILE DETONATION - FEET



. . . .~--x

~t-+-------it---

o

x

---- - ._ ~--~,- ------ -------I----~_]I-~r------

(D "_-------it---

o

. . .~I\) X-1>+----+--o

I\)

I\)H----+---o

I\)

~._-----_4------_+-------~-------+_-------~--------~-------_4--------_+--------~------~o

I\)

8 - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -

-Io-+-a,

NNNN----------WN-O~~~~~.WN-o~m~~~.WN-0000000000000000000000001 • , I I 1 t I I • I I I I • I I I I I •

NNNNN----------~~~~~.WN-.WN-0~m~~~.WN-800000000000000000000000

" " . aoN

-----m~m~_~~~O~O~--N_O~~~~N-WONNOOW~ON~~O.OW.-~W~~~~

x . . . •II ..I I0 0(]) (1)II! II!. . . . . . . . . .., .,0 0

"< -e(1) ea . . . Q..

"'CFIII

ICD

III::;,

-<0III

3III.0(I>

a . . .oIII

301.0(\I

Q..

r-m(j)mZo

-

-

-

-

ooZ: : : ! !omZ-I

)0-r



Re rt of S h ip " B omb. rdm e nt S u rv e y P a rt yeJ:. - ( I )- P a rt I I I -( Con ti n u edl Figure 2

DAM,\GE 10 MACHI E TOOLSBY ON · , UA l 'ER ING IXTKf!N.!N H f 'ROJEClTL

1

I100

~\

90

1\ \80U\~\ll\~X~--+-~+--4-~+-t-t-III-ITII

\ ' " \0 _', \ 1 \

\ \ . I \

10

~

I 0

! : : : 0

lfi

0~

Q

ILl~«~«Q

If)

..J

8t-ILlZ

:t:o

~u,o

ILl~~ZILloa ::ILlIl..

70 90 100 11 0 120 130 1400 20 40 50 800

DISTANCE FROM POINT OF PROJECTILEHORIZONTAL

15 0



. . . . . .o

x

T Ix

x

-

U)

o

Q)

o

x

I\')

oo

x

I\')

5

x

.1\ ')

I\')

ox

> ;~Io

-io-oNNNN----------

~~og~~~g~~~~o8g~~~~~~~oo, I I 1 1 •••• , • • I I I I I • • I I I I ,

NNNNN---------8-0~moo~~00~0~WONOO-~WN-O_OCO ......~~WN-00000000000000

N

t

:,0 I

~ :r 3 .o 0N

~ 3 g-;1I'"C~

::00

~ ~ :;' 9.o - VI

~0 it. . . . . . . . . ~c r 0~ C D

x

oC D

'". . . .,o-<

C D

a . . .

. . .II

IoC D

'"-,o-<III

a,

"'C

CVI

IIII!II

:5.. : : c

o!II

3!II

.aIIIa,

•IoIII

'". . . .,o-eIII

a . . .

rm(j)m

Zo

-

-

-



10

,

0N

I00

e

'"II< . ! )

-cGo

DAMAGE TO l \lAClfrNE TOOLS BY CRATERlNG lXTEEN.l CD PROJOCI1LES

Cl

~ 70«~«Cl

.

\ 11

. 1 \\

\ \

\J)

5 60

r =

401----_+_-

201----............

x

10 30 40



P A G ES 1 9 - 20

I

m~------t-------i-------~-------+-------+------~r-------+-------4-------~------~o

~~--------4---o

l3 t------4--o

~~-----4--o

~

~ ~ - - - - - - - - 4 - - -o

•._x

""1;J

I.. .0 ,,0"iii' ., .,n 0 j::i'

N N I ' o o lI ' o o l---------- :!: 3 0IN ' o o l-0 ..0 I X! . . . . . 0- U1 . . . . . IN ' o o l-0 -0 I X ! . . . . . 0- en . . . . . w N - - iD :I

-i 000000000000000000000000 - n ""1;Jit

0 . . • '.. • . . • . . , . I I I

,I I I , I . ,

~00-+~ I ' o o l I ' o o l I ' o o lI ' o o l I ' o o l----------0 I X! . . . . . 0- U1 . . . . . W N - +I 'D - ,

- . . . . . W I ' o o l-0 -0 I X ! . . . . . 0- en . . . . . w I ' o o l- :5 000000000 -+:10

00000000000000 o +iii'

~ 0 it-+ ... :1

0'n

:I !II

x

o(I)

'". . . .,

o"<I'D

a . . .

oDI

3DIIQI'Da . . .

. . . . •II .I I0 0I'D I'D. .. . . .-+ . . . . .., . . . .

0 0"< "<I'D CD

a . . . a . . .

."

E ""

'":r:I'DIII

. : 5 ,.:z0III

3IIIIQI'De,

r-m

(j) -mZo

-

-

-

Nt

~ r - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - t

Nt

8 ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - L - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - -

- - - W N N N I ' o o l N W W N . . . . . W N I ' o o l W - -. . . . . e n - O - O N e n W - ~ . . . . . 0 U 1 0 I X ! e n I ' o o l O - I X ! O - W U 1 - U 1 . . . . .

tr

m:.u:::a .

(



N

o o " " " ~"b1i-<b0<:00'1I-'<:OCI-!I

l '=j.. c8 .' I::l

9til::I..to

ooZ::!!omZ::!

> -r-



Repor t of Ship.' Bombardment Survey Party

Endowre (I}-part Ifl-{Continued)

Docks

No significant damage to docks was caused

by sixteen-inch projectiles. Craters demolished

sections of sea walls or pavements but these

did not seriously impair usefulness. of dock.'

Electrical Equipment

Fragments were very effective in cutting

electric cables and wiring, both inside and out-

side buildings. At Muroran Works of Japan

Steel Co., Japanese reported power lines cut at

94 places in and around plant.' In some in-

tances, damage to wiring of individual build-

ngs would have been sufficient to prevent

perations, This was the case in No.2 Open

earth Building at Kamaisb] Works of Japan

ron Co., where no operations could have been

arried on without e.uensive repairs to wiring.

ragments from near misses both destroyed

nd damaged transformers, motors. generators,

nd electrical distribution panels. An electric

urnace was heavily damaged at a distance of

hirty feet.'

Gas Mai.ns

Both direct hi ts and near misses caused seri-

UII damage to exposed gas mains.s No incident

f damage to underground gas mains was

ecordad.

Gasometers

Two direct hi ts, one in each bombardment,

I'ere scored on a gasometer for coke oven gas

t Kamaishi Iron Works of Japan Iron Co.

irst hit tore a hole in top stage and ignited

as but damage was not particularly serious.econd hit, at side near bottom, blew a hole in

ll three stages, the gasometer being empty at

is time, and damaged one of the vertical

uides.'

Direct hits caused serious damage to rotary

In s and to stationary vertical kilns."

'Ilnelollure (A), Part lV.

' B n c l o l l u r e (E), Put IV.

' I I I II J c t i D a ' 2'1, Enclosure ee), Part III.... ..... .... (A), Part III and Enclosure (E), Part llL

CONFIDENTIAL

Locomotives

One direct h it was recorded, the locomotive

being heavily damaged. In two other incidents,

projectiles were reported by the Japanese as

having detonated directly underneath locomo-

tives, causing heavy damage. Fragments from

near misses caused damage ranging from slight

to heavy.'

Railroad Cars

Japanese reported slight to heavy damage

to freight and passenger cars, but it was not

possible to veJ_'ifythis by inspection at t ime of

survey. Since no direct hits were reported, it

is assumed that damage was caused by near

misses.

Railroad Tracks

Based on Japaness reports, individual projec-

tiles were capable of cutting up to three sets

of tracks. In one incident t'eported, the crater

from one projectile undermined two tracks

which were thirty feet apart (between inside

rails) and destroyed a third track in thecenter ..

Roads

Craters from sixteen-inch projeetfles were

Jittle more than an inconvenience in impeding

traffic on roads or highways.

Rollin.g Mill Equipment

No incidents of damage to roll stands propel'

were observed, Fragments rendered ron stands

fnoperative by damaging or destroying elcch-lc

meters, reduction gears, or other power trans-

mitting mechanisms. Operations were also im-

peded or stopped by damage to cranes, roll

tables. shearing machines, electrical distribu-

tion panels, electrical controls, water mains,

reheating furnaces, and stacks.'

'EnoJosu re (A). Part HI.

'Encla.""" (A), Part III and Enclosure (Ell. Pa.rlll1.'Encla.u", (B), Part IV.

'E'ndoou<e (A), Part l ll lUld EncloBure (E), Part 111

R ep c rt o f S hip .' Bo m ba rdm en t Su rv ey P . 0+;

Encic.ure IIJ-Port IIT-iCcntinued)

Water Mains

Cratering projecti les broke underground

water mains exposed within the crater, but no

instance was observed where ruptu re occurr ed

from earth shock beyond crater limits. Break-

ing of water mains in some instances had sed-

ous consequences on operations ..

Section Fow:-Incendiary Capabilities

Fires occurred in several areas bombarded

with sixteen-inch projectiles. A highly destruc-

tive tire resulted when Inf lammable liquids and

vaPOt·s were ignited at Karnaishi Iron Works

CONFIDENTIAL

of Japan Iron Co. . Pire also destroyed wood

buildings and motor shelters at this plant and

at Wanishi Iron Works of the same eornpany,

At Muroran Works of .Japan Steel Co., a wood

warehouse containing cylinder oil in steel drums

was destrcyed when fragments from a hit ona nearby building ignited the oil' Sixtaan-ineh

projectflesqulta posaibly contributed to f ires in

Kamaishi urban area. However, except where

highly inflammable materials were present, fires

could not be definitely attributed to direct

explosive effect. Instead, fires quite probably

resulted from the overturning of cooking fires

or electrical short circuits, and were indirect

e ffect s o f the expIoslons,

'Bnclosure (A),. Pad Hl and Eno1Q"ure (E), Part ill.

'EnelMUe (A.), Part III.

'EnclosuTo (IE), PaT!:IV.

'Enclosure (E), Part lV,

PAGE 2l



'Report of Ship," Bombudmenf SUrv 'BY P~riy

Endo.ute ( .I ') -P ~ ri . IV

CONF.lDENT.I 'Al

PAR'f IV-EIGHT·INCH PROJECTILES

Seetion One-Elrec!j\'ene:<,S Agaj nat Buildings were insuff ic ient to war rant calculation of

MAE's, but observations and average areas ofData on damage by eight-inch projecttles damage are summarized in Table XIV below.

TABLE XIV

DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS BY EIGHT·INCH PROJECTILES

Rer"""neeAverage

Area ot No. 'Mj,'" ffi. I StructuralBldg. Bldg-.

Area o, tStn.tural Damagelant

Bldg.Type No.(Sq. Ft.)

Danmg,e I Non- , perEncl. Part (Sq. Ft.) Crater- ICr st er- To tal di rect hit

mg ing (Sq. Pt.)

AU Naka jima Airpl an. IA." B X 2: 290,000 0 1 n 0Arai Plant

H1 Japan Iron Co., A II1 49D ;;8,200 0 0 2 2 0Kamalahi Il"QJl Wodos

El! Susnld Loom Co . j B VIIT 4 5 ,900 0 0 1Harnarna tsu Works,

WI.l Asan» BeRVl' Indus tr ta l Co. , B VlI 2 14,000 0 10Hemametsc No.2 Works 3 12.500 150 0 1 I

Sut . :uki Loom Co., II VI U 23 31,700 0 0 1 1

Inmarnatsu Works 33 lO,llOO 0 o 1 1

Aserage wrall W1.1 Bldg,,- = = 38WU Japan 1",,, cs, A ill 49K 3,400 40 0 Q I l

IKam aishi I ron Works

Asano Keavy Industrial Co., II vn 20 5,200 0 0 1

Ia rnamat su No" 2 WorksAsano Heavy Industrial ce., II VI! 1 S.400 2,160 0 2 2Hamamatsu Ne.l Worko, 2 5,700 G o Q 0

Iranch Plant

IAv erage [or all Wl.2 Bldgs. = Il42

W2 Aaane Hea.v-y Industa-lal C o+j II VII 1 6,760 1;900 0

J

2 I 2Hamamatsu No. 2 W~rlts

I Isanc Hea ,vy Industrial Co.. B VII 16 SO O HiO 0 1Hama tnatau No. I Works,

Drench Planti Average for a ll W2 Bldgs . =650

In only one incident was structural damage

observed to be definitely attributable to a nearmiss by an eight-inch projecti le, This 111\'olved1,320 square feet of s tructural damage to Wl.2type building at Hamana naval barracks causedby projectile detonating approximately one footaway.' In an incident at Asano Heavy Indus-trial Co., Hamamatsu No. 1 WOl·ks , BranchPlant, 2,000 square feet of structural damage

was attributable to one direct hit and three

neal" misses within ten f~t; however, damage

due to near misses could not be differentiated.'

On the basis of these scanty data, i t appearsthat eight-inch projectiles are ineffectiveagainst any but wood industrial structuresand that expected areas of damage against

even these are small. Eight-inch projectiles

were found to be capable of doing serious dam.age to small hous ing units,'

'Bneloaura (ll), Part XlI.

'Enolo"ure (B), Part VlJ.,'En.lo.o re (A), Part IV.

P A G E •



t.pori of Ships' Bomb.rdment Survey P.rty

c I o a u r e 1 1 . . . . . . . . . rt IV-Ic..ntinued)

~tion Two--Elfedivenes<i Against MachineTools

Only two incidents of damage to machine

Ols by eight-inch projectiles was observed.

ne direct hit destroyed a shaping machine at

sano Heavy Industrial Co., Hamamatsu No.1

orks, Branch Plant. Another projectile deto-

lting on a wall three feet from a horizontal

ring machine at Hamamatsu No.2 Works of

e same company did only slight damage toe machine.'

!dfon Three-Elfedivenes<i Against Other

Equipment

Slight damage was caused to one transport

CONFIDENTIAL

crane by a direct hit by what was probably

an e ight -I nch pro ject i I e. ' One ove rhead t rave l-

ing cr ane was s ligh tly damaged by f ragments

but d istance f rom point o f de tona tion to crane

could not be ascertained with certainty.' No

other signIfi can t incident s of damage to equ ip-

ment could be found.

Section Four- Incendiary Capabilit ies

AIthough eigh t-inell projectiles pro haply con-

tributed to fi res whi ch occurred in Kamai sht

urban area, no evidence of direct incendiary

e ff ec t from explos ion was obser ved . Fi res mostprobably resulted f rom overturned cooking fins.

'Enclosure (B), Part VII.

EncloSUTe (A), PartI II , Ana 39F.

'Enelo.Oll'e (Aj, Par t III , Area 49.

Report of Sh ip.' Bom b a c d m e n f S u rv e y P.o rty

En .c lo su r e ( I)-Par+ V

CONFIDENTIAL

PART V-SIX-lNCH PROJECTILES

No six-inch projectiles were fired a t j 11 dus-

trial targets. These projectiles were found

capable of causing severe damage to wood

houses and l ight wood frame barracks bui ld ings

at both Shimazaki and Kushimotc.' In no case

did he re su lt fr om a hit bya s ix -inch pro jec ti le .

' Enolos ure (G), Par t I ff and Encl osur e (B ), Pa rt IT !..

P A G E % 7



Repo, ' 01 S h ip " B o m ba rdm en t S ur ve y Par ty

E nc lo su re ( II -P o rt V I

CONFIDENT IAL

PART VI-FI E-INCR PROJECTILES

did not ignite. Damage was superficial. Direct

hit on vertical guide cut. member but did no

other damage.'

Tower for Power Tram!mission Line

Direct hit caused superficial damage only.'

Chemical Equipment

Direct hi ts on tanks blew holes varying from

two to seven feet across. Fragments from near

misses caused only superficial damage to piping,

tanks, and other equipment.'

Elevators

Fragments caused slight damage to one

elevator.

Oil Storage Tanks

Direct hits by live-inch AAC ripped holes

varying from five to ten feet across.

Section Four-Incendiary Capabilities

No incidents of fires definitely resulting

from explosion of five-inch projectiles were

observed. However, one shrine was destroyed

by lire at Shimizu during the bombardment but

exact origin of the fire could not be determined

at t ime of survey.

P AG E 2 9

Section One-Effectivene s Agai nst BUe!dlngs

At Shimizu, twenty-uine hits were observed

on buildings at industrial plants, Twenty-sevenstruck reinforced concrete or steel frame build-

ings and no structural damage resulted in any

case. Two projectiles detonated on wood frame

sheds, each Jut accomplishing approximately

150 square feet of structural damage.' Hits on

wood dwell ings of average size did not accom-

plish damage serious enough to render them

uninhabitable.'

Section Two--Efl'ectiveness Against Machine

Tools

No incidents involving machine tools were

recorded.

Section Three-Effectiveness Against Indus-

trial Equipment

Stacks

One projectile struck a reinforced concrete

stack. A hole three feet in diameter resulted.

Damage was not serious and could easily have

been repaired.'

Gasometer

One projectile detonated within a three-stage

gas holder. Fragments made a few small holes

in the shell, but Japanese reported that gas

'Enclosure (F), Par ts HI, IV and VH.'Enclosure (G), PRTt VI.

TEnolo.ure (F), Part 1Il.

'Enclosure (F), Part Ill,

'Enclosure (F), Par t I II .

'Enclosure (F), Part Ill.



Re p o r t o f Ships ' Bombarc lmen t Su""ey Par ty

En do lU r tI ( I )CONfiDENTIAL

APPEND1X 1

GROUPS AND TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

(A) Single story, steel frame, no

traveling cranes, spans gener-

ally less than 75 ft.. heights

at eaves generally less than

25 ft., area of 10,000 sq. f t . ,or more.

(B) Single story, steel frame, with

traveling cranes, any length of

span, area of 10,000 sq. ft. or

more.

(C) Single s to ry , s tee l frame, no

traveling cranes. Spans greater

than 75 ft. Height at eaves

general ly greater than 25 ft.,

area of 10,000 sq. ft. or more.

1Saw-tooth Al.l

roof

2 Nou.-Saw- A2.1

tooth A2.2

roofs A2.3

A2.4

1 Bldg. EI

housing

heavy

cranes

2 Bidgs, HZ

housing

light

cranes

1 Main CLl

framed

members

in two

directions

AU

A ll buildings of this group with

saw-tooth roofs ot her than those

included in types AI.2, Al.B and

AlA

Frame and roof ala b monol i thie .re-

infon:ed concrete.

Exposed top chords of trusses.

Stressed skin type reinforced con-

m.'ete. (e.g. Zeiss-Dywidag)

S imple beam and co lumn.

ArcheS and rigid frames.

Truss con struction,

Frame and roof slab monolithic ~e..inforced concrete.

Stressed skin incl uding con crete

shell.

Buildings containing runways for

hea.vy cranes (capacity 25 tons or

more) and of height, at eaves, gen-

erally more than 30 ft.AU buildings in this group other

than those in Bl.

Al.B

AlA

A2. 5

Cl.2

Roof trusses supported along one

s id e o f huiding by long span t ru s se s

and along other side by columns.

Permi ts large door along one side,and at ends.

Continuous trusses in one or two

direct ions, long span in one direc-

tion, Supported by columns or ex-

terior walls, and by internal col-umns.

Exposed chord saw-too th roof build-

ingS~ exposed chord truss es sup-

porting major size trusses at 90".

One or bothhuss systems may beof long span.

Diamond mesh arch.

Cl.B

C1.4

a o

Repor i o f Ship" Bemba .,<lment Su.vey P .r ty

Encie,u.e II )

CONFIDENTIAL

APPE DIX l-(C(lnti.nued)

GIWUPS AND TYPES OF TNDUS~RIAL BUILDINGS--------

Group IType

SymbolDescription

2 Main C2.1framed

members

in one

d irection C2.2

only

C2,g

Long span arches individually sup-ported along sides of bui ld ing. May

be arranged inmultiple spans joined

along side .

Long span triangular or bow-string

trusses Individually supported by

columns at sides of building .. May

be arranged in multiple spans joined

along s ide, using common columns,

Roof pitch exceeds 2 in 10.

I

Long span trusses, top chord of

pitch 2 in 10ar less, including ex-

P?sed chord saw-tooth roofs, indi-

Vldually supported by columns along

sides of building. May be arranged

in r nul tipla spans using common col -

umns or may be continuous overinternal columns. IStressed skin including concrete

shell construction,

Group Type Description

======================"========I,S~ym==bo=II====================~

1 Single Wl.l

story W1.2

2 Multi- W 2

story

(S) SpeciaI stru ctu res,

D This type covers all single story,

non-wood frame indus tri al build-

ings, rsgardless ·oftype of construe-

tion if under 10,000 sq. ft..in plan

3 Shell type GB

construe.

tion

area ..

(D) All single story buildings of

less than 10,000 sq.. ft. plan

area except wood frame.

(.I!l) Multi-story bamed buildings

(except wood) .

(F) Mul ti"st ory wall bearing build-

ing. (May have internal col-

umns).

(W) Wood frame strueturas,

El Eal·t11'lU3.ke resistant: extremely Iheavy s teel reinforced conerete,

multi-story construction, designed

to resist heavy lateral loads ,

I

s truc t;tres of thisgroup 0ther than

those ill El.

IEarthquake resistant, wall bearing Iconstruction, (Walls of reinforced

brick. concrete, or very massive

masenry.)

S.tt-uc~.'res. in this group other than Ithose illFl.

Coke ovens, test cells, fuel stor-

age, boilers in power plants, etc .

Plan area of 10,000 sq. ft. or more,

Plan area of less than 10,000 aq, ft.

All wood structures except those

in Wl.

E2

Fl

Fil

8

P A.G E 3 1



Report of Ships' Bombardment Survey Party

Enda.llte III

APPENDIX 2

DAMAGE TO MACHINE TOOLS BY SIXTEEN-INCH PROJECTILES

(Includes all incidents suitable for analysis)

CONFIDENTIAL

2 I :IDistance

Fro", Numb..,. of maehin es in each

Point of damllg1! categury FramOD Fraction

Deto- ,Destroyed Heavily

nation I 1 Damaged

( : : : > : R:. S ' : ' , u n : r o : I~ I .165

10-20 16 1 6' 7, 29 .517 .55220-30 6 6 15 29 56 .107 .214

30-40 10 8 18 I 41 77 .130 .23~40-50 13 2 15 63 93 .140 .161

flO-60 6 10 71 95 .063 .168

61)-70 4 4 9 84 .im .040 I .079

70-S0 4 1 II 98 ll4 .035 .044

80-90 1 2 9 III 113 I .008 I .024

90-100 I 2 2 1 105 llO .018 .036

100-110 1 4 3 106 ll4 I .009 .044

110-120 I 0 0 1 89 90 .000 I .000

12!l-130 1 2 2 101 l~~ I .009 .028

130-140 0 I) 1 87 ~ .000 I .000

140-150 0 II 1 101 102 .000 .000

150-160 1 1 3 85 90 .011 .022

160-170 I) 0 1 76 71 .000 .000

170-180 0 2 0 91 93 .000 I .022

180-190 0 0 1 69 7 .000 .000

190-200 0 I) 0 60 60 .000 .000

200-210 0 0 0 52 52 .000 I .000

210-220 0 o 0 6 . 2 1 62 .000 .000220-230 0 0 0 60 50 .O() . 000

230·240 0 1 0 32 33 . n o o .030

Over 240 Io further damage

Total 73 W 1108

I~1.902

.941

.759

.4B2

.468

.323

.253

.168

.140

.(l9S

.045

.070

.Oll

.041

.ou

. 010

.056

.013

.022

.014

. 000

.000

.000

.000

.030

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

3.3'7

89

41

43

45

47

.629

1.551

.535

.910

1.260

.693

.520

.5~5

.136

.342

.189

.000

.225

.000

.000

.341

. 000

.000

.000

. 000

. 000

.000

.000

.000

.765

1 .656

l.070

1.638

1.449

1.848

1.027

.660

.408

.684

.924

.000

.700

.000

.000

.682

. 000

.7QO

.000

.000

.000

.000

.()OO

1.410

.941

2.277

2.410

3.276

2.907

2.783

2.184

2.100

1 . 666

.856

1.470

.253

1.~75

.297

.290

1.736

.429

.770

.518

.000

.000

.000

.000

1.410

7.756 15.691 29.747

----mr-~~AE

NOTE; Area of central eirele = = 314.2 square feet. MAE is obtained by summing the products of area

factors and fraction of damage lor each category and multiplying total by 314 .2 a quur a f ee t.

0••. = = ~troyed S.D. =Slightly damaged

R.D. =Heavily damaged Undo = = Undamaged

32 PAGE JJ


Enclo.u." III

APPENDIX 3

CONFIDENTIAL

DAMAGE 1'0 MACHINE 1'OOLS BY ON·CRA'fERD.'1G lX1'EE·lNCH PROJECTILE

_2 . . . L . I _ 3 - - , - 1 _ 4 - - , - 1 _ 5 1 ~ _,_ 8 D 10 11 12 13- -------I------------I

Area Area A..re.a

Number of machines In each Factor Paeter-Po,'J1t of Fraction F.mction Fraction Area Factor X X

damage eategory I I XDeto- Destroyed Heavily Slightly Factor F ti Fraetfon Fraction

nation --,--..,----,---.-- D!I1TIaged Damaged rae on Heavily S1i~htlv

I Destroyed 0 ,

_(F_' e_"_t)_ D _ " _ S _ . _I_'i._D_..D. Undo Total ====I=====I====;===I====I=D= a=m=a~g=ed=I=D=a=:m=,,

0-10 6 4 3 1 13

10-20 14 1 5 4 24

20·30 5 (; 15 19 45

30-40 7 6 16 33 62

40·50 9 1 12 38 GO

50·60 5 8 3 53 69

~W 4 3 6 U a70-80 4 1 8 64 '1'1

80·90 1 2 2 16 81

90·100 2 1 1 81 85

100-110 1 4 1 70 76

1l0-120 0 0 0 6 0 60

120-130 0 2 2 77 81

130·140 0 0 1 07 68

140-150 0 0 Q 78 78

150-160 0 0 2 59 61

160-170 0 0 0 47 47

170,180 0 1 0 39 40

180·190 0 0 1 29 30

190-200 0 0 0 25 25

200-210 0 0 0 19 19

210·220 0 0 0 31 31

220-230 0 0 0 21 2l

230·240 0 0 0 18 18

Over- 240

Distance

"Fr om

57

No further damage

- : w 1 - - : ; : ; - 1 1 . 0 7 0 1 1 , 2 4 4o tal

.385

.583

.111

.IlS

.160

.072

.055

.052

.012

.024

.013

. 000

.000

. u n o.000

. 000

.000

.000

. 000

.000

. 000

. 000

.000

.000

.692

.~25

.244

.210

.167

.1&8

.096

.065

.037

. 035.066

. 000

.025

. 000

.000

.000

. ( l O O

.026

.000

.QOa

.000

. 000

. 000

.000

8.050 15.231

lIlAE 1'-2"'5"'2"'9-i-~4=7S=6~-89-«-

.92.3

.833

.578

.468

.367

.232

.164

.169

.062

.047

.071l

.000

.049

.015

. 000

.033

.000

.025

.333

.000

.000

.000

.QOO

.000

1

3

D

. 335

1.749

.555

."i91

1.2.0

.792

.715

.780

.204

.456

.273

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

. 000

. 000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.592

J.,876

1.220

1.470

1.503

2.06l!

1.2.48

.975

.629

.6R5

1.386

.000

.625

.000

.000

.000

.000

.875

. 000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.0(1)

9 10 11 J2 13

--------~ Area ~

FacLa r Fncto r FactorFraction Area X X X

Slightly Factor F'raetdon FradioD FTac t ion

Damaged Destroyed Heavi ly Slightly

Damaged Damaged

7

9

II

13

15

17

1921

23

25

27

29

3.1

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

4...

.923

2.499

2.890

3.276

3.203

2,.52

2.J32

2.536

1.054

.893

1.659

.000

1-225

.405

.000

1.023

.000

.875

l.221

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

2U65

Des. = = Desha fed

U.D. = = Heavily damaged

NOTE; Are" of cenbral etrele = = 314.2 square f"t. MAE is obtained b:l' summing the product s of ar ea

factors and i racbion of damage for each .ategory and mul tiplying total by 314 .2 square feet.

S.D. = Slightly damaged

Undo = = Undamaged




&dow .. I' ICONFIDENTIAL

APPENDIX -l

DAMAGE TO MACHLNE TOOLS BY CRATERING SIXTEEN-INCH PROJEC1'ILES

_ _7 _~II _S - _ _ 9 _ ~ ~ F A ; 1 i a ~ ~ : J~ ; ~ cFraction Fraction Fraettcn Area a~ ur I X X

Destroyed Heavily SligbU)' FadM F ti Fraction Practdcn

,---- Damaged IDamaged I IO:;~a::d EleR"ily SLight ly

Des. H.D. S.D. Undo Total I . Dan13lred Dnmagod

4. -0- 0 = 4 ~ 1.000 11.000 1 ~ 1.000 1.000

1 0 1 3 6 .21ln .200 .~OO 8 .600 .600 1.200

1 II 0 ,II 11 .091 .091 .091 5 A6 5 .455 .465

3 1 3 8 I 15 .2UO .267 .467 7 1.400 l.869 3 .2G9

J 4 24 33 .121 .152 ..273 9 1.089 l.3G8 2.467

1 2 5 18 26 .038 .U5 .30B 11 .418 1.265 3.388

o 1 4 23 28 .000 .036 .179 IS .000 .468 2.327

n 0 2 34 36 .000 .000 .05G 16 .000 ,000 .840

o 0 7 ~5 42, .000 .000 .167 17 .000 .000 2.839

IJ 1 24 25 .000 .1}40 .040 19 . o o a .760 .760

o 0 2 36 38 .000 .000 .053 21 .000 .OUO 1.113

o 0 1 29 so .000 .000 .US3 23 ,QOO .110 (1 ..7li9

l 11 0 24 2~ .040 .040 .1140 25 UOO 1.QOO r . o o oo 0 0 20 Zt! . 0 0 1 1 .000 . 0 1 1 0 27 ,000 .000 .000

o 0 ] z:J 24. .1)00 .000 ,1M2 29 .000 .000 1.218

1 1 1 BG 29 .0iM .069 .103 31 1.054 2.139 3.193

(J 0 0 21 21 .000 . u o o .000 33 .000 .000 .000

o 0 u a 3 1 33 ,000 . o a o .000 35 .DOO .000 .000

II 0 0 rs 15 .000 .000 .000 37 .000 ..000 .000

o (J (I l2 12 .000 .000 .o u 0 39 .000 .000 ..000

U II 0 9 9 .0011 ,QO O .000 41 .000 .000 .000

n 0 0 9 1 9 .OOU . o e o .OUO 43 .0011 .11(10 .000

o 0 00 I 16

0- 157

.000 .000 .000 4& .000 .000 .000

o 1 .000 .143 .143 47 .0(10 6.721 6.121

2 6

Distance

Fl '<>m

Point of

Deto-

I nation

(Feet)

Number of mechl nos in each

damage l:ategiill1~

0-10

I 10-20

z o - a o31) -40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

llO"12D120-130

13()"140

)40-150

, 150-160

160·170

170-1BO

180-190

19U-200

21)0-210

210 -220

22Q-230

230-240

Over 240No further damage

-1---31 457 512 17.646 32.539

-5~ 10224

Total I 7.016

MAE-I~

NOTE " A"", of central ";rcJ.e ,, , 314.2 square feet. MAE is ebtalned by summing the products of are"

facto ... IIJ1dfraction of damage lor each category and multiplying total by 314..2"quare fee!.

Des. =DestroyedH.D. =.Heav i1y damaged

S.D. =Sligh!ly damaged

Undo= Undamaged

PAM J4

C O N F I D E N T I A L

REPORT OF

SH IPS 'BO M B AR a M E .NTSU RV EY PA R Tl

U, S ., S TR AT EG IC B O.M BIN GS UR .V EY

JAPAN

C O M M E N T S A N D D AT A O N

A C C U R A C Y O F F IR IN G SS H IP S ' B O M B A R D M E N T S O F J A P A N - 1 9 4 5

PUBL ISHED IN M AY 1946

COPIES MAY BE . O BTA INED FROM

NAVY DEPARTM ENT , W ASH ING TON , D . C; , E I I C L D S U R E (.I)



R"ponQf Ship, " 8omb~.dm"nt Survey Party

En<:i."u.e {J)

CONFIDENT1AL

CONTENTS

Page No.

PART I ......sUMMARYAND COMMENT...................................... 1

PART IT ~ACCURAGY OF' DATA _ ,. , " _ ,............. 7

PART ill -KAMA ISHI 9

PART IV -HAMAMATS-U 2 1

PART V -HITACHI , " _ , . 31

PART VI -MURORAN "_.. ,, " ' , ".. __ " _ 41

PART vn -,SHIMlZU " , ,.. 47

PART Vm......smONOMISAKI . _ , _.. . . .. .. 53

PART IX -NOJfMA SAKI .. "., , , " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

PAGE iii



Repo rt o T Ship.' ,Bomb~ rd men l Survey P~ rty

Encie,ure (JI-Parl I

CONFIDENTIAL

P.AR'r I-SUMMARY AND COMMENT

Section One-Summary

Fast bat tl eships and heavy c ru is er s, duringoperations the primary mission of which was

bombardment, fired on targets In the areas of

Kamaishi, MuroJ·an, Harnamatsu and Hitachi

in Japan proper. Twenty-two of twenty-seven

industrial plants or housing areas so attacked

were hit. One bridge and a gun battery, which

are difficul t targets at Iongrange beeause of

their small size, were not hit, One other bridge

at which only thirteen shots were directed was

slightly damaged by fragments but not hit

directly.

A summary of data pertaining to accuracy

of these firings is presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3

on following pages.

A t Shimizu , seven des troyers fi red on fourindustrial plants ami a railroad yard. Of the

seven target areas assigned to these ships all

but one were hit, but in spite of this one in-

dustrial pl ant and the railroad yards were not

hit.

In the Shionomisaki area light cruisers

and destroyeus fired on a seaplane base, an

air field and a radio station. The seaplane base

and ai rfield were hit, but not heavily, ami the

J · OO lo s ta tlon was no t hi t.

Four light cruisers bombarded a racial' s ta-

tion at Ncjima Saki. This target was not Jut,but a ocnsiderable number of "(Jl'Qjecti.les feU in

a small village adjacent to t he radar station.

At Sh imizu , Sh tonomisak i and Noj ima Saki

the bombardments were secondary missions

undertaken during ant i-shipp ing sweeps.

Section Two--Comment

PriOI- to the last war our Navy had had

little practical experience in shore bombard-

ments, nor was it envisaged that ships would

be used to make lar ge scale a tt acks on indushial

targets. Doctrtnss had been developed and

training conducted for Support of amphibious

landings. In the early days ·of t he war the gecn-

eral concept of the principal mission of ships'

gunfire in connection with shore bombardments

was to deliver neutralizing fires under cover ofwhich the as saul t t roops would land. Itwas con-

s idered that actual destruction of small targets

such as ind iv idua l gun pos it ions w.Ql !ld r equi re

such huge expenditures of ammunition that

such tasks would usually not be undertaken,

nor would they be necessary. But experience ill

the amphibious campaigns soon showed that

neutralizing f ires tn support of l andings were

not sufficient to hold down casualties among the

assault troops or guarantee successful opera-

tions. In addition to neutralization of landing:

areas by ships' guns, bombing, and special

weapons, techniques. were rapidly developed toaceompli sh des truct ion ef enemy de fenses he-

fo!"e the landings took place.

Very brief ly, and considering only the tech-

nique of del ive ring ships' gunfi re , i t was lea rned

that destruction of small, strongly built and

cleverly h idden defenses cou ld he expec ted with

moderate expenditures ofammu!rition if:

(a) Intelligence data gathered and dis-

seminated prior to the attack showed the loca-

tion of the principal defense installations.

( h) Ca re fu lly prepared plans ass igned

specific responsibilities to individual ships and

prescribed well integt-ated f ir ing schedules .

(c) Ships and their spott ing planes were

allott ed several days i n the assaul t a rea befon

the landing , so' tha t they cou ld become fami li ar

with l andmarks and topography, l ea rn to iden-tify t heir targets visually (as dis tinguished

from marks on a map or photograph), and use

s low, delibsra te Ihe.

(d) Very short ranges were used. (Some-

times below 2,000 yards.]

(e) Ships lay t o while firing. or used

speeds only sufficient f·o1"steerageway.

In general the ships which executed bom-

bardments covered by this report did not have

the ex tens ive pract ica l exper ience in shore bom-

bardments which had been gained by the vet-

eran fire support ships of the Central Pacl1ie

Island campaigns.

PA6E I



...J

-c; : : :zwoII:Z

8

I ~

g. .. I. . ,;;';

...J

-c; : : :z;woII:Zoo

.,. .. I ~

I: '":~:~

I:' ".'-;

I . ' "..;

.N

I·0."

:'"

=>:: :.:

,,~g ~..,l!: ; :1 :. . "lDI. . -~

~"a

1----....:.

~"' _

I: , , _:'"

I~ -. ..ei

I' " '-<

"" ' I: "~

-=

I~

I ~~

k. . . .o

~;Z

1----

PA6E2

PA6E J



~icu:zoo

~::!gg:§;~. . . " " 4' ~~ 1: "o

' ~ -1I .! :

Report "I Ship" Bom b~ rd m en t S"'Y ey P o rty

•."clotu,e IJl-f>~rt I-fConli"u.dl

The forego; ng diseusaion is an a ttempt to

show briefly the background of exper ienee on

which bo~bardment of indusn-lul establish-

ments was based.

There are no data with which to compare

the s ta ti st ic s on accuracy l lt esented in this En-elos l ire. Til e se data them s elves are rG la ti"ely

small samples So that caution is necessary in

d,'awing conclusions f rom them,

Perhaps the most significant figure in the

tabulations is the relatively low number of hits

obtained per 200 yard square. This is of partie-

ul ar importance because of the large number of

hi ts which Enc losure ( 1) shows is necessa ry toaecornpl isb dest ruct ion of heavy stee l f ramed

buildings. The re su lt s show qui te e !ear ly then,

that if complete destruction of a large pl ant of

heavy industry is til be accomplished, either

greater accuracy must be obtained or many

more rounds must be directed at the plant than

were all otted in t he burnbardrnen ts studied.

The ave rage e rr or of s alve placement whenconsidered in rela tion to firing techni qu a s d a-

scribed in action reports is also interesting. As

an extreme example, a ship firing on the Japan

.M:us ica l Inst rument Company a t Hamamatsu

met icu lous ly d irected ind iv idua l s alvos at spe-

eiftc buildings. Yet the average error of the

mean point of impact of her firing was over

1,000 yards in deflection, The conclusion isdrawn that we neeil to know more about what

the real capabi li ti es of OU1 ' ships a re , and revi se

firing plans accordingly.

The average range of daylight fu1ngs by

battleships was approximately the same as the

average range of night things .. Tables 1 and 2

seem to indicat e that at these ranges, and when

slow deli b era t e firo Is not us e d, nigll t f ir ing isonly slightly less accurate than firing by day-

light. And it is interesting to note that the

mos t e ffect ive ind iv idual . s hip per fo rmances

CONFID.ENTIAL

whlch it wall possible to io lat e occurred at

night rather than by day. On. the other :hand

the grea tes t indiv idual er ro rs oecurred a t n igh1 .

Expe-l ience in the Central Pacific island

campaigns showed tha t "a rea bombardments"

were of little effect in d estroyin g small in di-

vidual defense Instatlat ions . Ins tead itWall nee-

essary to a im a t spec ifi c target s, butit was abo

necessary to do this under fi ring conditions

such that great accuracy could be obtained.

The re i s no r eason til donbt that attacks on in-

d ust ria I plants, if the'Y could be cam ed 011t

under s imilar conditions, would be devastating

with great economy of ammunition. But the

studies of this Endosure seem to tndiea te thatto aim at individual buildings in a large plant

when the accuracy of f iring is rather low results

in scattering the shots over a wide area and the

concentration of hits is not sufficiently great toobtain destruction anywhere within the plant.

Itappears that doctrine and technique for at-

tacking industr ial targets cal! benef it consider-ably by further study and development. For

example, it seems quite probable tbat with

l imi ted ammunit ion, and in fa irly rapid fi ring a t

lon.g ranges, better results would be -obtained by

direc t ing a ll sho ts at the most vi tal part uf theplant, thus placi ng the greatest eoncantration

of hits where it would cause the most inj ury,

and depending upon dispersion to affect the

r ema ind el ' o f the p lan t. Tile pctentIal accuracyof naval gunfire should never be permitted to

obscure its Iimitattcns,

Finally, attention is invited to the impor-

tan t role of targe t intell igence in bombard-

men ts, Without an adequate intelligence organ-

izat ion the re i s l it tl e a ssurance that at tacks wil l

be cuncentrated on key parts of the enemy'seconomic structure, nor will a tt acking ships

know the locations of vi tal points within t heir

design ated targets.

PA6E 5

I· . . .~~

.'"0. . . .:~



. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . ..

. . , -~. . . .a-.-. . .~. . .~.. . , . _ ..;..tII

~'

~~

~

W""

~~

~

~. . . . . . .~

~

. . . , ....",

~

~

~w . J , J I '

~

Report 01 Ship,' BOlTlb.,d",""! Survey P~rty

;Enclo,ureIJ)-Pdrt IICONFIDENTIAl

PART II-ACCURACY OF DATA

Sect; 0n One.---Generll L

In the studies of firings which appear i n

s u bseq uen t par ts of this Encl o s u r e th e res ul tsshown must be regarded as approximations for

reasonsset for th in the following discussion, It

is believed, however , that dat.a and assumptions

used ill preparing these studies are sufficiently

accurate to permit a reasonably reliable picture

of the accuracy of Iir ings to be presented,

Section Two--Location of Fall-of -Shot

The scope of this s urvey an d the lim.ited

time available did not permit establi shment of

the location of all iall-of·shot by actual mea-

surament, It was considered essential to showexactly where proj ect il es s tru ek build in g.s i n

target areas , so that effeetiveness of projectiles

against dif ferent types 0. £ construction could bedetermined, Such hits, and near misses, were

located by actual measurement wit h relation to

structures concerned, and are believed accurate

wi th in one yard , eraters in target areas over

fifty feet away from structures were plotted on

vertical air photographs by estimating distances

from adjacent structurescshown in the photo-

graphs, and are considered to be accurat e with-

ln about ten yards. Shots which landed out side

the limits of assigned targets were plotted on

a ir pho togr aphs when avai lable, o r on bombard-

men t charts or Japanese maps of t ile vioini ty,

by estimating distances from nearby roads or

landmarks, Locations of these shots are con-

sidered to be accurate within about 100 yards,

Seetion Three-Identification (If FnU·(lf·Shot

Itwas not poss ib le to defini te ly determine

the spec ifi c sh ip f rom Which any pro jec ti le had

come, When only one ship firedara target it

has been assumed that fal l-of-shoe in 01" neal"

that target were caused by that ship.

When one ship frred on two adjacent tar-gets the patterns of shots fired on eac.h target

frequent ly ove rlap and it is not then possible

to d iffe rent ia te these pat te rns with cer tainty.

In such cases an arhitrai-y line of demarkation

bet ween pattern 5 has been ind ica ted, basedcn

the line-of -f ire and the number o.fshots repor ted

fired on eae h target. This delinea bon of pat-

terns is obviously not accura te , but mere ly pro .

vides a means by which an approximation of

the aecuraeyof 'firing on each of the two targets

can be made.

When two or more ships fi red on the same

target no a tt empt to dif ferentiate the fall-of ·

shot between ships has been made. Instead, an

approximation of the average error of all ships

which f ired on that t ar get i s p re sented .

Di.ff eran tiation between sixteen and ei gh l:-

inch hits and craters was made by amount of

damage caused by the hits, or by crater size.

Fragments and t he relat ively f"w duds found,

when avai lab le , wer e a lso used in this differen-

tiation. It.i s o f course probable tha t some erro rs

in classif cation of proj ecti le size ha ve beenmade, but it is believe<! that they acrerelatively

few i~.number.

Section Four-Mean Aiming Points

Some sh ips !: 'eporte!! the exac t bui ld .. ings

for which each salvo was intended. Others re-

ported tila t certain sal v os were directed at

specilicta.rget squares (200 yards ou each

side). Still others reported only that shots had

been d irected a t some par ticular over-all target

object ; ve, When ava il able data permi ts , the so-

called Mean Aiming Point indicated is the aver-

age of the locations of all specific aiming points,

weigh ted aecord ing to the number of shot s f tred

at each aiming point. When only 200 yard

squa re s were used to ident if y aiming point s, the

~fean Aiming Point i ndi cated is the average of

the co-ordinates of the centers of the target

squa res used, wei ghted according to the nurnber

of shots directed at each target square. When

only target objective names were reported as

aiming points, tile Mean Aiming Points indi-

cated ate the centers of the target objective

outlines (plant boundaries), and have been

est ima ted by eye . Ithas been assumed that no

shot was aimed to fall outside plant (target)

boundaries,

PAG E 7



It.port of Ships' Bomb.ordment S........y P.rty

Enclo.u:e (J)-p.rt II~Continued)

Section Five--Mean Line-of-Fin

Mean Lines-oI-Fire indicated are the aver-age.. of reported target bearings for each salvo.

In some inst ances in which target bearings

were not reported, assumed lines of fire basedon Track Charts and pattern shapes have been

indicated .

Sec tion Six-Mean Poin t o( Impact

Mean Points of Impact Indieated have been

calculated by averaging the co-ordinates of each

shot shown. Origin of co-ordinates is Mean

Aiming Point, and eo-ordinates are oriented to

conform to Mean Line of Fire. Since all shotsfi red wer e not f ound and plo tt ed , i t i s apparent

tha t accuracy of each .MPI ind icated va ries ac-

cording to the number and location of shots

fired but net found and not used in the com-

putat ion . Since target a reas were care fu lly ex-amined, very few, if any, shots which m t themare not pl ot ted. The mi ssing shots are outsideplan t boundaries.

P AS E 8

CONFIDENTIAL

Section Seven-Errors in Charts and PMto·

graphs

'The grids drawn onphotographs and charts

used do not a lways agree pr ec is ely i ll J ocat icn

with grids shown on other existing photographs

and chart s. Err ors frem thi s source in loca tio.gfall-of-shot and target boundaries are not be-

l ieved to exceed about fi fty yards.

Section Eight-Designati .on of Targets

Solid green lines used to designate targets

in the f igures of tins Enclosure. represent target

outlines shown on bombardment charts. It hasbeen assumed that ships used these target

boundaries in firing. Dotted green Jines show

actual plant boundaries as determined from

plant o ff icial s. Plan t a reas and number s of h it s

appearing in this Enclosure are based on solId

green target boundaries. Pl ant areas and num-

bers of hits appearing in other Enclosures are

based on ac tual p lant boundaries. For thi s rea -

son plant areas and numbers of hits shown inthis Enclosure do not always agree with cor-

r esponding i tems shown in athe r paris of thi sReport.

Repe 01 "f S~'p" lIotnbardmenl SUfVC y Pd rty

E n "l o. u ,e ( J) -- P a rt I II

CONFIDENTIAL

I' ART lU-KAMAISHI

Karnaishi Iron Works of Japan Iron Com-

pany, Ltd., i s located in the small town of Ram-

aishi on northeast coast of Honshu, and is one0· £ the most impor tan t p roduce rs of p ig t ron and

s:teeJ in nor thern Japan.

This target Was a tt acked on 1<1 July 194,5

by Task Unit 34.8.1 consisting of three fast

battleships, two heavy cruisers lind nine de-

stroyers. The latter did not participate in the

bombardment prope r but some of them fi red OD

shi pping and a radar station in vicinity of Ram"

aishi, Battleships fired on Iron Works, desig-

nated in target information as Japan Iron

Works. Cruisers f ired on dock and storage areas .

Weather was good, except that ceilings Were

from 1,500-4,000 feet . Air spo t was provided by

firing ships' aviators, riding in carrier planes.

Act ion report s ind ica te that spo tt ing was- some-

what hinde red by smoke, which sOOJncove redtarget area, and by sporadic anti-aircraft fire

encountered Over target. F'iring speed was

twenty knots. Firi ng took place between 1210

and 1418. Except for antiai.locraft fire there

was no enemy opposit ion.

Task Unit M.8 .1 again a tt acked Karnai sh i

on 9 August 1945 from 12:49 to 1445. Task Uni t

was com posed of th rile fast battleships, fou r

heavy c ru is ers, and n ine dest royers . Two Br it -

ish cruisers, with accompanying destroyers, also

participated. Battleships agai n fired on Iron

Works and our cruisers tired on housing areas

to westward of Iron Works. Targets of British

ships are not known, but unidentified fall-of-

shot fhought t o be eight-inch in dock and urban

areas to north and east of Iron WorKS indicates

that British ships ti"ed i n these areas.

Weather was mora favorable titan in first

bombardment, wi th ceiling: about 8,500 feet.

Sh ips' aviators spo tted fr om OUt· planes, Spor-

adic antiau'craft fire was again encoun tered.

Fir ing speed IVas ~fteen knots.

Approximations of results of t he two bom-

bardments of Kamaishl are shown in the tableson the following pages, and in Figures 1 and 2.

Inspection of Figu re 1 s hows tlla t in the

til'S t bombard men t, pa t te rna of tile three batt le-

ships are so overlapped that it is impossible t o

i den t ify th e pa ttern of any ship.

Furthe rmore , a t the t ime of going topre ss ,

bombardment data sheets (If INDIANA and

MASSACHUSETIS had not been recelved. Al-

though the t arget squares at which these ships

were directed to fire are known, it is not known

Whethe r the . ships actua lly fi :reda t al l of them.

Figlll'e 1 therefore shows the target squares at

which SOUTH DAKOTA reported firing, and

the squares at which INDIANA and MASSA-

CHUSETTS were directed to fire.

'The average aiming point of SOUTH

DAKOTA (not shown) was calculated by aver-

aging theeoordinates of each of the points on

which tha t ship r epor ted fi ring ,each point being

weighted accord ing to the number of shots di-

reeted at it. The average aiming poin t s of IN-DIANA and MASSACHUSETTS (not shown)

Wer e f ound by averaging the eo-ord inates of the

centers of the sq nares a t which these ships

were directed to fire_ (Squares 9351 M,N,O were

exc luded s in ee i t is known that relativel y few

shot'S were directed at th em) . The.a verage

a iming point of each sh ip was then weigh ted by

the total sho ts f ired b l" each ship, Theoretically,

the IIverage ai nl ing point for the three ships,

th \IS calcu lated, should be II close approxima lion

of the average of all positions at which shots

were directed in this born bardmen t by the thr ee

battleships. If the re wer e !l0 e!'lVI'S, then the

Mean Point of Impactwould coincide with the

ave rage aiming point . Figl lI "e 1 shows tha t the

error of lIlPI was actually about five yards in

range and thirty yards in. deflection. In this

connect ion, however , i t shou ld be borne in mind

tha.t only about tiity-eight per cent of the total

shots fired were found and plotted. Itseems

log ica l to suppose that the shot s not found wer e

more or less evenly dis tr ibuted in the mountains

which cl osely surround the target area.

Table 5 shows the total number (If hits in

target squares Ilredon by each ship. These

figures shoul d not be interpreted as meaning

that the ship named actually made these hits.

Due to the ove rlapping of patterna it is very

probable that hits in some squares were made

P AS E 9



Repot t o f Ship. ' Bomb.relmen! Surv.y PArty

Enel....... (Jpart III-{CClltinued)

by ships other than the ship firi.ng on them;therefore the accuracy shown in the table is

somewhat higher than was actual ly obtained,This circumstance emphasizes the deairability

of planning target area: assignments so that themaximum number of "s horts " and "0"e!'S" will

l .and in areas wlneh it i s desi red to hit, since it

is well known that pat terns of naval batteries

are much greater in range than in def lection.

'The foregoing remarks on the method ofpre sent ing the Average Aiming Poin t and l 'II PI

of battleships applies equally to cruiser f ir ings ,

shown in Figur<! 1. Target squares 9,551 SX

nave been exc luded f rom the total area ftrad

On by cruisers in comput ing the number of h it s

per 200 yards square, s ince these· squares lie in

water (If the har bor and any hi ts in themcouJd

not be located , Any shots which actual ly did

f al l in that area operate to reduce theerror of

MPI of 140 yards in range, shown in Table 5.

Figure :2 presents approximations of the

results of the second bombardment in graphic

form. As in th e first bombardmen t, it is no tposs ib le to sepa ra te the pat te rns of the threebat tl eships; consequent ly only ave rage data f or

the thr ee ships combined ar e shown . . Although.

Table 6 lists t he number of hits in !:al'get areas

assigned to each ship, this again should not 'be

interp reted as mean ing tha t the ships ind ica ted

made all the hits Ilsted in areaaasaigned to

CONFIOENriAL

them. It is impossible to segregate the hits

made by each ship,

The eigh t -inch shots in the western p'art

of Figure 2 are assumed to have come from our

heavy cruisers. An !l.ttempt has been made toseparate the patterna of each ship and show

individual errol'> of mean points of impact.

Th.es e can only be considered rough approxi-motions of the e rro r s , however , because of the

uncer tainty of iden ti fy ing fa ll -of -shot and the

fact t hat less than one-third of the total shots

were found and plo tt ed ,

The ei ght-inch shots in the east ern part of

Figure 2 ar e pre sumed to have nome fl 'Om the

two British eruisers ; our ships d id not report

l il 'i n.g in these a reas. Data on the ass igned tar-

gets a n d total shots fired by the Bri tish ships

were not available when this report was pre-pared.

In these two bombardments, battleship tar-

get ar ea s wer e almos t exclus ively within p lan t

boundar ie s of J apan Iron Works, while c ru is er

t ar ge t a reas , in genera l. eove red docks and ur-

han areas. Iti s p roba b le tha t cruis er gu!llireini ti at ed the fi res which des troyed a cons ider-

able part of the urban areas. Damage to the

I ron Wodts was infl ic ted a lmost exclus ively byhattl esh ips,

Of the target squares within the Iron

WOI'ks, cer tain ones wer e fi .redon in both bom-

'TABLE ,I.

I

Steel Mill Coke Oven IBlast Furnace Coke Oven By-Products

Section. Tar- Section. Tar- Section, Tar- Section (Neal' Coke Ovens),get Square ,!!t Square I get Square Target Square No.No. 9351 No. 9450 No. 9450 9451

-__----I~s~1I X Y A I H - B - I - _ = c ~ = I : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ : , v _ : : " = _ _ = = = = = =its in First T ----

: ~ : b _ i a : _ ; _ e c e n _ O _ ~ d _ . _ l _ : 1 2 : I : : I : : r - U g H ~ 1 : : ; : : - ~ "om~dment 19

I---;:-tal Rits 1 1 7 31 I - ; ; - ; - r 20 20 ~ I 37 1---- 34

P A GE 1 0

ReF'''! e·1Sf,lp,' Semhtdmen! Survey Party

Eoclo,"re (J]--P. rI HI-{C onl inuedi)

bardments, Since the number oI hits concen-

tl'a ted in t hem has an ;mportan t bear; ng on theamount of damage inf tieted on the plant, as weU

as on the expectancyof hits per squar e when

the same squares are find upon in each of two

bombardments, r esul ts a re tabulated below,

EnclosuTe (I) con tains data and comment

on efleeti veness of aixteen-inch projectiles upon

the st rong s tee l framed bu id iQgs o f h e . 1. I' Y in-

dustries, and an est imate of the number ·of hi ts

r equi red to des troy such buildings .

Even though the two bombardments of

Kamaishi, according to Japanese off icials , dam-

CONflOENTIAL

aged total physical assets of the Japan 1ron

Works to the extent tha t the cost of repair

would be about s ix ty-five percen t the total value

of the plan t, and caused product ion los se s e sti-

mated at between elght and twelve months'

outpu t, no heavy stee l fr amed building was de-stroyed. To actual ly destroy such structures a

concentration of hits considera blYgrea tel' than

those shown in Table 6 is evidently required. If

dest ruct ion i s the des ired objec tive , i t ap ])ear s

that it i s necessary either to accep t mor e ri skto the tiring ships in order to achieve greater

accuracy or to conside rably inc rease tbe quan-

tity of ammuni tional lo tt ed to the task .

P AG E 1 1



.Firing Ship

TABLE 5

FmST BOMBARDMENT OF KAMAlSHl

CONFI

TargetCaliber

(inches)

Average

Advance

Range

(yards)

SOUTH DAKOTA

IND IANA

HASSACHUSETI'S

Total

Average

CmCAGO

QUINCY

Total

Average

JAPAN IRON WORKS" 16 18,532 285 860,000 9 g S l 25,7 78 33.S 26

(9351 S,T,U,X.,Y,

9250 D,E.I.J)

JAPAN mON WORKS 1'6 240,000 6 271 45.2 53 19.6 22

(9450 A, 9451 P,U.

9351 H,I,J)

JAPAN mON WORKS 16 280,000 7 300 42.9 103 34.3 21

(9450 B,C,D,H,I.

9451 V,W)

STORAGE AREA(9450 D,E. 94.51 T.S.Y.

9550 A, 9551 L,P,U)

SHORE FRONT

(9550 B,G.H,

9551 M,Q,R)

• I 'or JocatIon of target A < J U I ln ! S . .. . Fign_ 1and 1.

... ~ 80,0 00 oquare yards of . .. . l .8r in h ar bor.

1===1==== ----=

lIlin

o

1,800

Average

Number

of Shots TotalFired Pel' Shots

200 Yards Plot ted

Square

Approximate Size

of Target AI'eaTotal

Hits ill

Ta rget Area

NUrn bel' ·of ElitsPe l' 200 Ya l'u

Square

Approximate

Pattern Size(yards)

Approxi

ErrorMean

a 35 0

Mean

Line

of Fi re

(degrees)

ShotsNwnber of Fired200 Yard

Squares

Square

(yards)

350

ICombined pa Hems

of three .ships

Per

Centotal M ax Av

12 500 500

--- -.--- -- ----- - _ . _ - -_.880,000 22 802 466 234

18,532 285 293,300 7.3. 267 37.9 78 29.2 10.6 411 43 8

8 860,000 9 360 40.0 78 21.7 22 0 600 60 0

8 15,413 272 240,000" 6 305 50.8 4" 7 15.4 3 2 a 40 0 400 Combined patterns

01 two ships

I

-_--. _._- _.- -.--1,800 2,200

600,000 15 66 5 343 125

15,413 272 800,000 7.5 S S S 45.4 62.5 18.6 B .3500 :>00 Over 140

2,400

Snort 5



TABLE 5

FmST BOMBARDMENT OF KAMAISm

Squares

I Average.

I

Caliber Advance

(inches) I Range(yards)

SHORE FRONT

(9660 B.G.H.9551 M,Q,R)

8 I

I-I1 : : : : : :

Approximate Size

of Target AreaTotal

ShotsNumber of Fired200 Yard

Mean

Line

of Fire

(degrees)

Square

(yards)

average

Numberof Shots Total

Fired Per Shots

200 Yard~ Plotted

Square

Number u r HitsPCI' 200 Yard

SQullre

DAKOTA JAPAN IRON WORKS· I " I ,",532285 360,000 9 231 25.7 78 33.8 26 0 400 450

(9351 S,T,U,x.Y.

9250 D,E,I,J)

'A JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 240,000 6 271 45.2 53 19.6 22 0 3 5 0 35 0(9450 A, 9451 P,U.

9351 H,I.J)

::HUSETTS JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 280.000 7 300 42.9 103 3 < 1 . 3 21 1 2 ~ O O 500(9450 B,C,D,H,I.

9451 V,W)

CONFIDENTIAL

Hits in

Target Area

---- -- -- -- ---- -_~-880,000 22 80 2 466 234

18,532 285 293,300 7.3 267 37.9 78 29.2 10.6

8 360,000 9 360 40.0 78 21.7 22 0TORAGE AREA I(9450 D.E, 9451 T,S.Y.

9550 A, 9551 L,P,U)

tal

yard. or water inharbor.

I

15,413 27 2 240,000" 6 305 50.8 47 15.4 32 0 400 400 Combined patterns

of two sh ips

-- _ - _ - - ~ --_-~ 1,800 2,200600,000 1 5 66 5 343 125

15,413 272 300,QOO 7.5 333 45.4 62.5 18.6 8.3 5 0 0 50 0 Over 140 I Left 5

417

600

43 3

600

Combined patterns

of ~hree ships

2,400 1,800

Short 5 Left 30



' " S hI ps ' """berdment S u rv e y P . rt y(J)--Part I I l- {Continued)

TABLE 6

SE OND BOMBARDMENT OF KAMAlSI 'lI

Approximate SUlI!

I

Average Number of Hits Approximate

IApPLVximate

AVerage Meanof Target Al'e,1

Tot(L! NumberTotal

Hits in Per 200 Yard Target Size PatteI'D Size

of Shots Target Ai.'ea Square Relative to Line (yards)Fir ing Ship Target Caliber Advance Line ShotsFi.red Per

Shot< lof Fi reinches) Range of Fi re Number of Fired Plottedquare

200 Yard 200 Yat'ds (yards)yards) (degrees) (yards) Per Max Av !Min Range DeflectlouI Squares Square TotalCent Range Deflection Ran-- __ -

SOUTH DAKOTA JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 15,721 294 200,000 5 268 53.6 45 16.8 17 4 4.00 500

I9450 A,B,C,

9451 P,U)

INDIANA JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 14,590 283 160,000 4- 270 67.5 40 14.8 19 2 400 400(9351 S,T,X.,Y)

MASSACHUSETIS JAPAN mON WORKS 16 15,349 290 400,000 1 0 265 26.5 62 23.4 18 1 Combined patterns(9450 C,N,O,W, of thr. ee sh ips9451 I,N,O,T,V,Y)

-- -----. -.----.-.

I__

Total 760,000 1 9 803 348 147 3,300 1,800

Average 15,220 289 253,300 6.3 268 49.2 49 18.3 7.7 Shott 3

CHICAGO AREA 9051 U,V, 16,626 277 360,000 9 211 23.4 83 67 31.8 26 7.4 0 900 400 800 300 Short 1050.A,B,C,D,H,I,J

AREA 9050 R,S,V.W,X 16,626 27 0 200,000 5 167 33.4 54 20 12.0 10 4.0 500 400 1,200 350 Short t:QUINCY AREA 9050 H,I ,M,N,Q, 8 17,419 279 480,000 12 315 26.3 113 93 29.5 37 7..8 0 1,000 500 850 , 70 0 Short 2l,S;T, 9150 K,L,P,Q

ST. PAUL AREA 9250 C,H,J, 8 15,482 262 .200,000 II 279 55.8 G O 20 7.2 6 4..0 1 200 900 1,000

J

1,000 Over 15251 X,T

BOSTON AREA 9160 M,N,O, 8 16,795 269 280,000 7 411 58.7 104 81 19.7 26 11.6 0 700 400 1,000

I600

Short 75250 F,G,K,L

Total_ . __.

-- -_.- -_.- -- --1,520,000 38 1,383 41 4 231 .. '..~

IAverage

16,390 304,000 7.6 2'17 36.4 83 56 20.3 7.4 660 620 970 590 129



m:;g::3 C D

!1..."o 0

~ :+.. .C D 0-'"T = -"V~Do -

+co_0<3

0-Il.. .Q..

3til::3. . .

8z:0c

~>-



8zJJo

~

~

~~ 01 ""po' .... b.nIm .. t s~.,p•..,



I· E n cI ou e ( ~. ,. IV-{Continued)

TABLE 7

BOMBARDMENT OF HAMAMATSU

Approx imate Size Average Number of Hits IMean

of Target AreaTotal

Number 'I'otalHits in Per 200 Yard

Iverage

of Shots Target Area SquareFiring Ship Ta.rget Caliber Advance Line Shots Shots

(inches) Range of Fire Squ21'eNumb r of

Fired Fired Per Plotted

I(yards ) (degrees) (yards)

200 Yard 200 YardsPer Max Av Min

Squares Square Total1-

Cent

SOUTH DAKOTA Rail road Shops 16 16,611 356 428,000 10.7 225 21.0 227 136 60.4 29 12.7 1

SOUTH DAKOTA Spinning Mill 16 16,975 019 139,000 3.5 45 12.9 45 31 68.9 15 8.9 4

INDIANA Railroad Station & 16 15,506 359 193,000 4.8 270 56.3 183 36 13.3 18 7.5 1

Roundhouse

MASSACHUSETTS· Japan Musical Instru- 16 17,754 349 172,000 4.3 257 59.8 156 9 3.5 9 2.1 ament Co.

-.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------Total ..... . ..... . ..... . 932,000 23.3 797 ..... . 611 212 ..... . ..... . ..... . ~.....

Average

I..... . 16,711 ...... . 233,000 5.8 199 34.2 153 53 26.6 ..... . 9.1 ......

CHICAGO Nishikawa Tool Co. 8 15,280 351 40,000 1 135 135 93 14 10.4 14 14.0 14

CHICAGO

ISuzuki Loom Factory 8 14,594 001 66,000 1.7 135 79.4 94 12 8.9 12 7.3 1

QUINCY Military Barracks 8 21,506 309 574,000 14.4 66 4.6 66 24 36.4 9 1.9 0

QUINCY I Unidentified Industry 8 18,205 322 332,000 8.3 204 24.6 122 9 4.4 3 1.1 0

ST. PAUL Enshu Loom Works 8 15,587 347 207,000 5.2 136 26.2 87 0 0 0 0 0

ST. PAUL Suzuki Loom Works 8 15,220 340 133,000 3 . 3 134 40.6 67 0 0 0 0 0

BOSTON Bentenj ima Bridge 8 17,469 326 ...... . ..... 13 5 . .....°

0 0 0 0 0

BOSTON Bentenj ima Batteries 8 23,050 304 ...... ..... . 45 ......° °

0 0 0 0BOSTON Housing Project 8 21,064 309 147,000 3.7 45 12.2

°0 0 0 0 0

--. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I-Total ..... . ...... . ..... 1,499,000 37.6 1,035 ..... . 629 59 . ..... . ..... ...... . .... .

Average ...... 17,997 330 166,600 4.2 115 27.5 59 6.6 5.7 . ..... 1.6 ....

SOUTH DAKOTA Tenryu Airfield 5 11,006 357 ...... . ..... 72 42 0 0 0 0 0I

. .....

• Thirteen ahots directed at Tenryu River Rat1road Bridge not included In computation.

23-24

.. .~:.



~e nm~,N

~

. .r§II!I0"

~II!I

U to td to U U

~I t : > C') g ~ ~

U ta0 000 ! " " 3 ! " " 3 8 ~ 00d U rt.l rt.l

ZH

~ ~

t - :3 t- :3 t-3 t-3 " ' t : I " ' t : I Z C) C') U

~

I ' % jr : J ' J~ > 1 - - 3

00~

I l > I l >~ ~

~ I l >· e r 1 - : 3 > ~.

<: 0 Z 2;~

c: Q G " : I0

~

s ·(I) ft t"" 00 (1)

E t:i

~

oq

~

., . . . . . . . a~

~r : J ' Jq Iltl r : J ' J g:(t)

C Ilt _ ; I : j 00

t- 3~

t- 3~

It:I):- p : . -u:

" "

1 - - 3 p:j to C d U t;tj d~

U Z ~ ~ tn ~1)0 (1) s ~ ~ s . a ~ s~ ~ '0 ~:sI= l 1 :1 ~ ~ ~t;:

. . . , .t:.:"l ", fT e+ o. .-+ '" ~ 1 :1 '-'

I- ~ ~I- C I : 1 I I = > - L - . : l I I = > - en -a I- C I : 1 C I : 1 1 : / . : 1 I- 1 : / . : 1 1 ! 1 1 §

e . . 1 - -3>1 I- 0 01 01 0 0 0 (!J1 0 I\:l 0 tTl U1 00 -:j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 oq 1lJ~'O

(tI : : ; ; - g , ~ ~ 'CI> ' oq ""l""l ~ (1) (t 0

t:i 0.. 1:'. <T <T § .rJl • 0 U

CD .._... (1) ~.I- I- t : : : ! )

~t.:l p:I~ C I : 1 C I : 1 I- O"l U1 U1 -a 01 I- -a en I\:l I I = > - (0 (tS·(1) g0 00 01 0 0 0'1 0 0 U1 U1 -a 0 0 0 0

(".)

0 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 tt (t

0t:I

I- I- ~N I- I- I- I- I- I- I- ~0\ ~ 00 00 I- ~ 0 C o ~ en 00 -:j '"-l ~ ' " d P >to 0 0'\ 0 0 0 0 U1 0 0 0 0

~ 1l''CN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-. ~'C'<I CD ""lI'l' .... 0""l t : : : : l ~

t:l p,. s ·~

~UI- I- I- _N I- I- f-o' N ,""" p:I

'bl Co ~ kI CD N C'1"0'\ f-o' -:j f-o' -.J 00 <:0 ~ 00

(".) CD (1)0 ~ 0 U1 0 0 0 0 C > : l 0 0 01 0 C'1"0 I'.:l 0 0 0 0 0 0

000 0 0 0 . . . . . . .

0:: s

o:0000 UJ UJ 0 00 f@"<: <l <: <: P' P" <l <l <l ~f-o' (1) CD (0 (0 0 0 (1) (t (1) 0""l

l ' > . : l '1 ""l '1 ! - o : : ~ ~ " " " '""l '1 ""l ""l I'l'

o ~ ~0:+

" " " '0:+ 1 = 1

.r- ' 0 C > : l C > : l f-& C I : 1 C > : l f-& I'.:l N O Qen01 b: l O:J 0 N I-" 00 00 I\:l I- (t

. . . . . . 1 -1 > (1) I?;j '00

U1 I-" 0 00 00 ~ -.J C > : l «: ~ ""l '"'01 ~S::S'1c5N ~ '1 0

r- ~ ~ r t" t : t i t" t" != d ~ t" t10.. '0 1 -0 ""l 1 ' < .e n ~ 0 §

~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .(0 (1) . . . . .

CD (t . . . . . . . . . . . .~ £ b - (".)......q

~ H:. ~ I l 'Q ~ ~oq (7q 0:+::S1-!:o~-a ~ e+ ::r 00 r : : r ~

e+(t n- ~-.J 0:+ e+ e+- -.J e+ o- -a . r - ' f-o' en ~ f-& 00 I- N e+ -

C o 01 0 I- 00 '0 .~ I'.:l 0 . . . . . . .-.J -::J 0 0 I'.:l 00 C > : l 0\ 000 en 0 0

to :: sO:J 01 00

ooZJ!omZ

=!'> -r



A B C D E+

G H J+ ENCLOSUR I

5696 ~END NAVA L BO

L M N 0.. 4-

• EISHT.INCH U. S. NA.VAL PROJECTlLE S H

__ ~lls16NE D lA RSE '! aOUNDA U._ __ . .. CT UA .L T 'A RG E 1 I OU ND A .R Y.

Q R S T OCEANMEAN L I NE OF F IR E (A P P ROX ., I UN IO EN Tl fI E .D I NDU 'S 1 R~ ,O H . .. t .l A MA TSU

P I NA .K A JU .t A A IR CR Af T' . •

FIG QUINCYWOR~S~"l,,'11 PLANT! . 2G D

pAG I I. td I U lA i I~ . .. . R lA CKS . IiiiiI!!!IiiiiIH A M" ,W , N A VA L C A M P! .

r. BENT 'EN J I t. tA IR IDGE .

U V W X Y 1. DENTENJ It .tA ' IAr rERIES. Rt-Js, HOUSING P R OJ ec T •

N . (A PPROX . )

5597

~'-~

+

+ t

L lNEOF FIRE

e a S TON

~M~: 0:1 I. C. l fi... l~u~~~I:Z ~*"ItCH 1m

& RIO A ND M $1 G _N EO , . .. .. ~:el IOU NOAI I liS: INTEl '~ON'T WO C ;I ~ r ;: IO ii D " H( 'J iT O . .. .0 5< A .I C " 12 ~n , 9 0. 21 - IU SlI!;HTEH JI...A UIDG~

"CTU~L T.AJlGeT IOUH DU LE$ : ' L . A . " ' OFFICI ~I:.'S.

F"-i.L ·(rl= ~ IiOJ : F IELn SI", !I tVEY,

++

-+ -

5698

A ,RA I

+ ++

+ +

5697

-+

B O S T O N

+ . +5897

6097

~,. .~,

.J.., '•• +:T .. L INE OF F IRE (APPROX .)

QUINCY



PA G E S 25 - 26

> ~ : ; ; . . . .o 0-~~ . . . z. Z · ; I I I > n : ; > . . . . :I:

, . » » 0 " ' > r - 01 rtlOta.. "'-_ e n " ,: n > 1 ! ~ ~ ~ " ' z ! : ! l e n ~ In

~0

Q ; ! ~ r - O ) : ~ O ! : ! le n

~en 0

In + -I

"; I I I O " ' Z > CO!'"' Z

~ 0n : ; ! " > Y ' ' ' ' ' : : ! l ~ ta 0

~ z :!!It ~ - ",co Z l>. O - < Z C >

"i>~+~. .

0- ~Z < + ",: '"0 r - aJ (J)

:I: - < > 0 U ' » >; I I I> : < . . . Ul C-~ '" -I ~~> 0 0 ITI-

'- z oZ+In m~ g _G'>

CIt r0

C m c . o-..j

. , . ,.a 'c.. .II

W

N Z m

8 > - z

~n.-

.- aVI VI

J:m C0 mO ~

> m~ m-a. . .

N J:-1m

~)0-

; I I I..0 0 -> 00

? < NW Z 0 ~ 0

80

VI-0 C

CIt : : : r ~~ :;:u0 (_.

> c: C m~- r- >z

m - < c,:;:u-t - <

-

8 > >0- 0..0-0

VI TI >< >> ~ m -t

'"U1 Z O:z: > -

0 ::!>It

8 o~' 7 - > - -0z )0-

> :;u-t . . . . .

8 VIc:: <:-

oaz:!!cmZ-t

- ) 0 -r-

rz",

m rn00 : : : ue n ." l>

d -G')

" " 1 ' 1 i- tol> rT Iz m oU)

:::0< .D (J)~

l>

) ITI

+ 0 0. . . . . . . . 3 1 : ~°rn z0

- G')

1J

+ 0

Z-I



o. . .

N. (APPROX.)

SOURCES,

B-.5E, XXI I. C. 1 P. 5 '" 110.1.

8396

6RID, CONS1RUCr~D ON lASE IT UFEIENCE TOPIOVI510N"L 10MI"RDIo4ENT CIi"" CHA.lLlE.

~ ~F~~ t.T5YUN~Jt~ . 64lh EH6R. lOP 10;.

T"RGET BOUNDARIES, PHOTO INnRPRETAIION.

F"LL Of 5HOT: ~15LD 5URVEl.

A B C D E

F G H J

8495 --- --,-- - ,

8595L M N 0\__

. ., .. -MEAN AIMING POINT (A'SSUMEDI <' ",P Q R 5 T o SOUTH DAKOTA

__ J

;--

_r -

U V W X Y

, +' •LEGEND

FIVE-INCH U. S. NAVAL PROJE:CT1L:~HI:T.

ACTUAL TARGET BOUNDARY,

8194 8.294

+ + ,..,+ +

+ + +___ BOUNDARY OF TARGET AR.EA UNDER

CON~RUCTION,+

ACCURACY DATAKAKEZUKA

PART IVNCLOSURE (Jl

r - ICC'

P A

NAVAL BOMBARDMENT OF HAMAMATSU,

SHEET 3 of 3: TENRYU AIRFIELD SECTION,

HONSHU, JAPAN

29.]0 JULY 1945

+

8193 8293

APPROX. SCALE IN YARDS

50 0 100000 200 o

Fiqure 5 CONFIDENTIAL



V1I:.,-eID

-<

""C0.

J-

ooZ: : ! !omZ-I

;;I



CONFIDENTIAL

TABLE a

BOI 't IBARDMENT OF HITACHI

ApPl'O)dmate Siz,,"

AV"'ageNumber of Hits

Approximate A pproxima leAve"age Mean of Ta"get Area

Tot,,) Numbsr Hits in Per ZOO Ya,"d Pat te rn S ize Error ofCaliber Advance Line Shots o f Sho ts Target Area Square (yards) .!> lean l"o iI ltal"£"t I (inches) Range of Fir e Square

N um ber o fFired Fired Per "r Impact

(y,ards) (degrees) (yards)200 Yard 20 0 Yards

Per Max A vDeflection I (yl1dl;)

Squares Square TotalCent Range ne.fleetioD

WISCONSIN Shibauchi Plant 16 44MISSOURI Shibauchi Plant 16 5' 5

-.---~--Total 1.9 39

_~r~r_

IAverage 29,100 28 5 77,70lJ 4G. 8 0 0 0 0 0 200 40 0 2.300 500 Over llO Lcit 53 0 I

IOWA Cop]Ier Refinery' 16Combi ned pattern .....

ALABAMA Copper Refinery* 16of two ships ........

I--otal ......

I

2.9 81 9 0Average ...... 29,813 276 116.500 27.9 4.1 400 300 1,800 1,100 Sho rt 220 Right 310

IOWA Deneen Plant- 16 36 Combined patternALABA l l A Dense.n Plant·

I~ 4 . - 5 ' of two ships

· · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·I

-.- - _ . _ -Total

4.4 81 74 6 7.4 4 0

I O~~' ilill Left'500verage 29.573 277 174,.800 18.4 l.d 400 500 1,800 1,100 I

WISCONSIN Taga P lant (North) 16 320 , 400 8.0 106 13.2 '1 3 24 22.6 7 3.0 0 1,500 1,100 Ove r 400 0MISSOURI Taga P lant (Central) 16 10 8 Combined pattern

W t i, 0 2 0 jOWA Taga P lant (Cent ra l) 16 1.087,400 27.2 99 U.G 316 69 21.9 2.,5 !If three shlps On>; 350A LABAMA Taga P lant (South)·

I~108 i . o e n

I3.000

Total1,407,.800 85.2 421 38 9 o

Iverage28,519 28 d 12.0 2.6 700 200 Ove" 375

1

Le f t 510

IISCONSIN Hitachi Arma Fac to ry 16 78......

IlUSSOURl Hitachi Arm.. Factory 16 70 CDmbincd pattern

I...... ......

IIOWA ••••• j

Dr three shi psitachi .Arms Factory 16 76•••• _4 • • ~ • ~ +

-_- --815,000 20A 224 178 1

I O~~~: ~~ o I Left91031,658 27 9 11.0 3.6 SO O 1.000 ,3,500 3,400

Hitachi S teel Works 16 Combin c d pa ttern71

of two shi psi ta ch i SUeI Works 16 73

2,898,000 8Q.() 144 1 1 1 0

0 1,600 1,600 1.00031,789 276 2 . 4 -

124.8 1,040GS S 96760,Oni 881,686 20.S 178 8.8 1 4 1

, . .On:a ahip exeluded from tOmpulaticm because of m~or nnr!gat.IDhnl ~rr'(lt.



'TABLE 7

BOMBARDMENT OF HAMAMA' r:MJ

CONADENTIM

Average

ICaliber I Adv anc e( inche s) Ra11ge

I (yards)

16

16

16

Mean

Line

of Fire

(degrees)Square

(yards)

Approxima te SiZ<!

of Target Area

S OU TH D A KO TA

S OU TH D A KO TA

INDIANA

Railroad Shops

Spinning Mill

Railroad Station &:

RoundhOl l lH !

Japan MWlical Instru-

ment Co.

KASSACHUSE'ITS'

Total

Average

CHICAGO

CHICAGO

QUD fCY

QU I NCY

Ni shi kawa Tool Co.

Suruki Lo om Fad:ozy

Military Barracks

Uniw.ntified Industry

En&hu Loom Works

Su ruki Loom Works

Bentenjima Bridge

Bentenjima Batteries

HOWling Project

Tenryu Airfie ld

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

1 = : 1

16

16,611

16,975

16,5"06

17,754

16,711

15,280

14,594

21,506

18,205

15,587

16,220

17,469

23,050

21,064.

17,997

11,006

85 6

01 9

35 9

84 9

351

001

309

322

34 7

340

826

3M

30 9

33 0

857

428,000

139,000

193,,000

172,000

982,000

23<1 , 000

40 , 0 00

66,000

574,000

332,,000

207,000

133 , 0 00

147,000

1,499,000

166,600

200 Yard

Squares

257

13 5

79. , 4

4.6

24.6

26.2

40.6

TotalShots

Fired

Average

Number Total

of Shots Shots

Fit 'ed Per Pl ot ted

20;q~%dll -T-o-ts-I-'--=6:-e:-I~-

10.7

3.5

4,,8

4.3

23.3

5.8

1

1.7

14 .4 .

8.3

5.. -

3. 3

3. 7

37.6

4.2

1,036

22 5

11 5

270

79 7

1 9 9

13 5

135

66

204

18 6

13 4

185

45

45

115

72

21.0

12.9

56.S

59.8

34.2

12.2

227

45

18 3

156

611

153

93

94

66

122

87

6 7

o

o

o

H its inTarget Area

1 3 G

31

36

Number of HitsPer 200 Yal-d

Square

60A

68.9

13.3

10.4

8.9

36.4

4.4

o

o

o

o

o

3. 5

Ma x

29

15

18

9

14

12

9

8

o

oo

o

o

12.7

8. 9

7,5

14.0

7.3

1.9

1.1

o

o

o

o

o

Av

9..1

r.lin

9 o o

40 0

14·

fi9

42

9

21 2

5326,6

14

12

24

9

o

o

o

o

o

69

6.6 5.7

o e o

1.6

o

529

-- -----------.-

1

4

ApJlrox imateThI 'get Size

Rela ti ve to L ine

of Fire

(yards)

500

35 0

1 5 0

300

82 5

300

15.0

700

GO O

400

250

50

400

317

1 ,150

Ap»rnrimatePattern S~e(yards)

800

450

2.200

ApproximateError · o rMean Point

of Impact(yard.;)

Range Def ieo" tion 1--=-------Rangc De_t le eti on

l,70Q

700

1;800

1,600

l,41'i0

1.300

1,000

1 , 9 0 0

2,100

1,BiiO

800

1.492

5 0 0

Short 13 Left 20

1,900

Over 22'i Right %

Over 2a Right 4119

I O"er 184 I Left l,OOB

-1-

5

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

1,200

G O O

715

15 0

550

7 0 0

500

550

600

10 0

350

1,400

1,3<18 11 3 37 3

1,300

300

700

2,100

'150

1.500

Short IB Left 133

Short s s e I RIght 12

Over SO Left 400

O,'er 130 Left 6-50

Over 3, 2191

I

Ri!!h.t 1,105'

Over 3,552 Right 1,763

~...~ ....~

1,192 1,206 11 ' 1

1,500 Short 1,000 Left 1,880

I I Iobo dl_ at T~ RIver RaiI1'<>&<lB ri q. n at I nci ud od In .omput.atlon.



CONFIDENTIAl..

TABLE 5

FmST BOMBARDMENT OF KAMAISHt

Approximate Size Avenlge

Hits illN umber of Hts

Apprax:imate

I Caliber

o f: Target Area Number Approximate ApproximateAverage Mean Total

of Shots Total Targe t Area P e l' Z O O Y a L 'd Tuget St,e Pattern Siz.. Error of

Adva.nce Line ShotsFired Shots SqUJl~e Relative to Line lyards) Mean Point

(inches) Range of F ir e Square Number Fil'ed Plottedof Fire of Impact

()'ards) (degrees) (varda)200 Yard 200 Per

Squares Square TotalCent Ma x Av Min

(yards) (yards)

SOl11'B DAKOTA JAPAN IRON WORKS· 16 18,532 285 860,000 9 2 3 1 25.7 78 33.8 26 0

(9351 S,T,U,x,y,

9260 D,E,I,.Tl

:INDIANA JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 240,000 6 271 45.2 53 19.6 22 0 350 350

(9450 A. 9451 P,U.9351 HJ,J)

llASSACHUSETl'S JAPAN IRO WORKS 16 280,000 7 B O O 42.9 103 3 < 1 . 3 21 12 ! j O O 500 Combined pattems

(9450 B,C,D.H,Lof three ships

9451 V.W)

ITotal 880,000 22 80 2 466 234 2,400 t,800

Average 18,532 285 293,300 7.3 267 37.9 78 29.2 10.6 41 7 433 Short 5 Left 30

CHICAGO STORAGE AREA 8 360,000 9 36 0 40.0 78 21.7 22 0 600 s ao

19460 D.E. 9451 T's.Y.

9550 A. 9051 L,P,U) I

QUINCY SHORE FRONT 8 16,413 272 6 805 50.8 47 15.4 32 a '100 400 Combined patterns

(95IiO B,G.a.

of two ships

9651 M,Q,R)

Total 15 125

1, 00 2,200

600,000 66 5 34 3

18.6 8.3 500 500 0",,[ 140 Left 5

272 300,000 7.5 33 3 45.4 62.5



• .. . . . , . s .. . . . . , Perl)'

~ CONFIDENTlA.L

TABLE G

. iECOND BOMBARDMENT 01" RAMAlSHI

Apprcximate Size AverageNumber of Hits Approximateof Target Area Number Hits in Approximate Apprmctmate

Average Mean Total TotalTarget Area

Pel' 200 Yal'ti Target Size Pattern Size Erro r of

Caliber Advance Line ShofS of ShotsShots Square Relative to Line

J'frJq Ship Targe t (yards) .Mean Point

I(inches) Range of Fil'e SquareNumber Fired Fired Plotted o r Fire of Impact

(yards) (degrees) (yards)200 Yard 20 0

Pel' (yards) (Yards)Squares Square Total Ma x Av iI1fin

Cent

SOtrrH DAKOTA JAPAN IRON WORKS 16 15,721 294 200,000 5 26 8 53.6 45 16.8 17 4(9450 A,1l,C,

9451 P,U)

INDIANA JAPAN mON WORKS 16 14,590 28 3 160,000 \I 270 67.5 4. 0 14.8 1 9 2 J O O 400(9351 S.T,X,Y)

~....

HASSACHUSETTS JAPAN mOM WORKS 16 15,349 2 90 400,000 10 26 5 26.5 62 23.4 18 1Combined patterns

(9450 C,N,O,W, of three ships

9451 I.N,O,T,V,Y)

-- ------ -- --To ta l 760,000 19 80 3 B48 147 3,300 1, 00

Average 15,~lO 289 253,300 6.3 Bo8 49.2 49 18.3 7.7 Short 350 Right 55

CHICAGO AREA 9051 U,V, 16,626 217 360,000 9 2H 23.4 88 67 3 L8 26 7.4 0 900 400 300 Shor t HiO Right 40

9050 A,B,C,D,H,I,J

Shor t 190 I Left 150AREA 9050 R,S,V,W,X 16,626 270 200,000 I) 167 33.4. 54 20 12.0 10 4.0 1 50 0 400 1,200 350

QUINCY AREA 9050 H,I,M,N,O, B 17,419 12 98 29.5 37 7.8 0 1,000 500 35 0 70 0 Short 2151 Wt 45

R,s,T, 9150 K,L'p,Q279 480,000 315 26.3 113

Bl'.PAUL AREA 9250 C,H,J, B 6 4.0 1 200 900 1.000 1,000 0 " 0 0 " 15 Left 10

9251 X,T15,482 262 200,000 I) 279 55.8 60 20 7.2

AREA 9150 M.N,O, 11.6 0 700 400 1,000 600 I Short 75Left 30

9250 F,G,K,L8 15,795 269 280,000 7 41 1 58.7 104 81 19.7 26

1,520,000 38 1,383 4 1 < 1 281

660 520 97 0 590 129 55

16,390 304,000 7.6 277 86.4 83 56 20.3 7..1



I= Q ~ . 0 - 3 t:) en 0~ s = . . . .

~£ l E: °s - 't:I

° (') en s 't:I(') (')

£ lCD

~E : g-E: "d~ . . . .

1 -3')

en en ~> i i i " '"d E: ~p;

t : : to -c

no - - ~aq

CD S <+ § '"d CDCD

-I:S <+

-en <+ P l CD

t : : t ~-

>z olS~ >slS >~I S ~

>~t"'o

5~t"'0

6 ; P J :arntij ~~en0 0 0 0

6 ;~ I - r J>000 >0 0 C l J o 1 : 1 '

~~00

~ 0

~

00

~5'

~Z> § ~~

Q'q

>0 ~~ ~Z > C f . I

~ g:0 't:I

~

en

> -

. . . . ~ I- . . . . s - : > .r'~

C f . l

'0 c" i . . o C o t < : I 00 t : : j .

0 0 0 0 0 0 aq CD

0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0CD

0H>

:>. . . .. . . . g : > 't:I~s'Sl

a s : I ·B .t:I ' " d / i t

N ~ ~ . . . . .r' ~p;rt

b: I ~ 0 '-' C1 I I- CD rt

n CD

g :5 g 0 0 00:

~0 0

°:1

m;ov:J CD

!l.."C00. . +

~.::.. .C D 0

CD -n

C::V I. . . . T = =:< l() ,,~rn I» -0 + aJ

H <0

n .ittlo -c

e . 0"o 0..:J 3

. .. .. t :I -+ CD

1 :1 n_ ::I

~ -+~o C D V I~8 Q..c::

~ 0- - ..< + .... <• 1 : 1 C II

t-3~-c

."

::r''d ~C D ~ J -<n-I\) e+

~ ttl

I'D

~n::r'o0H

~ en

. . . . . ~t : : t I'D. , . . . . . ,; - e .I-foeno : : r;::: . . . .00

~.'q •

&roq

!:!:o[' Il t : : t

0

t : : trtl

~oqCD<+ 0

~0Z

I'D

"l afj;' m0 Z. . . .g. >-



AVERAGE AIMING POINT (ASSUMED)

'- UNIDENTIFIED SHIP

/ ~A8CDE /

F Ii H I J

MEAN LINE OF FIR£

(APPROX.)

K L .. N 0 1642 1142

P Q R 5 T /I-U'-+V'-+-."+X'-+-y'-ll "

UNIDENTIFIED SHIP

"

U40 . '., . , > [ . ' ,1640

"\~",: ' .1--_.:.':."...__----I

MPI

UNIDENTIFIED SHIP 1539 7639

"

1438

71158

~

~

lc J

~C)

N . (APPROX.)

~. . . . .

<, " -. . . . .

~

"'\t

Q ..

•LEGEND

UNIDENT IF IED NAVAL PROJECT ILE HIT ,THOUGHT TO BEBRIT ISH.

7437 7537

-- ASSIGNED TARGET BOUNDARY FOR UN·IDENTIFIED INDUSTRY.I HITACHI MANUFACTURING CO.. HI·TACHI WORKS, TAKAHAGI PLANT I.

ACCURACY DATA

ENCLOSURE (J)

NAVAL BOMBARDMENT OF HITACHI ,

SHEET I of 3: TAKAHAGI SECTION,

HONSHU, JAPAN

17,18 JULY 1945

sou ICES;

. A S & · . ,~ M ' :I A t \ 'l : ,~ : l ~ G D ' lf i l ." T A J ~ ~ k~'!~f'.:,~~

011. ' ' '' ' .lIII0. M t. ENGl. T O ' _ I N " ? U ~ " f' O "UNI IM S. •

P A lL O f S H O T: F JI El .D S U IY Ii Y.

o

PART V

1 0001000

~l

'ill

•Iel- .-. ... . ,. . . ,. . .. ..- -. .Q .a

, . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . ._ .

i ; I 1 J

~

~. , . .~~

~

~

CD.. .I

~. ... ..

wtI: a(II

~-<. . .

: 1~

6414

NORTH CAROLINA PATTERN 6420 I

INTENDED FOR COPPER REFINERY- -r--r--.;

NORTH CAROLINA PATTERN

INTENDED FOR DENSEN PLANT

6314

- -



*I= =

I.

I. H ITACHI SlHL WORKS,( HIT AC HI M A NU FA CT UR IN G C O. M IT OWORKS) .

.... P RE CIS IO N IN ST RU ME NT A ND O RO ·N A N CE S E CT I ON .

a . STEEL SECTION .

C . RE CT RIC L OC OM OT IV E SE CT IO N.

H IT A CH I A R MS F A CT O RY .( H ITA CHI A RMS CO ., L TD .,M I TO WORKS ).

A CCURACY DATA

E NCL OSURE [J)PART V

NAVAL BOM BA RDMENT OF HITA CHI,

SHEET 3 of 3 : M IT O S EC TIO N,

HON SH U, JA PA N

17.18 JUL Y 1945

1000 0 1000

A PP RO X. S CA LE I N Y A RD S

-

A VE RA GE A IM IN G P OIN T ( A SS UM ED I N.(APPROX.)

CONFIDENTIAL

NORTH CAROLINA , ALA II A . . A

5OUICH~

lASE, g.~HII,l }." ASilGNIEO T,MQP IOU N D... 11e.~' .I .0 'U ICNAL._ , .Q " . _DMetfT au.n IdlE •.HH A, CHI. ' :! i. IU I, . .. .. l HG L 10 _ IH. Ui,6,FPOA•. , t u r n IMS. •

ACT1IM. , ,,-.(i.~ IU\J HPAIUB! n..t.JfT omC1AU_

FALl . 0 " '5iHOT: FU, IU .'f,fT.

. . . . . .

5B06

ABC 0 E

F G H I J

K L M N 0

P Q R S T

n065506

5504

----1--- A VE RA GE M PI

NORTH CAROLlPl A,

ALABAMA L EGEND

S IX T EE N .I NC H U . S . N A VA L P RO JE C TI LEHIT.

5903 __ A SS IG NE D T AR GI:T B OU ND AR Y.

_ _ . :. A CT UA L T AR GI :T B OU ND AR Y.AV ER AG E A IM IN G PO IN T (A S S UM ED )

WISCOP IS IN, M ISSOURI , I OWA

5502

5601

WISCONSIN, .. ,SSOUR I , IOWA

II

I

5501

I . 5.~00

I·'·/1 ••••• ..

5500 \ .:~:':::' .... :'.

\" ,/_ -~-+----A VE RA GE M PI

5BOO 5900 WISOOMSIN, .. ,SSOURI , IOWA

W I S C O N SI N , M IS S O U R I a IO WA P AT T ER NS (A SS UM ED )Rgo .. 8



ooz

"mZ-i

sr-



TABLE 10

BOMBARDMENT OF MURORAN


298

27.2

Approximate ,size

of Target Area

Average Number of Hits Appruximate Approximate ApptOximate

Number Total Hits in Per 200 Yard . Target Size Pattern Siz« Error ofof Shots Shl>ts Tal·get Area Square Relative to Line (yards) Mean. PointFtred Perl- . . 1)[ Fire of Impact

200 Yards Plotted -----.----::::--1 (yards) (yards)Square Total Per Max Av Min Range Deflection 1 . - - - 1

Cent .Range Deflection Range Deflection=============~===============~===I~====~~====I======I======·~===F======F==~F====I~===I=====F========'F======'I======~======~====~=~~~~~I

Firing Ship

IOWA

MISSOURI

WISCONSIN

Total

Average

IOWA

MISSOURI

WISCONSIN

Total

Average

Grand Total

Final Average

29,920 30S

Wanishi I ron Works 16 29,920 278

Wanishi Iron Works 16 29,618

Waniahi I ron Works 16 29,710 292

29,694 285 3,337,000 83.4 432

4,694,000 117..8 860

1 · · · · · · 29,957 2,3"47,000 58.7 480

Target Caliber{inches}

I

AverageAdvance

Range

(yards)

28,789

31,100

Mean

Line

of Fire

(degrees)

Total

Number of ~~,~e~200 Ya.rd

Squares

Square

(yards)

17

12

1.9

Oombined patternsof three ships

I

1,300 2,200 1,100

Short 240 Right 530

375

Nihon Steel Co.

Ni ll on. Stee l Co.

N""mon Steel Co.

16

16

16 808

o 1.000

Gomb ined patterns.of three ships

1 ,600 2,000 3,800 Sho.rt 400 Right 220

2.100 2,200 820

1.357,000 33.9 428 12.6 315 64 15.0

o 2,000

I.450

170 89.4.2

574 23 4

287 117

2.0

2.0 1,500



m ' ":J !IIn"C-0g ~E:

; ; s . .t:tIl

T-l-"" ' U UIo_

III

~g'

<3=c-

III-.a..3!II::J-il

c: :.. .<!II-<

"'tJIII.,~

ooZJ!omZ-I

sr-



CON F I O E N TW .

TABLE 11

BOMBARDMENT OF' SHIMIZU

AppI'Ox.imnte Si2e Avel'age Number of Hits Approtimate AppraximateApproximateAveI1IP Mean of Target Area. Tota! Number Total Rit.s in Per 200 Yard Targe t S ize Pattern Size Eno l' o f

Caliber Nav. Line Shotsof Shots Shots

Target Area Square Rela\i"" to Line (yards.) Mean PointFIdDa: Ship(lnehes) Range of Fire Square Fired

Fired Pel'Plott"d of Fire of lmpact.

(yanl&J (degrees) (yax&)200 Yards

Pel' Ma x(yards.) (yan:l!;)

Squal'e Total Av Min R a n g e DetleeticnCen t Range D e J l e c t . i . o n

JUt Stat iGI I I:Yards s 125,000

(A)

SCHROEDER R.R. s ta tion " Yards s 125,000

(B) Combined patternsRINGOLD R.R. station " Yards 5 125,000 of fOM ship.

(C)

BAlUUSON Vegetable Oi l Plant s 235,000

(D,E)

Tutal 610,000 15,2 588 385 12 4 21.1 36 0 1,300 2,Um

Averqe 10,000 29 6 152,500 3,8 38.7 8,1 500 250 Short 280 Left 760

JOHN RODGERS Sumitomo Ligjlt Metals 5 8,.600 276 725,200 18,1 165 9,1 42 23 13. ,9 11 1,3 a 90 0 750 69 0 1,300 Short so IW 440Pant (1)

lIt:KEE Light Metals Alumina

I5 3.23,000

Pant (aC)MURRAY Light Metals Alumina

1 _ 6 !lI6,OOOPant (E,G)

Total739,000 18,5 31 0 101 0

Averap

1 = 7,900 9,8 1 5 5 2,5 875 425 Short ;;30 Left 610296 369,500 16.8

Grand Tatal51.8 1,068..... 2,074,000 528 198

FDal Average

I

3.7 ' 7 5 8 47 5 m 60 S...... 8,83.3 296,286 7.4-

I

152 20,5 75 28 18.2I



TABLE 12

BOMBARDMENT OF' SHIONOr.l1SAKl

Avo"age

Number

of ShotsHitsn

Ta.rget AreaApproximate.Pattem SI""(yards)

Approximate Size

r1 f Target Area¥ea.n

Line

of Fi re

(degrees)

Avera.ge

Advance

.allllge(yards)

Total1----..,----1 ShOts

Total

ShotsFired Pel'

200 YardsSquare

Caliber

(inches)Targetiring Ship

Number of Fi red

200 Yard

Squal'eS

Number of Hita

Per 200 Yard

Square

Per

Cen t

Square(yards)

TotslAv 1 I 1 1 n

OONF ID EN T IAL

ApProximate

Target Si~e

Rela tive to Line

of Fire

(Yal'ds)

PASADENA Kushimoto Seaplane Base 6 16.,025 026 120

SPRINGFIELD Kushimoto Seaplane Base 6 15,200 11 1 Combined patterns

Kusb.imoto Seaplane Base 038 120of fOil r ships

WlLKES BARRE 6

ASTORIA Kushimo to Seaplane Base 6 16

Total 260,600 6.5 427 65,7 103 32 19 0 80 0 1.200About About

Average 15,112 035 1,5 4.9 450 600 Shor t 310 Right 270

PASADENA Shionomisaki AJrfleld 5 017 118

SPruNGFIELD ShionomisaltiAirfield 5 12,550 80

Wll.KES BARRE Shionomisald Airfield 5 12,800 019 4 ' : \

ASTORIA ShJonomisaki AirfIeld 5 35

WEDERBURN ShJonomisalti AirfIeld 5 72

TWlNlNG Shionomisaki Airfield 5 108

STOCKHAM ShioQomiaaki Airfield 6 50

Total ---- --j . . . . . . ~. . . . . 507 19 1 9

AverageAbout About

~..... 13,000 025 3.7

CUSHING Radio Station 6 11,425 50 IRadio StatiOQ 5 A 50 Comb ined patterns

Radio Station 5 of fo ur shi ps10,576 point 50

Radio Station I) target 50

-~.~-~~1,000 900

200 74About About10,600 010



PA CIFIC

u.iND

SfX.1HCH u. S. NAVAl. PltOJECTILE HIT.

flYE.JNCH U. So NAVAL PltOJeCllLE HlT•

A5S16NED T....6U IClUNDAU.ACTUAL TARGET IOUNDARY.

KUSHlloIOTO ~ STAnON ANDTOWN AREA.

••

F u K u R oN (APPROK.]

/..I.

SU>J' l .ANE STATION.

TOWN AIl£A.

A11U'1ELD(SHIONOWISAJ(J A1mELD I.

,. ~~t.T~~ AND WIIO STATIONI.

i taoIAINOU OF KUSHIMOTO TOWN.

L

-"

H A R8 o

~.

APPRox.

AVERAGE A IM ING POINT [K~"~~"u,

PASAOEN.1 SP:FtINGF£~O, WILKE"i~'''"

KUSHIMOTO

SHIONOMISA

• oIt

.Uli~'LMA'NN .'

'. ,X •

i I J ! • • /

. '.

,.PAC I FI C

OCEAN

,,

AF

PA'EI A_ _ e .

"

~'l- ,

TOR~A '. •

"o •

~m •.CIID: ,t ,M;5 t

. A5 S1 c. t. rm , .~JH 01' O," ,' I I I.J . t.1

AC ' I 'U ..u. T . . u iWo

MAl' ,R...... WI'0t~OfIII_

• . A l . L QF$!tOT

"0'

. . . . . ..• '0. . .~



PA 6ES 51 - 5 8

• •• •.-/•••

•• • •

• •• . -.••

."I I z.a '

. . . .

c: 8> -

• <> -r-

- ail

0», 0 z. . ."II ::t

CI:I

~ N > -0 . , . . 0 ::0

? < NZ C

enU1 VI' ~

,~ . . . . La :: t m

8cc Z

r- r- - -tm ..( La

,Z > 0

-< ~." "» U1 > -

0 ;III ZVI'

00 !; I

IVI 0

Z0

.", Z

00

m ~Z-t

VI

»0- )-

II;>

0 nr- I

mfZ

or-oVI

C::0m

> -ooc:;;a)-

o-<

o)--I

)0 -

~

o-{

o" ,/I' "

~/ . . . . . .,""'-

. . . . . . "-" / -,'I ,,

'\,\

•

I~ _"

/

I

\\\\

,.J

\. . . .)

r

III

I'

I

!

"\},I

\ I\ \\ \\.-., \'-, \

. . . . . . . -~



i . ." •,. ~s . .!? !!' -

~! ! I>~

.. . . <,. I:~.o . . .. ,!'"Q ,.

> ;::j!'l:! ..

0 .. .zis . .J,.

> .. . .. .z 00 I:c: :i

I:! ~~ ~ :.. ~. .r-

0 i-n -. . .. .. ::t

:J: " '" '..~§-

!!. . .r-C

(/) Z0~ c . . ., c ; : -- ~, . .

-n.0' Z mc > - Z. . . 0<

> - r-- 0N

0 r-0 tn

!XI C.0 ; : IC I I

> - ~ m., .> -,.

J: 'CD~I I 1 I I 0 - > - 0

0 ' ; ' 0 0 ; : IC I I 0? C - Z C-0 C on ~C. . . .

J: ;;0

~c . . . m > -C C. , . . . 8 ro o

w Z 0rn -<

-i -<.. .z - > - 0 C

-0 "'CJ ." > -~ . . . . . . . . > -

0'1 Z Z-'I

0 ; I I 1 I I 0 > -0

t:I 0. . . . c...Z -.-n .~ ,

6. . . > - ."

m s > -z Co n ;;0

-i :;,. . . . .: ; ; : ? S . x

i a )VI

-0

~

~

a-"'(\

-a j~

~

.1--

-

C •i In

. »~;tI

@Zrn0:"'J:

!=

!" r-m

Z(j)

"'~ z> -

C

r-

" " 'U ;

; I I 1 I I

0. . . . .rn

~r-m

J:;= i

~~r-:t>

zC

. . . .:t>

C) ~

"'0:t>

1: > -<

"2 -. . . .0z

(

I~

"':0, . .GlrrI

.~ I

."--

U i

'"II

,; _. . ,z

-I . ..

, . ." ' 1 JI""

~0X •

• • , .

••

• •

•••

,bi, '"17 1

USSBS Report 87, Effectiveness of Ammunition

Documents

Transcript of USSBS Report 87, Effectiveness of Ammunition