crappy us torpedos?

.

this is taken from masanori ito " the end of the japanese navy "

Going down the list of japanese warship sunk , the subs accounted for 27 ships of light cruiser class and above , a fine achievment
a couple of brits got some too ,
the tallyho sinking the Kuma and the trenchant bagging the heavy cruiser Ashigara
for the americans the luckiest was archerfish sinking all of the 62.000T of the Shinamo , a sister hull of the Yamato , who had just finished its reconversion as a carrier
there is mention of the spadefish sinking on the 17 /11 /44 of " carrier CVE Shinyo , ex scharnhorst "

.mentionning the abysmal use of japanese sub by combined fleet the author point out that from may 45 the japanese sub were lauched against american supplies lines in the western pacific , using the Kaiten , a type 93 torpedo with a 500kg warhead ,range of 40.00 m and "human volunteer guidance
" achieving immediate success with 32 ship sunks and no losses in three months
(except the torpedo pilots , I presume )
the final paragraph mention the I-58 of commander mochistura sinking of the Indianapolis and the hypothesis that she was carrying a third atomic bomb , due to the cancellation of a drop on Niigata ??


.

 

Indianapolis had just delivered the bomb to the Marianas and was steaming away from the Marianas when torpedoes. She was traveling in the wrong direction to be delivering another bomb.
The kaitens achieved two successes, the DE Underhill and the tanker Mississinewa (which I must certainly have misspelled).

 

.



Thanks for the Kaiken deflation , I hate this suicide stuff ,

the writer was saying , the third bomb would have been returning ( ???)
he cite truman memoirs mentioning the plan to drop a third bomb on niigata canceled due to the sinking of the cruiser carrying the third bomb.

the unusual court martial of the indianapolis commander Charles McVay III is sometimes mentioned as being the follow up of a feud between admiral King and the son of his personnal enemy , a commander McVay back in the early 1900 on the china station .

.

 

That theory has popped up a lot. And in one documentary, it was shown that McVay's father had written up Ensign Ernest King. King was not one to forget or forgive anything he considered a slight. And McVay's trial was a sham, a kangaroo court. Nimitz had given McVay a letter of reprimand for not zigzagging, and considered the matter closed. Unfortunately, one of the cruiser's ensigns was from a very socially prominent family and he didn't suvive, so they were out for blood and they got it, courtesy of Admiral King.

 

I think McVay was treated badly( he committed suicide years later) but I don't agree that the proceeding was a sham or a kangaroo court... it was just uncalled for i.e it could have been avoided.
He wasn't zigzagging. His ship was unfortunate and was sunk by a Jap sub.
No abandon ship order was apparently ever given and there were questions about the state of the watertight integrity of the ship that was being maintained. He was acquitted on the failure to issue abandon ship order since the communications had been knocked out and he did so verbally.
Though zigzagging after dark was at the discretion of the Capt it is similar to what happens if a Capt. runs his ship aground. He might be asleep in his cabin and the officers on deck might be responsible for the poor handling of the ship that resulted in the grounding however in the USN if that happens it would be rare indeed if that Capt. ever commanded another ship. The Navy has always preached strict accountability by the commander of a vessel.

The real problem IMO was that the USN was left with egg on their faces. Because they were not listed as overdue, as they should have been, and because a timely rescue wasn't mounted and hundreds of men died as a result. The greatest sea disaster in the history of the United States Navy...someone was going to be held accountable.
Admiral King was a stern man but I don't think he would use stoop to using McVay in this way to avenge having been written up by his father many years before. I simply don't buy it.
Besides Admiral King was accepting the Court of Inquiry's recommendation when he ordered that the Court Martial proceed. Also Secretary Forrestal recommended that a court martial be convened.

The court martial has been reviewed several times over the years(by Navy experts, private lawyers and by the Judge Advocate General) and in every case it was determined that the proceeding was properly convened, provided all required due process, and was essentially fair. Also the court unanimously recommended full clemency and only the administrative loss of seniority within his then current rank as a trivial penalty. And this full remission of the sentence was endorsed by Admiral King however he had retired in the interim and Nimitz ordered that it be done. The conviction did not end his career and IIRC he was promoted before he retired.

Ultimately it was about command accountability. When asked by reporters after his rescue about the sinking McVay stated " I was in command of the ship and I am responsible for it's fate."

 

"Mush" Morton

I had heard of Morton's propensity for machine gunning Japanese in the water, and, not being a great fan of Nippon, pass no judgement on his actions. However, being tasked with killing the enemy in wartime is always bounded by the Geneva Convention, surely ? There are many, myself included, who will say that the atrocities committed by the Japanese disqualify them from the protection of the Convention ( I am not even sure if they were signatories to it ?), but what is the difference between them and us if we, too, fail to apply the restraints it imposes ?
BG

 

Re: "Mush" Morton

The Japanese were not signatories and they obviously did not abide by it.
From a strict moral standpoint it is wrong IMO to kill men who have ceased to be combatants and are trying to surrender. However when enemy soldiers refuse to surrender and are not hors de combat then they remain valid targets. This is true even according to the Geneva Accords IIRC.

 

greig , i read a book about indy recently which stated that although cargo ships can be overdue warships in wartime are not subject to strict eta and can be many days overdue without notice at the whim of their comander..i guess mabey engaging enemy shipping and maintaining radio silence ....a sad factiod ...an army c54 en route to saipan from luzon viewed many flashes and flares 10000 feet below in the darkness it looked to him like a sea battle , he said ...( it was DISTRESS signal flares from indy survivors on night 2 or 3 iirc )the pilot reported same apon landing ..he was told well ...a sea battle is navy business ,dont sweat it ...its a cryin shame he didnt drop lower to investigate it would have saved hundreds from horrible death by churning jaws and burning sun ..as it was a navy lockheed asw patrol ac found the wretched swimmers by pure chance ... "skipper ...theres hundreds of GUYS down there , THEY LOOK LIKE AMERICANS !!!

 

Re: "Mush" Morton

Yes Grieg,kill them all,that is spirit!!!
But idk is it worst to kill them on site,r to leave them on open sea to die from sharks,thirst,sun.....

 

Where did Grieg say that or even imply it at all? It is not good debating tactics to put into other's posts words that are not actually there.

 

I have to agree with Simon, Sinissa. Debate if you wish, but please do so in a courteous manner. All Grieg did was make a point about the Geneva Convention; he said nothing about right or wrong. Putting words in his mouth is not being courteous..

 

...i heard that when some usn staff people demured about mortons gunning of jap swimmers ...cincpac per orders of von nimitz ( his actual name btw prior to familys immigration to texas ) posted a large sign at hq which read KILL JAPS KILL JAPS , KILL MORE JAPS!!! not the era of pc thinking at pearl in 42... i guess

 

That quote belongs to Halsey.

 

edit- wrong post

 

Yes, and definitely more in keeping with Halsey's style of expressing himself rather than Nimitz's.

 

To say the least.