USA Submarine

Some articles of possible interest:
http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm
http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_47/torpedo_2.html
http://www.valoratsea.com/torp.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a550699.pdf
http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/torpedo_problems.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/BuOrd/BuOrd-6.html

 

Jesus...this seems typical of "the military".
I have Heard/Read hundreds of accounts of this type of thing...and then hundreds of guys are dead...and The Generals go on to their next F' Up.
I guess that has always been the downfall with all militarizes...it is a dictatorship.

 

Not really, covering your own ass by saying it's the operators fault is pretty much universal.

EDIT:
However with that said I try to remember not to judge historical decisions using knowledge they didn't have.

 

Keep in mind that it wasn't just subs that were not trusted or respected in the 1920s and 1930s but aircraft carriers also were looked down upon by the Battleship Admirals. They still thought in terms of great sea battles between large warships. Army Air Corps Colonel Billy Mitchell was actually court martialed after a trial because he 'proved' that big ships could be sunk by aircraft and the Power That Be at that time just did not want crazy talk like that!

Taranto in 1940, the sinking of the Bismark, Pearl Harbor and finally the Battle of Midway proved that the days of the big BBs were over. Even today, if a crisis breaks out somewhere in the world, the first question the President usually asks is "Where are our carriers"?

Although USN WW 2 submariners only comprised 2% of all USN personnel, they sank 55% of all Japanese shipping! How's that for 'efficient'?

 

Colonel Mitchell was not court martialed for "proving" that big ships could be sunk by aircraft...He was court martialed for publicly denouncing his superior officers,a violation of the 96th Article of War. Whether Mitchell was right or wrong was not the issue, whether his conduct was insubordination was the issue.

You do know that Billy Mitchell was very critical of the idea of the aircraft carrier, don't you? He went so far as to call them "useless instruments of war." Colonel Mitchell was also very dismissive of antiaircraft artillery saying that their effectiveness is constantly diminishing compared to the increasing power and range of aircraft.

So, in some ways, Mitchell was a "visionary", yet, in others, he was just as "blinded" as those he was critical of.

 

You have to be a bit careful there. German U-boats certainly made an impression in WWI and the British were in the process of prepairing a carrier strike at the Grand Sea Fleat when the war ended. During the inter war years carriers were arguably not that powerful of vessels. Given luck they could inflict significant damage but the same can be said of subs and DDs. Most admirals seem to have realized their utility as scouts as well. Furthermore I'd argue that Taranto, PH, and Midway did very little to actually "prove that the day of the BB was over". PoW and Repulse were argueably more significant in that regard but Battleships were still clearly an important part of a combined arms force through the end of the war and of some utility in a number of cases afterwards.

 

Sorry, I stand corrected. But Mitchell DID show how vulnerable ships are to aircraft and bombs. Bombing a stationary ship is one thing but a moving ship is another. But dive and torpedo bombers showed how it can be done.

The PoW and Repulse were attacked by a combo of level/high bombers and dive/torpedo planes and sunk. Same at PH.

 

I'd still say that carriers (once they really came into their own, 1942-43 or so) they put BBs down a notch to the point where they were mostly used for naval bombardment prior to invasions, versus to go out and sink enemy warships. Subs and carrier aircraft did the vast majority of that mission. But BBs were right there in Gulf War One in 1991!

 

It was proved quite clearly in WWI that torpedoes could sink battleships. Where the torpedo came from didn't really make much difference.

The PoW and Repulse were at sea and moving. Big difference from PH. Furthermore even torpedo nets would have probably reduced the battleship losses to 1 (Arizona) and possibly not even her.

Back to PoW and Repulse even that attack arguably didn't prove that the day of the BB was done. It did suggest that an adequate AA suite, decent escorts, and hopefully some CAP were of significant import.

Arguably the main reason for the lack of battleship engagments mid to late war was that the Axis powers simply didn't have the naval forces to make it worthwhile to attempt such actions. Then there was the fact that during that same period Allied airpower became overwhelming. If you look at the techonologies and capabilities of the ships at say 1945 a battle group built around a single and perhaps even 2 IJN carriers would have had a hard time with one built around a US fast BB. Give the US fource even a CVE and it become almost impossible for the IJN force to win.

 

I think that I mentioned the sinking of staionary AND moving ships was proven by various types of aircraft. Our B-17s in the Phillipines in early 1942 and later at Midway were woefully unsucessful with high level bombing of moving ships and that was a 'lesson' of its own right there!

Of course they did not have torpedo nets at PH because no one thought that torpdoes would work in only 40 feet of water! But, the IJN improvised with wooden 'fins' to make them work in the much shallower waters of PH. They knew there were no nets.

I'd say that WW 2 was the 'transition' from a Battleship Navy (1939) to one based around Carrier Groups with BBs in a supporting role (1945). In today's Navy we still have all types of warships that we had in 1945........ all except battleships.

 

I look at it differently. While the 'charges' for his court-martial were based on his conduct, that may have been the perfect 'excuse' to shut him up and force him into retirement and stop all this nonsense talk about heavy bombers, etc. The Navy certainly did NOT want Defense $$ being spent on ARMY bombers so they had a vested interest in shutting this guy up.

Keep in mine that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion......... not for all the murders that everyone knew that he was involved in. But those charges got the job done.

 

From what I've read there was actually some considerable thought to torpedo nets at PH. Partially because torpedo planes weren't the only possible mechanism for delivering torpedos. Indeed I think the plan was to start using them at some point but the plan wasn't implemented in time. One of the main considerations against was the desire to be able to "flush" the harbor as fast as possible (I believe 1.5 hours was the goal and it was achieved on a number of occasions).

If you look at the days of sail sea control essentially meant ships of the line. Lesser vessels were essentially relegated to recon, counter recon, and commerce raiding/protection. The advent of the self propelled torpedo meant combined arms became important in naval warfare and resulted in torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers, etc becoming necessary elements in the battle fleet. Naval aviation had a similar impact as did the developement of jets and guided missiles. Battleships could arguably have played an important role in post WW2 sea control however there was no one to contest for it as the Western allies stayed allied and had such overwhelming numbers and capability surface wise that there was no point in anyone esle building capital ships to challenge them. Lacking competition there was little reason to keep much less build new battleships. If someone built a battleship today unconstrained by treaty limitations I suspect it could readily protect itself from a carrier load of planes or more. It might have more trouble from subs though.

 

It does not matter how you look at it...Mitchell committed a "bozo no no" by publicly name-calling, criticizing, ridiculing, and accusing his superior officers. That is just not how things are done in the military, and never will be, as it leads to a breakdown of the entire system.

Mitchell committed an "own goal" by flaunting military law and going "outside the system" and airing his grievances in the public forums.

 

Indeed, most of World War 2 disproved the effectiveness of high-level bombers against shipping, stationary or otherwise. At least until the advent of guided bombs and missiles by the Germans later in the war.

That is only a part argument...

Torpedo nets were cumbersome to employ, and could have been done only with great difficulty at Pearl Harbor. Further, if employed, they would hamper the warships trying to quickly leave the harbor in the event of an impending attack.

Further, had nets been employed, the Japanese were prepared to use their dive-bombers to attack the nets in order to destroy them, and allow their torpedo bombers a clear shot.

 

No CAs,
No CLs,
No CVEs,
No CVLs,
No DEs,
No PTs,
No SSs,
No PCs,

No this is not your grandfather's Navy.

 

The Missouri stll floating? : )

 

Takao is technically correct. The USS Constitution is still a commissioned US Navy vessel, but it has been at least a couple of months since we last used the old 44-gun, wooden, sailing frigate as a surface combatant vessel. USS Missouri is berthed at Pearl Harbor as a museum ship (she is decommissioned). The other three completed Iowa's are still around also, preserved as museum ships. Iowa in Los Angeles, CA; Wisconsin at Norfolk, VA and New Jersey at Camden, NJ, I've visited Wisconsin and New Jersey.

 

Well, technically, the US Navy still retains "ownership" of the museum ships, and reacquire the vessel at anytime they see fit. Usually, this is only done in times of war, the USS Oregon springs to mind, she was a museum ship, in February, 1941, the US Navy reacquired her and she became IX-22, on December 7, 1942, she was sold for scrap(the scrapper saw more value in converting her to a barge and did so, the War Shipping Administration confiscated the ex-Oregon/barge, and she was reinstated into the US Navy, where she served as an ammunition barge in Guam for several years, before finally being scrapped in 1956.

As further, albeit anecdotal, evidence. I toured the USS Cassin Young(DD-793) back in the mid-80's and got to talking with one of the park rangers giving tours, and this very subject came up. His response was along the lines of - Sure, if we went to war tomorrow, the Navy could certainly take back this destroyer and refurbish her. But, there is not much point in that, as her only use in a modern naval war would be for target practice.

 

I remember something similar from when I was a kid in elementary school in the mid-60's. We went on a field trip to the Battleship North Carolina in Wilmington. (I was going to school at a base school at Camp LeJeune) They told us that the engine rooms, propulsion areas were off-limits because they had to be maintained in such a manner that she could be called back in case needed. They had one of her screws removed and displayed on deck (huge!) which I thought, even as a kid was rather strange, if she needed to be called back. I've visited quite a number of the "museum ships", there's the C-6 USS Olympia, Dewey's flag ship at Manila Bay.


....and the USS Texas, BB-35, the sole remaining dreadnought. We would really need to be in a world of hurt to have to bring those old girls back. When I was in Philadelphia around 2005, the "Daisy Mae", USS Des Moines was laid up with the reserve fleet. Got to see her and even thought about trying to sneak onto her. She was in bad shape but she was a massive, powerfull looking ship. Unfortunately, she was scrapped soon afterwards. I'll have to get up to Massachusetts sometime to tour her sister the Salem.