|
Post by cv10 on Aug 19, 2017 15:39:55 GMT -6
This topic merits further discussion, but as the grandson of a sailor in the US Navy, I feel obliged to say "Bless our officers and sailors" and may those who lost their lives rest peacefully!
We finally found you, and we miss you. We will remember the sacrifice you made for the United States
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 19, 2017 16:18:39 GMT -6
This topic merits further discussion, but as the grandson of a sailor in the US Navy, I feel obliged to say "Bless our officers and sailors" and may those who lost their lives rest peacefully! We finally found you, and we miss you. We will remember the sacrifice you made for the United States Ay, my friend. As the son of a man who fought for six years in the Pacific War, I bless those officers and sailors. They were a brave ship to sail without escort. One item in this story has always had me furious. You are sailing in a combat zone without escort, AND YOU ARE NOT ZIGZAGGING. What the hell was he thinking? As a good start to this discussion www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/sinking-ussindianapolis.html
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 19, 2017 18:27:24 GMT -6
This topic merits further discussion, but as the grandson of a sailor in the US Navy, I feel obliged to say "Bless our officers and sailors" and may those who lost their lives rest peacefully! We finally found you, and we miss you. We will remember the sacrifice you made for the United States Ay, my friend. As the son of a man who fought for six years in the Pacific War, I bless those officers and sailors. They were a brave ship to sail without escort. One item in this story has always had me furious. You are sailing in a combat zone without escort, AND YOU ARE NOT ZIGZAGGING. What the hell was he thinking? As a good start to this discussion www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/sinking-ussindianapolis.htmlIt was my understanding that at McVay's court-martial, Lt. Commander Hashimoto stated that it would not have made a difference if Indianapolis was zigzagging. Indeed, the experiences of our own sub commanders during the war led to the saying "For every ship saved by a fortuitous zig, another one is sunk by an unfortunate zag." That was how USS Archerfish bagged the Shinano; the carrier was zigzagging and her final course change took her right within range of Archerfish's torpedoes. If she had not been zigzagging, she would have outrun Archerfish. Far more damning was the failure of the shore commands to keep track of the ship. Philippines Sea Frontier had marked her down as arriving on time; the operations officer at Tacloban knew damn well she hadn't turned up in port but failed to either investigate or report the missing cruiser. Three shore stations intercepted distress calls, but none passed them on.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 19, 2017 18:30:05 GMT -6
It was my understanding that at McVay's court-martial, Lt. Commander Hashimoto stated that it would not have made a difference if Indianapolis was zigzagging. Indeed, the experiences of our own sub commanders during the war led to the saying "For every ship saved by a fortuitous zig, another one is sunk by an unfortunate zag." That was how USS Archerfish bagged the Shinano; the carrier was zigzagging and her final course change took her right within range of Archerfish's torpedoes. If she had not been zigzagging, she would have outrun Archerfish. Far more damning was the failure of the shore commands to keep track of the ship. Philippines Sea Frontier had marked her down as arriving on time; the operations officer at Tacloban knew damn well she hadn't turned up in port but failed to either investigate or report the missing cruiser. Three shore stations intercepted distress calls, but none passed them on. It would have at least given McVay and his ship a fighting chance, there are procedures developed to reduced the possibility of being torpedoed. I agree that Tacloban did nothing to keep track of Indianapolis, that is another stupid error.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 19, 2017 19:53:07 GMT -6
The issue with zigzagging is that, which it may complicate the fire-control solution for an attacker, it diminishes the target's primary advantage over a submerged submarine - straight-line speed. I-58 wasn't fast underwater to begin with and was carrying kaiten manned torpedoes on deck; she probably couldn't have made any better than 6 knots submerged. Conventionally-powered submarines, especially prior to the development of more dedicated underwater designs like the German Type XXI and Japanese Sentaka, were essentially mobile minefields - their targets had to come to them. They could run on the surface to get into a favorable attack position, but this was risky especially against an opponent with radar.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 19, 2017 21:18:15 GMT -6
The issue with zigzagging is that, which it may complicate the fire-control solution for an attacker, it diminishes the target's primary advantage over a submerged submarine - straight-line speed. I-58 wasn't fast underwater to begin with and was carrying kaiten manned torpedoes on deck; she probably couldn't have made any better than 6 knots submerged. Conventionally-powered submarines, especially prior to the development of more dedicated underwater designs like the German Type XXI and Japanese Sentaka, were essentially mobile minefields - their targets had to come to them. They could run on the surface to get into a favorable attack position, but this was risky especially against an opponent with radar. Note that McVay stated that they had been zigzagging up until dark. They stopped zigzagging at that time. They had intermittent moonlight but it was dark from about 2330 until the next morning. They were torpedoed at five minutes past midnight. Seems to me, that with the intermittent moonlight, they should have continued to zigzag McVay states they he was told that there was intermittent moonlight so he wasn't on the bridge. He should have been zigzagging at all times since he was without escort and the noise of his ship could be picked up by hydrophones, I am certain. Chapter 7 War Instructions United States Navy 1944 701. When practicable, known submarine waters are avoided. Also effort is made to avoid passing through, or in close proximity to the same waters traversed in the preceding twenty-four hours. 702. When cruising, the officer in tactical command normally orders his command to zigzag in accordance with a prescribed plan, whenever there is a probability of encountering enemy submarines. Various types of zigzag plans are promulgated but the commander is not restricted thereby from preparing his own plan if he so desires. In the preparation and selection of zigzag plans consideration is given to the size and type of the formation and disposition, the availability of vessels for the antisubmarine screen, the speed that can be maintained, the time and fuel available, whether or not submarines are definitely known to be in the area and the maneuvering characteristics of the ships, particularly non-combatant ships. 703. Generally speaking, all vessels, even though adequately screened, zigzag in submarine waters. 704. During thick weather and at night, except on very clear nights or during bright moonlight, vessels normally cease zigzagging. 705. When zigzagging, ships in the various formations are disposed on lines of bearing other than the base course. 706. Special circumstances, including the presence of enemy vessels, may require a departure from the above instructions regarding zigzagging. Large, slow-speed formations benefit little from zigzagging, as some ship of the formation is always near the mean track and the reduced distance made good affords the submarine additional opportunity to attack. Where the speed of the ships comprising the disposition is less than twelve knots, evasive steering may be resorted to. In this case radical changes of course are made at irregular intervals of not less than 1 hour. 707. Single ships of any speed zigzag in dangerous submarine waters. Low-speed ships use very little rudder and a zigzag plan with short legs. The primary purpose is to reduce the accuracy of torpedo fire, rather than to evade the submarine, since evasion is not feasible. 708. In special circumstances, where excessive danger of submarine attack exists, frequent speed changes may be made while zigzagging, and provision may be made for the use of different speeds while on different legs of the zigzag plan. By running their shafts at different speeds, individual ships may confuse submarines endeavoring to estimate speed by a propeller count. The difference in shaft speeds should vary by as much as three knots.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 19, 2017 22:37:06 GMT -6
I'm not really going to wade into the Zigzag debate, as at this point, it's rather immaterial as McVey's been dead for almost 50 years now. For what it's worth, McVey never forgave himself for having lost his ship and so many of his men. He read all of the hate mail that the family of those who died sent him (aside from those his family were able to snatch out of the mail before he got it), and in the end, he shot himself because he could not live with having survived while so many of his men died.
What really makes me furious is that the navy actually summoned the captain of the submarine as a witness at the court-martial. I mean I suppose his testimony was valid (though he did claim that he would have sunk her regardless of if the Indy had been zigzagging), but still, that really seems like a damned shabby and IMHO monstrous thing to do. Make the captain of a ship whose just lost all but 1/4 of his men sit in a courtroom and hear about how the man who sunk his ship planned it out. I mean it was war when it happened, but still monstrous nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 19, 2017 23:47:09 GMT -6
I'm not really going to wade into the Zigzag debate, as at this point, it's rather immaterial as McVey's been dead for almost 50 years now. For what it's worth, McVey never forgave himself for having lost his ship and so many of his men. He read all of the hate mail that the family of those who died sent him (aside from those his family were able to snatch out of the mail before he got it), and in the end, he shot himself because he could not live with having survived while so many of his men died. What really makes me furious is that the navy actually summoned the captain of the submarine as a witness at the court-martial. I mean I suppose his testimony was valid (though he did claim that he would have sunk her regardless of if the Indy had been zigzagging), but still, that really seems like a damned shabby and IMHO monstrous thing to do. Make the captain of a ship whose just lost all but 1/4 of his men sit in a courtroom and hear about how the man who sunk his ship planned it out. I mean it was war when it happened, but still monstrous nonetheless. The loss of Indianapolis and the subsequent failure to realize she was missing was a real black eye for the Navy. Running alone without escort and not taking evasive maneuvers was one thing; the fact that her surviving crew were left to drift for four days while they died of exposure, dehydration, and sharks only to be found by pure accident before anyone knew she was missing was another. The fact that by this point the war was almost over meant that it wasn't just going to fade from the public eye as similar incidents had (such the USS Juneau's sinking in 1942). Somebody had to take a hard fall for it, and the Navy decided it would be McVay rather than the officers on shore who had sent her to Leyte without escort, ignored distress calls, or failed to list her as overdue. Despite the court-martial's verdict, Admiral Nimitz remitted McVay's sentence and put him back on active duty; he had originally opposed a court-martial and suggested a letter of reprimand, the same as the shore personnel who failed to report Indianapolis as overdue. It's worth questioning whether Nimitz, as a former submarine officer, felt that zigzagging would not have changed the outcome. I believe in addition to Hashimoto, several U.S. submarine officers testified that zigzagging was of limited effect and, as previously stated, could just as easily cause a ship to run right into a sub it would have otherwise evaded. McVay's orders were to "zigzag at his discretion, weather permitting." As of 2001, after a Congressional resolution, the Navy had McVay's record cleared of all wrongdoing.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2017 7:36:43 GMT -6
The problem with this whole incident is that the information available to at least two captains; McVay and Captain Russell E. Sullivan skipper of the USS General R. L. Howse an AP which sailed through the same area with 4000 troops on board, had never been given the top secret information from ULTRA that the submarine was operating in the area. It was Admiral King who went on the witch hunt to find blame and cover up the fact that we had ULTRA.
The consensus is that McVay and his crew did their best with the available information, and I agree with that except, while zigzagging isn't the best solution, it is the only one a single lone ship has besides sonar, radar, and lookouts. I don't agree that court-martial proceedings should have been conducted and I don't believe that the captain of the enemy submarine should have been brought in, King was trying to make a point to the rest of the Naval captains. In other words, McVay was the scapegoat. However, zigzagging should have been conducted at all times through the area.
One aspect of this issue is the anti-torpedo protection of the Portland class cruisers. They were upgraded post-treaty Northampton's cruisers and I am not certain whether they had good protection. The second torpedo ignited a magazine. I wonder what kind of torpedo they were using. I suspect the oxygen version. Good stuff to research.
|
|