After being sunk in the Sea of Japan by a nearby Japanese sub would the sub not have checked for survivors or had other ships check since they were in the Sea of Japan or very close to it?
shareI highly suspect that it's probably via the writer's discretion/ prerogative only.
shareIt's never explained in the film how they were rescued.
In real life, that early in the war, the sub would have been the only US warship in the whole are as sub's operated singly in empire areas at that time and no surface warships could have been there. They would have been take POW if they survived at all.
Simple expedient is that they needed to be sunk and then rescued for the plot. Therefore they were... Without explanation.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I don't know this for sure; I am speculating. The Japanese during WW2 had a contemptuous attitude towards survivors and PoWs. Whereas an American warship would be expected to pick up survivors whenever possible, I suspect that the Japanese were under orders to ignore them unless they represented a hazard or offered a high intelligence potential. Neither would be the case for the crew of the submarine.
Some of the dialogue implied that it was "early in the war." However, Guam was an American possession that was occupied by the Japanese, early in the war. We did not retake the island until 10 August 1944 in a battle that began on 21 July of the same year. That is fairly late in the war. Saipan and Tinian were taken in the same campaign and we were using them to launch B-29 raids against the main islands of Japan by late in the year.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
You were doing well til you said:
I suspect that the Japanese were under orders to ignore them unless they represented a hazard or offered a high intelligence potential. Neither would be the case for the crew of the submarine.
In WW2 submarines were a peripheral warship. Things have changed a lot. The were crews were tough, resilient, and capable, but they were an auxiliary. As effective as our submariners were, they were secondary. Only the Kriegsmarine depended on them to provide a fundamental strategic role in the war and that was because they had no other option. They also had an opportunity.
In addition, submarines can be a very valuable intelligence collection asset, but the crews are of marginal value as a collection source. What information is the enemy going to extract from the crew? Any value they had would be in counter-intelligence. The enemy country would be able to interrogate the crew to determine U.S. collection techniques and success. Still, the Japanese tended not to think in those terms. By the time we get to the games played between the U.S. and the Soviets in 1960 through 1990, the story had changed dramatically.
Stick to cruisers, navy. If you haven't worked intelligence for a military lifetime, you are out of your depth, so to speak. ;)
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
In WW2 submarines were a peripheral warship. Things have changed a lot. The were crews were tough, resilient, and capable, but they were an auxiliary. As effective as our submariners were, they were secondary. Only the Kriegsmarine depended on them to provide a fundamental strategic role in the war and that was because they had no other option. They also had an opportunity.
In addition, submarines can be a very valuable intelligence collection asset, but the crews are of marginal value as a collection source.
What information is the enemy going to extract from the crew? Any value they had would be in counter-intelligence. The enemy country would be able to interrogate the crew to determine U.S. collection techniques and success. Still, the Japanese tended not to think in those terms.
By the time we get to the games played between the U.S. and the Soviets in 1960 through 1990, the story had changed dramatically.
Stick to cruisers, navy. If you haven't worked intelligence for a military lifetime, you are out of your depth, so to speak. ;)
Submarines played no vital role in:
The Battle of the Coral Sea
The Battle of Midway
The Guadalcanal Campaign, including any of the five naval battles fought during the campaign...
and so on through the Battle of Leyte Gulf and the Battle of Okinawa
They did virtually destroy the Japanese merchant fleet. The Japanese failed to do the same on the other side, or even approach it because their submariners were dedicated to bushido and would not target a merchant vessel if they could sight a warship. Unfortunately, submarines were hopelessly slow relative to surface warships and had no chance unless they stumbled into awesomely good luck. (e.g. Wasp and Indianapolis).
You can scream and shout your claims but they carry no relevance if you offer no examples, much less citations. Of course, you can always rely on the adage that an empty kettle makes the most noise.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
YOU have cited no evidence either and yet you accede the very thing that my proof relies upon. Point to me.
You are being Myopic and cherry picking by pointing out battles that did not involve submarines. But those battles did not each on their own, make a major contribution to the OVERALL war effort. Yes +Midway was a turning point true.
But the elimination of the Japanese Merchant Fleet WAS a major and singularly deciding factor in winning the overall war.
You can stop with being an *beep* now.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
You are not following me. You haven't even cited an example of any submarine anywhere in WW2. They did not take a significant role anywhere on the US side. One could cite the rescue of an obscure navy lieutenant who happened to be the navy's youngest combat pilot. It was insignificant in the war overall, except that it is a great example of something the submarine force did to raise moral.
Just for kicks I'm going to ask you one question on US navy history that will tell me how much you know. Who or what was the namesake of the WW2 aircraft carrier USS Franklin?
I realize that it has nothing to do with submarines, but it is obvious that you insist on extensive knowledge of submarine history when you know nothing. I don't claim to know a lot, but I clearly know more than you do. I don't think you know anything about anything. You throw on your beenie and claim that it makes you knowledgeable. That isn't sufficient. You've got to know something about what the navy did and how they did it.
Coral Sea - Won by aircraft carriers (and intelligence)
Midway - Won by aircraft carriers (and intelligence)
Guadalcanal campaign - mostly a cruiser war. We lost tactically and won strategically. The important surface actions were won by the USS Washington and aircraft carriers
Bismarck Sea - Won by aircraft carriers, and so on it goes.
I'll stop being your idea of whatever you want to call me if an when I succeed at teaching you something.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I'm following you. You are wrong.
You haven't even cited an example of any submarine anywhere in WW2
Just for kicks I'm going to ask you one question on US navy history that will tell me how much you know. Who or what was the namesake of the WW2 aircraft carrier USS Franklin?
but it is obvious that you insist on extensive knowledge of submarine history when you know nothing. I don't claim to know a lot, but I clearly know more than you do. I don't think you know anything about anything.
You throw on your beenie and claim that it makes you knowledgeable.
Coral Sea - Won by aircraft carriers (and intelligence)
Midway - Won by aircraft carriers (and intelligence)
Guadalcanal campaign - mostly a cruiser war. We lost tactically and won strategically. The important surface actions were won by the USS Washington and aircraft carriers
Bismarck Sea - Won by aircraft carriers, and so on it goes.
I'll stop being your idea of whatever you want to call me if an when I succeed at teaching you something.
You are right about two items, I had given credit to all the carriers sunk in the Battle of the Philippine Sea to US aircraft carriers. One of them was sunk by the Cavalla. Six of the other aircraft carriers sunk by US submarine were escort or light carriers, all carrying fewer than 40 aircraft with a total complement. One other was a fleet carrier, the largest the Japanese built. They were all sunk after the Battle of the Philippine Sea. In other words, late in the war. It certainly helped, but it was not vital. By the time of the sinkings we were picking off the last of the Japanese fleet.
I have seen the claims made by submarines for the list of IJN warships sunk. I think it is highly exaggerated. Considering the primitive submarine technology of the day, the sub crews did great. But their claims are only slightly more believable than PT boat claims and in most cases we only have the boat's claim for evidence.
I had already credited the US submarine fleet with success against the Japanese merchant fleet. This was not as important as the threat to the Allied merchant vessels from Kriegesmarine U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic because of the varying situations. We had to get war material, soldiers, and food across the Atlantic or else we could not open a second front and Britain would starve. We did not need to stop the Japanese merchant fleet because the Japanese could not exploit the Dutch East Indies for oil and were equally stymied in exploiting the rest of their territorial gains. In other words, it helped and put greater pressure on Japan, but it was not a vital war contribution.
It was United States Navy policy to name aircraft carriers after previous ships or battle fields from 1928 on. They stuck to the policy until the Nimitz class. The first carrier, built by converting a collier, was the USS Langley, named after the scientist that the Smithsonian Institute was still insisting (at that time) was the true inventor of powered flight. Had there been no prior warship named for Benjamin Franklin, there would have been no aircraft carrier named USS Franklin. It was named for the armed schooner (six guns) Franklin. There were no frigates or other ships named for the doctor.
Every vessel in the navy (I hope) serves a purpose in their TRADOC. They all contribute to the victory, but submarines were no more valuable and perhaps less valuable in World War II than were under-way replenishment ships. Read a little on how difficult it was for the IJN to operate thousands of miles from home because they struggled with refueling their ships at sea, even for Pearl Harbor.
So, we go back to the original point, would an IJN fleet or flotilla make an effort to search for an American submarine crew? No, it went against Bushido and against IJN operational needs.
What you have convinced me is that you spend more effort in trying to find ways around the prohibition against profanity than you do on learning anything outside of your parochial view.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I have seen the claims made by submarines for the list of IJN warships sunk. I think it is highly exaggerated. Considering the primitive submarine technology of the day, the sub crews did great. But their claims are only slightly more believable than PT boat claims and in most cases we only have the boat's claim for evidence.
Had there been no prior warship named for Benjamin Franklin, there would have been no aircraft carrier named USS Franklin.
It was named for the armed schooner (six guns) Franklin. There were no frigates or other ships named for the doctor.
So, we go back to the original point, would an IJN fleet or flotilla make an effort to search for an American submarine crew? No, it went against Bushido and against IJN operational needs.
I'm a veteran of the U.S. Submarine Service from the 1970's time period. I take understandable pride in the Silver Dolphins I earned the right to wear and in the history and traditions of the submarine service.
In past years I have had the privilege of meeting and talking with submarine veterans of the Pacific War. Neither they nor I would agree with your claim that our submarines
did not take a significant role anywhere on the US side.
As much as I respect Admiral Halsey, I think he is dead wrong. First, he left out the innovation that can be proved to have literally won the most important naval battle of WW2 for the US. I refer, of course to COMINT/Cryptology and the Battle of Midway. Second, I would go so far as to say that rating planes below submarines is brain dead stupid. Every (I know, I stick my neck out here) major naval battle in the Pacific Theater that we won, we won with air power. We did not win a single one with submarines. Likewise on the Japanese side. Not only did Admiral Halsey become a pilot and later an aircraft carrier captain, then later an aircraft carrier admiral, he said as early as 1933 that any admiral in the next war had better know how to use air power. It goes to show just how slow some people learn.
Ultimately, the value of submarines in WW2 comes down to opinion. And neither you, nor CGSailor have changed mine. I admit that I may have overstated it, suggesting they were insignificant, but they were certainly never decisive.
The Cold War was a lot different from WW2, or any other "shooting war." Part of what made it different was the advent of nuclear powered submarines. Submarines became small ships designed to operate under water for extended periods of time. Until then they had been submersible boats, relatively small attack craft that sacrificed capability for being able to submerge to shallow depths for limited periods of time. Although, the diesel electric boats Barbel and Blueback along with the Regulus boats Grayback and Growler did some very interesting "special missions." These old diesel electrics had capabilities that convinced the navy to hold onto them through the 1980s.
As for my military background, I began as a cryptologic linguist, Vietnamese multi-channel and later on became a nuclear physicist. The best way that I can describe my commissioned career is to say that I continued to use the same clearances in a different venue. Had I been in the navy and on a submarine, I would have worked in that closet on the boat that most of you aren't allowed to enter.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
As much as I respect Admiral Halsey, I think he is dead wrong.
Had I been in the navy and on a submarine, I would have worked in that closet on the boat that most of you aren't allowed to enter.
And I think you are the one who has head squished into a Dixie cup for too long. Respect who you wish. Neither do I need to respect your opinion. You obviously hold to yours for emotional reasons that cloud your judgment. I will keep that in mind whenever I read them.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
And I think you are the one who has head squished into a Dixie cup for too long.
I came to the conclusion during a walk that somewhere our discussion went off the rails. So, I went back and reread the entire thread to explore where that happened.
You had replied to the OP's query about the submariners becoming PoWs before I did, but it had no affect on my response. I read it and disagreed, but did not respond to it. Instead, I replied to the OP with a different point of view. Apparently, you could not tolerate that without correcting me.
You made claims for the submarines of WW2 that were, in some cases provably false. Submarines were never the primary weapon in the Pacific war. Anyone who knows even what you consider to be the bare minimum of US navy history knows about the carrier war that we waged throughout 1942 and much of 1943. We lost four aircraft carriers in that time, more than half of what we had. Still, during that early stretch of the war, it was those carriers along with their escorting cruisers (interesting that, since you call yourself 'CGSailor you don't even give your own ships their due) that carried the navy in what was primarily a naval war (although it was the US Army Air Forces that forced the end). Some important battles were fought by the cruisers on their own.
As soon as I refused to immediately accept your opinion as the only valid one on the planet (yes, opinion, not fact, one of my mistakes) you took it personally. You began to launch ad hominem attacks with crypto-profanity to 'fool' IMdB's system. You did not even attempt to justify your opinion, you just became ever more shrill and abusive in your attempts to ram it down my throat. Then you called me a "troll." Another interesting flip.
The other poster came in and demonstrated for you how it is done. He presented a quote showing the opinion of an expert who was there. I don't remember if I have read Admiral Halsey's statement before, but I don't agree with it now and I don't think I ever agreed with it. One simply needs to read the directives from COMSUBPACFLT to the WW2 submarines on their duties. They did them very well, but they were still acting as auxiliaries. You failed to learn anything from your opportunity to study that exchange.
So, it should not surprise you that I am adding you to my ignore list. You can return to your day job of advising "The Donald" on political rhetoric. I will continue to form my own opinions on what I study of military and naval history.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Not one thing I have said is provably false.
unlike you.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I didn’t intend to comment further on this subject as I felt my earlier post was adequate to make my point. However given the subsequent exchange that is still taking place I’m going to add a few thoughts regarding Adm. Halsey’s statement.
I respect your education, training and experience. I realize they qualify you to speak as an expert in many fields, and to also evaluate other matters that may not necessarily fall in your particular areas of expertise. And you have written with eloquence and strong conviction concerning your views on this matter.
But I also perceive a weakness in your argument. I’ve seen nothing in your statements to indicate any willingness to address the significance of Halsey’s assessment. It rather seems to downplay that significance by calling it “the opinion of an expert who was there,” even though on the surface that might seem very complimentary.
Halsey was judged by his superiors as qualified to command mighty forces over vast areas of the world’s greatest ocean, forces that were locked in mortal combat with a powerful adversary. The outcome of that war and indeed the very life of his country might well hinge on his judgment and his skill in executing command decisions. For a period of nearly four years he had to factor into his daily thoughts and planning enormous strategic considerations that might significantly shape and impact crucial and decisive tactical encounters. Considerations that a person not in his position might hardly be able to envision. That was the kind of responsibility entrusted to Halsey.
So when he spoke he was not merely offering “the opinion of an expert who was there.” He was a man with that awesome background and experience under his belt, who had been instrumental in leading his nation to victory and was now rendering his considered judgment as to how that victory had been achieved. Something more than just “the opinion of an expert who was there.”
I’m not trying to change your views. You can have very good reasons for drawing the conclusions you do. Nor am I arguing that Halsey could not have been wrong. What I do believe is that in the realm of serious historical study a statement like his coming from a man of his stature should not be dismissed with words like “brain dead stupid” (which I hope you would regret having used in connnection to Halsey) because that statement goes counter to what the historian strongly believes.
Instead the historian should ask, “Why did Halsey consider submarines so crucial to the Pacific victory?” The historian is not obligated to concede the point. He is within his right to challenge the judgments of even men of Halsey’s stature in the interests of scholarly search for the truth.
But the historian should also be open minded enough to ponder, “Given Halsey’s naval background he might well have been predisposed to have a higher regard for aviation. Therefore when he attributed a higher value to submarines is it possible that he had very sound and compelling reasons to do so? Is it possible that he made that evaluation on the basis of details and considerations that have never occurred to me?"
Good questions. The historian should never close his mind to the examination of those possibilities and place himself instead in the position that you yourself describe. It should never have to be said of him “You obviously hold to (your opinions) for emotional reasons that cloud your judgment.”
***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.
You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, But you have always been more eloquent and level headed than I.
I tend to live up to Halsey's nickname.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
And back at you.
Yes we have very different personalities and express ourselves differently on these boards. Yet we share that naval background and usually defend the same values.
If I might resurrect a mostly forgotten (deservedly) and archaic term for a sailor I sometimes think of the way we approach an issue as:
good gob/bad gob
***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.
You have made a very good point. I will make the claim that you can accept or reject that I have considered Admiral Halsey's statement. I stand by my opinion, and I will repeat that it is my opinion, that elevating the contribution of the submarine in the Pacific war over the contribution of the airplane is, brain dead stupid. I did not use that terminology at random. The man won the largest battles ever fought at sea by using air power, with submarines playing no major role. Why would Admiral Halsey make a claim for submarines unsupported by the facts? Because he was an admiral and therefor played politics. His boss, Admiral Nimitz started out on cruisers, but had his first command in submarines. Admiral Halsey is not around to defend himself, but he was noted for being emotional himself, and not a historian. But, then neither am I. Admiral Halsey had the right to express his opinion, I will hold to the right to express mine. Others can review the history, observe the contribution that submarines made to WW2 for the United States Navy in the Pacific Theater, and come to their own judgment.
The only way to prove either position, that submarines provided the greatest contribution to the US of any type of warship in WW2 or that they were auxiliary combat vessels without which we would have won the war anyway in the same time frame and in the same manner would be to rerun the war without US submarines. I don't see a way to do that, so we must live with the proposition unproven.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I stand by my opinion, and I will repeat that it is my opinion
Admiral Halsey had the right to express his opinion, I will hold to the right to express mine.