Article

2006-08-18 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-08-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Dick O'Kane wrote a book about his times on Wahoo.

Posted by Penguin 2006-08-18 00:14|| 2006-08-18 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Yep... he had a house just a block away from my parents. My dad painted his house....and wouldn't accept payment but was more thrilled to get an autographed copy of the book. O'Kane wrote a couple if I recall.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-08-18 03:10|| 2006-08-18 03:10|| Front Page Top

#3 I though it was sunk by one of it's own rogue torpedo(?)during an attack on Japanese shippings on the surface. All US torpedoes being designed to circle back 180 degree after a set range those days.

Posted by Duh! 2006-08-18 05:10|| 2006-08-18 05:10|| Front Page Top

#4 The first 18 months (or so) of the war the US torpedoes ran deep, and often failed to explode, but the USN Ordnance Department refused to believe it; it was all the sub captain's fault. Einstein even posited a theory for the failure to explode, but he was ignored, too.

But I never heard about circling back. What's the point (or sense) of that? So you can retreive it, and try again?

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-18 06:41|| 2006-08-18 06:41|| Front Page Top

#5 Captain O'Kane's boat Tang was sunk by a circular run of one of her own torpedoes. Wahoo was sunk by Japanese ASW.

There's a very good book by one of Wahoo's radiomen, Forest J. Sterling, called Wake of the Wahoo.

Posted by Mike 2006-08-18 07:08|| 2006-08-18 07:08|| Front Page Top

#6 You sure Duh!? WW2 torpedoes could circle back to the launcher when a steering fin stuck or a gyro failed. Modern torpedoes can be programmed to circle back and reaquire a target.

Posted by ed 2006-08-18 07:48|| 2006-08-18 07:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Ah, Mike you're right, methinks ;)

Posted by Duh! 2006-08-18 08:27|| 2006-08-18 08:27|| Front Page Top

#8 I hope the Russians have enough decency to leave sub well enough alone.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-08-18 08:36|| 2006-08-18 08:36|| Front Page Top

#9 I took to kids to tour the USS Cod recently. Same class (Gato) as the Wahoo I think.

How eighty sailors could live let alone navigate and fight halfway around the planet aboard a WWII class sub for months at a time is beyond me.

Giants among men.

Posted by GORT 2006-08-18 08:51|| 2006-08-18 08:51|| Front Page Top

#10 The Wahoo was NOT sunk by one of its own torpedos. It was sunk trying to exit the Sea of Japan. This website has a set of translated Japanese naval documents, including maps, photos and drawings, to illustrate what happened.

The Wahoo tried to slip past the Sooya Strait (between Hokkaido and the Soviet Union) in daylight under good weather conditions. This was a choke point and the Japanese were prepared. They used aircraft and several ships to pin the Wahoo down and eventually got her with aerial bombs and depth charges.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-08-18 10:55|| 2006-08-18 10:55|| Front Page Top

#11 You are correct, Mike, the Tang was sunk by one of it's own torpedoes. The Wahoo was sunk by the Japanes Navy. I have a copy of Commander Kane's book. He was on the bridge at the time the torpedo malfunctioned and was captured. His treatment at the hands of the Japanese was typical of all Allied prisoners.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-08-18 10:56|| 2006-08-18 10:56|| Front Page Top

#12 Giants among men.

Gort? If they be giants then how did they fit in that itty-bitty sardine can? Must of been some of that tech transfer from Gallifrey. {snort!}

Posted by Almost Anonymous5839">Almost Anonymous5839 2006-08-18 10:56|| 2006-08-18 10:56|| Front Page Top

#13 If they be giants then how did they fit in that itty-bitty sardine can?

I don't know, but they do. We used to have a kid working here as a messenger who served on a 688-boat in the Navy. He was 6' 9" or so tall.

Posted by Mike 2006-08-18 11:21|| 2006-08-18 11:21|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike - he musta bunked in one of the tubes :)

Posted by GORT 2006-08-18 12:10|| 2006-08-18 12:10|| Front Page Top

#15 An excellent article on the initial torpedo frustrations of American submariners here

Posted by Dar">Dar 2006-08-18 12:33|| 2006-08-18 12:33|| Front Page Top

#16 a shorter version, prepared by your poster, as a lesson in quality:

QUALITY MINUTE
July 15, 2002
From a History Channel Program viewed July 11, 2002

At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. Navy submarines carried the Mark 14 torpedo manufactured since 1923. In the sixteen years of manufacture, the torpedo had been tested exactly twice. It worked properly 50% of the time. Further tests were not conducted because torpedoes were virtually handmade, at a cost of $10,000 each. Quality assurance was deemed to be too expensive.

Early in the war, sub captains complained the torpedoes ran deep, and failed to explode. They were ignored, and then blamed for their poor tactics. Finally, an Admiral conducted tests and found the torpedoes ran an average of eleven feet deeper than their setting. The Mark 14 torpedo was usually going under its targets. The Admiral was ignored, until he ran the same quality assurance test again, with the same results. Finally, the Navy investigated and agreed to fix the depth problem.

More hits were reported, but many torpedoes still failed to explode. Albert Einstein was consulted, and then ignored. Finally, in early 1943 a sub fired four torpedoes at a huge tanker from close range (1,000 yards). Some were heard to strike, but all failed to explode. Two more were fired from the stern tubes, and one finally exploded. Over the next three hours, the sub conducted a quality test by firing twelve more torpedoes, all of which failed to explode. Finally, the Navy investigated and discovered an exploder component was being crushed by impact. (Einstein had suggested failures were related to crushing).It was strengthened, and the problems were finally resolved in October, 1943.

Ultimately, the submarine was a major factor in the war in the Pacific, but no one knows the cost of the lack of quality torpedoes for the 22 months after Pearl Harbor. Merchant ships were hit, but not sunk. U.S. subs were sunk because they failed to damage an attacker, or risked detection trying to fire additional torpedoes, hoping to get one to explode. Navy morale was also adversely affected.

Finally, Westinghouse designed, developed, and tested a new electric torpedo in just 17 months, without the Navy Ordnance Departments help or inertia. In the wartime environment, quality was finally prioritized ahead of cost. The new Mark 18 was immediately found to be quite effective, and was much more stealthy than the earlier steam torpedoes.

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-18 19:25|| 2006-08-18 19:25|| Front Page Top

#17 crap - how many lives did that cost?

Posted by Walter Duranty">Walter Duranty 2006-08-18 20:38|| 2006-08-18 20:38|| Front Page Top

#18 oops

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-18 20:39|| 2006-08-18 20:39|| Front Page Top

#19 "Killer Kane" and "Slugger Morton"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-08-18 23:37|| 2006-08-18 23:37|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:53 Flogum Clavitch3333
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:50 Flogum Clavitch3333
23:48 Flogum Clavitch3333
23:44 3dc
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:41 Donald Thompson
23:40 Flogum Clavitch3333
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:36 3dc
23:36 Flogum Clavitch3333
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:34 3dc
23:28 RD
23:19 twobyfour
23:16 J. D. Lux
23:09 3dc
23:05 3dc
22:59 Legolas
22:50 3dc
22:47 3dc
22:43 twobyfour