about uss wahoo being found

[ober lt lare]

hi i was wondering now that they found the uss wahoo in the sea of japan is there any chance that one compartment in the boat might not be flooded at all if the crew was able to secure the watertight doors because the boat is not at crush depth for that peticular bot would the watertight doors hold up for this long just wondering thats all if anyone coudl help me with this question reply to this thanks

ober lt lare

[Ducimus]

An air pocket trapped against the ceiling is possible. AN entire compartment being dry? I'd think it impossible. The gaskets around the watertight door would have erroded over time. A small leak over those many years would have eventually floodinig the compartment.

[JSF]

An air pocket trapped against the ceiling is possible. AN entire compartment being dry? I'd think it impossible. The gaskets around the watertight door would have erroded over time. A small leak over those many years would have eventually floodinig the compartment.

I agree with Ducimus. Besides, the Wahoo was brutally assailed from air and sea assets for over 8 hours. According to the divers who explored Wahoo there is a gapping whole directly behind the conning tower. They speculate that one of the aerial bombs made a direct hit which carried the aft fairwater away. If that was the case, in addition to the severe flooding anyone in the conning tower at that moment was either killed or knocked unconscience from the force of the explosion.

But then....I'm just speculating as well.

[ober lt lare]

thanks for the info where is the report of the divers saying all the damage they found on wahoo when they found the submarine there in the straight i have read all the reports and i never saw that in the report can you put a link here with that article i really want to read it

ober lt lare

[JSF]

thanks for the info where is the report of the divers saying all the damage they found on wahoo when they found the submarine there in the straight i have read all the reports and i never saw that in the report can you put a link here with that article i really want to read it

ober lt lare

www.warfish.com (http://www.warfish.com)

[ober lt lare]

thanks for the link can anyone enter the wreck of the wahoo if the navy said it could like through the bridge hatch or would the bridge hatch not be accesible

ober lt lare

[JSF]

NO...Accessibilty...

[Steeltrap]

thanks for the link can anyone enter the wreck of the wahoo if the navy said it could like through the bridge hatch or would the bridge hatch not be accesible

ober lt lare

As a matter of policy, sunken warships are regarded around the world as war graves and are thus treated as inviolable. Therefore, no entry even if possible.

[TheSatyr]

Having read those articles about the loss of the Wahoo,I have to disagree with O'Kane about why the Wahoo was running on the surface.

In my mind there is no way Wahoo could have been damaged from a circular running torpedo...that would have killed the boat...and O'Kane should know better. Subs don't have much positive buoyancy to begin with and the flooding from a torp hit would have been fatal.

If the Wahoo had taken any damage that would have kept her from diving then I have no doubt that Morton would have radioed it in. After all,there was another sub operating in that area at the same time he could have scrounged spare parts off of.

What I haven't seen mentioned is something I recall reading in a few books over the years. That Morton seemed tired and not quite at 100% before that last patrol and that some in SubPac HQ thought it was a mistake to send Morton out again. As I recall reading even Lockwood had misgivings about it.

I just think Morton either through combat fatigue or a feeling that he and Wahoo could handle anything the Japanese could throw at him just made a bad decision and payed for it.

At least one good thing came out of it,not too long after the loss of the Wahoo,Lockwood began a policy of removing skippers after around 5 patrols and either giving them desk jobs or sending them back to the States for new construction. We'll never know how many lives that policy may have saved.

[ober lt lare]

i agree it saved lives but i thank the morton and his entire crew for protecting our country and for that when i see him i intend to tell him that he and his crew were never forgotten by anybody the wahoo and her crew paid with there lives but there heroes for serving there country in my book thats the most wonderful honor to have i would have sailed with morton even if i knew i might not return it would have been an honor to serve with such a group of fine men


ober lt lare

[Ducimus]

What I haven't seen mentioned is something I recall reading in a few books over the years. That Morton seemed tired and not quite at 100% before that last patrol and that some in SubPac HQ thought it was a mistake to send Morton out again. As I recall reading even Lockwood had misgivings about it.



Many years ago i recall reading about something like that. As i remember he was plauged by faulty torpedo's the previous patrol, went back to port, demanded torpedo's that woudlnt fail and went back out again or something like that? I dont remember the details, but i do recall there was a question about having Morton stand down and misgivings about him going out again.

[TheSatyr]

I don't have as high an opinion of Morton as some do. To me,when he ordered his men to open fire on lifeboats he went from being a war hero to a war criminal. Especially when it turned out that some of the people on those boats were POWs from India.

[JSF]

I don't have as high an opinion of Morton as some do. To me,when he ordered his men to open fire on lifeboats he went from being a war hero to a war criminal. Especially when it turned out that some of the people on those boats were POWs from India.

I can almost appreciate where your headed with your opinion. However, for that time and place Morton's decision was inline given the circumstances.

Unrestricted submarine warfare on the Empire of Japan. That was the order from the President of the United States of America.

I'm sure this thread will heat up now.

[TheSatyr]

True...since the Pacific war was a racist war on both sides. Both sides demonizing the other. To the USA the Japanese were subhuman and "monkeys". To the Japanese westerners were "Barbarians" and again considered subhuman.

Demonizing the enemy seems to have occured in every war that has been fought throughout history though...probably a way to ensure popular support. The Egyptians did it,the Greeks did it, the Hittites did it,the Romans did it, and the Crusades were a classic example of it. And it's happening in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Not to mention Hitler's demonizing of the Jews before the Krystalnacht.(Spelling???)

Considering how the average Japanese was viewed during WW2 it is surprising it didn't happen more often...but again that doesn't make it right.

[TheSatyr]

Ack...was about to edit my post when my ISP decided to cut off...blah.

Anyway,what I was going to add was that Unrestricted Submarine Warfare means you didn't have to follow I think it was the pre-war Kellog Treaty which I believe stipulated that you had to board a merchat ship and find war material before you were permitted to sink it...after allowing the the crew to get off the ship first. It was totally unrealistic to believe Submarines could follow that rule to begin with,for one thing they didn't have the manpower to send a strong boarding party,plus it put them at too much risk sitting there while a merchant was being searched. What Unrestricted Sub Warfare didn't do was give you free rain to treat survivors any way you pleased. There were still treaties in force on the treatment of survivors...and shooting them was NOT an option.

I think what bothers me the most over the Morton thing is that there is now a grass roots push going on to have him awarded a posthumous CMoH...and I really don't think he deserves it after the lifeboat incident.

I guess I'm just old skool. I believe that in battle you do whatever you have to do to win,but when the battle is over you treat the survivors the way you'd want your own people to be treated.

As for the thread getting heated,I don't see why it should as long as everyone's views get treated with the respect they would expect their own views to be held in.

[Capt. D]

What I haven't seen mentioned is something I recall reading in a few books over the years. That Morton seemed tired and not quite at 100% before that last patrol and that some in SubPac HQ thought it was a mistake to send Morton out again. As I recall reading even Lockwood had misgivings about it.


Many years ago i recall reading about something like that. As i remember he was plauged by faulty torpedo's the previous patrol, went back to port, demanded torpedo's that woudlnt fail and went back out again or something like that? I dont remember the details, but i do recall there was a question about having Morton stand down and misgivings about him going out again.

George Grider - who served aboard the Wahoo under Morton and then exec officer O'Kane wrote his observations about this in his book War Fish. In chapter 7 - Hail and Farewell - he notes that he meet the Wahoo and Morton one more time (after he - Grider - had been transfered to the Pollack.) The Wahoo had just returned from a patrol that had a PCO aboard that was senior to Mush. This guy supposedly took exception to the "lack of planning, poor coordination and absence of discipline in the Conning Tower during attack". Course as soon as they were in port Mush and O'kane got rid of him. Then O'Kane was transfered off and Grider mentions that this would be a big loss for Morton, however Roger Pain would remain as Exec.

However prior to sailing on patrol (the Wahoos sixth) Pain developed appendicitis and was taken off the Wahoo and replaced with another officer. Grider goes on to mention the very poor patrol the Wahoo had that "outing" due to torpedo failure and how Morton demanded to be able to go back to the same patrol zone with a new load of torps. Grider says "So it was that the Wahoo left on it's seventh war patrol for waters so perilous they were shortly to be abandoned as a patrol area, with a skipper so enraged he was ready to take any chance to redeem his boat's proud record, and with a fire-control party that did not know him well enough to keep in in check".

So I believe that he was tired and that he was p--off about the torpedo failures and wanted to prove that he and the Wahoo were still the best. However as Grider puts it, Morton went off without those that were close to him who knew him and knew how to keep him in check. Rather he went off with officers that may have idealized him too much and it cost the Boat gravely.

A momment of silence for a crew and boat the USS Wahoo :ping:

[TheSatyr]

Yeah,sending him back into the inland sea without O'Kane and without Grider and with Morton both angry and battle fatigued was a recipe for disaster. (Plus he recently lost his yeoman who he'd known before the war,who also thought that Morton wasn't quite "right").

And as you say,without O'Kane or Grider there was no one aboard who would question his judgement. Morton was even known to listen to the more experienced enlisted men on the boat as well...but nearly all of them were gone too.

As another sub captain who's name I can't recall said:"once you've done about 5 patrols you start feeling invincible". Morton probably felt that running La Perouse on the surface in daylight wasn't that much of a risk. He may even have had the idea that the Japanese might mistake the Wahoo for a Soviet Sub and be able to slip away while the Japanese tried to figure out whether it was American or Russian.

The more I think about it,the loss of the Wahoo may have had more to do with Morton's typical brashness and braziness than with battle fatigue,though I still think that may have played a roll.

I do think that he probably wouldn't have tried it if Grider or O'Kane was aboard. They would have considered it too risky and would probably have been able to talk Morton out of it.

[Ducimus]

The whole machinegunning incident is so debateable andthe argument could go either way, im not sure if anyone really wants to touch that one. I know i don't. Did it happen? Yup. Was their circumstances that made the incident unque? Arguably. Was it justified? matter of opinion i think.

[TheSatyr]

Let's put it this way,we didn't think it was justified on the rare times a German U-boat Commander did it to our lifeboats,in fact we considered it a war crime. So why should we consider it justified if one of our sub commanders did it?

The only extenuating circumstance would be if people in the lifeboats were firing on the submarine...which granted did happen in the Wahoo incident,but only after the Wahoo fired first.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

New subject...how come Freddy Warder never got a Medal of Honor?? :D

[Hartmann]

Perhaps some sailors could write some notes or the captain in the war diary of the sub, that could explain why they try running La Perouse on the surface in daylight and the final moments of the sub.

But it could needs a rescue operation...

In the Kursk disaster, letters and notes where found in the bodyes ,in the stern compartment ,when the sub was raised to the surface.

[plaice]

You would need to have served during this period to say what you would do towards the enemy.We expected no quarters from the Japs and they in turn expected none from us. We did have a chance to shoot men in the water but did not do so. So efforts were made to get them to come aboard without results. They were on a raft and it was decided to tow the raft out to sea, since we didn't want to leave them and have them tell of our location. It was a great experence and will live with me until I die. Doesn't seem it was 62 years ago.

[Ducimus]

Let's put it this way,we didn't think it was justified on the rare times a German U-boat Commander did it to our lifeboats

One recorded incident as i recall.

We expected no quarters from the Japs and they in turn expected none from us. We did have a chance to shoot men in the water but did not do so.

To the japanese, under bushido, surrender was dishonorable. THey would not surrender and woe be to anyone who surrendered to them. They treated you like less then dirt because in their eyes, having surrendered you were dishonorable, and not worthy of being thought of as a human being as a result. So to them, fighting to the bitter end was the only acceptable course of action. This was the backdrop is how the pacific differed from the atlantic.

Shipwrecked survivors in the atlantic would probably something like, "Ok you got me, i am out of action, don't shoot me!" Where is in the pacitifc, you could probably expect them to pull out a small arm and shoot at you, life raft or no life raft.

Anyway that is the backdrop and the beginning of all arguments i think. I really have no opinion on the subject.

[Rick Martin]

hi i was wondering now that they found the uss wahoo in the sea of japan is there any chance that one compartment in the boat might not be flooded at all if the crew was able to secure the watertight doors because the boat is not at crush depth for that peticular bot would the watertight doors hold up for this long just wondering thats all if anyone coudl help me with this question reply to this thanks

ober lt lare

Not really sure but if the ship was at General Quarters (battle stations) the watertight doors would be dogged and secured. Eventually the rubber gaskets on the doors would probably start to deteriorate and since each compartment also has small air test fittings (used to test watertight integrity--the compartment is sealed and air under pressure is fed in--if there are leaks the air will bleed out). Eventually the fittings will also give way and I guess the compartments will then probably flood. I seriously doubt there would be any kind of salvage attempt as sunken warships are generally considered to be grave sites. Hope that answers your question. Rick "the ancient mariner" Martin

[Zero Niner]

I started on Grider's book, before I started reading Red Scorpion (this one about the USS Rasher). As such I only covered the first few chapters, where O'Kane was Morton's XO onboard the Wahoo.
Reading Morton's exploits, I can only conclude that he was too aggressive, and perhaps sinking Japanese ships to him was more important than the safety of his boat & crew. IMHO he took an inordinate amount of risk on those first few patrols where O'Kane was onboard.

[SnowCajun]

The whole machinegunning incident is so debateable andthe argument could go either way, im not sure if anyone really wants to touch that one. I know i don't. Did it happen? Yup. Was their circumstances that made the incident unque? Arguably. Was it justified? matter of opinion i think.

I've always considered myself to be O'Kane's #1 fan, I've read his books so many times I've lost count, and this is my opinion of the machinegunning incident.

I think first and foremost you have to remember the era, this was a time the USA felt truly stabbed in the back by what they called the most cruel and disgusting sneak attack on their country. This act infuriated American's like no other, I can remember the anger my mother had towards the Japanese all through her life because of this. She was born in 1920 and I in 1952, so she lived through the times and experienced what the actions of the Japanese caused the USA.

I guess in war you do what you feel you have to do to win, the first use of nuclear weapons by the USA has had them called "War Criminals" for 60+ years now, but to what limits do you go to protect yourself? Do you stand back and not fight for your life with all means possible, or do you say, hey that's not kosher and I can't do that to protect myself?

I was lucky enough to speak with Dick O'Kane several times, I also was aware of his lifetime push to have Morton awarded the CMOH .. I also feel that Morton, as he told his wife when she asked him not to go out again and he responded, never to ask that of him again, that what he was doing was for his country, for her, and for their children, was what drove this man! It would be hard to imagine any Annapolis graduate of that era not hating the Japanese after killing so many fellow Navy people in a sneak attack. Do I think Lockwood should have stopped him from that last trip, yep I sure do, but then hindsight is 20/20 and I can assure you that Uncle Charlie regretted that decision the rest of his life.

O'Kane told me that Morton said to sink the lifeboats and let the sea kill them and only to shoot at those who shoot back in order to protect the sub and its crew. I don't see any reason his story would have been inaccurte, after all he was there and he watched it all personally.

That's my 2 cents anyway. As for Morton, personally I think the CMOH is due, he gave his all for his country, this is the least his country could do for him. It's so easy to second guess things 60 years later, the world has changed so drastically since those times. If I could find wrong in Morton it would have been his counting on O'Kane to shoot all the torpedoes and not taking more control of his own boat, I feel that probably hurt him most after O'Kane left. It's just my theory anyway.

Regards,
SnowCajun