Dudley W. (Mush) Morton
 

Dudley W. (Mush) Morton

I was reading back through some of my references last night and
refreshing myself on dudleys life and career.

when I came across the sinking of a destroyer in wewak harbour
that Mush had claimed and that he had sunk. the Japanese
Later raised the destroyer repaired her and returned her to service.

the commitee after the war disqualified this sinking claim and I disagree
to my mind if you sink a ship you sink a ship. if they raise her from the
bottom afterwards thats their business.

Maybe there should be an international law stating that any ship sunk
by warfare that is raised must be re christened.

either way somebody in the states should appeal to the Navy to
give back credits that were unduly taken away from those skippers
and crews that suffered this experience.

Like Jim thorpes olympic medal.

Just my opinion.

Mush Martin.:|\\

Seems strange, a slap in the face to those that went through the hardships of war.

MMMMM
 

Indeed, and lets remember more than any other type of warfare
submarine and ASW warfare is a team sport,
its not just the skippers. its the crews officers and nco's as well.

There were many great names made during the war

and the names have slid up and down that chart over the years
as everybody has had an interpretation.

I just think that a sunk is a sunk.

lets give em credit for what they did
and lets be consistent and realistic about it.

MM:|\\

Credit will never be given for these types of sinkings unfortunately. A true sinking is where a ship is a total loss, unrecoverable...an asset that is lost permanently.

In the endorsement of Wahoo's third patrol report dated February 12, 1943 (looking at a copy of it right now on my desk), Wahoo was given credit for sinking "1 destroyer (ASASHIO Class) - 1500 tons" But that determination was made with the best evidence at hand.

The destroyer Harusame was beached in Wewak Harbor, but she was not a 'total constructive loss' and therefore only officially heavily damaged in the view of the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee (JANAC) after the war. Sure, it was "their business" in salvaging Harusame, but it also made good sense. Why make the expenditure of building a brand new destroyer when one, albeit damaged, was so close at hand? The destroyer was effectively removed from the grand chessboard of the Pacific for a time, but she was not totally lost to the Japanese therefore no credit for a sinking was given.

There are many instances where JANAC denied credit for ships that were clearly seen to sink. Official Japanese records were consulted postwar and if a no mention of a sinking was recorded none was given to that submarine's scorecard. Sure, it's unfortunate that these brave men are not given their proper due, but they know what they did...and so do we after years of research.

But I see no change forthcoming to the official records 60+ years after the JANAC's findings. The cost and time to "double check" the JANAC's findings will never be authorized by the US government.

Well, the destroyer did not sink. Why should he being credited for 'sinking' a ship that didn't sink? It was nearly broken in two and beached according to my understanding. The fact that the ship was repaired and returned to service underlines this fact in my mind.

The destroyer in qustion is IJN Harusame.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/harusa_t.htm

If a ship sinks in harbor and never comes back like the Arizona, then it sunk.

However, if a ship comes back, then it was just damaged regardless of where her hull rests. IE: botton, reef, beach.

I also believe if a ship is torpedoed and the captain runs it aground on some far off I cant be bothered with it Island never to return then credit should have been given. After all, these ship were of no use to the enemy any longer.

Unless of course you just want to argue semantics.

I think Mush should have gotten credit for damaging the destroyer.

Janac gave him credit for damage.

but the amount of time involved between the "Sinking"
and when she was ready to sail again took her out
of the war as an effective combatant.

Glad to have stirred a hornets nest.

MM

Official credit issues aside, at the end of the day, I'd imagaine that's what really matters most to those that were there.

If it is to be taken that the act of going behind enemy lines and putting
your life on the line for the cause of freedom 6000 miles from home and risking counter attack by revealing your presence by sinking
an enemy ship. And going through all the perils of process involved in said attack. then yes.

But when we say they know what they did I think something of the above gets lost in that. We as a planetery community of humans need to remember the insitituitional knowledge of the second world war. and we need be honest and objective about it if were to utilize its lessons.
it is frightening to look at an educated people in an advanced industrial democracy swayed to extremism by the persuasive powers of manufactured
consent. is their one among us who thinks that cant happen in this day and age.?
We need to remember the truth not the official story.

Just my opinion again.
MM

I think damage is sometimes easily dissmissed. It shouldnt however be that way. Even more so when you are talking about damage to the not so easily replaceable IJN resources.

While the damage to the Harusame denied her use by the enemy for a full year, she still managed to run escort duty for 6 months in 1944 untill being finally done in by two bombs from a B-25 Mitchell. (skip bombing?).

However, even though she returned to escort duties, the damage the Wahoo did to her took up vital resources and denied her use as an escort for almost a full year!:up:

Give Mush his "Due"
Mush Morten, was one of the "Best". He was one the most "GUTSY" Captains on Diesel Boats. Anyone one here today, would have wanted to serve on his crew. If you had the "GUTS". It takes a strong leader to win, but if you're not behind the periscope, you have to believe in your Kaptain....For he truly has everyone's life at stake. When you play this game, it's just a game..........In Real Life There's No Restart My Career

Strangley I was thinking about submariner Valhalla today
wondering if Dudley and Howard Gilmour or Sam Dealey were
sitting around up their on a forum talking on a thread about what
a great carreer game they had while they were playing.

When I came home I was looking through time life at the great pics
of the submarine school and looking at the guys Doing Practice dives
on an Askania Diving trainer and thinking Hey you know they were all
Sub simmers just like us.

It kind of re enforced the Valhalla thing,

it comes down again to interpretation.
 

It does it always comes back to interpretation.

light medium and heavy damage

disabled

destroyed

sunk.

six basic states other than missed.
or hit with failed torpedo.

when you shoot a dood and take him out of the fight
regardless of wether or not you kill him
they dont take away the credit
they charge you with attempted murder.
or murder.
depending on your success.
if a victim is killed and resucitated by
paramedics its still only attempted murder.

but what we are talking about is maritime
law and how to write laws that arent so
open to "Wide" interpretation.

I doubt we will see a day where the issue will be
raised and corrected.

and even if we saw that day the correction would
only satisfy some and disatisfy others.

but the issue is so far behind the world and their
is no percetetage in the correction for anybody
save a few and correctness as an Ideal.

I think that the point earlier on this thread is
valid.

What the men of Wahoo experienced at Wee wak was an onrushing
agressive enemy destroyer whom had detected them and was in
the process of prosecuting them when they fired I believe it was
five misses and with their last fish hit the enemy ship and took it out.

Good for them.

what they experienced was the fear of combat and the exhilaration
of triumph when "FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE"
they sank an enemy ship in combat.

Gentleman "The Beach is the bottom":arrgh!:
eat em and smile!

Just my opinion
MM

(edit: i'm not serious, just poking a bit of fun)

Fair enough, if we can accept ships which didn't get sunk as kills then we can do the same for aircraft kills.

Therefore we will accept the kill claims made by the Luftwaffe as fact, this means the RAF ceased to exist, the Royal Navy was blasted out of the channel and Britain was invaded.

I've got to go and kill myself now as my Grandfather, who survived Dunkirk, would have most likely have been killed in the invaision 4 years before my Mother would have been born.

Could someone let the Russians know that the Germans won on the Easten front please.

Cute but all good comedy contains truth.

In the real world I am very against coulda beens shoulda beens
etc as they deal in self doubt.

what Im going for here isnt really give em what they didnt get
what im driving at is we should redifine
damaged
disabled
destroyed
and sunk

the issue will not likely ever be settled and no one will ever be satisfied
I just felt the need to express my disatisfaction with some or maybe
more correctly many JANAC interpretationls.

either way I just love a good rolling debate and I got one.

Regarding earlier posts a ship on the bottom that isnt on the beach
that has been sunk by submarine torpedo attack and is still a recoverable
ship. whether or not a total constructive loss is still a sunk from the
subs perspective. what im going for is that we should redefine sinking
not really go over JANAC's results.
I know theres no percentage in that.
but redefining sinking deals more with the future than the past.

I think ILL start a new debate now.

Have we seen our last Global Submarine Campaign............
.......HMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I wonder what side I should take.

HMS Exeter was effectively out of action for 14 months after the Battle of the River Plate but was not sunk in the engagement. I think it would be fair to call the temporarily sunken destroyer 'removed from action', like 'destroyed' except not permanent. This is as opposed to 'disabled' which I interpret to mean back in service within a few weeks or so.

I'm old enough to realize that what I'm about to write will be contraversial, before you all become unglued and dripping with praise for the dearly departed; but, it needs to be said, nonetheless:

Being retired military, I salute the honest exploits of Mush Morton and his crew, but, I thoroughly detest his war crimes--shooting survivors
in the water. (see pp.384-385, SILENT VICTORY, Clay Blair
Jr.)
...also;

The Baralong Incident was an unprosecuted war crime of World
War I.
On August 19, 1915, U-27, commanded by Kapitänleutnant
Wegener, was sunk by the Q-Ship HMS Baralong, commanded by
Lieutenant Godfrey Herbert. Herbert ordered that all German
survivors, including Wegener, should be executed on the spot.
Although the British Admiralty tried to keep this atrocity a
secret, news reached Germany and the "Baralong Incident" was
used to justify increased cruelty at sea both during World
War One and after.

April 13, 1940 The British navy sank the German ship the
Erich Giese. The captain Karl Smidt reported that while the
crew of 200 men were in the water, British destroyers opened
fire on them.

May 20,1941 A convoy of 21 German ships was attacked by
British warships off the coast of Crete during the night.
Witnesses said the British ships scanned the sea with
searchlights looking for the survivors, and opened fire on
them. One survivor, Corporal Walter Segel, said: "I saw at
least 20 groups of survivors who were illuminated by the
British and then sprayed with bullets."

...and finally,

Kapitanleutnant Heinz ECK, of the German Navy: Ex-Commander
of U-Boat 852. Tried by a mixed British and Greek war crimes
court at Hamburg 17-20.10.45 for killing survivors of the
crew of the steamship “ Peleus.” Found guilty and sentenced
to death 20.10.45; sentence confirmed. Executed 23.11.45.

I feel certain had, Morton, survived the war, he would have
faced the rocks and shoals of the UCMJ and/or court marshall for
Wahoo's January patrol.

No, it doesn´t need to be said. It´s totally off-topic and the war crimes aspect has been discussed several times already in other threads. Please don´t derail the thread. Thanks!

I have some thoughts of my own on war crimes that will remove
several of my heros
I will not defend Dudley Morton on this charge
Nor would I defend
arthur harris
curtis lemay
or winston churchill

strangely inspite of those blemishes winston and mush
still remain in my good books why I cant say I have a
great and vehemenent anethema for Lemay and Harris.
why is it we can call Osama a devil incarnate for
killing 2700 odd people but we will pin a CMH on lemay
for making a million non combatants homeless and killing
a quarter million of them at a stroke.

dont get me wrong Lemay was a great leader and made the
decisions he made on the info of the time and influence
of the time so did mush.
but what distinguishes mush from harris lemay and churchill
is that the latter had oppotunity to influence many with
their interpretations where mush only had to answer for
his own actions as a skipper. (albeit it was never taken up)

At the time the propaganda machine was manufacturing
hate. And painting the adversaries as totally ruthless
(this is not to say they werent ruthless) but the influence
of the propaganda machine and the seeming inescapability
of the war and how poorly it was going in the beginning
might have influenced you and me in similar circumstances

we have the benefit of retrospect
they made those choices rightly or wrongly
at the pointy end of the stick.

can we any of us say in complete confidence that given
the times and circumstances we might not have acted the same.

I like to think as a man of good conscience I wouldnt have made those
choices given the circumstances but I cant know for sure and would
be foolish to believe that I would know.

MM