Did Skippers Seriously get Court martialed for losing their ship?
 

Thats a little harsh...I mean I Sunk like 70000 tons that patrol and got bombed by planes on the way back, Survived and got put in Jail.

No respect i tell ya!

I want to know how I get put in jail after my sub sinks to 2000 feet.

I wanted to go down with the ship, damnit!:nope:

Yes, anytime something bad happens a court-martial is held. Usually it's perfunctory, just so if anyone asks they can say they did it.

No, you should not be jailed just for losing your ship; especially when it's in the course of doing great things.

"Coming to you live, via satillite from Davy Jones's locker."
 

:D
---

The only American commander convincted and discharged by a court martial for losing his ship in WWII was the commander of the USS Indianapolis. As most people would agree, very unfairly so (someone just needed a scapegoat).

Loss of a ship, in any navy, for any reason, usually results in a court martial. At the very least there will be a court of inquiry, which will decide if a court martial is necessary. Remember a court martial is a trial, not a punishment. A court martial may order punishment or it may exonerate. It is not necessarily a bad thing, it may clear the captain's name.

Ummm-------


CCIP is spot on.

No USN skipper other than Mc Vay the skipper of the Indianappolis was court martialed for losing his ship in WW II.

Yes, they court martialled mc way for not order a zig zag pattern in the course.

but during the court, the japnese commander say that he would sink the ship with zig zag or not.

I believe a Court of Inquiry is held for any loss of a ship. A Courts Martial, as far as I can tell, is not automatic. I do think, however, that running a ship aground or any collision (not as a result of battle) seems to often result in disciplinary action. In fact, Chester Nimitz was Courts Martialed very early in his career for running his ship aground.

A court martial was urged by some following the grounding and loss of one of the S-boats (don't remember which, but maybe S-36), but the skipper's immediate superiors did not pursue that course of action.

And, of course, virtually all submarine commanders who lost their boats in combat either died or became prisoners of war.

Say it aint so!!

Since the S-36 had no fathometer that trial would have gone south for the Navy really quick.

Actually, it woudl be a court in inquiry into the loss of the vessel. Then if negligence or something else disturbing were found, a general court martial could be convened.

Captain McVeigh was courtmartialed in order to take the heat off the Navy which had screwed up royally and left those men to die in the water. It was not a normal procedure at all. If you lost your ship, a Court of Inquiry would look into it, but a court martial was for extreme hazards or negligence.

Technically...

a court-martial is a court of inquiry. Military law differs in some significant ways from civilian law. As Sailor Steve said, they're held to review serious incidents such as loss of one's ship. But being "court-martialed" is simply being "martialed," or ordered to appear, before a board of review. It often gets misused to refer to conviction for an offense, but that's not what it actually means.

Still... not something you want on your DD-214.