Dudley W. (Mush) Morton

[Mush Martin]

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.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

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 there business.

Mush Martin.

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

[Mush Martin]

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

[Donner]

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.

[Threadfin]

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

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

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.

[flintlock]

Originally Posted by Donner

Sure, it's unfortunate that these brave men are not given their proper due, but they know what they did...

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

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by flintlock

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

[Ducimus]

[Mush Martin]

This is all just a drop in the bucket.

Meaning we are only scratching the surface on which?

war crimes or battle credits and marine law.

MM:hmm:

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

What i meant was, that this topic (or arguably any topic), about Dudley Morton - a center point of contraversy, is going to create waves, or ripples in the pond.