Talk:USS Tang (SS-306)

Image question

The image doesn't look very much like a submarine! RKernan 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like one to me ... what do you think it is? ➥the Epopt 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been changed now... before it was just a picture of a man with a nametag displaying "Tang" RKernan 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous dates

This article has a lot of dates listed as just "February 4", "April 16", etc. This needs to be fixed... even I can't ascertain which years are being referenced. -Rolypolyman 04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Depth charging merchants?

"On 30 June, while she patrolled the lane from Kyūshū to Dairen, Tang sighted another cargo ship steaming without an escort. After making an end around run on the surface which produced two torpedo misses, Tang went deep to avoid depth charges, then surfaced and chased the hapless ship until she closed the range to 750 yards. A single torpedo blew Nikkin Maru in half, and the merchantman sank."

Whose depth charges was Tang avoiding? This excerpt implies that the "cargo ship steaming without an escort", apparently the only other vessel present, depth charged the submarine. I don't think that's possible, so I found this quite confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.20.174 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible. The freighters often carried depth charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.19.90 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bow up

The Smithsonian "Hell Below" video (excerpts of which are on YouTube, and mentioned in the article) says the self-hit left the Tang stern down and bow sticking up out of the water "like a knife". In order to prevent the Japanese from seeing it, the remaining crew took on water forward until the bow landed on the bottom. This article makes no mention of that, but does says "Those who escaped the submarine were greeted in the morning by the sight of the bow of the transport they sank the previous night sticking straight out of the water." I have my doubts that both accounts are right. Which is correct? Mcswell (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A new book about the sub

Put a reference to the new book http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/dacapo/howtoorder.jsp?isbn=0306815192 - did I do it correctly? Dnklu (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be worth mentioning Richard O'Kane's book "Clear The Bridge: The War Patrols of the U.S.S. Tang" somewhere in the article on Tang? An outstanding book by Tang's own Captain in his voice. The above referenced book might also be worth mentioning.Jgcjgc (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. The old girl had plenty of fight left in her when she took her own fish aboard. Clear The Bridge is quite a good book (on my second copy) and it was a damned shame that Dick O'Kane 'paid off' with so few of his shipmates to see him home. God bless and God Speed. Oh, and about that cribbage hand...Foamking (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Survivor Count

I think the math about the survivors is wrong, or at least it isn't explained very well. It says that 13 men escaped, of those 13 only 9 made it to the surface, and of those 9 only 5 could swim long enough to be rescued. The next paragraph begins by saying "The nine survivors". Did 5 survive or did 9 survive?

Nine survived: five that survived escape from forward torpedo room; four from the bridge, including Commander O'Kane.

I just read O'Kane's book "Clear the bridge", and nine survived. If that is true, then "Ten of the crew managed to reach the surface, and four managed to stay afloat until eventually captured by the Japanese." must be wrong, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.174.233 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 September 2015

Clear the Bridge, 1989, page 444–445.

5: Thirteen escaped from the forward torpedo room, but only five were able to cling to the buoy until picked up. Three had reached the surface but were unable to hang on or breathe. Five were not seen after escaping.

3: Nine officers and men were on the bridge. Only three were able to swim throughout the night.

1: One officer escaped from the flooding conning tower.

9: total survivors.

Glrx (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Momsen lung escape

Some Tang survivors were first to use Momsen lung.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/blowballast/momsen/momsen4.htm has 8 escaping with lung, and 5 surviving.

There was some screwy ring that was supposed to be pulled on the lung, and I think some did not pull it or ascended too fast. I think Chief of the Boat had breathing problems on the surface.

I believe some recent reference pointed out that steward Walker was only man on fifth patrol who was not decorated.

Glrx (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The intro paragraph stating that 9 survivors were picked up by the Japanese disagrees with the Momsen Lung page, which states that 13 escaped with or without the lung, of which three were known to have died and five were MIA, leaving only five captured.96.240.128.124 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Turnabout Island

Turnabout Island (Kiushan Tao (a.k.a. Niu Shan Dao or Turnabout Island, a small island south-east of Haitan Dao)[1]) is mentioned in the north boundary of the South China Sea. An IP substituted Dongyin Island, but that looks too far from the coast. A travel guide gives [[coord|25.43|119.93|dim:5000}}; that fits with Clear the Bridge map for 5th patrol. It appears that island, however, is called Pingtan Island. At 25.431222°N 119.939976°E / 25.431222; 119.939976 (Kiushan Tao (Turnabout Island)) there is a very small island. Glrx (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

JANAC Error?

According to O'Kane, Tang sank five ships on her first patrol, not six.

After the war the Joint Army-Navy Assessment committee incorrectly listed the Choko Maru as sunk by Tang instead of a large tanker.

This is explained by O'Kane in the Appendices to "Clear the Bridge".

124.191.129.5 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

♠JANAC made so many errors, this isn't news. Japanese ships were denied, despite photographic evidence & multiple eyewitness testimony, while others were credited to boats nowhere near them. Japanese records were in chaos, much of them destroyed as the war's end approached, plus the lousy torpedoes led to belief in sinkings (& even mere damage) where there was none.

♠That said, Blair credits O'Kane with freighter Gyoten Maru, freighters Fukuyama Maru (3,600 tons) & Yamashimo Maru (6,800 tons) on 22 Feb, an unidentified freighter & freighter Echizen Maru (2,500 tons, apparently mistaken for a tanker, or misidentified by JANAC), on 24 Feb, & Choko Maru (1,794 tons, which he belived he missed) on 26 Feb.

♠Which appears to mean both O'Kane & JANAC were wrong, & leaves us the option of ignoring the unidentified freighter or the JANAC record. (Blair either ignores the unidentified freighter or missed the contradiction, IDK which, because he credits O'Kane with 5 for 21,400, which is the JANAC number.) At this late date, IDK how we'd resolve it... So, I'm adding a mention of O'Kane's belief he missed & JANAC crediting Choko Maru, & O'Kane's claim for the tanker denied by JANAC, from Blair. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

JANAC Assertion

What is the source for this assertion in Note #5: In 1980, the relevant JANAC section "was officially replaced by the credits in the patrol reports." Suffice it to say, the JANAC page makes no such assertion.JMOprof (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The quotation is from O'Kane 1989 -- cited at the beginning of the note. Glrx (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's on page 472 actually, but what's the official method by which the Navy did that?JMOprof (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

More on the JANAC assertion

This is a quote of a conversation held on the JANAC talk page. I copy it here for completeness. More ammo for the characterization of this article.

---

All- Tang's O'Kane, p 472 of the 1989 edition of Clear the Bridge, asserts "In 1980 this portion of the JANAC report was officially replaced by the credits in the patrol reports." Anybody know more about this? What official method did that? Of interest, all of the USS Tang (SS-306) results are the patrol scores. Thanks JMOprof (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. A DTIC bibliography, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA423241, points to "JANAC Submarine Credits Revised,” Submarine Review 44-46 January 2000; see http://aimm.museum/NSL-Submarine-Review-2000-2004.asp for TOC. I cannot search http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx Glrx (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Glrx - I'm a member of the Submarine League. They kindly sent me a copy of the January 2000 article. These are the first three paragraphs:

JANAC SUBMARINE CREDITS REVISED
(The Submarine Review Staff)
 
The official tally of sinkings credited to each U.S. submarine in World War II appears in an appendix to Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II by All Causes published by The Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee (JANAC) in February 1947. This list was repeated verbatim by Theodore Roscoe in his monumental and semi-official work United States Submarine Operations in World War II (Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute, 1949). Since then the JANAC assessments have been cited in most books and articles dealing with the submarine war.
 
Researchers have known for many years that the JANAC list was incomplete because of certain inherent limitations. It counted only regular Japanese warships and merchant ships of 500 or more gross tons, thus ignoring the smaller merchant-type ships that were taken into the Navy as converted gunboats, minesweepers, submarine chasers, picket boats, and various types of auxiliaries. It also excluded German and other non-Japanese ships that were sunk by our submarines. Then, as new information came to light after the war's end, errors began to be revealed. Nevertheless, the Navy has never seen fit to revise or reopen the JANAC assessments.[emphasis added]
 

Ten years ago Commander John D. Alden, USN(Ret) produced an interim compendium of data on submarine attacks based on material from recognized sources available up to that time. (U.S. Submarine Attacks During World War II, Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute, 1989). Since then a flood of new information has been released with the declassification of formerly top-secret intelligence material including the famous ULTRA radio messages intercepted and decrypted during the war. Also in recent years Japanese researchers have published a wealth of data from their own archival sources. Printed in the Japanese language, these books and articles have been inaccessible to most U.S. students of the submarine campaign. Thanks to a British researcher who provided material translated from many Japanese publications, hundreds of additional cases have been revised or amplified.

So, in my opinion, O'Kane's 1980 JANAC revision isn't known of to the experts. Further conclusions are unkind. The rest of the Sub League article gives some detail to "143 U.S. submarines for which Commander Alden believes that the JANAC credits need to be revised of seriously questioned. About 130 ships should be added to, and about 60 subtracted from, those attributed to submarines by JANAC." JMOprof (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up. I know that takes work.

I can see a slightly different take on O'Kane's comments. The JANAC report stands (despite questioning). O'Kane's comments may be that the submarine force questioned JANAC's findings and it (or some higher authority) decided to substitute the endorsed patrol reports for its (possibly private) statistics (for example, what a sub skipper can claim for "official" sinkings). In other words, the sub part of JANAC wasn't replaced, but it was no longer viewed as the best authority.

In any event, the article you obtained would be a RS that JANAC's sub findings remained unchanged until at least January 2000.

Glrx (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Footnote 5's "officially changed" is in error. More evidence that this article needs a re-write.JMOprof (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns: 3O

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I don't think that I would call this plagiarism, and I don't think that it is unacceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Obviously, the best solution would be to rewrite it without copying, regardless of whether it is plagiarism or not, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Looking at WP:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, we have the attribution template in place, and I don't think we need anything else. Certainly the copied sections are too substantial for blockquotes or anything of that nature, and I think those three bullets are an "or", rather than an "and". However, in the interest of maximum visibility, I'd recommend this: I think that, under the "References" section, we should make a new subheader at the top that reads "Attribution" or something like that. The attribution template should me moved to the top of this section, and then, for any paragraph that is substantially copied, we should make a ref group that leads to the attribtuion. The rest of the references content can go under another subheader that reads "other sources" or something similar. It would end up looking something like User:Writ Keeper/sandbox. What do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection to making the attribution more prominent. To clarify, do you mean that the text that the footnotes point to (the word "attribution" in your sandbox example) should be another link to DANFS written out as a proper citation, or should the attribution template itself be enclosed within "refname" tags? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

♠I'll grant its within WP guidelines. I suggest the guidelines in regard to PD sources are too lenient. PD means it's out of copyright, so you can't be sued for using it (even literatim). That doesn't mean it's not still plagiarism. Would it be plagiarism if I published Don Quixote or David Copperfield under my own name? Even if nobody could sue me? This is no different.

♠I entirely agree, the best thing would be to rewrite. Besides, I had a prof tell me once (& he was dead right), the only time you should even quote (which is the other option) is when you can't say it better. Or when you're using technical terms that would otherwise be ungrammatical (like "senior officer present afloat", which my Gr 8 teacher busted me for, once).

♠I don't think the sandbox idea is any better, 'cause it maintains the literatim copying, & that is the problem. (My Latin is sooo rusty... I barely understood one word in 3.)

♠If "attribution" cites are to be used, tho, I'd say the traditional cite format, with author, publisher, & date, is preferable, rather than a link to the template.

♠I have slim hope of changing WP policy. I only want the tag left up to alert people of the problem. And it's a problem for every single page sourced from DANFS I've seen. Mack Quixote ^{to talk, press .44} 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Kubla: I'd suggest that the ref tags contain the DANFS written out as a proper citation, without the attribution template. The attribution tenplate should only be in the one place in the references section.

@Trekphiler: The crucial difference between this and your examples is that, with appropriate attribution, we are not publishing it under our own name. A more appropriate question would be: "Is it morally okay if we published the full text of Don Quixote with the author on the front and a note in the opening pages both saying that it was written by Cervantes"? And the answer is yes. That's not plagiarism, even if we're making money off it. Indeed, it happens all the time; go into any bookstore, and you'll find Don Quixote on the shelves. If we have the attribution template, and especially if we indicate which parts of the article are verbatim, then I don't see how we're publishing it "under our own name." And if it's not plagiarism, it shouldn't be tagged as such. (also, do note that the article I linked is not talking about copyright infringement; it's talking about actual plagiarism, just like you are.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"we are not publishing it under our own name" Actually, since it's posted as a WP page, I'd say otherwise. You make a good point about the reprints, tho. I'm less sure that's a perfect comparison. I'm also less sure, now, I was right. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've done as Writ Keeper suggested. I'm not entirely happy with the result, but hey, that's compromise - a solution with which neither party is satisfied. What do you think, Trekphiler? Can we remove the tag? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"a solution with which neither party is satisfied" Yep... :) Or, one might say, one with which both sides are equallly unhappy. Until it's completely rewritten, I'd say that will do. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Pleasure working with you. :) DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel the text could be reworded a bit more so that the utilization of text from the public domain source about the "Tang" is not so obvious. Wikipedia has a poor reputation as a "copy and paste" site, after all. Articles written without needing to resort to the crutch of copied public sources would help improve matters in that regard.TH1980 (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tonnage

This article repeated a common mistake: it assumed that the tonnage figures reported in the sources are displacement. For merchant ships, they are not. Most merchant ships are most often measured by register tonnage, which is volumetric and not a unit of weight. Naval vessels are measured by displacement, which is weight. In this article, a weight conversion was given for a number of Japanese merchant vessels (Maru). That is wrong; these vessels were not measured by displacement. Where the DANFS source gives tonnage, it means tonnage in nautical usage, not displacement or weight. I have removed these erroneous conversions. Kablammo (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Great pair of lungs

This page does say the Momsen Lung was used (& IIRC, so do O'Kane & Blair); "only use", no... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Momsen lung usage

I corrected this at some point in the past, but this sentence stating that "this was the only time that a Momsen lung was used to escape a sunken submarine" needs to be corrected. The correct statement is that "this was the only known time".

Several USN submarines during WWII were lost under unknown circumstances with no survivors. We thus can't know if in one of these sinkings if survivors trapped aboard a submarine resting on the bottom used their Momsen lungs to attempt an escape or perhaps even successfully reached the surface, only to perish later on without rescue in the water or in captivity (since Japanese POW records were so incomplete, a ship that picked up survivors could easily have been sank by another submarine while in-transit, etc.). 2603:7081:C02:5700:B8F5:76BC:7986:5360 (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)