Talk:USS Wahoo (SS-238)

Sailors Lost

Under "Sailors Lost on Wahoo," I inserted "Thomas, W. S1". His name is inadvertently omitted in some sources, but is listed in the National Archives' State Summary of War Casualties from World War II for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Personnel, the National World War II Memorial website, and on Jim Christley's "Lost Boats and Crews," as well as "On Eternal Patrol" (http://www.oneternalpatrol.org/thomas-w.htm). If anyone has reason to believe that William Thomas was not lost on Wahoo, please contact me at info@oneternalpatrol.com. C R Hinman 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I deleted "in company with the small escort vessel, submarine chaser PC-23"; it's not like PC-23 went on patrol with her. And maybe I'm old fashioned, but I've a problem with Wahoo doing the attacking; by convention, it's her CO doing it, N? Trekphiler 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I also deleted "then fell in with her escort, destroyer Patterson (DD-392)," for the same reason. Trekphiler 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Are Grider & Beach getting royalties for this article? Seems like a lot of it is lifted almost right out of Submarine & War Fish (& maybe O'Kane's Wake of the Wahoo, too). I suggest a rewrite. Trekphiler 22:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is primarily "lifted" from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. "Seems like a lot is lifted almost right out" seems like it might be almost a little weaselly to me. ➥the Epopt 04:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, see http://history.navy.mil/danfs/w1/wahoo-i.htm . It was copied, with attribution: "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships."

As to the other point, it seems to me that DANFS's convention is '[Shipname] did this and [Shipname] did that.' The first skipper gets named, but after that, they mostly have to do something noteworthy to even get mentioned. Mush Morton, of course, is very noteworthy.

—wwoods 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going from memory; I don't have them in front of me. It just sounds mighty familiar. As for DANFS, & like sources of ship histories, I'm less familiar with that style, so it feels a bit odd. Trekphiler 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific accusation? OK, it's been plaigarised from DANFS. I went to the site. It's a verbatim steal. Just like every sub page I've looked at on Wikipedia. So much for ethics. Trekphiler 09:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Given a mention in Unterseeboot 852 and what is recorded at http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html there seems to some more that needs to be added to this article.GraemeLeggett 12:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That the gun action targeting the lifeboats during the 3rd patrol may have constituted a war crime had the United States lost the war is pure speculation. What actually occured remains in dispute by the participants.

If we're non-POV then it doesn't matter who won or lost. Were his actions a crime? You said ... "pure speculation especially since the historical record is unclear." What is unclear? He documented in his log the actions taken, he made no attempt to cover up the fact that he surfaced and shot at lifeboats. Is it or is it not a war crime to machine gun and shell life-rafts from a sunken ship? Trekphiler's comments further down the talk page under "Copy" seem to clearly answer this. Machine gunning lifeboats is clearly wrong and against the treaties of the time. I've got no problem with getting rid of the loaded phrase "if the US had lost the war" ... but let's call a spade a spade. They committed a crime.

One could argue that putting the first 4" shell into the largest of the boats (there were boats of a range of sizes) could be defensible as there are a range of sizes between "lifeboat" and "ship". One could argue that returning the pistol or machine gun fire to destroy the largest boat or two that were shooting back at them is defensible. However shooting *all* of the remaining lifeboats is clearly not. CraigWyllie 20:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to my comment about the historical record being in dispute about what occurred during the lifeboat incident - Some authors have alleged that Japanese soldiers were specifically targeted by the Wahoo crew; others, such as the Executive Officer Richard O'Kane (who was there) stated that they were not in his book "Wahoo". The "war crime" accusation is a very serious one to be made 60+ years away from the actual event by people who were not there and perhaps did not even serve in the war. In all my research of Wahoo over the years, I don't recall any reputable author using the war crime label including ones that were critical of Morton's actions. If targeting the life boats is in fact a war crime, then include a reference to the law and let the facts speak for themselves. Is it really acceptable to condemn someone of war crime in a reputable encyclopedia without due process? If you still feel strongly about it, perhaps a more thorough approach would be to create a Wikipedia entry on war crimes with respect to submarines and do a general survey. Bryan MacKinnon 12:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just clarified the part about the live boats. There was no explicit mentioning of the japanese shipwrecked being in them.Markus Becker02 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused...

This is a great article that I enjoyed reading. I was confused by a few things though: In the section on Wahoo's 4th patrol:

• paragraph 5: the collier was the mid-sized frieghter mentioned in the previous sentence, or another of the targets that surrounded the Wahoo?
• paragraph 6: the firecrackers in a birdbath analogy is great, but who made it?
• paragraph 8: in the last 3 sentences: "Wahoo fired another three torpedo spread. The torpedo hit the engine room..." Did one torp. hit the target, or all three?
• paragraph 11: "two lighted sampans" - were the sampans lit up, making them easy to find in darkness? or were they lightweight sampans?

--Badger151 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

second patrol clarification

I'm wondering if there should be a clarification as to: 1) what sub Wahoo fired on designated "I-2"? 2) why was CO Kennedy relieved and replaced with PCO. in the article it sounds as if it was connected to the firing on the sub designated "I-2

Prodaea 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinky was relieved because he was unproductive, per CincPac policy. (Even so, you can find him on List of military figures by nickname.)

I deleted this:

"then sighted a submarine proceeding singly on the surface with the designation "I-2" painted on the side of the conning tower. Wahoo fired a spread of three torpedoes at 800 yards (730 m). The first hit 20 feet (6 m) forward of the conning tower. The boat went down with personnel still on the bridge."

Blair's authoritative Silent Victory makes no mention of it; the postwar JANAC does not credit it; & DD USS Saufley is credited with sinking I-2 in April 1944. Trekphiler 08:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are outta here!

I deleted this:

"Morton was posthumously awarded a fourth Navy Cross. At the time of his death, his claimed sinkings exceeded those of any other submarine skipper: 17 ships for 100,000 tons. In the postwar accounting, this was readjusted to 19 ships for about 55,000 tons. This left Morton, in terms of individual ships sunk, one of the top three skippers in the U.S. Navy in World War II."

I deleted this too:

"Morton, endeared to his Annapolis classmates as "Mushmouth" because of a knack for yarn-spinning and his "Kentucky drawl", was an uncommonly talented submarine officer. Before Wahoo left Brisbane on her third war patrol, her first under Morton, the skipper gave the crew a flaming pep talk:

Wahoo is expendable. We will take every reasonable precaution, but our mission is to sink enemy shipping.... Now, if anyone doesn't want to go along under these conditions, just see the yeoman. I am giving him verbal authority now to transfer anyone who is not a volunteer.... Nothing will ever be said about your remaining in Brisbane.

No one asked for a transfer, and this speech inspired a new spirit amongst the crew, a feeling of "confidence in the capabilities and luck" of Wahoo and the thought that she was "capable of performing miracles."

I also deleted this:

Commander Richard H. O'Kane

"Of the many innovations Morton had put into effect on Wahoo, the most extraordinary was having the executive officer (O'Kane) rather than the captain operating the periscope during the approach to the target. George Grider, a junior officer, commented: "This left the skipper in a better position to interpret all factors involved, do a better conning job, and make decisions more dispassionately. There is no doubt it is an excellent theory, and it worked beautifully for him, but few captains other than "Mush" ever had such serene faith in a subordinate that they could resist grabbing the scope in moments of crisis." Thus evolved the successful and renowned duo of Morton and O'Kane."

And I deleted this:

"Morton was nicknamed "The One-Boat Wolf Pack" and awarded a Navy Cross. From Port Moresby, General Douglas MacArthur awarded Morton the Army's Distinguished Service Cross."

And this:

"In his patrol report Morton detailed each shot taken, leaving no doubt that his patrol failed only because of faulty weapons. This came at a time when the issue over defective torpedoes and exploders between the submarine commanders and the Bureau of Ordnance was nearing a showdown, and the blame was laid by his division and squadron commanders on his tactic, unique to this patrol, of foregoing torpedo spreads for single shots, despite the fact that Morton was their most successful commander."

And this:

"an ingenious device composed of a camera and signal lights. Then, to the crew's amazement, they learned that Morton's definition of "reconnoiter" meant to penetrate the harbor and sink whatever ships could be found."

This is the Wahoo page, not the Morton (or the O'Kane) page. If anybody thinks any of this is worthy of preserving, move it. Also, this is scarcely encyclopedic in tone. Nor is it in keeping with the tone of Wikipedia's other submarine pages (which are uniformly written as if the ship was the actor). And there's some question about Grider's claim of "no transfers". As for the torpedo commentry, that belongs on a Mark XIV torpedo page. (I'd write one, but it'd be a blue screed against the rotten SOBs that designed & built it.) Trekphiler 17:13, 17:28, 17:34, 17:58, & 18:56, 15 November 2006 & 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we could stand some overlap, since the histories of Wahoo and Morton are so tightly connected.

—wwoods 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy!

I rewrote this:

"Commander O'Kane (who had gone on to command Tang) states in his book that he believes Wahoo was the victim of a circular run by one of her own torpedoes, damaging her bow and releasing the oil slick, because of the tendency of Mark 18's to act in this fashion."

to this:

"She may have been the victim of a circular run by one of her own torpedoes, because of the tendency of Mark XVIIIs to act in this fashion."

This is known; the source needs only be noted, not explained. Trekphiler 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I added this:

"(Controversy over whether Wahoo fired on troops in the water persists to this day. It is likely, had the U.S. lost the war, this would have been prosecuted as a war crime.)"

2 reasons. First, sinking lifeboats expressly violated the pertinent treaties. Second, Donitz was prosecuted for far less. Trekphiler 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (BTW, it inspired running down of lifeboats in Beach's Run Silent, Run Deep. Trekphiler 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

References

Can somebody clarify this?

"On 15 February, refit was completed, and the submarine was declared ready for sea on 17 February. She then conducted two days of training and was drydrocked at the Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor, on 21 February."

If she's out of refit & ready for sea, why's she in dock? Trekphiler 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something broke or was found to be broken during the training period?

—wwoods 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Submarine atrocities

That was quick! you [Binksternet] deleted a link I just put in; what's wrong with it? It seems fairly even-handed to me. And I've been looking at these 3 boats (U-852, Torbay, Wahoo); it seems right to put the same links for all of them. Why so protective? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt the website in the link was wildly unbalanced in its reporting. Even though every side that operated submarines seems to have had a finger in the atrocity pie, there's no attempt to define "massacres" with regard to extenuating factors such as whether the attacking party was able to take on prisoners, whether the soldiers being killed were firing back, whether the soldiers being killed had any likelihood of rejoining the war effort against the killers and which party had first begun the practice of ditching the Geneva Convention. We don't know whether the Wahoo's action was original or whether it was retaliatory against perceived Japanese practices. The website has no discussion of the Geneva Convention's firm or wobbly legal standing with the various nations involved. All of the massacres described were in wartime--any side contravening Geneva would have to expect the same bad treatment of shipwrecked guys on their side. There's plenty of US, British and ANZAC witnesses that say the Japanese were perfectly willing to kill guys floating in the water instead of taking them prisoner. I doubt the Wahoo's action against Japanese sailors would have been extraordinarily controversial in wartime Japan. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really good enough; the website details incidents by German, Japanese, British, American, and Soviet submarines, and the only POV there is that shooting survivors is a bad thing. If this is POV then so is the Warfish piece, and the frankly hagiographic Eternal Patrol. “extenuating circumstances”? : there’s plenty of that on the warfish piece, (euphemistically termed “the gun action”; a good name for actions of that sort!).

And the issue from a WP point of view is whether the article is better or worse for it. Part of critical reading is to look at a variety of points of view, that’s why they’re in the external links , not in the text of the article. Personally, I found it useful to compare the incidents, the one with another, to gain a perspective.

So I’m putting it back in, to await a better reason.Xyl 54 (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. In answer to your specific points:-

“wildly unbalanced in its reporting” and yet “every side that operated submarines seems to have had a finger in the atrocity pie”, Contradiction?

“no attempt to define "massacres" with regard to extenuating factors”. Well, it doesn’t need to. Shooting survivors is contrary to the Geneva Convention, which Germany Britain and the U.S. were party to, so what Wahoo and the others did was illegal. Japan didn’t hold with the convention, which is why half a dozen of the incidents on the site are Japanese, but that doesn’t excuse what they did. And as most submarine commanders didn’t feel the need to shoot at men in the water, any extenuating circumstances don’t give a blanket endorsement; it’s still wrong.

“All of the massacres described were in wartime”; Well of course; what difference does that make?

“any side contravening Geneva would have to expect the same bad treatment of shipwrecked guys on their side.” That is the reason why it was frowned on, as discussed at the site (see the 2nd Torbay incident)
::Xyl 54 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an axe to grind here, but here is not the place for it. Start an article about submarine atrocities and fire away. There are sides to the Wahoo story that are never described in most circles, in the zeal to brand Morton a war criminal. Thus the language used here ("never held responsible", comparison to a Nazi who alleged he used ordnance only to "scatter debris" etc) is in itself POV as well as inbalanced. I have included Morton's rationalization, as explicated by O'Kane, in this article. Other points of view, equally supported and equally neutral in tone, are welcomed. --Stewert21 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

well, the closest comparison is Miers, in HMS Torbay; but what? it's different when it's your own countryman who does these things? This is controversial, and it is alleged he deliberately targeted survivors, and if you can't cope with knowing even that, it isn't my point of view that's the problem. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sailors lost... section, again

Also, I’ve deleted this section because Wikipedia is not a memorial.There is a discussion at Talk: Unterseeboot 47 (1938)#Crew. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a memorial, by wiki's own definition, unless it honors "friends and relatives". your skirt is showing.--Stewert21 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"My skirt is showing"? Slow down cowboy! this is some species of insult, yes?

Do you want to say what you object to here, before dispensing with the civilities?Xyl 54 (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Third patrol edits

This is supposed to represent a consensus view; This is always going to be a contentious issue, so major changes should be discussed.
As it is, you’ve accused (me, by the look of it) of equating Morton with “a Nazi who alleged he used ordnance only to "scatter debris" etc”,
Yet you’ve written his intention was to “chase survivors into the water and smash the boats”, and that he “ordered a single machine gun and two Browning Automatic Rifles to force troops to abandon the boats, after which each boat was destroyed by fire from Wahoo's 4-inch deck gun”. You’ve also said they “acknowledge(d) that troops were killed but states that none were deliberately targeted either in the water or in the boats”. This is the same excuse as Eck! You’d have been better saying nothing at all!
It is controversial, and it is alleged he deliberately targeted survivors. So what is it here you object to? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone read Clay Blair´s "Silent Victory"? On pages 384 tp 386 he has several junior officers of USS Wahoo describe what was going one. The two agree the "water was thick with enemy soldiers" in rafts and lifeboats, who Morton ordered being shot at with the deck guns resulting in return fire in the form of pistol bullets. One junior officer said Morton had "an overwhelming biological hatred for the Japanese", Morton himself is quoted: “After about an hour of this we destroyed all the boats and most of the troops.” Morton included the killing of the shipwrecked in his after action report and it was considered cold blooded murder even by some of his fellow submariners. Few of whom followed Morton´s example. Markus Becker02 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy

I moved this about Kennedy:
"whose command of Wahoo has been characterized by over-reliance on conservative peacetime training doctrines, over-cautiousness, and an inability to delegate to his subordinate officers (all five years or more junior to him)"
It looks like a hatchet job to me, and doesn't need to be in here; What does anyone else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I’ve tried to tidy up the citations a bit, (especially in Third Patrol section) and I’ve removed the comments.
And I’ve removed this altogether:
"War crime: LCdr Morton decided to fire for over one hour at them with gun and machine gun before they leave. About 1.000 could be rescued by japanese ship next day (see here (german),with more sources stated)"
A link to a website in German is not much use on the English WP, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the same information is availabe in english, too: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/ Markus Becker02 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

well, it is a problem; You're now are making a categorical statement about an action which is disputed, and using a website rather than an authoritative source to back it up. And it is enough to record the two sides of the story, with sources, as has been done already, in order to maintain NPOV. This should be primarily about the boat; detail about the incident would fit better on a specific page. A page on Buyo Maru is on my to do list, but if you know about it, go ahead. I edited U-852 a while ago; think that's what this should look like.

Anyway the website you are using is already here; I put it in External Links in December, partly to balance the highly sympathetic site that was here already. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, disputed action? According to Clay Blair Mush Morton wrote it all down in his log/mission report. That makes Adm. Lockwooods statemant more a weak attempt to sugarcoat a war crime. I think I look up the passages in "Silent Victory" to balance Lockwood´s absurd claims.Markus Becker02 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it’s disputed here; there are 4 different sections on this page devoted to the subject already. What I’m trying to avoid is an edit war on an article that is otherwise OK.

To my mind, it is enough to record here that the incident occurrred, and point readers to a fuller account elsewhere; this is what I did a while ago with U-852, and what I started to do with the Torbay article; I suggest we do the same here. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Word usage: "abaft of" v. "aft of"

Regarding recent change by 12.13.126.35...

I'm probably picking nits, but it was my understanding that "abaft" is used alone, that is, without "of". For example, "the deck gun was located abaft the conning tower". I realize that "ahead of" is always the correct usage.

WeeWillieWiki (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerial Bomb vs Circular Torpedo sunk the Wahoo

Photos from the Russian team that located the USS WAHOO show severe oblique damage at the level of the conning tower below the bridge and continuing below to the pressure hull amidships. The divers felt this was consistent with an aerial bomb strike. However, in Commander O'Kane's account of the circular torpedo run that sank USS TANG, he felt it would have hit TANG amidships (at the conning tower) had he not been able to accelerate. ("Clear the Bridge" R.O'Kane, full citation on the USS TANG wiki)

I believe the pictures of the USS WAHOO are also consistent with an amidships hit from a torpedo on a circular run.

Take a look at the photos and diver's illustrations, which can be viewed at http://www.warfish.com/scrap-EP.html. Click the right handle of the "periscope" icon to page through. Especially note the diver's drawings on the second page. As a minor note, the propellers where intact, disputing the Japanese report of seeing a propeller blade come up during depth charging. Unfortunately no men where able to escape with the Momson lung, as they had from the TANG.

Dr John Christensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.81.119 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

- - - - -

It is worth considering that the depth charging from the Japanese surface ships was also a key factor in the damage seen. There were numerous bombs and depth charges dropped on her and it's safe to assume that more than one hit home. When the Russians dove on her in 2006, they were not on location for that long (15 minutes maybe). So a full survey of the damage was not possible. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese submarine I-15

O'Kane claims (in Wahoo) that they sunk a Japanese submarine, which they believed at the time was I-15, just after sighting the hospital ship at the end of the second patrol. It wasn't the I-15, but are there other sources, and should this be added? Rees11 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The submarine incident was significant in the history of Wahoo and affected the attitude of the crew for some time. I agree that this article would benefit with more detail. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the info from Wahoo but another source would be better. Not that I doubt O'Kane but if it wasn't I-15 the mystery should be cleared up. Rees11 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this source http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-238.html the IJN submarine was the I-2; however the I-2 was sunk April 1944 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy#Type_J1_.28I-1.2C_I-2.2C_I-3.2C_I-4.29 possibly a premature torpedo explosion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Patrol

The 100 ton trawler attacked March 26/27. 1943 was the Bonshu Maru 95. However Japanese records do not listed it as a marine casualty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC) http://www.warfish.com/scrap4.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Wahoo (SS-238). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150921184031/http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/rel070709.html to http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/rel070709.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Unclear and maybe not accurate

• "a blowup of the Navy chart was made".
  A school atlas was used to make a hand-drawn chart/map (that was convenient for the navigators to use). That hand-drawn map was a "blowup" - an enlarged map; that hand-drawn map was used as a naval chart (for the submariners of USS Wahoo).
  

Perhaps it is accurate to say that "A blowup was hand-drawn from the school atlas. The blowup was used as a naval chart." 89.8.77.211 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)89.8.77.211 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

merge discussion section

I've merged the article on the Wahoo Project Group into this article as it was a stub with no citations, largely already covered in this article.

Vegantics (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)