Near the end of World War 2, as I'm sure most of you are aware, the USS Indianapolis was sunk by a Japanese submarine and over 900 men went into the water. These men were in the water for approximately four days. Many of the men were eaten by sharks. Only 317 of them survived the sinking. Captain Charles McVey, the commander of the ship, was charged and court martialed because he did not order his ship to proceed in a zig zag pattern through waters with possible enemy submarines. In my opinion he was used as a scapegoat by the higher military brass since Captain McVey was told there were no enemy submarines on his intended route but that was a lie. The Japanese commander of the submarine testified at his trial that zig zagging would not have made a difference, but Captain McVey was found guilty anyway. Filled with guilt, Caaptain McVey committed suicide In 1968. His name was finally cleared of any wrong doing by Congress in 2001. He was the only commanding officer court martialed during the war. My question to all of you, why did it take so long for this wrong to be righted. It obviously cost Captain McVey his life. Any thoughts?
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
As I mentioned in another thread: In the situation the navy put him in he had precisely two ways to help mitigate the danger to his ship, however inadequate: speed and zig-zagging. He chose neither.
Guilty.
Guilty.
Joined Jul 2012
3,994 Posts | 348+
The survivors of the sinking are unanimous in their opinion that Captain McVay did not fail to take proper precautions. The captain of the sub that sank the USS Indianapolis also stated that Captain McVay was not at fault for the loss of the USS Indianapolis.
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Captain Hashimoto stated before the trial that he didn't believe zigzagging would have saved the Indianapolis. The defence did not question him on that point during the trial - presumably because he would have been made to look ridiculous under cross-examination. In fact, under the perfect conditions he was presented with, Hashimoto only scored two hits from the six-torpedo spread he fired.
Joined Dec 2011
124 Posts | 0+
Redding, California
As commander McVey was ultimately responsible for the fate of his ship. The problem is that his should not have been the only head on the block. Both up and down the chain of command there were mistakes made that could have changed the outcome of that voyage.
Joined May 2009
14,691 Posts | 61+
A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Sending a heavy cruiser into known sub infested waters without escorts is irresponsible to the point of criminality. Are we going to court martial the entire USN?
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
Known or not known, it was still a bad idea.
But there he was, denied the escort he himself requested, and what did he do? Puttered along in a straight line at less than the speed of a submarine. He should have been driving it like he stole it.
Joined Jul 2010
7,575 Posts | 16+
Georgia, USA
Hashimoto was a witness for the prosecution, not the defense. The prosecution kept him under armed guard, though he said he was treated very well. The navy continued to keep him under guard and did not allow him to return to Japan until a few months after the court martial. He did indeed state that it did not matter whether McVay was zig-zagging or not due to his position on the Indy's course. He stated this more than once. Three times most importantly. First in an exparte questioning by the president of the court. Then again in questioning with McVay's defense advocate, a naval line officer named Cady. These first two took place before he gave his actual testimony on the stand for the record. Which was the third time he made that statement. Under cross-examination by Cady. Just a short aside, Cady was assigned to McVay as his advocate by the navy. After the navy denied McVay the advocate he had personally requested. Cady had no trial experience, being a line officer, and made some mistakes. But I believe he performed honorably.
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
I am corrected on that point. I found conflicting information on that, but your summation seems complete, thank you.
Point is: he didn't even try.
And now to this: "He did indeed state that it did not matter whether McVay was zig-zagging or not due to his position on the Indy's course." Pray, what would have I-58s position on the Indy's course have been had the Indy not been dawdling at somewhere between 12 and 16 knots?
It's not that he was sunk - it's that he took no measures at all to try not to be.
Joined Jul 2011
7,400 Posts | 945+
Australia
Actually this is pretty standard for a straight running torpedo attack. The torpedo salvo makes allowances for errors in the estimation of enemy course, speed and range and for any maneuvering after the torpedoes have been fired. In this case a perfect attack would have been two misses ahead, two hits and two misses astern.
Joined Jul 2010
7,575 Posts | 16+
Georgia, USA
1. McVay's instructions allowed for zig-zagging at his discretion. There was, and still is, no naval regulation or standing order making zig-zagging mandatory at night with limited visibility. Neither was there directives on what constituted "limited visibility" for that matter. Hence captain's discretion. The speed, however, was. 16 knots. The ship was to depart the morning of 28 July and arrive Leyte Gulf the morning of 31 July.
2. When the I-58 sighted the Indy, the cruiser was heading directly towards them. Hashimoto had time to determine her course and speed, though he misidentified her as a battleship. He submerged and moved some 1200 yards to a position at a right angle to the Indy's course. Had the Indy been zig-zagging, he was far enough away and fast enough to run ahead long enough to calculate her base course and work other calculations to determine angles and timing of the turns. Hence his assertion that it didn't matter. Given that the speed of his torpedoes could be set up to 50 knots, Hashimoto had little to worry had the Indy been running wide open.
Hashimoto had every advantage in this encounter regardless of what McVay would have done. And it is all due to one factor that is rarely considered or, like the court, ignored. The sheer luck of I-58's position when she first sighted the Indianapolis.
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
I disagree with nothing here, but this entirely misses the point. Hashimoto could have had magical nuclear-tipped homing torpedos and a crystal ball - it changes nothing.
Getting sunk is not McVay's crime. His crime is not trying. I have the option to look both ways before crossing the street at my discretion. If I look both ways before crossing, cross and get hit anyway: Car's fault. I don't look both ways and just walk out into the street and get hit: My fault.
It's the effort that matters, not the result.
Joined Mar 2013
3,909 Posts | 20+
Texas, USA
If you look at most of the naval engagements in the war, there were countless examples of stupidity and gross negligence that resulted in great loss of life as well as ships. A lot of people in the Navy screwed up bad in the Indianapolis sinking. "They" needed one scapegoat and they found it in McVey. Was he guilty of some things? Sure, but it probably wouldn't have mattered, as the Japanese sub commander stated himself. The Navy needed a sacrificial victim to show they were going to hold people responsible. Thus McVey got ramrodded in catching the blame for it all. Its a war, ships get sunk, especially when ordered to sail unescorted through sub infested waters.
If McVey deserved to go down, I would like to have seen Halsey and Sprague themselves court martialed for dereliction of duty and negligance in actions in the Leyte Gulf.
Joined Jul 2010
7,575 Posts | 16+
Georgia, USA
Would "failure to zig zag" be a chargeable offense against a captain if such were discovered after his ship arrived safely at it's destination? Effort, not the result, right? McVay departed Pearl Harbor, unescorted, on a direct line course for Tinian. No zig zag. Carrying parts and the fissionable material for Little Boy. Not to mention passengers involved with the program. Through "sub infested" waters. He had the very heart of what was to be the culmination of a $2 billion+ project that took years to develop. Effort, not the result, right? Where was the navy's condemnation for this "negligence"? Where were the charges, then? Why not additional counts being laid at his court martial of this "hazarding his ship" by not zig zagging on the trip over? Effort, not the result? Riiight.
Joined Mar 2014
11,729 Posts | 3,505+
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
Well, you raise a very good point there.
I don't have the log of the Indianapolis to confirm what occurred on the trip to Tinian. Were I C-in-C there, though, and found out he had not observed anti-submarine protocols on his voyage thence, I would have sacked him on the spot.
Bravo, my thoughts exactly. The Brass were covering their own ...!
My question is who sent a cruiser out into the middle of a war zone with absolutely NO destroyer screen? And why weren't they charged with dereliction of duty? After all, this certainly was not the beginning of the war, and a lot of hard won lessons had already been taught.
You can bet your shiny rear end that if an Admiral had been aboard there would have been a proper escort.
You can bet your shiny rear end that if an Admiral had been aboard there would have been a proper escort.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-