Talk:USS Indianapolis (CA-35)

Timing discrepancy

The article claims in the first paragraph that the Indianapolis was sunk at 00:14 hours. Later in the article, it is stated as 00:15 hours. I don't know which is correct nor if anyone knows exactly, but can we atleast change the discrepancy. MaxoremNihil 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Last US Navy ship sunk by enemy action in World War II.

This article claims that the USS Indianapolis was the last US Navy ship sunk by enemy action in WWII. This is false. The Indianapolis was sunk on 30 JULY 45. The USS Bullhead was sunk after that on 06 AUG 45.VirgilCoolerKingHilts 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather odd to bring up USS Bullhead so prominently in the introduction to an article about USS Indianapolis. The sentence stating that Indianapolis was one of the last USN ships sunk by enemy action would appear to be adequate to encompass that other USN ships, not the subject of this article, were lost subsequently. Indeed, if she were only "one of the last," one wonders if there were any others besides Bullhead - if so, why aren't the others then also listed...perhaps if there is an article somewhere listing USN ships lost to enemy action in WWII, it should hyper-texted to "one of the last" jmdeur 18:55, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

---

The first part of this article seemed to have been copied from http://www.ussindianapolis.org/ and there is no sign the owners of the website have agreed with the placing of the text here. I have removed the text. Jheijmans 15:25 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

I beg to differ. I worked hard to write the story in my own words based on what I found at http://www.ussindianapolis.org/. I cited my sources, but the words are mine. It's possible I am mistaken -- if so, please cite URLs that contain identical wording and I will correct the 'pedia article. <>< Tim Chambers 18:29 Jul 27, 2002 (MDT)

Sorry Jheijmans I have to agree with Tim here. I just performed a brutal Google test on the text and the only webpage that came up was on Wikipedia. Facts are not copyrightable, only the artistic expression of choosing which words to string together to present those facts. There is not anything wrong with only using a single source so long as that source is mentioned. --mav

When I have taken considerable advantage of a web page, I do what Tim did and include the web page under external links. That way, I give proper credit and allow any reader to judge my source against my work. The USS Indianapolis web site is quite large (and very good), much more detailed than Tim's excellent, tight, encyclopedia article. Ortolan88

OK, so look at this then:

"Captain Charles Butler McVay III survived. In November, 1945, he was court-martialed and convicted of "hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag." Several circumstances of the court-martial were controversial: there was overwhelming evidence that the Navy itself had placed the ship in harm's way, the Japanese submarine commander (brought to the trial from the recently-conquered country of Japan) testified that zigzagging would have made no difference [2], and although 700 navy ships were lost in combat in World War II, McVay was the only captain to be court-martialed. [3]" (from the article)

"The ship's captain, the late Charles Butler McVay III, survived and was court-martialed and convicted of "hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag" despite overwhelming evidence that the Navy itself had placed the ship in harm's way, despite testimony from the Japanese submarine commander that zigzagging would have made no difference, and despite that fact that, although 700 navy ships were lost in combat in WWII, McVay was the only captain to be court-martialed. Recently declassified material adds to the evidence that McVay was a scapegoat for the mistakes of others." (from the quoted website)

Especially the sentence "placing in the ship in harm's way" indicated to me that the author - Tim - did not completely write down everything by himself. Things like this *WILL* stand as plagiate, so it's dangerous to do this. I see now that some parts I saw in exactly the same way were in fact quotes - and thus allowed. So my suggestion now is: make the use of the website a little less obvious by using a few different wordings. Jeronimo 23:31 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

Well, yeah, that is a little closer than I thought at first. However, the story of the Indianapolis has kind of crystallized, and "in harm's way" is one of the phrases that inevitably is used because it was used in the court martial (and is a normal Navy term for danger).

On the other hand, look what Google popped up when I searched on that phrase, yet another full-blown Indianapolis web site, built around a book, called, you guessed in, In Harm's Way. It would appear that more research would have reduced reliance on the single web site.

And on second reading I have to wonder about the many URL/footnote thingies in the article as it stands. The story of the Indianapolis has everything, horror, courage, loyalty, bureaucratic indifference, a plucky 12-year-old, even a connection with a hit movie (Jaws, not mentioned in this article), and I don't doubt this article will grow and change and the single source issue will fade. I guess I think Tim should search a little more and take another crack at it and not let it rest as it stands. Ortolan88 07:01 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Jeronimo wrote, "Things like this *WILL* stand as plagiate..." IANAL, but the plagiarism cases I am familiar with all have to do with verbatim quotations without citation. I neither quoted verbatim nor did I neglect my citations.

I remember my grade school exercises very well -- reading an encyclopedia article and writing a piece based on that one source. I merely applied that elementary skill. The official site is very comprehensive, and I'm not a historian trying to make my mark with a new perspective of this story.

As for Ortolan88's recommendation that I "take another crack at it," I appreciate the encouragement. Perhaps I will. But this is a wikipedia, after all. I hope that others will build on what I started! As for the Jaws element of the story, I would argue that it belongs in the Hunter Scott article.

Thanks for the comments!

<>< Tim Chambers 17:10 Jul 29, 2002 (MDT)

---

Hey, I do what Tim did here quite a bit. Maybe I take care to cover my tracks a bit better, but just take a look at my User Contributions for a minute. I sometimes steal something and then massage it into shape with an "external link" citation, as in Dome of the Rock which I morphed, step by step from my first "draft" (see [1]). Ed Poor

---

I remember hearing somewhere that the Indianapolis was sent unescorted due to the high secrecy associated with the mission. And since the mission was top secret, nobody knew when it was supposed to be back so they couldn't send out rescue planes. But I can't remember the source, so it could be untrue. Ckape 22:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to Morison (vol. 14, p. 320), she had already done the delivery and was headed to Leyte on a routine assignment, and even if there had been a request for an escort, it would have been turned down, cruisers being adjudged capable of taking care of themselves. The delay in rescue was attributed to the radio message giving the ship's expected arrival date being too garbled to decrypt, and the comms officer not requesting a repeat (for which he was later reprimanded). Stan 05:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In Jaws it's claimed no SOS was sent because the mission was so secret, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. The sensitive part of the mission was over, and how would not sending distress keep the Japanese ignorant of a ship they'd just torpedoed twice? (Otherwise the Jaws account is pretty accurate.)

Quoting Morison again, McVay ordered a distress signal to be sent, and one of the chief radiomen reported that a "we have been hit by two torpedoes, need immediate assistance" was sent, along with several SOSes, but there is no record that any of this was received - or even any evidence that the transmitter still had power. A 1955 newspaper report claimed it was received at Tolosa on Leyte, but there were no records to prove or disprove. Morison's account is from 1960, there's been more research since then but I'm not familiar with the conclusions. As they say, "Jaws ain't a documentary". :-) Stan 06:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

there was a distress signal sent and it was recieved by two sources. they were not credited and one of them thought it was a trick. the power was on but the device was jammed on one the radio but they just turned it on and off to send signal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korykunzler (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking? Bias?

The numbers cited about the Marianas Turkey Shoot (17 American planes lost for example) do not agree with the article about the Marianas Turkey Shoot which puts the damage toll to the Americans much higher (over 100).

The phrase "...shelled enemy strong points as valiant landing parties struggled against fanatical Japanese defenders..." sounds awfully biased to me.

Also, throughout the article, the Japanese are referred to as the "enemy". Since this article is about the USS Indianapolis, I'm not sure that this is really a problem or not.

Common problem with DANFS-derived material - usually needs at least one pass of careful editing to filter out the "evil enemy" stuff. The trick is to depurple the prose without making it totally dull - in this example "fanatical" is effectively replaced with "determined", while the "valiant" could be dropped without losing anything. "Enemy" is fine though, just as long as the US is "the enemy" in articles about Japanese ships. Stan 20:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re numbers: this article gives losses on the first day of the battle, 19 June 1944. The battle of the Philippines article gives the total losses for both days (mostly returning planes running out of fuel and ditching on 20 June). Gdr 15:45, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Quint's "terrifying narrative"

The phrase "his terrifying narrative" concerns me. Sure, it's terrifying, but I assume that's because it's fictional dialogue. I'm not going to change it unilaterally, but I do nominate it for toning down to more NPOV unless someone has evidence that it's not a fictional account of an actual event. (So typical of Hollywood.)

---

On a related note, dropped this:

Though, as the torpedoes struck 15 minutes into June 30th (12:15 a.m.), it is reasonable that the character associated the attack with the 29th of June.

As noted in the text, the incident occurred on the 29th-30th of July. Ellsworth 17:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grandson of A Survivor

My grandfather William Robert Mulvey is a survivor of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. My grandfather has always been very frank with me about the realities of war. He never held anything back. He's told me about how he held on to spent ammo drums for the first day to stay afloat until another sailor with two life jackets came by and fortunately had the kindness to give my grandfather one. He's told me stories about pulling his dead buddies bodies out of gun turrets and other things that are very graphic. He always has said "War is Hell".

The reason I am posting this and giving this background is that my grandpa always said he never saw any sharks. He also never heard any stories of sharks until survivors were interviewed by media. I can only imagine how my grandpa feels about his experiences being sensationalized by Hollywood in Jaws. My grandpa doesn't let it get to him he just calls it nonsense when people bring up sharks and the Indy. I think my grandfather's own words some it up the best when he says, refering to Quint and his "terrifying narrative", "I've pissed more salt water than that joker's ever seen".

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the shark references be edited out of the article or not. However, the book "Abandon Ship!" -- considered a definitive work on the sinking and aftermath -- cites at least two survivors who discuss the shark attacks. One of the sailors lost his hand to a shark. So, if your grandfather doesn't want to believe Jaws (understandable) he might want to ask Coxswain Cozell L. Smith. Jinian 10:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Some interesting things people may want to know that my grandfather has told me.

• They called Saipan Flypan, because there were so many flies. The Indy was pulled back to get away from them
• My grandfather always supported the use of ATOM Bomb.
• My grandfather always supported McVay.
• Not smoking saved my grandfathers life. He was a non smoker and during war times smoking was not allowed above decks because it could be spotted by the enemy. So guys coming back from night watch would often have a smoke before going to bed below decks. My grandfather was a non smoker and didn't like the smell of smoke so he requested to sleep on the deck. The night the Indy was hit he was on deck and all he did was "Step into the sea" to get off the boat. If he was below deck he probably wouldn't have made it.
• He said constant swells beating on his head very painful and caused headaches.
• During the night the water was freezing and during the day the sun was burning hot.
• My grandpa was one of the more experience men of the crew when the Indy sunk. After getting repairs and picking up the bomb in "Frisco" alot of the crew of the Indy was dispersed among other ships as "nucleus" crews. Many new recruits just fresh from a very short boot camp were added to the crew. My grandfather was one of the originals that stayed aboard.
• He had been initiate as a "Shellback" for crossing the International Date line.
• He recieved a purple heart.

Yes, well I can assure you there were in fact sharks. One of the float planes that picked up several survivors actually saw the sharks in the water. Also, the injuries sustained by many were clearly that of sharks. Captain McVay, himself, said he saw them stalking the dead and dying. Your grandfather, while an extraordinary man, is a bit off on the "no sharks" deal. -IHouse 65.255.130.104 04:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I envy the unknown contributor for the receits of his grandpa. My father (not my grandpa) had also been a soldier in WWII, though on the (far) other side. What he has told me, did a lot to create my own image of war and politicians in general. Still, I know for sure, that his receits had been tendentious partly, because he could not take all of the pressure, partly because he wanted to contradict some of the people, he did not want to be compared to, later on. Learning from eye-witnesses is an art in itself, not as easy as it might appear at first... Ah well, I might not have a lot of opportunity for this: My father praised the British, because they treated him like one of their own, during his time as POW. Me too, I thank you for that. ;-) --84.56.73.43 (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaws quote

It's interesting, but it really needs to be removed or heavily edited. One fictional film does not justify that level of coverage. --Saforrest 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the reference is sufficient, and anyway as an episode in a feature film the retelling is not required to be factually accurate, so it muddies up the facts on which this article should be based. Might make a good bit for the Jaws article though, then readers can jump to here for the "story behind the story". Stan 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Time of attack?

In the article, at least two different times are listed as the start of the attack which sunk the Indianapolis. I found 00:14 listed in the opening paragraph, as well as 00:11 in para. 2 of "Loss of the Indianapolis" (I only searched for colons, so there may be additional times formatted differently from the HH:MM standard). At present, no sources are linked-to after either mention of time; are verifyable sources known for either "time of attack" or time explosions were recorded? When sources are verified the time references will need to be fixed - as well as specified as either time of commencement of attack or qualified as time first explosions were heard. --Museerouge 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Added: The Wreck

I was asked by a member of a different website to add this. So, I have added their composition to the article. IHouse 65.255.130.104 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

According to section 4 in the article, the wreck has never been found. Nevertheless, according to section 5 the "bell and a damaged ensign recovered from the wreck reside at the Heslar Naval Armory, also in Indianapolis." I assume that these were brought from the ship when it sunk, but could someone confirm this, and rewrite to avoid confusion? Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and corrected it. The ships bell was removed prior to her entering battle as a weight saving measure, so did not go down with the ship. I found nothing anywhere about a recovered ensign, but did find information about the commissioning ensign. Somebody not familiar with naval protocol might have thought this was a damaged ensign. The entry should me more factual now. Mushrom 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why were the distress calls labeled 'bogus'?

Also, the Indianapolis did broadcast two distress calls that were received at two separate locations on Leyte, though they were dismissed in both cases as being bogus transmissions due to the Navy's protocol of the time.

This line is begging for much more information. Tempshill 16:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the Memorial

Someone should find a free use photo of the memorial on the canal in Indy and post it. 70.236.7.174 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mingusboodle (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

The citation for reasons that the three Officers failed to respond to distress signals, is dead. Should the claims, which strike me as a little specious, be removed or receive a "citation needed" tag?--THobern 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation found

I don't know how to change it, so somebody else can. Here is a source for the actual number of survivors (which has a different number than on the main page): http://www.ussindianapolis.org/crew.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.127.105 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please check revision. Sandcherry (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

single greatest loss of life?

The article claims that the Indianapolis was the greatest single loss of Americans at see, but the HMT Rohna went down with 1,015 Americans compared to the Indianapolis' (1,196 - 317 survivors = 879) dead. Bonewah (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Article (currently) says about "the greatest single loss of life at sea in the history of the U.S. Navy". Rohna was an English ship. Rohna carried U.S. soldiers (mainly from 853rd Engineer Aviation Batallion and 322d Flight Control Squadron). So while there were more US casualties, it had little to do with U.S. Navy. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How can we improve the "Loss" section

After reading 2 books on the Indianapolis disaster i realise that the Loss section doesnt do enough justice to how extreme the situation was to the men in the water. How can we improve it? My idea would be to describe in better detail the unbearable horror that they went through. Portillo (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another (small) primary data input

My dad was the CO of the landing craft (really a small amphib ship, that actually went island to island, and operated independantly at times) that transhipped the bomb from the cruiser to the island. They had a large crate and Marines with literal shoot to kill orders if anyone touched it. The big ships had to anchor off shore from islands and then amphibs were basically used to ferry stuff to shore (because of the draft). If you read the beginning of Abandon Ship, they mention how that was done (more briefly than I have). TCO (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/USS_Indianapolis_in_popular_culture

FYI. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)