Jump to content

Talk:USS Indianapolis (CA-35)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

The torpedo strike on the 30th shortly after midnight was apparently recorded in what was called the "K (Kilo) Time Zone" (now called UTC+10:00), in the western Pacific Ocean, and would only be the 30th from UTC+10:00 east to the International Date Line. In the rest of the world (for Sheriff Brody, Eastern Daylight Time or UTC−04:00), it would be the 29th. — Glenn L (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2012 (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)
Watching the History channel on the Last Days of WWII ...
and they are talking about the greatest disaster in the history of the US Navy, didn't mention 'single', surely Pearl Harbour was ? Dave Rave (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
next day it adds the qualifier 'at sea' Dave Rave (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2012 (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)

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

Enriched uranium

An IP just added a "citation needed" tag after this: "After major repairs and an overhaul, Indianapolis received orders to proceed to Tinian island, carrying parts and the enriched uranium..." This seems supported by the source to me. On page 662 it says "A manifest describes the truck's expensive cargo: a. 1 bx., wt about 300 lbs, containing projectile assembly of active material for the gun type bomb." Earlier passages make it clear they are talking about enriched uranium. What is the specific objection here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI- If such a tag is placed, and there is evidence, by "known" facts or by reference that such tag is not warranted, it can be reverted or edited out, of course pointing out the reasoning on the talk page or at least the edit summary. If the reversion or editing is contested it can be discussed per WP:BRD. Otr500 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
A book source:
    • East Tennessee in World War II states that after the successful "Trinity" test "necessary parts for two different types of bombs, one with enriched uranium and one with plutonium, were carried to Tinian Island by the USS Indianapolis". This reference does not advance that any form of uranium or plutonium was carried on the ship just parts for the two bombs. Otr500 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment

With five projects covering this article, all presenting the same assessment, but there are issues needing attention. The article has content that is contested by virtue of "citation needed" tags. I reviewed one reference, and to me it provided source, but there are others. According to WikiProject assessment, specifically the criteria (expanded) for "B-class" that states:
  • 1)- "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.", with the noted "...material which is likely to be challenged is cited.", and a "challenge" would certainly be evidenced by a citation needed tag, so the article needs to be edited to correct this or down-graded to "C-class", until such time as the actual criteria for B-class is reached.
The project assessment criteria for B-class:
  • Projects providing assessment:
    • WikiProject Ships --------------------------- Referencing and citation: checkY criterion met (It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.)
Articles assessed at B-class, which are above the class for individual review, may be submitted for assessment as a good article, through the good article nomination process. A requirement, among others, before any serious consideration, will be referencing and appropriate inline citations, so hopefully someone will look at the current assessment, the issues, and make appropriate improvements, so the article will deserve the current assessment and might be considered for advancement.
Agree with downgrading to C class if there is any unreferenced material. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
If it were only a question of a few missing refs there wouldn't be an issue. However, too much material is unreferenced in this article. I'll adjust the assessment accordingly. Brad (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. In my opinion the possibility concerning the "question of a few missing refs", only becomes an issue if such questions of "unreferenced material" are formally made known through tags or talk page comments. If there was only one then I would attempt to fix it which I did, but calling attention to the fact is notice and sufficient. I think the process and procedures are satisfied when the community takes note and takes appropriate action such as in this case. Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wreckage Found Date Conflict

The article lists August 18th (lower in the article) and 19th (higher in the article) as the date when the wreckage was found. I'm assuming this might be due to the International dateline. What should the date be? American Military History (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding copyright template for potentially infringing text in Rescue section. Text is largely duplicated from http://www.ussindianapolis.org/story.htm, which dates back to (at least) 1999. Roboticon (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Roboticon – please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/19991019004439/http://www.ussindianapolis.org/story.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

200mm and 130mm guns

Looks like somebody is using a rounded conversion from 5 inches to mm to input the diameter of the gun. 8 inch is 203mm, wile 5 inch is 127mm respectively. Just notifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.210.40 (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture Entry Repeatedly Removed

I am rather curious as to the reasoning why popular culture reference in regards to the ship's wreckage being a significant plot point in Meg: Hell's Aquarium is being routinely deleted, when the entry contain more information than several other "Pop Culture" entries, and has been further cleaned up to coincide with the wiki rules for adding pop culture references. The fictional location of the wreckage (as the book was written prior to actual discovery) serves, again, as a major plot point for the book. I don't know what other "proof" or references would be needed when the book itself is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.26.207 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure exactly why it keeps getting deleted, I'm sure the other editors have reasons. I trimmed the entry down and fixed the reference, but this doesn't mean that it may not still get removed. Also, please make sure you sign your talk entries with ~~~~, this will automatically add your signature.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen a source provided that satisfies WP:IPCV. With regards to pop culture entries, the source must indicate not only that the pop culture occurrence is verifiable, but also that it is considered significant in some manner. A third-party source typically works best for this. Or, as I like to put it, we need not only proof that the tree fell in the woods, but that someone heard it fall. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
That seems a sensible way to keep track of which trees need mentioning. But, also worth a mention, that is only a WP:ESSAY. MPS1992 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The section I linked to is part of an essay, yes, but there is a footnote linking back to an RfC on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How many?

I haven't read every word but I've looked in all the obvious places without finding: how many men were rescued? All I see is that "some" (of those who did not go down with the ship itself) suffered from this or that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sinking

The sinking of the Indianapolis is missing a critical component. There is no addressing the background and complexity of a Submarine attack on a high speed warship (well in excess of any convoy speed at 17 knots)

The attack itself was not subject to any analysis other than the opinion of Hashimoto (see latter) that zig zag would not have made any difference (this is totally incredulous and is totally refuted by the War Facts of it was, even for slow convoys it hugely complicated a submarine firing solution and many times a sub had to abandon a convoy attack (at night) and if not surfaced already, surface, run outside and around the convoy to re-posting again and that assumed no base course change to cause issues again)

Due to warship high speed this never worked on a warship as at best a surface run was 20 knots and even at the Indianapolis 17 knots you would never get around to the front of a ship and make another attempt. Say you surfaced a bare mile behind the warship, it would take you an hour to get up to speed and come even. You then needed to get several miles ahead (assuming no radar) to reposition. So you would take at least 2 more hours (as soon as your same course speed stopped, the warship would be closing at a fast speed). Even if you still had a valid base course, you still have the zig zag issue to deal with that could again ruin a firing solution.

If your adversary was dong 20 knots it would be impossible. 20+ knots and you are left behind further and further.

The core defense of McVay was that it was a war time decision and there fore there can be no questioning his not ordering zig zag. There is a sub logic bust in that this was "not a war zone" then the combat/wartime defense then becomes squishy at best.

Zig zag was standard for any time there was good visibility and the night the Indianapolis sunk was indeed very goo visibility.

While high speed transit is a a significant factor in torpedoes defense, zig zag is the other critical component for that to be effective. Otherwise by luck of the draw a submarine could be in perfect position to sink a high speed ship.

Background wise the Queen Mary and Elizabeth carried upwards of 15,000 troops un-escorted, using high speed and zig zag and despite far more dense Atlantic submarine presence, did not suffer a single attack in WWII.

An American submarine commander and attack officer should have been called as witnesses in the trail. They could have explained the details of an attack, speed and zig zag and how that applied in this case.

Keep in mind, per Hashimoto, the range was 1500 yards. That is a very close shot, literally perfect distance. Its beyond sane logic that a zig zag course would not have changed that hugely.

The Indianapolis listed its speed at 17 knots. Hashimoto had it at 12 then 11 (murky on post attack or during).

Regardless, he had the speed off by at least 6 if not 7 knots when he was doing his firing solution.

Along with base course, the speed is one of the other critical key computations for a firing solution. Range being the last one.

Missing your speed by that amount is huge. While I am still working on it, from past, it would seem that at least 4 hits should have been registered on the Indianapolis. Possibly more as that detail is from WWII submarine encounters with US Torpedoes speed which the Japanese were faster (and per Hamshimoto, his were set at high speed not low speed.

Hashimoto stated his underwater speed (he was submerged at that point) was 8 knots. In fact he had no ability to affect his firing position if it was wrong. Ergo a zig or a zg off the Indianapolis base course would have left them both out of position and not ability to adjust due to the high speed involved.

An added study is needed to see how good his solution was (now many hits he should have achieved)

Hashimoto: His background does not indicate any experience as an attack officer. From his comments it would be an inexperienced Captain in ship attack and the factors involved. Missing is what the Japanese training would be.

Evidence says that the sub fleet was more scout, oddly to defer with the klunky ineffective Kaitans and not use of an excellent (best by far in WWII torpedoes)- even at 10 miles a spread of torpedo into a large convoy doing zig zag might get good hits. Virtually out of any destroyer sonar detection range.

Eddystone3006 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess what you're asking is whether any reliable sources address these issues, so that we could summarize what such sources say in the article? MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, in fact per the Court Martial statements were made that zig zag would not have changed the outcome. This is a direction to in fact present the other side of that zig zag was specifically intended to do exactly that.

Its an area no one has addressed and only supporting documents per normal operations in WWII in regards to the specified standards of passage be it a single ship or a convoy are not addressed put it in context. So yes zigzaggin was a command decision but zigzagging was mandatory in clear conditions.

Between that and the wartime decision clause (intended for combat) it cast a serious doubt on the acquittal and supports the families on going enmity with McVay. McVay is being portrayed as being a victim when in the details he was guilty of what the court martial found him guilty for and the subsequent exoneration was politically motivated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Eddystone3006 (talk • contribs)

OK, in that case I have to remind you that this is not a forum, neither for righting great wrongs nor for original research. If reliable sources don't cover it, we can't speculate about it on Wikipedia nor draw our own analyses. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable and cited sources do cover this and in fact totally refute both the Hashimoto statement and the contention that McVay defense of not is contradicted by standards.


A case in point is the turret explosion on the USS Iowa. Two officers were experimenting with super charges. This is so out of bounds that its a court martial offense. In other words, there is judgment and pure dereliction. This is reported and supported in the Wiki article as part of the turret explosion. 24.237.158.5 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, please tell us about these sources that you mention. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am going to have to resurrect them. Thy were removed. Among them was a reference on Queen Mary and its high speed and zigzagging during WWII.

This assumes it will be listened to and a method approved that allows its insertion. If not then its time to go to arbitration as I believe a major aspect of this piece of history has been left bizarrely left out. that assessment is of more import to the history than finding the ship which is a techno wonder of sorts but adds nothing to what happened or why.

Reference was made to Hashimoto testimony and his opinion that zigzagging would not make any difference. If he can say that then its up to a rebuttal to prove that zigzagging not only did complicate fire solution, it often made a good one impossible as it cannot be anticipated.

As this should open up an avenue of inquiry that never was, if new material is not allowed, you can only cite what was standards and point out the not following those standards had known and foreseen consequences.

As a standard for instance, during Wartime, McVay could alter his entire ships watch standard and schedule (never done but he could) that would be in the Captains allowances if he thought it made his ship perform better. Having his crew inject salt water into his boiler system would not be. that would be a direct act of destroying the ships steam plant.

No one but MvVay knew why he did not zigzag, possibly he could not have told you. Clearly he never talked about it that was reported. But failure to zigzag was very close to injecting salt water into the steam plant in far as an action went and about as far from a combat decision as possible.

If, the ship had been in low visibility that precluded a submarine getting a firing solution, he could have discontinued zigzagging. Standard orders would have been to either resume it if it cleared up and or notify the Capitan and resume.

Other commanders were removed from Command during WWII though not court martialed. One was a Battleship captain who ran into another battle ship. If McVay was as derelict as it appears, why not him? Certainly the families have a right to understand it.

As for Hashimoto, its going to take some time to build a reference case as it has to be indirect per above. That is going to take some time. If all that is not allowed its not worth it.

The attack itself to the best of my knowledge and extensive research never has been analyzed (for either side). He sighted the Indianapolis at around 6 miles. He did an immediate dive (for good reason). At that point his ability to correct for a bad firing position was zero (8 knots vs 17)

He clearly had the speed wrong by a major error. He scored only two hits at 1500 yards with WWII highest speed torpedoes.

An analysis of the attack would confirm a great deal. I will rest the situation for now. I will get the various references (on another computer). Eddystone3006 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, the sources you had cited were a 1918 Navy manual on zigzagging and a report of how the Queen Mary used zigzagging to avoid subs. The problem is that neither one of those sources stated anything at all about USS Indianapolis. In order for you to get this information into the article, you are going to have to find a reliable source that says that the Indianapolis was sunk because it did not zigzag (or whatever conclusion you want to include in the article). If you yourself use the information from the sources you previously cited to reach a conclusion of your own devising, then you are doing original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Indyguy (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Number Formatting; comma vs. period

The article says, "at a depth of 18,044 ft (3.417 mi; 5.500 km)." The grouping character (comma vs. period) should be consistent throughout the article. I tried to change it, but it uses the convert function. I am not familiar with the convert function. Could someone please change the periods to commas so the format will be the same as in the rest of the article. Thanks. 76.68.143.124 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I played with this for a while, and then it hit me that 18,044 feet is equal to 3.417 miles or 5.500 kilometers. There's no comma because miles and kilometers are thousands of times bigger than a foot. The convert function is handling it exactly correctly. Indyguy (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35)/Archive_1&oldid=1194921604"