WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: sunken tonnage claims
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: March 13, 2003 03:56PM
<HTML>Hi Phil,
in researching the claims made by US submariners in the Pacific war I have found that they sank about 3 times as many ships as the Japanese had afloat and something like 9 times the tonnage existing.
This does not necessarily mean they were cheating: one captain torpedoed the reef at Farallon de Pajaros, north of Saipan, honestly mistaking it for a ship, and there are several more cases like it. Hallucinations at sea DO occur, as a former submariner myself I can attest to it, specially in pre-radar days, when all you had in the line of sensor was the famous "eyeball Mk.I", susceptible to all kinds of errors.
There are, on the other had, some megalomaniacs who try to inflate their scores. I have no idea what U-55's CO was like as far as ego is concerned, if a pychological profile of the gentleman was available, it may go a long way to clarify the matter. Given the consistency of this particular officer's claims, I would tend to think he was just trying to put himself in better light; as you know, Captains who underachieved were removed from command and relegated to less glamorous duties (which entitled reductions in pay, among others).
So, if the unconfirmed attacks are regularly reported, I'd say he was was inflating his ego. Mind it: this is just my personal opinion - no factual basis.
Regards, Brian</HTML>
in researching the claims made by US submariners in the Pacific war I have found that they sank about 3 times as many ships as the Japanese had afloat and something like 9 times the tonnage existing.
This does not necessarily mean they were cheating: one captain torpedoed the reef at Farallon de Pajaros, north of Saipan, honestly mistaking it for a ship, and there are several more cases like it. Hallucinations at sea DO occur, as a former submariner myself I can attest to it, specially in pre-radar days, when all you had in the line of sensor was the famous "eyeball Mk.I", susceptible to all kinds of errors.
There are, on the other had, some megalomaniacs who try to inflate their scores. I have no idea what U-55's CO was like as far as ego is concerned, if a pychological profile of the gentleman was available, it may go a long way to clarify the matter. Given the consistency of this particular officer's claims, I would tend to think he was just trying to put himself in better light; as you know, Captains who underachieved were removed from command and relegated to less glamorous duties (which entitled reductions in pay, among others).
So, if the unconfirmed attacks are regularly reported, I'd say he was was inflating his ego. Mind it: this is just my personal opinion - no factual basis.
Regards, Brian</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
sunken tonnage claims
|
Phil Cullen | 03/13/2003 08:34AM |
|
Re: sunken tonnage claims
|
Brian | 03/13/2003 03:56PM |
|
Re: sunken tonnage claims
|
David H | 03/13/2003 06:17PM |
|
Re: sunken tonnage claims
|
Brian | 03/14/2003 12:40AM |