This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS publishes herewith an exchange of letters between two officers in the Fleet in hope that these opinions may be of general interest not only to all junior officers who may be contemplating transfer to regular Navy status, but also to all officers who may care to review in their own minds the opportunities and challenges of a naval career.
The Regular Speaks
During the course of a call on my new Commanding Officer, we briefly discussed your status and feelings about a naval career. I agreed, because of the similarity of our backgrounds, it might be a good idea for me to sit down and write you a few of my thoughts and experiences with regard to a career in the u. S. Navy as a non-Academy officer.
I am writing you in this regard not only because I feel the Navy and our country sorely need to retain capable, young officers, but that if you have any doubt as to the possible future prospects, you may be interested in hearing from a career officer who did not attend Annapolis.
I was a pre-med student prior to World War II and fully intended to return to medical school after the war, but the Navy and service at sea is a way of life that grows upon °ne, and, despite the general stampede for the glamorous life in the outside world, I took time to give serious thought to a career in the tegular Navy. I shall always be very glad that 1 did.
True enough, I had my doubts as to prospects for an ex-reserve in promotion and as- Slgnment opportunities. Such doubts, however, were unfounded. I have had choice billets since my transfer, including two consecutive commands.
I have always felt that any assignment, military or civilian, is what one makes of it. Contrary to the general civilian concept, every one of my Navy jobs has been very challenging and very satisfying from the standpoint of accomplishment. Nowhere have I found more appreciation of originality and initiative (providing it is competent); nowhere are the opportunities for service in its highest sense to be found in such great abundance. I do not believe that security for security’s sake should play too great a part in a man’s career decision. However, since we must certainly give serious thought to the welfare of our families, there is much to be said for the security guarantees offered by a regular Navy career. Even as much as two years’ seniority in the Service is a good start and, at present, after putting in twenty years, one has a good holding ground to windward which allows time for further education and for a complete survey of civilian job prospects. Also, at this time one is still young and this blend of youth and naval experience forms a strong background for a successful civilian career.
Another point which you will want to seriously consider is the validity of the many glowing promises you have probably received relative to civilian job prospects. You would be surprised to know how many of my former shipmates from World War II have expressed regret that they did not remain in the Service and have indicated that the actualities fall short of the promises in civilian pursuits.
I realize that this decision is one which is intensely personal in nature and must be based, perhaps, more on feeling than on cold fact. Personally, I would rather have any command of my own at sea than be President of a leading corporation. However, you may feel very differently about this.
There are many other things which enter
into the picture which are also difficult to put into words. There is a feeling of camaraderie among all regular Navy families. Even though we transfer from one duty station to another, one feels quickly at home. There is an atmosphere of mutual assistance born out of certain shared hardships which are peculiar to a Navy existence. Although there are many partings, there are a like number of reunions and in the large family of the regular Navy there is a certain knowledge that our friends are friends for life and will be met again five or ten years hence.
Never before has a naval career offered a greater and more challenging promise to a young officer. The navies of the world give definite promise of becoming the ultimate weapons which will decide the fate of our nation and way of life. As more of the national power of all nations is being deployed at sea, a naval officer’s career becomes one of the ultimate in opportunity. Despite emphasis on the technological advances, opportunities are as great in the general line as in the specialities. For men will always have to command and fight the ships. Woe betide us if we begin to think hardware is more important than the man behind it. The basic element of leadership has altered little since the beginning of history, but in many cases we have almost lost sight of this fact in the wild scramble for technical supremacy. As you know, we are constantly beset with the problem of retaining our skilled officers and petty officers. We urgently need help here in our long-range plans and policy development. It is in this particular sphere that I feel that a man with a background in the liberal arts or other civilian educational background can do a superior job. In brief, the over-all challenge in a naval career is as varied and great as the stake which the country has in her Navy.
Finally, although it seems somewhat out of fashion, there is this matter of patriotism. I personally wonder why so few young people seem to feel that they individually owe so little in return for the great opportunities which accrue to each of us as American citizens. Many of us are content to accept without much consideration the educational and cultural advantages with little thought toward the threat which exists to them at present and will continue to exist within the foresee-
able future. There is a certain indefinable pride in the Naval Service which stems from the fact that we both recognize and honor these obligations which some people seem to feel are outmoded. This is a part of the wealth of tradition of which Admiral Burke spoke at “Operation Remember” (the gathering of fifty of our Navy World War II Combat Commanders): “It is in this tradition—• forged by those who fell in battle at sea—that Navy men of the past—Navy men of today —and Navy men for all time to come—cheerfully dedicate their lives to their God and to their country—-to their ship and to their shipmates—to the cause of all humanity. Mere men can give no more. Honorable men can give no less.”
I had an experience recently in which you may be interested. During the conclusion of an official tour of the Naval Districts, I had occasion to interview Mrs. Howard Gilmore in New Orleans. As you remember, it was her husband who, after ramming an enemy ship, was hit by machine gun fire and, finding it difficult to get below quickly, ordered the Executive Officer to submerge. In his order “Take her down!”, he perhaps epitomized the selfless devotion to ideals which is the basic credo of every good naval officer. For a man with life slipping away from him to have the courage to order his own ship which had brought him halfway around the world to submerge and, thus, in an instant seal his own doom, represents the best which our country has to offer in the realm of patriotism. You might be interested to know that when asked about her present feelings in regard to the Navy, Mrs. Gilmore had this to say, “I have always loved the Navy and I always will- The happiest years of my life were spent with Gil and I felt particularly proud of the job he did. Part of the enormous respect I had for him was the certain knowledge that he would do his duty as he saw it no matter what it entailed.”
It is hard for me to decide which is the nobler effort—the sudden heroic death in enemy waters or the courageous bearing UP under the loneliness and tragedy of the passing years. Of this I am sure: we need as a nation to possess both of these facets of patriotism in great quantity if we are to survive the difficult years that are now upon us.
In the final summing up, a naval career will not be a tranquil or an easy life, for the sea is an impartial and uncompromising master. It offers no prize for second best.
It will not be a career of accumulation of wealth, for the recompense of our way of life lies largely in the values inherent in faithful and competent performance of duty.
It will not be a life of great personal fame or acclaim, for most of one’s efforts are sublimated in an anonymous devotion to a job above personal issue.
But, as you at long last hang up that blue suit and set your eyes upon your final retirement, you will have far more than money or temporal fame ever bestowed. You will have the knowledge that you have lived as a man in the services of a cause upon which the future of all humankind may well depend.
An Ensign Considers
(The author of this reply letter is an Ensign, USN, and recently graduated from the Regular NROTC Program.)
I would like to express my appreciation for the fine letter which you wrote to me concerning a career in the Navy. During my coliege
years, I had little doubt that I would follow anything but a civilian career in business of some sort. I oscillated between advertising, banking, and stock brokerage, and truthfully had given little honest thought to a naval career. My background of parents and their predecessors were all businessmen of °ne sort or another, and except for an Army pfficer on my grandmother’s side of the family ln the distant past, the military had been sorely neglected in choices of professions. So \ lacked any sort of inclination for a military life from the family tradition.
Since my college graduation I have had a year at sea in which to evaluate the Navy, the career that it offers me, and to examine my capabilities for the execution of such a career.
assignments have been rotated considerably in this year. I have held the primary J°bs of First Lieutenant and of Ordnance
mcer, the latter of which is my present uty> and am within a month to take over a new job as ASW Officer. My rotation in collateral duties has been even more extensive.
Perhaps best of all, after a period of standing CIC watch officer watches, I had a chance to stand JOOD watches, and although I was not qualified quite so quickly as my Naval Academy counterpart, I made it about two months after he did, and within approximately nine or ten months after reporting aboard. I was certainly very proud to stand my first OOD watch underway.
As you point out in your letter, civilians have little or no idea of what goes on inside the military. Their contact with the service is oftentimes no more than seeing several sailors wandering around town looking for excitement. And I think it is this ignorance, and the idea that there is so much regimentation in thought and action in the service, that initiative and constructive criticism are frowned upon if not completely squelched, that turns a good many away from a service career. In this connection, without trying to take away any of the credit from the naval preparation I received at a NROTC university, I think that there should be a great deal more emphasis placed on the naval career in NROTC establishments than is now being done. The technical courses are taught, and drill is held once weekly, but I do not recall any particular instances in which we were shown the advantages that the military career has to offer. And in a setting of a liberal arts school, it is even more important than at the Naval Academy, where the distractions of the “outside” world and the enticements from civilian industries are not so thoroughly integrated. The guide which was published recently by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, entitled “Officer Fact Book,” NavPers 15898, would be an excellent instrument to use in weekly conferences with reserve midshipmen, to at least bring into their minds that the Navy has more to offer than a two or three year withdrawal from civilian life, the termination of which entails immediate freedom and an excellent job with a large corporation.
My arrival on active duty was with a receptive mind, not decided one way or the other. I have found out through life on an escort destroyer that I enjoy this way of life, and, in your words, “service at sea is a way of life that grows upon one.” I have just recently submitted my request for sub school, and hope
that I will be accepted for the class convening this coming January. Having talked with a great number of submariners, I feel that I am tremendously interested in submarine duty, and that the future in submarines is better now than ever before.
With regard to making the Navy my career, let me say that I have given the subject a great deal of thought in the last year. I have considered all the points that you mentioned in your letter, and tried throughout this year to express them to the various “short-timers” who are counting the days until their discharge dates, although I must confess that I could not equal the clarity or con- cinnity with which you expressed those sentiments. My mind is virtually made up that I will make the Navy a career. The only factor which is holding me from submitting my request for retention in the regular Navy is the idea of signing up for thirty years. I have only had one year in which to really know the Navy, however, and while I definitely like what I have seen in this first year and find the work challenging and rewarding, I am reluctant to make a final decision as yet. Perhaps it is the difficulty of picturing myself, with a civilian background and civilian schooling, as attaining the rank of Captain or Admiral. However, I have every confidence that the matter will resolve itself very shortly. I hope that despite the proposed reduction in naval personnel, my request for retention will not be turned down.
Again I want to thank you for taking the time to write to me. Your letter confirmed many of my thoughts, and bolstered others. I hope that as an officer in some later year I may have the opportunity to write to a young officer such as myself, in as competent and moving a style as your letter to me, and perhaps be able to show him the advantages, the challenges, and the satisfactions that a naval career has to offer in the same manner that you did for me.
Soviet Translation and Review of Naval Institute’s Book on U. S. Destroyer Operations
Professor C. P. Lemieux, U. S. Naval Academy.—In the 21 November issue of the daily newspaper Sovietsky Flot, we encounter a review of the Russian abridged translation from English of United States Destroyer Operations in World War II by Theodore Roscoe. The mere fact of an unauthorized translation of this Naval Institute publication is not surprising, since the Soviets adhere to no international conventions in such matters. It is, however, not too common to come upon translations of this sort available to the general public, even though a very complete collection of original technical works is available to a selected personnel.
Just how much the Naval Institute book was abridged is not clear. There are 540 pages compared to 580 in the American edition, but the folio is apparently smaller. Judging by the reviewer’s comments, large segments of the book were omitted. But just to make sure no one will acquire an unofficial slant on history, Captain S. Sakharanov, the reviewer, belabors his theme as follows:
“ Theodore Roscoe Falsifies History" . . .“Since U. S. submarines took an insignificant part in the war with Germany, the book is concerned chiefly with the events in the Pacific theater.”
. . . “The book is crammed with historical facts, but the author uses them chiefly to lead the reader into error.” . . . “Early operations in the Pacific took place under the most favorable conditions, when we consider the intensive movement of Japanese supply vessels and their weak AS defense. Roscoe admits the meager American sinkings of 47,000 tons per month, while they were losing 8 submarines a year.” . . .
“The situation did not change until 1943, when the turning point was obvious and the Japanese began to lose one island after another. Average Japanese losses rose to 114,000 tons per month.” . . .
“The author grows eloquent about these successes, but carefully conceals their real cause. He does not tell us that the change of the situation in the Pacific was due chiefly to the decisive role played in the basic, western European theater of operations. The victories of the Soviet Army, that bore the major burden in the battle with the Fascist-German army, turned Hitler’s mad plan for world conquest to dust. The smashing of Fascist troops near Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk not only broke the strength of Hitlerite Germany, but
also was a blow to her satellites.” . . . “Theodore Roscoe does not say a word about the fact that while the Soviet people and their army struggled alone with Fascist Germany, the British and Americans had the opportunity to recover from the first blows struck against them by the Axis powers. Using this long breathing spell, they strengthened their armed forces and rebuilt their industry. By means of new construction, they were able to maintain up to 75 submarines on patrol, instead of 20-25 as in 1942.” . . .
“1945 was the year of defeat for the aggressors in both the West and the East. The Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan decided the fate of the imperialistic invader. Having lost the Kwantoun army, Japan capitulated. The war ended also for the American submarine fleet.” . . .
“Reading the book, one might think that the American submariners operated faultlessly, never made a miss during the entire war, etc.” . . . “However, facts are stubborn things. They bear witness to the slipshod training of American submarine crews. As a result of this poor training, no submarine fleet had so many non-combat losses as the American fleet. . . .”
The American reader may be puzzled by the tone and content of this review. Perhaps one of the less obvious motives for such ranting *s the Soviet inferiority complex engendered by their insignificant submarine operations in World War II.
SINKING OF THE SS WYOMING All Hands Saved
(See page 142, United States Destroyer Operations in Tarid War II)
Mr. Raymond L. Parker, South Miami, 1'Lorida.—A picture of this French ship in Casablanca appears in Mr. Roscoe’s book. The above photograph is the last one ever taken of the Wyoming, victim of two torpedoes on March 15, 1943, some 90 miles northeast of the Azores. There were no casualties and the USS Champlin rescued all personnel within an hour.
Comment on Canadian Anecdote
(See page 1081, October, 1957 Proceedings)
Vice-Admiral H. G. DeWolf, rcn.—It was most interesting to read Commander Farrow’s anecdote, particularly since I was in command of HMCS St. Laurent at that time. The survivors included many German as well as Italian internees. By an odd coincidence, Commander Farrow’s comment came to my attention when the new St. Laurent was visiting Kiel and receiving an expression of Germany’s gratitude for the rescue.
Arizona Camel Obituary
(See pages 1327-1333, December, 1957 Proceedings)
Captain I. F. Wood, New York City.— Mr. Jefferson Hayes-Davis, grandson of former Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, in a letter to me makes the following informative comment on the importation of camels into the United States. This was an attempt to solve some of the problems of the arid area in the West. “They were only partially successful due to the soldiers not liking them as pack animals. As I remember it, they were turned out at the time of the war and up until a recent date were at large in Arizona, but I now believe the last have been killed by hunters.”
Origin of Bainbridge County
Edward Alexander Currie, Jr., Hattiesburg, Mississippi.—From January, 1823, until almost exactly a year later Mississippi honored Commodore William Bainbridge by naming a county for this naval hero. In early 1824, however, by state legislative act the name was changed and the area once again became part of Covington County.
(Editor’s Note: See the article discussing the origin and development of American naval place names, pages 435-455, April 1948 Proceedings.)
* * *
German Midget Submarines
Franz Selinger, Stuttgart-Oberturk- heim.—When the Allied air and sea superiority reached a peak in 1944 and U-boats had less than an even chance to attack and sink Allied ships, German naval officers and engineers began to design and construct very small submarines for coastal defense and attacks on Allied transports en route to the Continent. It was believed that the small dimensions of these submarines would help prevent visual, radar, or sonar detection and provide the highest possible efficiency with a minimum amount of personnel and material.
Beginning with the Neger-type, a modified electrically-driven torpedo with the warhead replaced by a watertight cabin for the pilot and used as a carrier for an underslung second torpedo with warhead, the development of German midget submarines culminated in the two-man type XXVII B, the Seehund. The short-range one-man submarine also had to be improved and after initial successes of the Jaeger-types, the Marder and Molch-types were constructed, but proved ineffective because of their low speed and strong Allied anti-submarine measures.
Originally designed for suicide attack, the Delphin one-man submarine was originated by Professor Doctor Cornelius of the Technical University of Berlin. The Delphin with its fully streamlined hull promised the necessary high speed and appeared more like an airplane without wings than a submersible. Driven by the electric motor and the batteries of a torpedo, this boat reached without war load a maximum speed of about 19 knots when submerged. Elevators, rudder, and propeller were mounted on the extreme stern.
Hulls of this experimental class averaged 28 feet, 6 inches in length, 3 feet, 4 inches in diameter, and displaced about 2.8 tons without war load. Height of snorkel was 4 feet, 4 inches.
The pilot sat under a transparent bubble canopy and steered the boat by means of a stick, like an aircraft. A snorkel provided air for surface cruising and when the craft was submerged the pilot used an oxygen-breathing apparatus.
After abandonment of the suicide attack mission, additional batteries were installed in
the nose of the hull and trials were conducted in which an underslung torpedo was carried. The results showed that a submarine speed of four to five knots was insufficient to make effective use of this weapon modification. Next, tests were made towing a mine. This was attached to a short rod at the boat’s stern while cruising and towed at the end of a 600-foot line for attack against a target ship.
These first tests of the Delphin were accomplished in November, 1944 by Leutnant zur See H. Wittchen on the Trave river near Lii- beck. The boat showed fine handling qualities and achieved speeds of 17 to 19 knots at full power and reached depths of nearly 70 feet without sustaining any damage. The cruising range was limited to three miles at full power, without war load. The performance of the boat with the mine in tow are not known, but speed achieved is believed to have been about 10 knots and three miles for range at reduced speed.
Three prototypes were built and tested. One of these was heavily damaged in a collision with the mother ship on the night of January 18, 1945 on the Trave. Turning for a mile run after having been launched from the mother ship, the boat climbed from a depth of 30 feet, due to an undetermined pull on the stick at a speed of 17 knots, to only seven feet and collided with the ship’s hull. Leutnant Wittchen was fortunate in escaping unhurt, but it was his last trial. After the boat was salvaged, the damage sustained clearly indicated the pilot would have been killed if the Delphin had struck the mother ship just a few more inches to port.
A month later the Experimental Group was bombed out of Berlin and moved to their last base, an Air Force ordnance park at Poetenitz, near Travemuende. The three boats were still intact, the one damaged in January having been rebuilt. However, the tests had not been sufficiently successful so as to bring the project from the experimental to the production stage. When the advancing British soldiers reached the region of Luebeck, at midnight on May 1, 1945, Leutnant Wittchen ordered the three boats scuttled. Fifteen minutes later two 250 kilogram bombs which had been laid between the hulls blew the three Delphins into small fragments, including all the desig0 drawings, diagrams, and spare parts.
gERMAN experimental one-man midget submarine
°P> left) Closeup of Leutnant Wittchen, pilot of the Dtlphin, inside the canopy. (Top, right), Pilot, canopy, and i C cIearly visible as the tiny craft maneuvered on the surface. (Center) Starboard hull, with canopy and c ... . striped for identification purposes during trials. (Bottom) The Delphin’s exterior hull damage, following >ston, sinking, and salvage. Franz Selinger’s comments on the development of German midget submarines ®cede on the opposite page.
Frigate’s Distinguished History
Major Reginald Hargreaves, Hampshire, England.—I am surprised to discover how many Americans and Britons entertainthe strongest dislike for the designation “Frigate.” This contemporary aversion apparently is based upon the dubious reputation earned by the sluggish, mass-produced frigates of the 1941—45 period. But surely this association of rather recent ideas is far too limited in range. In any case it seems a thousand pities that the ill-repute that clings to these particular World War II improvisations should be allowed to obliterate all memory of the very high regard in which the frigate per se was held by generations of experienced seamen.
The earliest type of frigate was a Mediterranean fregata, a small, oared craft possessing many of the characteristics of the galley, for which it sometimes acted as tender. But by the time of Francis Drake the frigate had discarded its oars to become small, long, speedy, and exceedingly useful.
A craft that could obviously be developed to combine formidable strength with a turn of speed capable of overtaking any other type of ship afloat was obviously ideal for a privateersman. So it was these enterprising gentry who were responsible for the next and most significant advance in the frigate’s progression towards perfection. Then in 1636 two famous Dunkirk privateers, the Swan and the Nicodemus, were captured by the British. Studying their design, the master-shipwright, Peter Pett, set himself to construct the Constant Warwick, which can therefore advance a reliable claim to have been the first British- built frigate. In 1674 Sir Antony Deane, having carefully inspected the lines of the captured Gallic frigate Superbe, set to work to build the Harwich, a vessel which took frigate construction a stage further. Both craft, however, were no more than small two-decked ships, which qualified as the forerunners rather than the prototypes of the famous 18th century frigates. These first appeared in their new and more substantia] form in 1756. Carrying from 28 to 30 guns apiece on a single “flush” gundeck, they weredesigned primarily for speed, and quickly earned an eminently praiseworthy reputation as the “eyes of the fleet” and general “maids of all work.”
Nelson had the greatest faith in these ubiquitous craft, and could never be furnished with enough of them to satisfy his needs. “Were I to die at this moment,” he declared in 1798, “want of frigates would be found stamped on my heart.”
It is a matter of record that frigates played a noteworthy part in the grimly maintained blockade of the French coast, which contributed so much towards the consummation of the little Corsican’s downfall. When Mahan wrote of “That far-off line of storm-beaten ships on which the eyes of the Grand Army never looked . . . which stood between Napoleon and dominion of the world,” the hardworking, hard-fighting frigate was undoubtedly included in his tribute.
American shipyards had turned to frigate construction so early as the War of Independence; and by 1812 they were constructing vessels which although nominally of the same rate as the British, were in general far better designed, more strongly timbered, and more heavily gunned. Their success in action was only interrupted by the hard-won victory of the Shannon over the Chesapeake.
It is true that when steam and iron were slowly replacing sail and wood, the iron-built frigates with which the British Admiralty first experimented in the 1840’s and 1850’s had little to commend them. Of all shapes and sizes, some of them had a tonnage not far short of that boasted by Nelson’s Victory; while the French La Gloire ran to no less than 5,000 tons. Experimental in every way, it can be said none the less that the light cruiser owed much to the growing pains the Victorian frigate had endured.
Swinging Naval reductions in the post 1914-18 era halted the designers’ efforts to bring the frigate up to date; and from 1941 to 1945 the exigencies of war-time pressure led to insufficiently considered design and over-hasty production.
It is a very different story nowadays, as the USS Mitscher bears eloquent witness. So the Officers and ratings who man the swift and powerful modern frigate will, one thinks, rejoice in the magnificent tradition of as redoubtable a craft as ever took the seas “upon her lawful occasions.” After all, Nelson and Mahan can’t both be wrong!