Replies

Does the description of combat described above seem to you to be a "safe" combat deployment? If it is accurate would you say that the actions of Kennedy and his men were "heroic"? Have you ever tried to swim for miles in unfamiliar ocean waters? In the dark? In combat?

You are missing the point. Had Kennedy performed his job adaquately, there would never have been the need for "heroism." As has been pointed out here, in the entire course of WW II, exactly one naval vessel was lost due to ramming: Kennedy's PT boat. PT's were light, fast, highly-maneuverable torpedo boats. In order for a much larger, slower, noisier destroyer to ram a PT, either the PT must be disabled, of someone had to screw up. Badly. The report indicates that the engines were fine. Kennedy screwed up. Three men died because of his screw up. And he was rewarded for this incident with a medal? Please.

The report states that

a)Ross was the lookout
b)Kennedy was at the wheel
c)They were patrolling on one engine at idle
d)It was dark
e)The destroyer was first spotted at a distance of 200-300 yards, and bearing down on them at high speed
f)Kennedy attempted to turn towards the destroyer in order to fire his fish but was rammed first

I'll repeat

Is the report innacurate or doctored?

If not then why do you disagree with it's findings - which do not charge Kennedy with a screw-up? I'm sure its authors were well-aware that destroyers were larger, noisier, and slower than PT boats.

I doubt your claim that only one vessel was lost to ramming in WWII but I'll have to research it.

And how about a reply to the latter part of #227. After reading the report do you still claim that PT duty was "safe"? Or are you going to weasel about "statistical"?