Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 8:35 AM
By Capt. John Byron, USN (Ret.)
Best Defense diesel submarine bureau chief
Those serving in the US Submarine Force are in their fourth generation:
The first were those stalwart souls who pioneered the craft in primitive submersibles barely livable by their crew, but carrying the art forward.
The second generation were the heroes of World War Two, less than 2 percent of the fleet but accounting for 30 percent of Japanese tonnage sunk. The odds of an individual submariner returning alive at the end of the war were lower than for any other major combat arm: 14 percent of those who made a war patrol failed to survive the War.
The third generation are those who did so much to win the Cold War, whether in diesel boats in the icy waters of the northern barrier patrols of the late ‘40s, the ‘hide with pride' bunch who made over 3,000 missile deterrent patrols in the boomers, or the Smiling Jacks of the undersea world who played chicken with the Soviets in attack submarines.
The fourth generation is at sea today, in boats of unbelievable sophistication (the latest class of US submarines exceeds the imaginings of science fiction) and as busy as at any time in the past, though with a less clear-cut mission.
The first generation is gone and the second all but gone. And now we are losing those who won the Cold War. This afternoon Vice Admiral J. Guy Reynolds died of cancer, one of the great officers who served this nation so well throughout the decades of tension with the Soviets. Guy's family posted updates on his situation for several weeks at this site. The 32 pages of guestbook entries posted there list the names and thoughts of nearly all the leaders of the modern submarine force who served with Guy and loved him.
A moment of silence please...
Although the losses of the U.S. Submarine Force were high, I believe that the losses for USAAF bomber crews was higher. They sustained the highest percentage of fatalities of U.S. service branches during WWII. In 1943, for example, the average life-span for an 8th AF bomber crew was 11 missions. My uncle was in a B-17crew that was one of the first to all finish their 25 missions together- and they did so in March 1944.
The losses in the USAAF were indeed high, but on a strictly percentage basis the Submarine Force losses were higher. There were many many more thousands of people in the Air Force.
The comparison I made was the percentage of fatalities of USAAF bomber crews against USN submariners. Not the entire USAAF against the sub crews. Even though the bomber crews were by themselves a much larger number that Navy sub crews, their fatalities were about 20%
.
The absolute worst percentage of losses of any nation's service branch during WWII were those of the German Kriegsmarine's U-Boot crews-- whose losses were about 90%.
The Jan. '42 USN carrier aviators
The original Jan. '42 USN carrier aviators tended to not come home in large percentages, is what I remember reading. Maybe someone has a source on that.
Brit Bomber Command suffered huge early losses, and attrition equal to 3x it's flight crew manpower, over the length of their long war. Crew survival for night crash-landings, shoot-downs and sea ditchings had to be pretty dicey.
US sub losses mightn't have been quite so severe if their torpedo problems had been promptly attended too. The early fish ran deeper than spec, defeating the prox fuse design, and even the contact fuse was failing to detonate, if my reading was correct. But the prox fuse was the command admiral's baby, and he continued to insist they target low, under the keel, blaming the marksmen for the misses. Did the war end before the issue on the new electric torpedo circling (for a friendly fire hit) was resolved?
Admiral?
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE