Talk:USS PC-815

Laffey

I've changed the wording regarding mentions of Laffey. There were two Laffeys around that time: USS Laffey (DD-459) and USS Laffey (DD-724). A person who doesn't know this might assume that a single USS Laffey acquired a distinct war record and then collied with the PC-815. Anynobody 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that - thanks for the clarification. -- ChrisO 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised the Navy would send out a ship with the same name as one sunk less than two years before (they do reuse names often, but usually after a long time). They did that with a couple of other destroyers, a few carriers (Yorktown CV-5 and CV-10), and I think some subs. Anynobody 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical aspects of ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare)

Part I PC-815 and magnetic deposits

I agree that L Ron Hubbard didn't lead a battle against two IJN submarines, it's important to remember that while reading what follows. The point about the magnetic deposit is very likely not in reference to Hubbard or PC 815 and I'll explain why. First, this was indeed a big fiasco, and not just for Hubbard. The way a Naval Board looks at things is how individual commanders perform. In reading the reports, you'll notice that other Navy patrol craft and air assets were involved. The PC-815 had sonar to search for submarines, which is more or less useless in detecting magnetic contacts. I'm 99.9% sure PC-815 did not have a Magnetic Anomaly Detector, which is what actually detects magnetic deposits. MADs are usually carried on aircraft, as they were on the blimps that responded to Hubbard's request for aid. Admiral Fletcher appears to have gone out of his way to relieve the blimps in any accountability in the waste of resources. The presence of a magnetic deposit does not excuse PC-815's errors operating their sonar. Since including my analysis would be a clear violation of OR, I'm not saying that it should be included. I am saying that we should reword it so that it does not imply a relationship between the local magnetic deposit and the fiasco caused by PC-815. Hubbard fought a two day battle with an echo ping and the sound of his own engines, he could not have known about the deposit and such wasn't fighting one.

Preview Part II Hubbard's report vs. the ASW-1 report the Navy actually wanted

If anyone read his report of the "engagement", they might get the impression he was writing for a layman and not his CO. For this type of report, the Navy had a form called ASW-1 (Fletcher mentions the fact that Hubbard's report was not in that format). The report Hubbard wrote is longer than Admiral Halsey's report about the Doolittle Raid (and Halsey's task force actually sunk boats). It also did not include any of the specific information which the form requests. I have obtained a couple of sample ASW-1 reports and was thinking of a way to include them here somehow. Anynobody 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated the article with citations with support for these points. Anynobody 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mexico was an ally in 1943

Mexico was not entirely neutral in 1943. They were upset because there was no schedule for what Hubbard did (the Mexican government had authorized practice bombing that day though, which is probably why Hubbard did what he did. Anynobody 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My waste of bandwidth

Just felt the need to note that this is one of my favorite WP articles ever. Well written, documented, illustrated, and made me laugh till I cried.T L Miles 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Anynobody 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

You may wish to use Wikipedia Citation Templates, to standardize the footnotes in the References section. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

• After that, and some touching up to the quoted portions, this article looks ready for WP:GAN. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS PC-815. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106022926/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200601/ai_n16063418/pg_1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200601/ai_n16063418/pg_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)