# Was JFK Ever Court-Martialed? (PT-109 Loss) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 2, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658 "2011-11-02T18:14:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/21 "2017-04-10T18:23:59Z")
> [@sss6yy](#): > > Bear in mind that a court martial need not be a criminal proceeding. Don’t bear that in mind; it’s not true. A court-martial is a criminal proceeding by definition, at least in the US. You may be thinking of a court of inquiry (or board of inquiry in less serious circumstances). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/22 "2017-04-10T19:10:54Z")
In civilian writing you often see phrases like “He was court-martialed” in places where the author meant “He was found guilty by a court martial”. Which is wrong. That confuses “Was a defendant at a trial” with “Was found guilty at a trial”. To “be court-martialed” is to be a defendant. It says nothing of the outcome. Folks need to be real careful when reading and quoting to maintain the correct sense. IMO a lot of what looks like source material on the 'net has already embedded this confusion. None of my comments here are directly tied into the actual factuals of the JFK/PT-109 history. But I see signs of this confusion in several posts above. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/23 "2017-04-10T19:30:34Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > Well, my understanding is that – at least in say Napoleonic times – whenever a British ship went down, the captain was automatically subject to a court martial to determine if he was at fault. Which is not to say that the court-martial would necessarily find that the captain \*was \*at fault, but they’d always look into it. And of course if the captain was found to be not at fault, there was no stigma for having been subject to the court martial inquiry. > > I don’t know if the US Navy in WWII had a similar policy, or if that policy might not apply to something as small as a PT boat. > > But I don’t think having such a policy of automatic inquiry is necessarily stupid. i don’t think the son of the US Ambassador to Great Britain and a heavy hitter in the Democratic Party would be court martialed. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/24 "2017-04-10T19:47:29Z")
[Navy report on loss of PT-109](https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/biographies-list/bios-k/kennedy-john-f/report-on-loss-of-pt-109.html). ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/25 "2017-04-11T04:21:26Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Most navies automatically convene a court martial whenever a ship is lost. Is this not the case with the US navy? (Or more to the point, was this not the case with the US navy in 1942?) Even today a court martial is not convene to determine why a ship is lossed. A board of inquiry is convened. That board will make recommendations. It can be a justified loss, they can recommend action be taken against the CO including a court martial. Even in peace time CO’s have not court martial. Many times they are relieved of command and a letter is put into their file. Meaning they will never be promoted in rank so the career is finished. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/26 "2017-04-11T11:56:30Z")
> [@sss6yy](#): > > In cases in which a naval ship, aircraft is lost or there is a significant loss of life, there is always a court martial. This is not the case. For the loss of an aircraft, there is a mandatory mishap report. And for various ship losses, such as minor collusions and accidents there are mishap reports. But there is not always a court martial. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/27 "2017-04-11T12:55:57Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Most navies automatically convene a court martial whenever a ship is lost. Is this not the case with the US navy? (Or more to the point, was this not the case with the US navy in 1942?) It’s standard practice to convene a court martial when a _ship_ is lost, and I think the USN did during WW2, but PT-109 was a _boat_, not a ship (it would be designated USS-109 if it was a United States Ship). While there isn’t a strong distinction between “boat” and “ship” in casual language, they are very distinct things in the Navy. Boats are smaller, less important craft and command of a boat doesn’t count for command experience the way command of a ship does. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/28 "2017-04-11T13:00:30Z")
As to aircraft … Depending on the level of buffoonery by the crew, there may well be a board of inquiry after the mishap report process is done. But that’s a separate process and called by many different terms. And is only convened if there’s pretty good \*prima facie \*evidence of buffoonery at the point where derring do, or at least basic competence, was a reasonable expectation. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/29 "2017-04-11T14:33:52Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > Well, my understanding is that – at least in say Napoleonic times – whenever a British ship went down, the captain was automatically subject to a court martial to determine if he was at fault. Which is not to say that the court-martial would necessarily find that the captain \*was \*at fault, but they’d always look into it. And of course if the captain was found to be not at fault, there was no stigma for having been subject to the court martial. I read a biography about William Penn when I was a kid. His father was an Admiral, and basically he would either receive a hero’s welcome or be thrown in prison whenever he returned home from battle, depending on the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/30 "2017-04-11T15:28:51Z")
> [@sss6yy](#): > > In cases in which a naval ship, aircraft is lost or there is a significant loss of life, there is always a court martial. Bear in mind that a court martial need not be a criminal proceeding. Usually a serious incident begins with an inquiry and based upon the severity of the situation described in the inquiry, the case can be forwarded for possible legal action. As others also pointed out, not an absolute rule. Many are pointing out how it wouldn’t be in a peacetime situation now, but more relevantly that was not a uniform USN practice, for ‘ships’, ‘boats’ or a/c in WWII. It was an older Royal Navy custom for ships with seemed to be kept longer in that service. There were no courts martial for surviving commanders of the great majority of USN ships lost in combat in WWII. There had to be some prima facie evidence of incompetence or wrongdoing. This reflected not only differing tradition but change in practicalities. In the age of sail most ships ‘lost’ in combat ‘struck their colors’ ie surrendered, to their enemies. They sometimes sank afterward, but a ship being sunk without surrendering first was fairly uncommon. So there was a lot more reason to examine the conduct of losing CO’s in deciding when further resistance to the enemy had become impossible or a useless sacrifice. In the age of steam/steel antiship weapons became more lethal to ships, especially the myriad threats by WWII (a/c, subs, mines, besides other surface ships). And by the same token the convention changed to basically prohibit CO’s from surrendering their ships rather than fighting them till they were sunk, or scuttling them, or having other accompanying friendly ships sink them to prevent capture. Also, surface ships operated more often in more genuine coordination with one another than in the sail era: in the sail era even ‘fleet’ actions devolved to one on ones with opposing pairs of ships as close or closer to one another than to their squadron mates which happened only rarely in WWII. So the question of CO behavior in a ship loss in 20th century became a more technical and less ‘moral’ issue. A surviving CO who surrendered a ship might still face a court martial…but it very rarely happened (one small US gunboat in China was surrendered more or less intact by its crew to the Japanese in December 1941, the Japanese repaired and used a few other USN ships whose crews had abandoned them previously). Otherwise there had to be some specific evidence of incompetence or cowardice, in the USN anyway. One might argue JFK screwed up, but not more than some other USN vessels falling victim especially on the issue of Japanese lookouts sighting US ships first at night even in some cases where the US ships had radar (which PT-109 did not have, an operational set, on that night per most accounts), and no courts martial in those cases either. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/31 "2017-04-11T21:07:41Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > It is interesting that the crew of the 1700 ton [Fubuki-Class destroyer \*Amaguri](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Amagiri)\* was able to detect the PT boat before the PT-boat was able to see the destroyer. A Fubuki is roughly 4.5 times as long, 1.5 times as wide, and, ballpark estimate, over 5 times as tall as a PT-Boat. In a bow-on aspect, that means _very_ little. Destroyers have very a narrow beam (10.4 meters - roughly 35 feet). Further, being low on the water (PT boats are squat) is a distinct disadvantage to seeing pretty much the only likely giveaway of the destroyer: Its bow wake - which _also_ was being presented in its least-visible aspect. Meanwhile, the superstructure and masts on the destroyer - invisible, because, _hey_ it was _dark!_\* - would provide the destroyer much more advantageous lookout positions. Should his crew have seen the destroyer sooner? Maybe. I wasn’t present on deck, so I don’t know - and _neither was anyone else, save the crew._ After-the-fact analysis is going to do anything but reveal one’s preconceptions. \*I mean it gets DAMNED dark out to sea, far from civilization. Not _quite_ midnight in a mineshaft - but not so far off, either. I’ve been out there, and yes, even _large_ vessels vanish from view quite easily. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/32 "2017-04-11T21:15:10Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > It’s standard practice to convene a court martial when a _ship_ is lost, and I think the USN did during WW2, but PT-109 was a _boat_, not a ship (it would be designated USS-109 if it was a United States Ship). While there isn’t a strong distinction between “boat” and “ship” in casual language, they are very distinct things in the Navy. Boats are smaller, less important craft and command of a boat doesn’t count for command experience the way command of a ship does. Technically, a ship has a fixed mast, and a boat does not. Which is why submarines are called ‘boats.’ But basically, the distinction is that a PT is a minor, almost auxilliary, vessel, as opposed to a major combatant. If it were plausible that there’d been gross negligence, a formal board of inquiry might have been called. Absent that evidence, an informal finding by the squadron is suffiecient. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/33 "2017-04-11T22:26:58Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > This is not the case. > > For the loss of an aircraft, there is a mandatory mishap report. And for various ship losses, such as minor collusions and accidents there are mishap reports. But there is not always a court martial. Yeah; if it was true, every PCF skipper who lost a Swift Boat in Vietnam would have been court martialed. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/34 "2017-04-12T00:07:46Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > Should his crew have seen the destroyer sooner? Maybe. I wasn’t present on deck, so I don’t know - and _neither was anyone else, save the crew._ After-the-fact analysis is going to do anything but reveal one’s preconceptions. By same token it seems accounts from the Japanese side in later years might have been influenced by the fame of their target. It’s still not really clear AFAIK if the destroyer saw the PT boat a long time if at all before the PT saw it, or if it rammed on purpose. Early postwar accounts in English said the DD was unaware, later ones such as linked in the earlier ancient part of thread said not, but the account on Japanese wiki page for Amagiri (linked though it doesn’t machine translate very well unfortunately) says two senior officers on board gave conflicting rudder orders intending to avoid hitting the PT in case it might detonate a torpedo warhead, but in the confusion hit it. The PT was moving slowly to avoid noise and phosphorescent wake, which was really the only practical way for them to attack larger ships, so it’s not necessarily strange if it couldn’t get out of the way despite seeing the DD around the same time it was spotted. It’s only clear it didn’t spot the DD longer enough before being spotted itself to get out of the way. US PT’s had limited success hunting larger Japanese warships, succeeding in only a handful of cases, although they were considered a significant nuisance to Japanese destroyer and larger warships’ operations in the Guadalcanal campaign and later became a more serious threat to Japanese slow coastal resupply craft hunting of which, with guns, was becoming the primary mission for PT’s in the Pacific by the time of PT-109’s loss. After that action PT’s only encountered Japanese DD’s a handful more times in the Philippines campaign in 1944 (though that included two of three cases where US PT’s sank IJN DD’s; up to the sinking of PT-109 Terutsuki was the only IJN DD which had been sunk by PT’s, 11-12 Dec 1942 off Guadalcanal; Makigumo was lost near the island to a US mine on Feb 1 1943 with PT’s around). IOW failure was the norm for US PT’s offensive operations against Japanese destroyers, and PT losses to DD’s hadn’t been uncommon though not in the same circumstances. > **[天霧 (駆逐艦)](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E9%9C%A7_(%E9%A7%86%E9%80%90%E8%89%A6))** > > 天霧（あまぎり）は日本海軍の吹雪型駆逐艦13番艦。15番艦とする資料もある。吹雪型のII型で、 1930年（昭和5年）11月に竣工した。1943年（昭和18年）8月、後の米大統領ジョン・F・ケネディが艇長を務めた魚雷艇PT-109と衝突、沈没させた。ソロモン海で多数の輸送作戦に参加し激戦を生き抜いたが、1944年（昭和19年）4月にマカッサル海峡で触雷して沈没した。 > 1928年（昭和3年）9月11日、建造予定の吹雪型駆逐艦2隻に天霧と朝霧の艦名が与えられ、艦艇類別等級表に類別された。天霧は東京石川島造船所で11月28日に起工。1930年（昭和5年）2月27日に進水し、11月10日に竣工した。12月1日、天霧と朝霧 で第8駆逐隊（横須賀鎮守府籍)が編成された。 > 12月3日に夕霧 、1931年（昭和6年）1月31日に狭霧が編入され、第8駆逐隊は天霧、朝霧、夕霧、狭霧の4隻となった。4隻を霧級と呼ぶ記述もある。12月1日、第二艦隊・第二水雷戦隊に編入し、狭霧が第8駆逐隊から除かれた。1933年（昭和8年）11月15日、第8駆逐隊は第二水雷戦隊から外れ、12月11日から横須賀警備戦隊所属とな... ---
**Author:** ![Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backwater_Under_Duck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/35 "2017-04-12T01:02:35Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > Technically, a ship has a fixed mast, and a boat does not. Which is why submarines are called ‘boats.’ But basically, the distinction is that a PT is a minor, almost auxilliary, vessel, as opposed to a major combatant. Well lets see. I’ve been on a number of sailBOATS with fixed masts. so that’s probably not right. I know there are some threads, or a thread, on the subject. I tried to search, but, you know. And a submarine does, in fact, have a mast. But I might go with your other explanation if it didn’t sound like a WAG. Do you have a, um, cite? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/36 "2017-04-12T01:43:42Z")
> [@skdo23](#): > > I read a biography about William Penn when I was a kid. His father was an Admiral, and basically he would either receive a hero’s welcome or be thrown in prison whenever he returned home from battle, depending on the outcome. It was more due to his politics than his success or failure as a naval officer. He sailed on behalf of the Commonwealth under Cromwell, but was often suspected of having Royalist sympathies, and possibly even providing covert support to the Royalists. An adept sailor, he eventually saw which way the wind was blowing and was one of the naval officers who brought Charles Stuart back to England to succeed to the Restoration throne, while personally becoming a strong supporter of James, Duke of York, whom Charles put in charge of the Royal Navy. He died before James succeeded Charles, so we don’t know if he would have changed with the prevailing winds a third time. See the wiki article: [William Penn (Royal Navy officer) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn_(Royal_Navy_officer)) ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/37 "2017-04-12T02:08:37Z")
> [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](#): > > Well lets see. I’ve been on a number of sailBOATS with fixed masts. so that’s probably not right. I know there are some threads, or a thread, on the subject. I tried to search, but, you know. And a submarine does, in fact, have a mast. But I might go with your other explanation if it didn’t sound like a WAG. Do you have a, um, cite? Qualified in Submarines do it for ya? You note that Submarines have a mast (several, actually). What else do you know about submarine masts? How about - they retract… i.e. NOT fixed. Sailboat? Not a naval vessel, not subject to naval conventions. Also: I’m willing to bet you could step that mast down. Tranq Qualified in Submarines. SUBDEVGRU ONE, Det Mare Island SUBDEVGRU ONE; USS Richard B Russell (SSN 687) SUBRON3; USS Dixon (AS-37) ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/38 "2017-04-12T02:14:52Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > SUBRON3; USS Dixon (AS-37) Sorry - Misremembered - It’s been a while. SUBRON 11 ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/39 "2017-04-12T04:16:54Z")
Traditionally, the definition of a ship was that it had _three_ or more square rigged masts and a full bowsprit, not just a mast. In the modern Navy a boat is an “uncommissioned waterborne unit of the Fleet, not designated as a service craft, and capable of limited independent operation” and a ship is “a large, seagoing surface vessel having a crew quartered on board and capable of extended independent operation.” Submarines are called boats out of tradition. They started out as small submersible boats that were launched from a ship and the informal term “boat” stuck although they are officially ships. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658/40 "2017-04-12T14:21:41Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > You note that Submarines have a mast (several, actually). What else do you know about submarine masts? How about - they retract… i.e. NOT fixed. The Navy has had [at least one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_submarine_NR-1) submarine with a fixed mast. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jfk-ever-court-martialed-pt-109-loss/601658.md?page=3)