Talk:USS Reuben James (DD-245)

message: The fact box says that the crew numbered 101 officers and men. The text of the entry says the crew totaled 159 of which 44 survived. I'm not taking sides here regarding American particpation in the war at that point, but can someone who knows more about the US Navy than I do clarify which number is correct? Thanks. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: United States Navy ships were allocated different numbers of men for routine peacetime operation and maintenance, versus wartime when increased numbers of watch-standers were required to provide faster response to combat situations.  The actual number aboard at any given time varied somewhat with sickness or injuries and transportation arrangements for replacements.  I would speculate 101 might be the nominal peacetime manning level when the ship was built; and 159 were aboard at the time of sinking.Thewellman (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How large was the crew? 

message: First of all, the US was in direct violation of the neutral combatants treaty by escoring vessels carrying munitions bound for a combatant country.
Secondly, there were no 'wolfpacks' at that time, they developed years later.  Subs were lone wolves then.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Reuben James, not the sub, was the aggressor.  It had detected and engaged the sub, and enegaged in depth charge attacks while the sub was actually leaving the area of the convoy being escorted.  It was only after the sub suffered considerable damage from the attack, that she stopped fleeing and instead turned and sank the ancient DD the RJ.
I am afraid many Americans make judgements based on what they have been told, rather than what actually happened!
72.161.28.90 (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of escalating incidents occurred following Franklin Roosevelt's 9 August 1941 decision for the United States Navy to escort convoys to the British Isles using ships identical to the British Town class destroyers which had been escorting these convoys since the 2 September 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement.  The 4 September 1941 Greer incident and 17 October 1941 torpedoing of USS Kearny are sometimes confused with the events surrounding the later sinking of Reuben James.Thewellman (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were we NOT told about the sinking of the RJ? 

message: Edited by author of post: this was made in error.  comment removed.
158.145.224.33 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between Erich Topp page and RJ page 

message: It seems a bit odd to state, as the article does, that this was the first US vessel to be sunk in WWII, when the US wasn't even in the war yet.  There should at least be some explanation of this conundrum.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the statement is based upon an assumption that World War II began with declarations of war associated with the invasion of Poland in 1939.  Americans tend to focus on the United States declaration of war two years later, but some historians suggest earlier hostilities in Ethiopia, China and Spain might be considered part of the conflict.  Some suggest sinking of the United States Navy gunboat Panay by Japanese aircraft in 1937 should be considered the first.  There were also a number of United States flagged merchant ships (privately owned by United States companies rather than commissioned warships) sunk before Reuben James.  The American freighter City of Rayville was sunk on 9 November 1940 by German mines off Australia.Thewellman (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect. The USA was not involved directly in World War 2 when this ship was sunk. In fact, American public opinion was so overwhelmingly isolationist prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, that the media buried the story at the time. 63.155.136.145 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sunk in WWII? 

message: I think the Frigate in the Hunt For Red October was not only named for, it WAS FFG-57, the Perry-class frigate in present commission...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.66.10 (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red October?! 

message: I would like to add a tidbit of information to the sinking of the USS Reuben James.  My former neighbor and pinochle partner, John S. McCune, was the Chief Warrant Officer in charge of the engine room on the USS Reuben James at the time she was sunk.  He violated standing policy, and in so doing, without orders, knowing something terrible had happened to the ship, he shut down the engines which were now pushing the remaining rear two-thirds of the ship under the water.  The torpedo hit had been in the ward room, almost directly under the bridge and most of the crew was in the forward one half of the ship in their quarters.  John's actions saved the lives of the 44 men who were on duty in the engine room.  John passed away around 1998 in his 90's.  He also served on the USS Enterprise afterward and was aboard for the Doolittle Raid and Midway.  Halsey called him 'the old man' as John had first served in the Texas Nat'l Guard chasing Poncho Villa across the Rio Grande in like 1917, John had first joined up when he was about 16 yrs old and went in the Navy in 1919 or 1920.  He had his twenty in before being recalled prior to WWII. John had also been in China during the sinking of the USS Panay.  He really did get around in his time in the Navy.  He was even on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay for the formal signing ceremony of surrender as the one allowed guest of his ship's captain, the USS Wichita, aboard which he was holding the temporary rank of Lt. Commander.  Like I said, John really got around and was honored to be at the surrender ceremony considering that he was aboard the first casualty of the shooting war for the U.S. when the Reuben James was sunk.  Ironic, but all true. John had the medals to prove it, including a Purple Heart for injuries suffered when the Enterprise was hit off of Guadalcanal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.6.152 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, PLEASE stop with your nonsense. Jersey John (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking of USS Reuben James 

message: The photograph of a burning and sinking ship that one finds in a search under "U S S Reuben James 245; photographs" is not of the Reuben James.  The sinking ship has a stern with a "fantail" construction, whereas the Reuben James b y comparison has a stern with a "torpedo" construction.  The photo appears to have been taken from the air, but there were no aircraft present at the sinking.  Also, the sinking ship appears to be smaller than the Reuben James.   The credits are:  photos - ronald.d.greenberg.uss.reuben.james sites.google.com 600 × 486  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.215.100 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Photograph of Sinking, Burning Ship Not of Reuben James 

message: I don't recall hearing of this sinking before. I'm curious about the complete absence of anything in the article on the results of the sinking. I'd have thought that sinking a US warship with significant loss of life would have had some consequences. Was it just lost in the events of December soon afterwards? Was it not well-publicized in the US? Seems like the article would be improved with at least something explaining this. CAVincent (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath?