Talk:USCGC Taney

Dcsutton (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC) USCGC Taney is now run by Historic Ships in Baltimore

In the bottom it states that the ship is cared for by Baltimore Maritime Museum, this has now been transferred under Historic Ships in Baltimore, Pier One/301 East Pratt Str. Balimore MD 21202.....I am Dan Sutton:Chief of Ships, Facilities and Collection Care @ Historic Ships elided Dcsutton (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! DMacks (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I hid your contact info to prevent spam. Anyone who really wants it would still be able to find it. DMacks (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

It is claimed that Taney is "notable as the last warship floating that fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor". This statement is unsourced. Taney was not actually at Pearl Harbor during the attack and it is unconfirmed that she engaged any actual Japanese forces on that day. Moreover, the current USCG official history for Taney does not make this claim.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the references. DANFS:

The message: "Air Raid, Pearl Harbor. This is no drill" came at 0755 on 7 December, as Japanese planes swept overhead in an attempt to cripple the Pacific Fleet's retaliatory power. Taney, moored alongside Pier 6, Honolulu harbor, stood to her antiaircraft guns swiftly when word of the surprise attack reached her simultaneously. As no Japanese attacks were directed at Honolulu harbor, the Coast Guard cutter was only given the opportunity to fire at stray aircraft which happened to venture into her vicinity. She was firing upon unidentified aircraft as late as noon, indicating that the eager Coast Guardsmen were probably shooting at American planes-not Japanese.

The fact that the later firing might have been on friendly aircraft doesn't change the fact the ship did engage from Pier 6. Palmeira (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I did read the DANFS entry before I tagged the sentence. It does not support the claim that Taney "fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor" or that it is "the last warship floating" to have done so. At best, it supports the claim that Taney, on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, probably fired on American planes from miles away in Honolulu Harbor. The claim on the Hoga page re: Taney is likewise unsourced. If you have another source that supports the current wording or want to rewrite it so that it is not so misleading then feel free to do so. It does no service or honor to the Coast Guard or to the crew of Taney to so grossly misrepresent their actions on December 7, 1941.--Mox La Push (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The DANFS reference in the body is sufficient to support the intro text. The ship was an armed "warship" — enough to alternate with destroyers in pre attack patrols — and did engage during the attack on 7 December 1941. Yes, the ship was not technically inside Pearl Harbor, neither were some naval vessels "present" that engaged just outside the harbor. The ship's actual location was some six miles away from Arizona, on the other side of Hickam which was also under attack that day and is also generally included in the generic "attack on Pearl Harbor" that includes the whole December 7 attack. Palmeira (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not disputed that Taney was a warship and is still floating. However, the DANFS entry does not say nor does it support the claim that Taney "fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor." Taney was miles away from Pearl Harbor in a different harbor altogether. It says, her crew "were probably shooting at American planes-not Japanese." The DANFS entry also does not support the claim that she is the "last" of anything, except that it was "the last sea-going weather station: 'Hotel' off the coasts of Maryland and Virginia." I repeat, it does no honor to the Coast Guard nor to the crew of Taney to so grossly misrepresent Taney's service on December 7, 1941.--Mox La Push (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mox—this looks like WP:OR/failed verification, and should be removed. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This has failed verification in its current form. The best that can be said based on the DANFS source is that "Taney engaged aerial targets during the attack on Pearl Harbor". The DANFS source doesn't support the claim about being the last warship floating that fought in the Pearl Harbor attack either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The Historic Naval Ships Association states that "of the 101 U.S. fighting ships present in Hawaiian waters on 7 December 1941, Taney is the only one afloat today" here. They're not counting Hoga as a fighting ship. Here's the list from Navsource.org including Taney at Honolulu; the list at History.navy.mil does not include Coast Guard vessels. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@RobDuch: Thanks for hunting that down and sharing it.--Mox La Push (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good enough? National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: U.S.C.G.C. Taney (WHEC-37) cite that is among the existing ones, just a dead link. Agency nomination, extensively footnoted with cites, for National Register prepared by Clifford I.Tobias, Ph.D./Regional Historian, National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia:

U.S.C.G.C. Taney (WHEC-37) is of National Significance as (1) the last surviving warship which was present (and fought) at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941; and as (2) an outstanding example retaining a remarkable degree of integrity of the U.S. Coast Guard's premier class of mid-twentieth century cutters, for fifty years performing virtually all of the ocean-going duties of that proud member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

—

Taney's premier claim to fame, but by no means her only qualification for National Historic Landmark status, is that she was the last surviving warship to have been present at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Taney was berthed at Pier Six in Honolulu Harbor when the attack began at about 7:55 A.M. General quarters was sounded, and officers not on board-were ordered to return, to the ship. Within four minutes all guns were ready to fire; and Taney was soon ready to get underway. Without orders from higher authority Taney began firing at Japanese planes passing over the harbor at high altitude, using her new three-inch guns. A second and third group of planes drew Taney's fire, the latter a formation of five which flew in over:the harbor entrance, probably to bomb the power plant. This group was close enough so that 50-caliber machine guns were used as well as the three-inchers. The planes swerved up and away. (Cite: “Action Report, December 7-20, 1941, Com. L. B. Olsen to Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, At Sea, Pacific Ocean, 22 Dec. 1941,” and “USCGC Taney (WPG-37) History Data;” p. 1 Public Information Div., USCG HQ, copies in Taney File, USCG HQ.)

Bit more than a dubious claim. Palmeira (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Excerpt from DANFS entry:

"As no Japanese attacks were directed at Honolulu harbor, the Coast Guard cutter was only given the opportunity to fire at stray aircraft which happened to venture into her vicinity. She was firing upon unidentified aircraft as late as noon, indicating that the eager Coast Guardsmen were probably shooting at American planes-not Japanese."

In my opinion, the last sentence in the DANFS excerpt is speculative on the part of the DANFS editors and weakens the information given in the DANFS entry for Taney. The action report given by Commander Olsen should be given more credence in my opinion. Thank you Palmeira. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a misconception that DANFS is deeply researched by experts. I am glad to see updated DANFS that sometimes has corrections or additions that fit that description. Most of DANFS was pumped out for publication of the multi-volume print version back in the 1950s and early '60s. To do that a host of anonymous people were drafted for the effort to filter through records in ship's history files and write summaries. Not all were or had the time to be real researchers. I knew some of the later historians and librarians and got to know a bit about sourced and us-sourced material. Apparently many of the DANFS bits about "lesser" ships were thrown into the task bucket of those helping in that massive effort and handy files (remember, all paper and much in boxes) were thrown into their buckets. The best effort went into prestige ships commanded by Academy graduates or old ships notable in naval history with historical write ups at the ready. Those "feather merchant" ships and "other service" (USCG) commands reportedly, apparently and I've found evidently got more casual attention. Some merchant ship called in as an auxiliary and commanded by some reserve merchant officer? Four lines of sometimes garbled "history" that might even include completely erroneous construction information. Here is an example. Compare DANFS Governor R. M. McLane (S. P. 1328) and Governor R. M. McLane after I did a bit of digging — and there is more if I ever get around to it. The vessel has quite a history in Maryland's Chesapeake waters.

Taney was a Coast Guard ship, commanded by a Coast Guard officer naval only by USCG absorption into Navy in time of war. Not worth really digging in depth. That poor research is evident by the dismissive last sentence about firing on friendly aircraft without mention of the three flights of Japanese aircraft or being ready to fire in four minutes — just the dismissive noonish firing that would probably be on friendlies. DANFS, particularly back in the 1950s, was overly Navy careerist centric. The action report to Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District was certainly somewhere in Navy files but the author had not the interest or time to dig into a Coast Guard report to that command. DANFS is a great reference, but often biased and, among the "lesser" ships often poorly researched. I'd also say the same of those tagging articles here without checking existing cites in a bit more detail. I see a lot of random "cite needed" when the cite is two paragraphs down or in the body and someone tagged the introduction summary that does not require cites where cited in bodies. The professional historian's fully cited NRHP nomination was there all along. Palmeira (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bravo Zulu, Palmeira. The information in the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form is far more pertinent, especially since the registration was approved. If only you had taken this approach the first time around instead of simply reverting the tagging of the article and insisting, against all reason, that the DANFS entry (which you now disparage) supported the claim made in the lede. As I and other editors pointed out it did not. In any case, I sincerely salute your most recent work here as it makes for a far stronger case for the claim in the lede and for properly recognizing the Taney and her crew. Personally, as a Coast Guard veteran who served in both Pearl Harbor and Honolulu Harbor, I am glad you found a solid source for the claim. Again, well done.--Mox La Push (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just saw your deletion of that speculative DANFS bit. Agree fully. Now wait for someone to come in and challenge that because it is in the DANFS reference! Wait for it. Sorry if your "Dubious" triggered my drive by tagger irritations. All this did trigger old memories of arriving at that Pearl entrance not long after sun up and the smells of land. Every time I came into Pearl, particularly those early morning arrivals, a glance at the horizons made me think at least for a moment of the flight paths of those planes that morning. Somehow thoughts of that drive, taxi from Pearl to pick up rental at HON then drive in on Nimitz during early morning brought back memories of a specific, not unpleasant smell in that first civilian area where Taney was tied up. Sugar plant upwind around there? Interesting how thought of various Pacific islands brings one of two sensation memories of morning smell and feel. One group for the remote atolls and another group for the larger high islands. Midway or Truk or Majuro v. Hawaii or Guam or Palau. Somehow different from memories of warm Atlantic islands or ports. Palmeira (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It seems you and I visited a lot of the same Pacific ports. Honolulu has changed quite a bit since I was last there. However, with my mind's eye I can easily see the power plant in downtown Hono, Aloha Tower, Sand Island, and imagine the Taney there engaging Japanese planes from Pier 6.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The other reference was there all along. The claim you questioned stood in the article and elsewhere for a long time and your tag follows a habit of some here to tag cite needed, or dubious, or just delete where a reference exists. I expect taggers to do some due diligence, but that may be expecting too much. I dislike littering a paragraph with references but have been forced into it because I've had the tagging of lines in a paragraph where I put full citation at paragraph's end. Some even persisted when I pointed out the quote in a paragraph end cite.

Yes, the NRHP reference was there when I made my first edit. However, there was nothing in the lede or the DANFS text in the WW II section to bring it to a reader's attention with respect to the Taney's response to the attack om PH.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that DANFS did not support the ship being present during the attack on Pearl Harbor which included attacks at Hickam, and Schofield, and whether intended or not, parts of Honolulu. DANFS also supports the ship engaging from shortly after the alert. Some idiot just added the needlessly disparaging and speculative note (a bit unusual for DANFS) focusing on noonish firing. DANFS was minimally sufficient, if not the best (as is too often the case with "lesser" ships), to establish that the ship engaged and was within the area of attacks. Since you know Pearl you know that the ship's location, not far on the other side of Hickam and today's Honolulu airport from the channel entrance, was well within sight and flight path of attacking planes — some of the first non airport civilian stuff on the drive from Pearl to downtown. Anyway, the better cite is now again with a live on line link and specifically at the lines you questioned. Palmeira (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing to be gained by continuing to argue with you about the DANFS text. How about we agree that we disagree and leave it at that? As I have already indicated, I think you have significantly improved the article with the work you've recently done and I appreciate your efforts.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I'm tied up in some personal projects that limit my time to get into the article and update text and references. Break time led to another reference (I was hoping to find a link to the action report itself somewhere) with this at HyperWar's digital The Coast Guard at War — Transports & Escorts; Vol. I Escorts at at CGC TANEY. It further casts doubt on that egregious DANFS noonish friendly fire bit (my emphasis).

"When anti-aircraft fire was first observed over Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, general quarters was sounded aboard the Taney, stationed in Honolulu Harbor, and all officers not on board were ordered to return. The anti-aircraft battery on the Taney as well as all other guns were ready to fire with their full crew and three officers at their stations within four minutes after the attack begun. Steam was ordered and the vessel was ready to get underway. Without receiving orders from any source, the cutter opened fire on scattering formations of enemy aircraft passing over the harbor between 0901 and 0918, at high altitude, west to east. The 3" guns were used as the machine guns were outranged. At 1135 the Taney opened fire on a small formation of enemy planes which had passed over the city from north to south and were almost overhead at the time of firing. At 1158 a formation of five enemy planes approached the Taney directly from the SSW, over the harbor entrance, on what appeared to be a glide bombing or strafing attack on the cutter, or more probably, a bombing attack on the power plant located north of the vessel's berth at Pier 6, Honolulu. The cutter opened fire with 3 inch guns and 50 caliber machine guns after the planes were in range. There were no direct hits but the planes were rocked by the fire and swerved up and away."

That sounds like a fairly detailed description of a formation to be trigger happy Coast Guard types firing on random friendlies. Someone with time to check the timing and behavior of U.S. aircraft at that time might be able to shed light on that. Another question is whether Louis B. Olsen, later Admiral Olsen, who submitted the action report was in command that morning. He relieved Captain G. B. Gelly, USCG in early december but no exact date is given. At the bottom of the Taney section is a list of wartime commanding officers: December 1941 to September 1942 — OLSEN, Louis B., Commander. It appears Olsen took the ship to sea on those patrols from 7-20 December covered by the action report, but was he in command 7 December? A CG blog says he was: "On that fateful morning 28 years ago recalls retired Adm. Louis B. Olsen of Coral Gabbles, Fla, then skipper of the Taney, "We were not caught by surprise" when planes swooped in." with an interesting reason they were not so surprised. "Retired Capt. John P. Latimer of Newport News, VA., explaining how the Taney escaped said she and the destroyer Ward were alternating patrol duty at the entrance to Pearl Harbor and the Ward was to notify the Taney if a submarine contact were made. In the early morning hours, the Ward had a firm contact." Palmeira (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Lede

In part, the lede currently says: "USCGC Taney (WPG/WAGC/WHEC-37) (/ˈtɔːni/) is a United States Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter, notable as the last warship floating that fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor, although Taney was moored in nearby Honolulu Harbor, not Pearl Harbor itself (a non-combatant vessel at Pearl Harbor, the US Navy tug Hoga, also remains afloat)."

I'd like to propose shortening it to something like this: USCGC Taney (WPG/WAGC/WHEC-37) (/ˈtɔːni/) is a United States Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter, notable as the last warship floating that fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor." I think the caveats about her location and Hoga should be placed in the WW II section or, perhaps, in an explanatory note.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I support removing that from the lede (especially the discussion about some other vessel) and instead leaving it in section that covers this era of her history. It seems like too much detail and waffling, whereas WP:LEDE says we should have a direct statement about her notability and summary statements covering the major areas of content. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good; however, if you take that on and are up to it you might look at the whole WW II section using the reference I noted above. The one USCG reference, U.S. Coast Guard Cutter History, is gone in a purge of on line CG history some years ago (concurrent with move to Homeland Security if I recall). HyperWar's digital The Coast Guard at War — Transports & Escorts; Vol. I Escorts at at CGC TANEY is a better replacement as (if I recall) the Cutter History pieces were fairly brief. In any case the original, from the Historical Section, Public Information Division, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters, is worth integrating. A sanity check of the WW II section against that might be an improvement. I had time to check the Pearl Harbor article and it states the attacks were over in 90 minutes so the post 1100 targets were probably friendlies — a not at all unusual thing that day and indeed throughout the war. Another improvement, if you are up to it, is getting rid of that damn general DANFS incorporation statement for something other than a cut 'n paste of DANFS and other references are used. Which statements are DANFS? Conversion to in line cites is worth doing here. Palmeira (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira:@Mox La Push: Check this page: https://www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Article/2055194/taney-1936/

The information is still on the Coast Guard Historian's site, but it is just almost impossible to find under the "New and Improved" format. I believe it was about 2017 when the Historian's Office made the move to the Department Of Defense format, leaving hundreds of Wikipedia's Coast Guard articles adrift and references returning only a "404" message. I spoke with the Historian and his reply was they were doing the best they could with the resources at hand. As a retired Coast Guardsman, I understood completely...always a tight budget. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mox La Push: your revision looks good and helps clarify the introduction and 7 December coverage. @Cuprum17: your find must be the old Cutter cite updated. Whole paragraphs are simply copies of that reference, not of DANFS which has some similar wording but not exact. I've just updated that dead link with your find and added cites to some of the copied paragraphs. I also deleted the general DANFS source statement because it obviously was not the source. I added, more for a "bookmark" than use, one precise statement about the ship's departure 8 December 1941 from the USCG series The Coast Guard at War reproduced digitally at HyperWar. It appears that reference does have additional information. I would use it in an extensive revision of this piece if I had time now. Anyway, it is a marker in the article now for anyone to expand upon. I also made changes in the infobox, removing prefix (not part of name) and adding breifly used full name. The designation changes should not be part of the name and are fully covered in the text. Palmeira (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback and other contributions. I've changed the lede but I don't have the time and energy just now to work on the WW II section.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

USS Hoga

On entering San Francisco Bay she was met but fire-boats from San Francisco and Oakland. The Oakland fire boat "City of Oakland " was the ex Navy harbor tug USS Hoga YT-146 that had been stationed in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1041. during the attack she rescued Sailors and Marines out of the water, helped fight fires on different ships, and assisted the USS Nevada grounding to keep the channel out of Pearl Harbor clear. The Navy loaned it to Oakland about 1948 and it was returned about 1962. The Navy then offered it as a museum ship. The Arkansas inland Maritime Museum picked it up. The Hoga has been restored to how she looked at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941 and is 90 percent operational.

This has been added [1][2] and reverted twice now, so let's discuss.

Aside from the lack of sourcing, this seems to be a very trivial set of details about the Hoga which is only tangentially related to WHEC-37. A sentence about the last two vessels afloat from Pearl Harbor meeting each other in San Francisco Bay could be suitable if reliable sources treating it as a significant event can be found, but even that is a stretch. The other details certainly do not belong as readers can find them at Hoga (YT-146). –dlthewave ☎ 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)