It's always seemed terribly unjust to me that a number of probably fine submarine commanders were relived of command for timidness when in fact poor performance in sinking enemy ships could easily be attributed to issues with the Mark XIV torpedo, whose myriad problems are laid out by /u/kieslowskifan in this great comment from last year.

In that same discussion, /u/DBHT14 talks about the way that the Mark XIV's issues were explained away by laying responsibility on the commanders rather than on hardware.

I've read quite a number of submarine memoirs from the war, and of course, the issues with the torpedo design is a common theme for any involving a US Navy sub. I know that there surely were some sub commanders who weren't ready for war patrols and unrestricted submarine warfare, but surely others were all but branded as cowards through no fault of their own.

Did any of those commanders get second chances at command, whether on a submarine or a surface ship, or was being relieved for not being aggressive enough simply too big a black mark to overcome, even in light of the technical issues revealed later?

EDIT: sorry, didn't realize it's funeral week, feel free to remove this if it's not appropriate. I'm not sure if there's a way to remove the "funeral" tag from the question