don't forget the already finished maneuver mod
by webster
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...do=file&id=942

re
 

Wouldn't it be great to have a fleetboat that could still safely operate...take a surface run out, dive down to 70 feet or so, then come up...take some tourists on.Kind of like how some B-17's do? When I was a kid(mid 90's) some B-17's came here, charged a somewhat steep fee of course, you get to take a flight inside and it was great.

Of course a submarine is different than airplane but man that would be cool, even just a surface run.

Maybe someone will fork over the money and get one working well enough to do that.

Bubblehead,

Surf back to posts #287 and 289 in this thread. The long and the short of it is that this is just not going to happen for many reasons. As much as I would love to see one of these boats get underway again (I would be the first one to volunteer for the crew!), there is no feasible or realistic way to make one of these boats safely operational, even if you had the money to do so. It would be better to build a brand new one from scratch. Now there is an idea for you, should you happen to have several hundred million dollars lying around unused! :DL

Alcohol in the Navy
 

Hello, I just read to the end this fantastic thread. In few posts earlier I was read about smoking in the navy in past and today. And after I read it, on my mind came how was the relation to the alcohol. Because I remember that in the Royla Navy every member of crew had entitlement on the day ration of rum which issuing was stoped in the 31th July 1970 (if I am right). And my question is follow. Was somthing like in this in the US Navy or it was speciality in Royal Navy? I know that sailor cannot be drunk but was in the duty strict prohibition or was permited to buy some beer in the ship canteen when he was off duty?

P. S.: Excuse me my bad english.

Welcome aboard H Nelson!

See this link: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq32-1.htm

Nuc beat me to a reply. I had to work today.

Anyway, it was Secretary Josephus Daniels that outlawed alcohol aboard USN ships in 1914. However, Pharmacists Mates and ship's doctors retained limited stocks of usually brandy or whiskey on board for "medicinal purposes" for many years afterwards. These stocks were strictly controlled by the Medical Department and quite often dispensing them required the Commanding Officer's approval.

Daniel's General Order 99 was issued on 01 Jun 1914, to take effect on 01 July 1914. Reportedly, the mood of the fleet on the evening of 30 June was "festive" as the remaining stocks were rapidly depleted. ;)

I personally think that Sec. Daniels' decision was the right one. It was an important step in the transformation of the USN into world class, professional navy. Not that a navy that allows rationed alcohol consumption on board (like the RAN) is unprofessional, it is just that the decision was the right one for the USN at the time and it reflected a cultural trend of that era.

Much has been said over the years about the military-civilian cultural "gap" that often keeps the military lagging behind the rest of the civilian world when it comes to dealing with cultural issues. There is a gap of sorts, but only because the Navy and the rest of our armed forces are forced to approach certain social issues from a different perspective. This different approach is required due to the very nature of what the armed forces does and how its' members have to be motivated and led. This gap, however, is not as large as some people would have you believe and the prohibition order of 1914 reflected this. Temperence and abstaining from alcohol consumption was a fairly strong conservative trend in our society at the time and Sec. Daniels was an adherent of this philosophy. The mere fact that he was able to issue this order without a major upheaval is evidence that he had a reasonably high level of support.

While the banning of alcohol aboard ships certainly contributed to a more professional atmosphere, the consumption of booze while ashore on liberty continued. Over the years, the popular image of the drunken sailor was continuously reinforced by sailors blowing off steam after a long run at sea. This popular passtime for shore side sailors was often easily tolerated by their command and as long as the sailor returned the the ship on time and could do their jobs once they arrived, the Navy would usually look the other way. Submariners in particular became legendary in this regard and their parties became the stuff of legends.

As we moved into the 1990's, the attitude of the USN underwent a dramatic change. American society in general became less and less tolerant of drunken behavior and alcohol related incidents and penalties and fines increased accordingly. The USN's policies mirrored that of greater society and Navy Regs began to reflect this. The USN also became very concerned over the impacts that alcohol related incidents were having in fleet wide efficiency (i.e. loss of man hours in dealing with the incident and the post incident aftermath), the loss of highly trained sailors to alcohol related deaths, and the negative publicity shined on the Navy by these incidents. It is now to the point that any sort of alcohol related incident will most likely be a career killer.

While I agree that a certain amount of boozing while ashore might be considered traditional for a sailor, I can't help but heartily agree with the policies of de-glamorizing alcohol use and the stiff penalties for its' abuse. Losing sailors to alcohol abuse is just plain stupid and the future of the Navy is at least partially dependent on maintaining a squared away and professional image in the minds of the public.

We "moderns" do not appreciate the culture of drunkenness that was a prevalent part of society up through about the 1950s. The stereotype of the hard drinking detective or newspaper man is based on a truth of the time. We do much today to fight drunk drivers and the like, but in those days the drunk was a respected member of society. The newspaper I work for still has payday on Wednesday because in the 1930s and 1940s Friday payday resulted in half the workforce too hung over on the weekend (the most important newspapers) to get the work done!

The drunk was deemed not responsible for his actions and in "Andy Griffith" type paternalism, was allowed to sleep it off in jail overnight and released without incident. The drunk sports reporter was the epitome of manhood. The "hard drinking man" was almost a hero. Even preachers were known to be drunks without impacting their status. The American military could not afford to be complacent about such an accepted lifestyle, especially in view of the profane, freewheeling, Dex-like character of its typical crew members. They lived to party, and there was a legitimate place for that. But it was not while on duty.

Given American culture of the time the military made the exactly correct decision. From our perspective in time it's almost impossible to understand the extreme difference in culture between them and us.

My first boat was the USS Blackfin SS322 out of Pearl. I picked it up in Nov 1954 and we left on a 6 month WestPac trip on Jan 3rd 1955. I did go thru sub school in New London, Conn and made a couple day cruises while in school but once you are stationed on a sub life changes a bit. Half of our crew were old WW2 sailors and some went thru some bad depth charges also. I went into the engineroom gang as they were short handed for firemen at the time. Never was sorry for this choice as I learned a lot while I moved up thru the ranks and got qualified in submarines.

One thing I hated was the damn diesel smell as it got buried into your body, cloths and always stunk. I think I had a headache from the fumes for 7 years along with the popping of the snorkle valve opening and closing. In fact I was talking with my Captain from 1955 to 1957 era and he said the snorkle done a number on his sinuses also.

Talking of booze on board ship. Hmmm. We never lacked for a drink by any means. If we knew we were going on a 30 day patrol we would stock up the lockers and had our ration daily for sure. On one occasion we made a 90 day patrol in 1959 off of Russia we loaded so much beer into the ventilation system to keep it cold it almost shut off the air to the manuvering room. Now one of the electricians knew we put the beer in there but we agreed to give him one now and then and not tell the others. As we had a good refer system installed on board in 57 it would really pump out the cold air but since the line was almost plugged in there the other electricians were always gripping how hot it was and the line wasn't working right. At the time I was an auxilaryman and they would call me up and I would say "I will look into it." Course the more beer we drank out of there the more air got into the compartment so they thought I was a wizard fixing it for them. Hehehehe...

I got to say some people had no business being sub sailors at all and should have never qualified and most of these were wardroom attendents. One night out on patrol this fellow from the wardroom had to come back and blow the crap tank in the afterbattery compartment. There were two deck drains that had to be closed and the inboard vent. The discharge valve was in the forward engine room on the stbd. side. Well he closed the valve and deck drains put some pressure in the tank then opened the overboard discharge and dumped the tank, 1100 gallons, opened the vent valve and deck drains and forgot to close the overboard valve. I was sleeping in a lower bunk about 10" off of the deck and had heard him do all of this but he left and for some reason my right arm flopped out of the bunk right into about 6" of water. I knew right away what happened so passed the word we were flooding and then jumped into the engine room and closed the valve but we were worried about getting salt water into the battery well so all lights came on and we grabbed all of the pots and pans out of the galley and was throwing the water into the engineroom. What a mess that was but luckly nothing happened.

I guess I could ramble on about other things that happened along the way but got to say we had some sharp guys on board and we all pulled together to make one hell of a working team for the Captain and the other officers. If I recall correctly we won 3 engineering E's right in a row and proudly had them painted on the sail too.
Bert

Much has been said about the relatively low rate of losses for the USN Submarine Service in WWII when compared to other navies. The most common explanation given for this situation is the comparatively inept and lackluster ASW efforts on behalf of the IJN. While this is certainly true, one other factor must be considered. The USN fleet boats were extraordinarily tough and resistant to fatal damage. When you threw in the never-say-die attitude of the well trained and experienced crews, the IJN either had to get in a very lucky shot, or wound up having to pound the living crap out of these boats to get them to sink.

Why was this? Manufacturing facilities in the United States were very modern in the 1940's. The latest technologies and techniques were being employed (such as welding) and this allowed a break with the processes of the past. Having just pulled themselves out of the Great Depression, the workers employed at these plants were very motivated to put out a quality product (they wanted to make sure they kept their jobs!). Management practices were also the best in the world, keeping the workers happy and productive and the plants humming a peak efficiency.

The result was a high quality product. The fleet boats were some of the most technologically advanced and refined submarines of the era. Production quality was very high from all facilities (Cramp Shipbuilding being the sole exception) and lessons learned and new technologies were incorporated fairly rapidly. Electric Boat did tend to drag their feet when it came to working in new gear to the boats, but pressure from the operating forces and the Navy made them see the light. Build quality, however, was never in question.

Today I was doing some web surfing and came across some war damage reports that highlight the toughness of the fleet boats. It is very interesting reading. There are some great photos and very informative color plates. Some of the passages in these reports give me the shivers because I know what conditions inside these boats must have been like.

Report of the USS Kingfish (SS-234) damage from depth charges off Formosa, 23 March 1943. This attack damage was one of the prime factors leading to the deletion of the access hatch in the aft bulkhead of the conning tower. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...8/WDR58-5.html

Report of the USS Tunny (SS-282) damage from depth charges off Palau, 26 August 1943. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...8/WDR58-6.html

Report of the USS Scamp (SS-277) damage from aerial depth charge off Mindanao, 7 April 1944. I quote the following from the report because it is extraordinary: "The deformation which occurred to both the inner and outer hull structures as a result of this attack is the most severe known to have been survived by any U.S. submarine during World War II."
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...8/WDR58-9.html

The next one is the report of the damages sustained by the USS Salmon (SS-192) from depth charges on 30 October 1944. This is one of the most incredible stories of survival that I have ever read.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...8/WDR58-7.html

In all of these cases the superb construction quality of the boats and the nearly superhuman efforts of the crew brought the boats home. If the IJN had been slightly more persistant, we could very well have lost four more boats.

Now, for an example of what it really takes to sink a fleet boat, take a look at this report. It concerns the USS Tang (SS-306) and her loss to a circular run of a Mk 18-1 torpedo. The fact that anyone survived the catastrophic damage she endured is testament to the well trained and disciplined crew.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/.../WDR58-10.html

I'm sorry I wasn't around when this was posted, because I've done a lot of research on how ships turn, and the surprise is that unlike cars and planes, a ship doesn't go fast enough to force a wider turn radius, and since at 40 knots or less the action on the rudder is dependent on the speed, the faster a ship goes the tighter it turns.

Specific numbers I have include the trials of the battleship HMS Dreadnought. At 12 knots it took her more than a minute to turn her first 45 degrees, while at 21 knots it took 40 seconds. After that she accelerated into the turn and was turning about 135 degrees per minute at 21 knots. Of course a ship that size creates a lot of drag, and she lost about 3 knots per minute doing that.

Most destroyers' listed tactical diameters give their best turning at around 20 knots, but you can bet a DD at 12 knots is indeed going to outturn a submarine going 8. And lose a lot less speed doing it.

So can a ship/boat actually turn 'too fast'? And what would the consequences be?
I know what happens to cars and bikes (I'm an amateur racer and a certified motorsport marshal), I can even imagine what happens to tracked vehicles but imagination fails me when 'floaters' are concerned.
For a few years now my town hosts one of the inshore European speedboat championship races*. Everytime I'm surprised to see those boats not slowing at all for a tight switchback around a buoy and still make the turn. I see it but I don't understand it. The only problem these guys seem to have is hitting the wake of a competitor and nosing down into the water. That stops them pretty damn fast.

* Here's a picture of one of the fastest classes, O-700 I think:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tila_Havas.jpg

If by "too fast" you mean fast enough to lose control, then no. They use what is called a "discplacement hull", which means they sit in the water, and when they turn they tend to heel outward. This can seem to be fairly extreme, but under normal circumstances they just can't go fast enough to get into trouble.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...Steve/6148.jpg


And:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Encki1BzXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbIO...eature=related

A boat on the other hand uses a "planing hull", which sits on top of the water. This lets them achieve much higher speeds, and when they turn they lean into the turn. This includes PT boats, which in WW2 weight upwards of 50 tons. They also weren't fast enough to lose their grip, but a high-speed racing boat certainly can. In even a slight chop one of those is sometimes bouncing completely out of the water, and in a turn can do exactly what a car does - get just a little too tight into the turn, lose its grip and flip right over. And over, and over, and over.

Thanks for clearing this up. And yeah, those speedboats usually (as in: straight line with throttle fully open) contact the water just by their propellers/rudders. I've noticed some lower class speedboats with v-shaped bottoms sometimes hop excessively even on a relatively clam lake, with some taking a list on wither left or right side with every hop. Looks dangerous, possibly some ballast problem?

Dave: was there any standard as to how many 3" and 4" deck gun rounds were carried on average during a patrol? I have read the wartime standard for the 5"/25 was 75 rounds, but finding an answer for the other two calibers still eludes me.