I'm watching Run Silent, Run Deep on TCM. Question.
 

Why are they starting attacks on the surface? They always go til they get detected and THEN dive.

Why? Just go in silent, kill, go out silent. :hmmm:

He (Cdr Richardson aka Clark Gable) wants to kill the Akakazi, Bungo Pete, the merchants don't really count. The destroyer is running at high speed and constantly changing course so the surface attack is the lure to set up the "down the throat" shot. Otherwise it would be next to impossible to hit and since he credited Bungo Pete with the destruction of his previous boat, the ambush makes sense in the fictional context of the story.

Ah. Right. Makes sense...

That was a very good movie. I understand why it is one of the best sub movies out there. :rock:

it is a very good movie. However the only resemblence between the book and the movie are the names of the main characters and that it takes place on a US submarine during WWII.

If you've never read the book, I'd highly recommend it, along with the other two books in the "trilogy"- "Dust on the Sea" and "Cold is the Sea".

:)

Early in the war, the accepted U.S. doctrine was to attack submerged, well below periscope depth. Hydrophone bearings only were used for TDC data. As the war went on, more aggressive captains met with greater success by using the surfaced attack method. The "Mark I Eyeball" was found to be a much more effective means of gathering torpedo firing solutions than trying to use only a hydrophone. A submarine operating on the surface was not vulnerable to hydrophone detection, and its low profile was very hard to spot in darkness. Sub captains found that they could get in close, get an accurate firing solution and escape on the surface without fear of detection.

So there you have it.

Very good movie?! I have serious doubts about that.

First, what’s the ping sound we heard in all the scenes? Even when surfaced?
Two, Destroyer Mamo missing its shots? All of the planes missing???
Three, Destroyer Akakazi even didn’t tried to fire on the sub ? What’s that ?

Six forward tubes all fired from port side :06:

I think this movie is too American where US always wins no matter what happens. Best sub movie you said? :down: :down: :down:

Well the movie was made in 1958, special effects of that time weren't that great. It's pretty obvious they used models in a few shots. And last time I checked, the US did defeat the Japanese.

The enemy below was made in 1957 and the special effects were better in my opinion.


I meant individual situations like in this case, surfaced sub vs destroyer and surfaced sub vs planes. If a destroyer detects a surfaced sub, the best action to take is definetly heading for a collision with the sub, don't mind to try shooting at it, since the guns they carry is just for appearance :D

Well I haven't seen The Enemy Below so I can't speak about it's special effects. The best action to take regarding a destroyer spotting a surfaced submarine is definitely to head towards it, but not just to ram it. The guns on a destroyer are certainly for more than just show. Against a submarine a 4 or 5in shell will ruin any subs day if it puts a hole in the pressure hull. It also takes time to close to the location of the sub. Why wouldn't you fire as you went?

You didn't understood me. In the movie Mamo destroyer tries to shoot at the sub and misses all the rounds, BUT Akakazi Destroyer never tried to shoot at the sub. That’s my point, that’s why I didn’t like the move, that’s why I told "No matter what US wins". Image 3-6 aircraft waiting for the sub and all of them misses (That's what happened in the movie) ???

Here, the scene :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc0jsVHKO3E

I understand. Any destroyer closing on a submarine less than a mile away would be shooting, and probably hitting.

Here's another one. The movie opens with Clark Gable's sub getting sunk. In the Bungo Suido, which is the channel from the Pacific to the Inland Sea. There are survivors. Why weren't they picked up by the Japanese and made prisoners of war? Or just shot in the water. Much more importantly, how were they rescued and taken back to America?

The movie is full of holes. The only reason I cut them any slack at all was that it was made during the period following the war, and the wartime feelings were still there. Other than getting to see real subs do their thing, it's not that good.

Oh, and I thought most of the effects were great. The freighter getting torpedoed and exploding was a model, not actual war footage.

There were documented instances of Destroyers going in to ram Submarines in WWII with guns blazing. One battle even resulted in the Destroyer becoming lodged in the Submarine (much like in TEB) and the crews of their respective ships fighting it out with their small arms (because the main armaments of the Destroyer cannot depress at such an angle).

I seem to recall in the book the survivors are left to die but are rescued by an American boat that responded to a distress radio call. It's been a while and Ned Beach's Dust on the Sea was the better book (IMHO) but was never made into a film. Obviously the producers opted for the "Once out of the hole, our hero..." dramatic license popular in serial dramas of the time.

Complaints about "realism" or lack thereof in film or TV are always so amusing.

As for ramming, on 10 September 1941 HMCS Moose Jaw, Lt Fred Grubb hit U-501 broadside to broadside in heavy seas and the boat's captain, KK Hugo Forester took the opportunity to jump from his conning tower onto Moose Jaw's deck. A rather interesting method of surrendering.

Moose Jaw's 4" gun had jammed.

Here's a link:

U-501

The book Canadian Naval Chronicles (Fraser McKee and Robert Darlington) goes into more details about this unusual action than the website.

USS Borie vs U-405:
http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdec...1503&pid=21504

USS Buckley vs U-66:
http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-66BuckleyReport.htm