Quote:
Originally Posted by altoso99
I have a question, regarding the Sargo class, how many torpedoes did it carried?
Maybe they had the same internal storage space than Tambor, then they would have 10 foward torpedo reloads, so that would make 22 internals and 4 externals ,but the sargo is listed has having 24 torps.
Anybody can give me real life figures?
|
You seem a little confused between the two classes. It was the Salmon-class sub that had the 4 external (storage) tubes, not the Sargo-class. Both classes carried a total of 24 torpedoes (+ 4 externally in early model Salmons). Both classes had 4 forward and 4 aft torpedo tubes. Normal configuration of the after tubes was 4 loaded + 4 reloads for a total of 8 torpedoes aft. The forward torpedo room carried 4 loaded + 12 reloads.
I doubt the developers would have programmed the Salmon's external storage tubes. Details and citations from Wikipedia:
ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargo_class_submarine
The Sargo-class submarines were the first US submarines to be sent into action after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, starting war patrols the day after the attack. They were built between 1937 and 1939.
The Sargo-class submarine USS Swordfish (SS-193) had the distinction of sinking the first Japanese ship sent to the bottom by US forces in World War II.
The Sargo class was very active during the war, sinking 73 ships, including a Japanese submarine.
Armament: 8 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(four forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes [3]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun [3]
four machine guns
[3]
U.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305–311
ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_class_submarine
The United States Navy Salmon-class submarines were an important developmental step in the design of the "Fleet Submarine" concept during the 1930's. An incremental improvement over the previous Porpoise-class, these rugged and dependable boats provided yeoman service during World War II, along with their immediate successors, the similar Sargo-class.
Armament: 8 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(four forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes[4]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun[4]
four machine guns
[4]
U.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305–311
The six boats of this class (Salmon) were straight forward derivations of the later boats of the preceding Porpoise class. Although considered to be successful in most respects, valuable lessons had been learned from the Porpoises and operating experience showed the need to expand the operating envelope. The Salmons were longer, heavier, and faster versions with a better internal arrangement and a heavier armament. Two additional torpedo tubes were added to the aft torpedo room, for a total of four forward and four aft.[13] Some submariners wanted six tubes forward, but design philosophy and tactics of the day did not yet support this. However, in an effort to increase the number of torpedoes carried, four non-firing torpedo stowage tubes were installed in the superstructure below the main deck, stacked vertically, two each on either side of the conning tower. In order to access the weapons in these tubes, the boat had to surface and remove a portion of the decking on either side of the deck gun. Small boats stowed there for running sailors ashore for liberty were removed and set in the water. The weapons were extracted from the tubes one by one and winched up to the main deck. They were then placed on a raised loading skid and carefully lowered on an angle through a hatch into the forward torpedo room. This whole process took several hours to complete. The impracticality of spending several hours on the surface in enemy waters moving torpedoes below was lost on the designers. War experience led to the removal of these tubes during the boats' first wartime overhauls. [14]
[13]
A Visual Guide to the U.S. Fleet Submarines Part Two: Salmon & Sargo Classes 1936-1945 Johnston, David (2010) Navsource Naval History website, pp.2 and 4
[14] Alden, John D., Commander (USN Ret).
The Fleet Submarine in the U.S. Navy: A Design and Construction History (Annapolis, 1979), p.50