Real Submarine Technology & History Q&A - Page 13

Stealhead · 04-21-09, 02:51 PM

Seems to me based on several skipper written books that the watch system was diffrent from boat to boat. I think in alot of respects this is hard one to answer as the system used on each sub varied so much there are diffrent answers depending on what sub and who was in command of it how it was done. Though clearly no matter the system used it was what was felt to be most effective by the given commander.

Rip · 04-21-09, 08:37 PM

I've never read any that spoke to anything other than the officer rotations and their battle stations roles. I find it hard to believe that enlisted watchstations were different from boat to boat. If so they went from no standards to totally standardized pretty fast. Shoot we had a stack of manuals that dictated watchstations that must be manned as well as EXACTLY what the interaction or orders and responses were for every evolution that watchstander might perform. Not to mention very specific responsibilities readings to take. All the way down to flushing the toilet. Procedure for everything and this is in the mid eighties.

DaveyJ576 · 04-23-09, 08:06 AM

Luke, Rip, and Stealhead,

I had to do some poking around on the issue of watchstanding organization. In the 1980's we had some pretty strict guidance as to how to set up the watch stations, and this continues to an even greater extent today.

In the 1940's, a Ship's Organization Manual existed (specific for each class or type of ship) that, among other things, outlined the watchstanding requirements for the ship. This was the guideline for the captain, the XO, and the COB when they organized the watches. Prior to the war, this was pretty rigidly enforced and all of the boats should have been organized the same.

Once the war started, because they had more pressing things to worry about, the navy brass kind of let some of the rigid inspections go by the wayside. As long as the captain could demonstrate that he could safely operate his boat, and as long as he could sink ships, he was given a fair degree of latitude to organize the way he wanted to. This would account for the variations that you guys have noticed. I should emphasize that the SOM was a document borne out of experience and in all reality you can't deviate a whole lot from it without becoming inefficient or unsafe.

Without having the manual in front of me, I would say that the typical fleet boat engine room would probably have a 1st Class Motor Machinist Mate in charge in the room, along with two to three assistants, 2nd class and below. This would be duplicated for the other engine room, with one Chief Petty Officer in charge of both rooms. This arrangement would be duplicated again for the other watch sections, which there was usually three.

The control room would typically have a Motor Mac at the air manifold, one at the trim and drain manifold and 1 to 2 Quartermasters at the chart table for navigation (in the Navy a Quartermaster is a navigator, not a supply clerk). Once the boat submerged, the lookouts would come below and man the diving planes (these could be any rate, it didn't matter), and a Chief or officer would become the Diving Officer, supervising the planesmen.

The Chief of the Boat (COB) was the senior Chief Petty Officer on the boat. This position was appointed by the captain and he acted as a liaison between the crew and the officers. Since he was the one who was the most familiar with the capabilities and qualifications of the crew, the COB was the one who maintained the Watch, Quarter, and Station Bill. This was a large organizational chart that divided the crew into watch sections, told them which watch station they were assigned to (for normal steaming, battle stations, maneuvering watch, etc.), which rack they were assigned to, and what their assignment was for Field Day (cleaning up the ship). The WQSB was usually posted in Crew's Mess and the Control Room.

Stealhead · 04-23-09, 01:37 PM

I am basing my thoughts on two skipper written and one officer written book; "Silent Running:My years on a WWII submarine", "Thunder Below" by Fluckley(skipper) and "Take Her deep" by Galatin (skipper) and of what they each describe about this subject it is pretty clear that at this time period it was allowed by the higher ups for the skippers to have thier own watch systems and each one was quite diffrent form the next in "Running" which was mainly aborad the Jack the author describes that the XO ran a cycle shift for the lookouts where everyman elisted man in the crew had stood watch for 15 or so minutes and then the next guy came up for 15 and so and so on. While in "Take Her Deep" and "Thunder Below" the lookouts stood much longer watches so that clearly shows that there was much skippers(and his top enlisted) say in how each given sub was going to run its watchlists. based on my 12 years in the US Air Force I know that there are of course a lot regulations out there for every single thing and often for the higher ups there can often be alot of intreptaion as to how to follow them. I can recall sweating bullets once when I was a very young green airman when QA come to inspect the equipment that I had just phase inspected. The QA and my supervisor his supervisor and our E-8 where all standing over the T.O. and workcards for this device trying figure something out. In the end I learned that they had found some steps in the T.O. and workscards that did not really describe correctly how do something even the QA guys where stumped on it. But in the end after about 2 hours of talking and calling who knows over the landline they figured that I had done the procedure "correctly" and then they put in a change into the system. It was simular to the day I got married oddly enough.

Another thing you have to recall is in a wartime situation alot of the stricter silly rules that have no real effect in combat get tossed out the window. I bet that the high brass in the Navy was more lax on the submarine force in this respect in such a small vessel you need to have the men working as a team to the max and you get that by letting the skipper,senior officers and senoir enlisted men run things a bit more in their own way. Alot of the rules a regulations are written by some desk jockey that hasent done what he is making regulations about in years. You have to know when not to go by the book.

LukeFF · 04-23-09, 07:41 PM

Thanks, Dave. That means, then, that I pretty much got it right WRT RFB's crew setups. I just wanted to comment on one thing you wrote here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyJ576

The control room would typically have a Motor Mac at the air manifold, one at the trim and drain manifold and 1 to 2 Quartermasters at the chart table for navigation (in the Navy a Quartermaster is a navigator, not a supply clerk). Once the boat submerged, the lookouts would come below and man the diving planes (these could be any rate, it didn't matter), and a Chief or officer would become the Diving Officer, supervising the planesmen.

In the Fleet Sub Manual, it notes that the Quartermaster of the Watch was stationed on the bridge during surface running and functioned as an all-around lookout, along with his other duties inherent as a QM. Most rosters I have seen typically consist of only 3-4 Quartermasters/Signalmen, so that makes me wonder just how much navigation at the chart table the Quartermaster of the Watch would do while the boat was running on the surface. Of course, the Fleet Sub Manual was based on just one boat, so of course things could have been much different on other boats.

Quote:

20B5. Quartermaster of the watch. The quartermaster of the watch normally is stationed on the bridge, aft when cruising, and may exchange with the OOD if ordered. He is an additional all-around lookout and does not restrict his search to any one sector unless so ordered by the officer of the deck.

The quartermaster is responsible under the direction of the OOD for the following routine duties:

Break out binoculars, dark glasses, proper flares, and blinker tube prior to surfacing; also issue lens paper to lookouts.

Obtain warmer clothing or rainclothing for lookouts.

Change flares at the proper time.

Check TBT's upon surfacing each night.

Wipe the periscope windows on surfacing and 15 minutes before routine dives.

Operate the periscope, keep the periscope officer informed of depth, and read and record bearings when submerged.

Keep the conning tower clean, and all gear properly stowed when submerged.

Check columns of deck log after being relieved to make sure that the proper entries have been made. Do this in the control room.

Once every hour on surface, check the lookouts' glasses for cleanliness and proper setting.

DaveyJ576 · 04-24-09, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LukeFF

In the Fleet Sub Manual, it notes that the Quartermaster of the Watch was stationed on the bridge during surface running and functioned as an all-around lookout, along with his other duties inherent as a QM. Most rosters I have seen typically consist of only 3-4 Quartermasters/Signalmen, so that makes me wonder just how much navigation at the chart table the Quartermaster of the Watch would do while the boat was running on the surface. Of course, the Fleet Sub Manual was based on just one boat, so of course things could have been much different on other boats.

Luke,

Good info. I had not seen that part of the manual. I was basing my presumptions on procedures that we followed in the 80's. I was a qualified QMOW and the only time I went to the bridge while on watch was upon surfacing. I was the first man up the ladder to the bridge and did the initial lookout sweep. As soon as the OOD and the designated lookout arrived I went below and back to my chart table.

As for the WWII procedures on the fleet boats, probably what was going on was that the designated QMOW had an assistant that stayed below and maintained the navigational data on the chart and kept up the deck log. Navigation is a fine art and requires constant attention. Someone has to maintain the chart so I would assume (I sometimes don't like that word!

) that there was an assistant QM on watch. This assistant could also be a non-rated Seaman or even another rate such as Yeoman that qualified for the watch. As you said, it probably varied a little from boat to boat.

eljeffo41 · 04-24-09, 04:56 PM

During wartime what did they do with the windows in the conning tower?Did they paint over them or weld them shut?They seem like they would cause trouble due to glare or being destroyed by depth charges!I think I read something about it here, I just can't remember what was said.BTW this thread just gets better and better! I thought I knew alot about submarines, I was wrong!

Nisgeis · 04-26-09, 01:08 PM

They just removed the windows in the superstructure and left the holes there. There was a porthole in the pressure vessel of the early conning towers and they also were removed as they leaked during depth charge attacks, I can't remember if they tried patching them, but found the patches leaked, or if they went right ahead and replaced the entire end of the conning towers. Not sure about that.

Stealhead · 04-26-09, 08:20 PM

I bet they just removed those little windows in the portholes not a vital part of the sub in way.

DaveyJ576 · 04-27-09, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eljeffo41

During wartime what did they do with the windows in the conning tower?Did they paint over them or weld them shut?They seem like they would cause trouble due to glare or being destroyed by depth charges!I think I read something about it here, I just can't remember what was said.

My family and I were in Boston this past weekend having some fun, so I couldn't reply right away.

Most of the early fleet boats (probably up to the Tambor/Gars and maybe even some of the early Gatos) had two glass eyeports that penetrated the pressure hull of the conning tower, one port side and one starboard, separate from the circular windows in the covered navigation bridge that you see in many of the pre-war photos. The intention was to let a little natural sunlight into the conning tower while the boat was surfaced. Of dubious value even in peacetime, incredibly no one thought about the liability these eyeports represented during a depth charge attack!

On her very first war patrol off Japan, USS Plunger (SS-179) was one of the first boats to receive a depth charging. On 04 January 1942 a destroyer dropped a string of charges on her that caused the port side eyeport to begin leaking. They solved the problem by using a hydraulic jack to force a rubber covered metal plate against the eyeport from inside. This stopped the leak, but it dramatically drove home what a dangerous and unnecessary luxury these eyeports were. The CO, Dave White, strongly recommended in his patrol report that the eyeports be permanently blanked off or removed and the subsequent endorsements of the patrol report heartily agreed. This proposal was quickly submitted to the General Board for submarine design and the removal of these ports was officially approved on 17 February 1942.

Torplexed · 04-27-09, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyJ576

Most of the early fleet boats (probably up to the Tambor/Gar and maybe even some of the early Gatos) had two glass eyeports that penetrated the pressure hull of the conning tower, one port side and one starboard, separate from the circular windows in the covered navigation bridge that you see in many of the pre-war photos. The intention was to let a little natural sunlight into the conning tower while the boat was surfaced. Of dubious value even in peacetime, incredibly no one thought about the liability these eyeports represented during a depth charge attack!

Very interesting...I had never heard about this feature before. I guess the only thing more useless than a screen door on a submarine is a skylight.

Sensekhmet · 04-28-09, 08:13 AM

Fantastic thread.
I just wanted to touch on two issues.
One is the condition of the S-class boats in WW2. One such boat was given to Polish Navy, the ORP Jastrzab (ex-S-25). According to crew accounts I found in J. Pertek's Wielkie dni malej floty (Small Fleet's Grand Days), the sub was heap of junk, with so many malfunctions it was scary. When even the Polish can't fix new leaks and break downs fast enough, you know you've got a problem

Second issue is the story of USS Wahoo penetrating Wewak Harbor. Navigating with a school atlas and hand-drawn charts (for example harbor depth charts were made by crew pretending they were fishing) remined me of ORP Orzel's escape from Tallinn. Charts and navigational equipment were removed from the sub but it not only reached Scotland but also decided to 'hang around' for a bit to look for something to sink.

DaveyJ576 · 04-28-09, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensekhmet

One is the condition of the S-class boats in WW2. One such boat was given to Polish Navy, the ORP Jastrzab (ex-S-25). According to crew accounts I found in J. Pertek's Wielkie dni malej floty (Small Fleet's Grand Days), the sub was heap of junk, with so many malfunctions it was scary. When even the Polish can't fix new leaks and break downs fast enough, you know you've got a problem

It is quite true that many of the S-boats were in bad shape when war came. Many of these boats had seen 15-20 years of service by that point and had been run hard by the Navy. Previous posts have pointed out that the S-class also suffered from design flaws and material issues throughout their lives. Some of the S-class boats had already been decommissioned and scrapped by 1941. Others were inspected by the INSURV board and those found acceptable for continued service were overhauled and sent back to the fleet. Some were earmarked for foreign transfer and S-25 was sent to Great Britain and renamed P-551. She was subsequently loaned to Poland and named Jastrzab.

The overhauls the boats received only gave them a temporary reprieve. By 1943 these boats were simply worn out and no amount of overhauls could change that. They were withdrawn from active combat and most were sent to training duty, with a few making the far less stressful Atlantic anti U-Boat patrols.

I would imagine that given the state of affairs at that time, the boats loaned or sold to other countries were probably barely serviceable. The USN was going to retain the boats that were in the best condition for obvious reasons. I don't believe there was a conscious effort to screw over our allies, it simply was a matter of determining priorities. The Royal Navy and Polish Navy officials that accepted these boats were fully aware of their condition and probably took the attitude that a less than optimum boat is better than nothing at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensekhmet

Second issue is the story of USS Wahoo penetrating Wewak Harbor. Navigating with a school atlas and hand-drawn charts (for example harbor depth charts were made by crew pretending they were fishing) remined me of ORP Orzel's escape from Tallinn. Charts and navigational equipment were removed from the sub but it not only reached Scotland but also decided to 'hang around' for a bit to look for something to sink.

Wahoo's foray into Wewak Harbor in New Guinea was truly a ballsy gamble. Navigation is a precise art form that demands extreme attention to details, without which your ship will come into trouble damn quick. The fact that Mush Morton, Dick O'Kane, and the crew of the Wahoo were able to pull this off using a hand drawn chart based on dubious data is remarkable to say the least. Then again, I wouldn't have expected anything less from this fine fighting crew.

LukeFF · 04-29-09, 02:11 AM

Dave,

What was it that made the Navy decide to create the Motor Machinist's Mate rating in 1942 and ultimately qualify all new submarine diesel mechanics with this new rating? (Background here: at the beginning of the war, all of the diesel mechanics in the submarine force were Machinist Mates, and this would remain so until some time in 1943). In reading the description of the two ratings, they read almost the same:

Quote:

Machinist's Mate: Operate main and auxiliary engines. Adjust, repair, and overhaul engines. Be familiar with ship's drainage systems, distilling plants, evaporators and pumps.

Quote:

Motor Machinist's Mate: Operate machine tools. Operate and maintain internal combustion engines and engine auxiliaries. Knowledge of pressure and air systems. Be familiar with electrical apparatus.

The only thing I can guess is that the Motor Mac rate dealt more with systems that interact with diesels on submarines, but wouldn't the Navy have found that out in all those years prior to the war?

DaveyJ576 · 04-29-09, 05:53 PM

Luke,

The classification system of Navy enlisted ratings (job descriptions) is a constantly changing work in progress, and has been since they were first instituted in 1885. Some of the biggest changes came during the massive expansion the Navy went through in the WWII years. Ratings were established and disestablished, their descriptions and responsibilities changed, and the abbreviations and symbols were altered to fit.

In general, a Machinist Mate (MM) would have been responsible for the operation and upkeep of auxiliary systems such as hydraulics, air, fresh water, A/C, and refrigeration. Motor Machinist Mates (MoMM) would have been operators and maintainers of diesel engines and their associated fuel oil and lube oil systems. Prior to 1942 relatively few Navy ships were powered by diesels; we had mostly a steam navy and MM's would have covered both auxiliary systems and propulsion (along with Watertenders and Boilermen). The huge expansion of the fleet combined with the maturation of diesel technology resulted in a massive increase in the use of diesels and thus created a need for a specialized diesel operator/mechanic. Motor Macs were split off from MM's in 1942. Submarines, almost being a whole different navy itself, sometimes did things differently.

I perused the sailing lists of two boats (Tang and Barb) and found no mention of MM's being onboard at all during the war. A 3rd boat (Wahoo) listed several, along with MoMM's. Probably what you are seeing here is the earlier boat (Wahoo) still retaining her MM's from the pre-war organization, and the later boats (Tang and Barb) not having any MM's due to the split with MoMM's in '42. It was probably simpler for the smaller crew of a submarine to have only one rate doing both jobs, with MM becoming mostly a surface ship rate. This is not an unusual situation for submarines and this practice continues to this day. In 1948, the name of Motor Machinist Mate was changed to Engineman (EN) and MM's returned to submarines to operate and maintain the auxiliary systems.

When you have some time, surf over to these links:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq78-4.htm

and

http://www.valoratsea.com/rate.htm

The info on the second link is not complete and has a few minor errors, but is still pretty good. Both sites should go a long way towards explaining the Navy's rather arcane enlisted rating system. I can also highly recommend the book Complete Guide to United States Navy Medals, Badges, and Insignia: World War II to Present by James G. Thompson (ISBN 1-884452-53-1). There is a little bit of missing information, but it is still pretty reliable.

04-23-09, 01:37 PM	#184
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I am basing my thoughts on two skipper written and one officer written book; "Silent Running:My years on a WWII submarine", "Thunder Below" by Fluckley(skipper) and "Take Her deep" by Galatin (skipper) and of what they each describe about this subject it is pretty clear that at this time period it was allowed by the higher ups for the skippers to have thier own watch systems and each one was quite diffrent form the next in "Running" which was mainly aborad the Jack the author describes that the XO ran a cycle shift for the lookouts where everyman elisted man in the crew had stood watch for 15 or so minutes and then the next guy came up for 15 and so and so on. While in "Take Her Deep" and "Thunder Below" the lookouts stood much longer watches so that clearly shows that there was much skippers(and his top enlisted) say in how each given sub was going to run its watchlists. based on my 12 years in the US Air Force I know that there are of course a lot regulations out there for every single thing and often for the higher ups there can often be alot of intreptaion as to how to follow them. I can recall sweating bullets once when I was a very young green airman when QA come to inspect the equipment that I had just phase inspected. The QA and my supervisor his supervisor and our E-8 where all standing over the T.O. and workcards for this device trying figure something out. In the end I learned that they had found some steps in the T.O. and workscards that did not really describe correctly how do something even the QA guys where stumped on it. But in the end after about 2 hours of talking and calling who knows over the landline they figured that I had done the procedure "correctly" and then they put in a change into the system. It was simular to the day I got married oddly enough. Another thing you have to recall is in a wartime situation alot of the stricter silly rules that have no real effect in combat get tossed out the window. I bet that the high brass in the Navy was more lax on the submarine force in this respect in such a small vessel you need to have the men working as a team to the max and you get that by letting the skipper,senior officers and senoir enlisted men run things a bit more in their own way. Alot of the rules a regulations are written by some desk jockey that hasent done what he is making regulations about in years. You have to know when not to go by the book. Last edited by Stealhead; 04-23-09 at 02:07 PM.

04-24-09, 04:56 PM	#187
eljeffo41 Seaman Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Las Vegas,Nevada Posts: 36 Downloads: 318 Uploads: 0	conning tower windows During wartime what did they do with the windows in the conning tower?Did they paint over them or weld them shut?They seem like they would cause trouble due to glare or being destroyed by depth charges!I think I read something about it here, I just can't remember what was said.BTW this thread just gets better and better! I thought I knew alot about submarines, I was wrong! __________________ The man at the wheel was taught to feel contempt for the wildest blow. It often appeared when the weather had cleared he'd been in his bunk below!

04-26-09, 01:08 PM	#188
Nisgeis Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,909 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 11	They just removed the windows in the superstructure and left the holes there. There was a porthole in the pressure vessel of the early conning towers and they also were removed as they leaked during depth charge attacks, I can't remember if they tried patching them, but found the patches leaked, or if they went right ahead and replaced the entire end of the conning towers. Not sure about that. __________________ -------------------------------- This space left intentionally blank.

04-21-09, 02:51 PM	#181
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Seems to me based on several skipper written books that the watch system was diffrent from boat to boat. I think in alot of respects this is hard one to answer as the system used on each sub varied so much there are diffrent answers depending on what sub and who was in command of it how it was done. Though clearly no matter the system used it was what was felt to be most effective by the given commander.

04-21-09, 08:37 PM	#182
Rip Commodore Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right behind you! Posts: 643 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 0	I've never read any that spoke to anything other than the officer rotations and their battle stations roles. I find it hard to believe that enlisted watchstations were different from boat to boat. If so they went from no standards to totally standardized pretty fast. Shoot we had a stack of manuals that dictated watchstations that must be manned as well as EXACTLY what the interaction or orders and responses were for every evolution that watchstander might perform. Not to mention very specific responsibilities readings to take. All the way down to flushing the toilet. Procedure for everything and this is in the mid eighties.

04-23-09, 08:06 AM	#183
DaveyJ576 Officer Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 241 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	Luke, Rip, and Stealhead, I had to do some poking around on the issue of watchstanding organization. In the 1980's we had some pretty strict guidance as to how to set up the watch stations, and this continues to an even greater extent today. In the 1940's, a Ship's Organization Manual existed (specific for each class or type of ship) that, among other things, outlined the watchstanding requirements for the ship. This was the guideline for the captain, the XO, and the COB when they organized the watches. Prior to the war, this was pretty rigidly enforced and all of the boats should have been organized the same. Once the war started, because they had more pressing things to worry about, the navy brass kind of let some of the rigid inspections go by the wayside. As long as the captain could demonstrate that he could safely operate his boat, and as long as he could sink ships, he was given a fair degree of latitude to organize the way he wanted to. This would account for the variations that you guys have noticed. I should emphasize that the SOM was a document borne out of experience and in all reality you can't deviate a whole lot from it without becoming inefficient or unsafe. Without having the manual in front of me, I would say that the typical fleet boat engine room would probably have a 1st Class Motor Machinist Mate in charge in the room, along with two to three assistants, 2nd class and below. This would be duplicated for the other engine room, with one Chief Petty Officer in charge of both rooms. This arrangement would be duplicated again for the other watch sections, which there was usually three. The control room would typically have a Motor Mac at the air manifold, one at the trim and drain manifold and 1 to 2 Quartermasters at the chart table for navigation (in the Navy a Quartermaster is a navigator, not a supply clerk). Once the boat submerged, the lookouts would come below and man the diving planes (these could be any rate, it didn't matter), and a Chief or officer would become the Diving Officer, supervising the planesmen. The Chief of the Boat (COB) was the senior Chief Petty Officer on the boat. This position was appointed by the captain and he acted as a liaison between the crew and the officers. Since he was the one who was the most familiar with the capabilities and qualifications of the crew, the COB was the one who maintained the Watch, Quarter, and Station Bill. This was a large organizational chart that divided the crew into watch sections, told them which watch station they were assigned to (for normal steaming, battle stations, maneuvering watch, etc.), which rack they were assigned to, and what their assignment was for Field Day (cleaning up the ship). The WQSB was usually posted in Crew's Mess and the Control Room.

04-26-09, 08:20 PM	#189
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I bet they just removed those little windows in the portholes not a vital part of the sub in way.

04-28-09, 08:13 AM	#192
Sensekhmet Loader Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Poland Posts: 89 Downloads: 16 Uploads: 0	Fantastic thread. I just wanted to touch on two issues. One is the condition of the S-class boats in WW2. One such boat was given to Polish Navy, the ORP Jastrzab (ex-S-25). According to crew accounts I found in J. Pertek's Wielkie dni malej floty (Small Fleet's Grand Days), the sub was heap of junk, with so many malfunctions it was scary. When even the Polish can't fix new leaks and break downs fast enough, you know you've got a problem Second issue is the story of USS Wahoo penetrating Wewak Harbor. Navigating with a school atlas and hand-drawn charts (for example harbor depth charts were made by crew pretending they were fishing) remined me of ORP Orzel's escape from Tallinn. Charts and navigational equipment were removed from the sub but it not only reached Scotland but also decided to 'hang around' for a bit to look for something to sink.

04-29-09, 05:53 PM	#195
DaveyJ576 Officer Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 241 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	Luke, The classification system of Navy enlisted ratings (job descriptions) is a constantly changing work in progress, and has been since they were first instituted in 1885. Some of the biggest changes came during the massive expansion the Navy went through in the WWII years. Ratings were established and disestablished, their descriptions and responsibilities changed, and the abbreviations and symbols were altered to fit. In general, a Machinist Mate (MM) would have been responsible for the operation and upkeep of auxiliary systems such as hydraulics, air, fresh water, A/C, and refrigeration. Motor Machinist Mates (MoMM) would have been operators and maintainers of diesel engines and their associated fuel oil and lube oil systems. Prior to 1942 relatively few Navy ships were powered by diesels; we had mostly a steam navy and MM's would have covered both auxiliary systems and propulsion (along with Watertenders and Boilermen). The huge expansion of the fleet combined with the maturation of diesel technology resulted in a massive increase in the use of diesels and thus created a need for a specialized diesel operator/mechanic. Motor Macs were split off from MM's in 1942. Submarines, almost being a whole different navy itself, sometimes did things differently. I perused the sailing lists of two boats (Tang and Barb) and found no mention of MM's being onboard at all during the war. A 3rd boat (Wahoo) listed several, along with MoMM's. Probably what you are seeing here is the earlier boat (Wahoo) still retaining her MM's from the pre-war organization, and the later boats (Tang and Barb) not having any MM's due to the split with MoMM's in '42. It was probably simpler for the smaller crew of a submarine to have only one rate doing both jobs, with MM becoming mostly a surface ship rate. This is not an unusual situation for submarines and this practice continues to this day. In 1948, the name of Motor Machinist Mate was changed to Engineman (EN) and MM's returned to submarines to operate and maintain the auxiliary systems. When you have some time, surf over to these links: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq78-4.htm and http://www.valoratsea.com/rate.htm The info on the second link is not complete and has a few minor errors, but is still pretty good. Both sites should go a long way towards explaining the Navy's rather arcane enlisted rating system. I can also highly recommend the book Complete Guide to United States Navy Medals, Badges, and Insignia: World War II to Present by James G. Thompson (ISBN 1-884452-53-1). There is a little bit of missing information, but it is still pretty reliable.