The History of the nuclear submarine before Rickover
Jack Linthicum
to the Sea in Subs. Most of the book is biographical but the last
chapter describes the actual development of the nuclear submarine from
Lockwood's perspective as Inspector General of the Navy post WWII.
What is interesting is the total lack of interest on the part of Hyman
Rickover until the program was actually underway. Men like Dr. Ross
Gunn at Naval Research and a contract "expert" Dr. Philip Abelson, had
been responsible for turning a $1500 request into a practical method
of separating U-235 from uranium hexafloride before the Manhattan
Project and only after the Navy's 400 plus centrifuge operation in
Philadelphia was running did the AEC decide to cut the Navy off from
nuclear research. The usual Navy way got the Nautilus project back on
track, after a loss of eight months due to the AEC ban, through direct
intervention with the Head of BuShips, the CNO, Admiral Nimitz, and
the Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal.
"Captain Rickover did not particularly relish assignment to the
nuclear energy project and argued over the wisdom of his
assignment...as such action might damage his future career."
"While scientists at NRL theorized about the use of nuclear energy, it
was Enrico
Fermi’s meeting with Navy representatives in March 1939 that gave
nuclear energy
research its start at the laboratory. On March 16, George Pegram, dean
of the
Graduate Physics Department at Columbia University, wrote Admiral
Stanford C.
Hooper, director of the Technical Division in the Office of the Chief
of Naval
Operations, about the possibility of using uranium to create a nuclear
weapon.
Although Pegram doubted that the project would succeed, he, Fermi, and
Leo
Szilard thought that the potential should not be ignored. “[T]here is
no man more
competent in this field of nuclear physics.” Pegram wrote two months
after Niels
Bohr had discussed the discovery of fission with Fermi; his letter to
Hooper was
the first attempt by scientists to get the United States government
involved in nuclear
research.5
The meeting with Fermi on March 17 at the Navy Department building on
Constitution Avenue was attended by representatives from the Navy’s
Bureaus of
Engineering, Ordnance, and Construction and Repair, NRL, and the
Army’s Ordnance
Department. In a little over an hour Fermi discussed the discovery of
fission,
the potential of an atomic bomb, and the possibility of a nuclear
power source.
Fermi left the meeting feeling that it had yielded little, even though
a Navy spokesman
said the service was anxious to keep in contact with his work at
Columbia
University and would have representatives call in person. Fermi had
not realized
that he had given the NRL representative, Gunn, the evidence that he
needed to
take his division’s idea before the Bureau of Engineering. Three days
after the
meeting Gunn and Captain Hollis M. Cooley, director of the NRL,
approached
Admiral Harold G. Bowen, director of the Bureau of Engineering, with a
request
for $1,500 to start uranium research. They outlined the probable
operational and
military capabilities of a nuclear submarine. When Gunn and Cooley
left Bowen
they had their funding and within a week had begun research, to “the
first organized
program in nuclear research in this country at the Naval Research
Laboratory.”
NRL’s work began almost seven months before President Franklin D.
Roosevelt received Albert Einstein’s famous letter about the potential
for an atomic
bomb.6
The first official memorandum on the basic problems of nuclear powered
submarine
propulsion was prepared on June 1, 1939. In it Gunn stated that a
uranium
power source could provide heat to run a steam power plant without
requiring “the
oxidation of organic material” or that “oxygen be carried down in the
submarine.”
It remained to design a method to obtain the uranium 235 that Bohr had
identified
as an ideal source for a chain reaction. “[I]f the method will work,
it is of outstanding
importance and will greatly modify the experimental program at this
Laboratory.
If it will not work, it is of utmost importance to determine this fact
at the earliest moment."
5. Admiral Stanford Hooper had learned about the potential of nuclear
energy in 1937 from
Henry Andrews, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University. Laura Fermi,
Atoms in the family:
My life with Enrico Fermi (Chicago, 1954), 162-163; Arthur H. Compton,
Atomic quest: A
personal narrative (New York, 1956), 25-26; Vincent C. Jones,
Manhattan: The army and
the atomic bomb (Washington, D.C., 1985), 12; William Lawren, The
general and the bomb:
A biography of General Leslie R. Groves, Director of the Manhattan
Project (New York)
6. Gunn had to request funds from Admiral Harold Bowen since the
Bureau of Engineering
controlled funding for NRL. Philip Abelson, “Early history of uranium
power for submarines,”
Naval Research Labortory (Washington, D.C., 1 May 1946), 1; Lewis L.
Strauss,
Men and decisions (New York, 1962), 236; Memorandum for File, 17 Mar
1939 [Box 1/
Folder 1] S-1 Files, Naval Research Laboratory Correspondence,
1939-1946, Records of
the Office of Scientific Research and Development, RG 227, NACP; Fermi
(ref. 5), 163;
Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The new world,
1939-1946 (University
Park, PA, 1962), 15; Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Nuclear
Navy, 1946-1962
(Chicago, 1974), 16-17; Gunn (ref. 4), 2; Ivan Amato, Pushing the
horizon: Seventy-five
years of high stakes science and technology at the Naval Research
Laboratory (Washington,
D.C., 1998), 140-142; “World War II nuclear research at NRL,” 1958, p.
1, General
Correspondence, BP LOC.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/hsps.2003.33.2.217?cookieSet=1
dott.Piergiorgio
Hmmm.... Really interesting, also because I have heard family lore on
this type of things (I'm related with Emilio Segrè). I guess that
another piece of the USN (non)involvment in the Med conflict is surfaced...
to speak a bit more openly, name a pig-boat or a Gato/Balao in the Med
theatre, and I retire what I have wrote.
Shalom, and best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Jack Linthicum
I went to college with Claudio Segre.
Raymond O'Hara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:Fg%gk.2606$Pw....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
the RN had the med covered, the U.S. had better uses for its ships.
John Mianowski
wrote:
> I have just finished reading Admiral Charles Lockwood's biography Down
> to the Sea in Subs.
> "Captain Rickover did not particularly relish assignment to the
> nuclear energy project and argued over the wisdom of his
> assignment...as such action might damage his future career."
I guess he ended up doing pretty well for himself, anyway.
JM
Jeff Dougherty
>
> Hmmm.... Really interesting, also because I have heard family lore on
> this type of things (I'm related with Emilio Segrè). I guess that
> another piece of the USN (non)involvment in the Med conflict is surfaced...
Since early '42 the general arrangement was that the U.S. would have
overall responsibility in the Pacific, the British in Mediterranean,
Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean areas, and that both would share
responsibility for the Atlantic. Given that the Med was a British
area as far as the Allies were concerned and given the demands on the
USN in the Pacific Theater...well, what would you expect? The USN did
do some support work there, such as ferrying planes on Wasp and
covering the Torch landings.
> to speak a bit more openly, name a pig-boat or a Gato/Balao in the Med
> theatre, and I retire what I have wrote.
By the time the USN sub service got its torpedo and doctrine problems
straightened out and really started racking up merchant ships, it was
late 1943- early '44. The Med ocean itself wasn't so much a concern
by then, since the Germans were out of North Africa and Italy had
surrendered. Still a lot of fighting going on in Italy itself and
there were the landings in southern France, but not a lot of Axis
shipping to interdict in the Med by that point.
-JTD
Peter Skelton
A US sub would have been at quite a disadvantage in the Med where
its long range and good habitability would not have made up for
its large size and relatively poor maneuverability. Italian ASW
was much better than Japanese, good enough to take advantage.
(The RN sub classes that did well in the Med weren't all that
suitable for the Pacific either.)
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
by U.S. standard of the time.
Peter Skelton
8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
classes but they were generally small too, as you said
Peter Skelton
Weatherlawyer
> On Jul 21, 7:03 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:> I have just finished reading Admiral Charles Lockwood's biography Down
> > to the Sea in Subs.
> ...
> > "Captain Rickover did not particularly relish assignment to the
> > nuclear energy project and argued over the wisdom of his
> > assignment...as such action might damage his future career."
>
You mean 'some body -or bodies unknown, did pretty well for him...'
I believe the US term is "loading the bases".
Makes you kind of wonder how the chimpanzee found favour though....
Unless it was Anglo Prsian oversight. But that wouldn't explain
Thatcher and BLiarism...
Unless that really was the CIA....
Raymond O'Hara
"Weatherlawyer" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9fcd5eb-8bff-4302...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
do you even know who hyman rickover is?
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
A push over for the KGB?
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:auea84liol5q19p12...@4ax.com...
>>
>>IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
>>by U.S. standard of the time.
>
> 8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
> classes but they were generally small too, as you said
>
> Peter Skelton
The Germans fielded the following major classes (surface displacement tons)
Type II - 300
Type VII - 770
Type IX - 1200
Type XX1 - 1600
Keith
Peter Skelton
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:auea84liol5q19p12...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>>IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
>>>by U.S. standard of the time.
>>
>> 8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
>> classes but they were generally small too, as you said
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>The Germans fielded the following major classes (surface displacement tons)
>
>Type II - 300
coastal boat, not what we're discussing
>Type VII - 770
770 surfaced 870 submerged
>Type IX - 1200
1050 surfaced 1178 submerged
>Type XX1 - 1600
>
not fielded
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>
>
>
> >"Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >news:auea84liol5q19p12...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
> >>>by U.S. standard of the time.
>
> >> 8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
> >> classes but they were generally small too, as you said
>
> >> Peter Skelton
>
> >The Germans fielded the following major classes (surface displacement tons)
>
> >Type II - 300
>
> coastal boat, not what we're discussing
>
> >Type VII - 770
>
> 770 surfaced 870 submerged
>
> >Type IX - 1200
>
> 1050 surfaced 1178 submerged
>
> >Type XX1 - 1600
>
> not fielded
>
> Peter Skelton
Hitler's U-Boat Campaign says 19 VIIC's.
On another thread the shipping of submarines was discussed. Same
Hitler's U-Boat Campaign has 6 Type IIB "Ducks" 300 ton subs,
dismantled, shipped to Galatic Rumania and sent to the Black Sea.
28,000 T of sinkings, and ,aybe two minesweepers and a submarine.
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
:<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>Type XX1 - 1600
:>
:
:not fielded
:
They sure built a lot of them (118) for a boat that was "not fielded".
Of course, you could be referring to the fact that only two of them
actually made war patrols (in early 1945) and there wasn't time for
them to really accomplish anything before Germany surrendered.
But they were fielded, however briefly.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
David Lesher
>>>IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
>>>by U.S. standard of the time.
>>
>> 8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
>> classes but they were generally small too, as you said
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>The Germans fielded the following major classes (surface displacement tons)
>Type II - 300
>Type VII - 770
>Type IX - 1200
>Type XX1 - 1600
I seem to recall Admiral Doenitz got a tour of a US nuclear boat sometime
in the early 1960's. He was dumbfounded over its 3000+ surfaced/4000 ton
submerged displacement.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Keith Willshaw
Not quite true. There were 2 operational patrols and several
were sunk while working up in the Baltic.
Keith
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>:<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>
>:>Type XX1 - 1600
>:>
>:
>:not fielded
>:
>
>They sure built a lot of them (118) for a boat that was "not fielded".
>
I can name any number of items made in 1944 that were not fielded
weapons.
>Of course, you could be referring to the fact that only two of them
>actually made war patrols (in early 1945) and there wasn't time for
>them to really accomplish anything before Germany surrendered.
>
>But they were fielded, however briefly.
Two patrols in wartime with orders that precluded combat do not
constitute a fielded weapon.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:vjgb849momb2hoh7s...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:auea84liol5q19p12...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>IIRC the German and Italian subs were in the 670 ton class, very small
>>>>>by U.S. standard of the time.
>>>>
>>>> 8-1100 for the Germans but still small. The Italians had a lot of
>>>> classes but they were generally small too, as you said
>>>>
>>>> Peter Skelton
>>>
>>>The Germans fielded the following major classes (surface displacement
>>>tons)
>>>
>>>Type II - 300
>>
>> coastal boat, not what we're discussing
>>
>>>Type VII - 770
>>
>> 770 surfaced 870 submerged
>>
>>>Type IX - 1200
>>
>> 1050 surfaced 1178 submerged
>>
>>>Type XX1 - 1600
>>>
>> not fielded
>>
>
>Not quite true. There were 2 operational patrols and several
>were sunk while working up in the Baltic.
>
Getting shot at before going into service does not make them a
fielded system. There were no operational patrols - those partols
had orders prohibiting operations, they were tests.
Peter Skelton
Michael Shirley
No. Back when he was alive and in the Navy, on anything nuclear he was God
incarnate. And he operated that way too. If some CNO gave him trouble,
he'd invoke
his connections in the Senate and as far as they were concerned, he was
the Senator
from the Navy.
He was the one who pretty much ran the program to build the Nautilus and
follow
on boats like the Triton.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
"Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the
army." Lao Tsu.
BlackBeard
... and ended with his personal favorite, the LA class.
BB
I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.
Keith Willshaw
Cite please - I'd love to see the orders that told a type XXI
to sail into mid Atlantic with a full war load in April 1945
and refrain from firing.
As it happens I recall that U-2511 sailed from Bergen on 30th
April for a patrol in the Caribbean. This was to be a full operaional
mission but they received the order to stand down on 4th May
Feel free to prove otherwise.
Keith
Peter Skelton
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:pgac84hsrm26ckr96...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:36:27 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Getting shot at before going into service does not make them a
>> fielded system. There were no operational patrols - those partols
>> had orders prohibiting operations, they were tests.
>>
>>
>
>Cite please - I'd love to see the orders that told a type XXI
>to sail into mid Atlantic with a full war load in April 1945
>and refrain from firing.
>
>As it happens I recall that U-2511 sailed from Bergen on 30th
>April for a patrol in the Caribbean. This was to be a full operaional
>mission but they received the order to stand down on 4th May
>
>Feel free to prove otherwise.
>
U 2511 was at Bergen when the war ended. She had done one "war
patrol" starting May 3, got the stand-down May 4 and was back May
6 where she was surrendered. So, if you want to say one day at
sea by one boat makes a deployed system go right ahead. (You
should be ashamed of yourself for single-sourcing on U-Boat net
without checking the patrols section.)
The boat that made the patrol with orders not to engage was, of
course, 3008. She passed under a convoy May 4. She already had
the cease-fire order by then, but was under orders not to engage
as was 2511 on her run from Keil to Bergen. That was a passage,
not a patrol, of course. 3008 was running from a port under
shell-fire.
(The bulllshit about mid-Atlantic with full war load is the
product of your fevered imagination and not related to anything I
wrote.)
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:58:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>news:pgac84hsrm26ckr96...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:36:27 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Getting shot at before going into service does not make them a
>>> fielded system. There were no operational patrols - those partols
>>> had orders prohibiting operations, they were tests.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Cite please - I'd love to see the orders that told a type XXI
>>to sail into mid Atlantic with a full war load in April 1945
>>and refrain from firing.
>>
>>As it happens I recall that U-2511 sailed from Bergen on 30th
>>April for a patrol in the Caribbean. This was to be a full operaional
>>mission but they received the order to stand down on 4th May
>>
>>Feel free to prove otherwise.
>>
> U 2511 was at Bergen when the war ended. She had done one "war
> patrol" starting May 3, got the stand-down May 4 and was back May
> 6 where she was surrendered. So, if you want to say one day at
> sea by one boat makes a deployed system go right ahead.
It does.
> The boat that made the patrol with orders not to engage was, of
> course, 3008. She passed under a convoy May 4. She already had
> the cease-fire order by then, but was under orders not to engage
Well of course she had AFTER being ordered back.
What were her orders when she sailed ?
> as was 2511 on her run from Keil to Bergen. That was a passage,
> not a patrol, of course. 3008 was running from a port under
> shell-fire.
>
Wrong - she sailed from Keil to Bergen on 16th March
> (The bulllshit about mid-Atlantic with full war load is the
> product of your fevered imagination and not related to anything I
> wrote.)
>
Try proving that when she sailed she had orders not to engage
allied ships.
Keith
Peter Skelton
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:fikc84lqe5mca3op5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:58:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:pgac84hsrm26ckr96...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:36:27 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>>>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Getting shot at before going into service does not make them a
>>>> fielded system. There were no operational patrols - those partols
>>>> had orders prohibiting operations, they were tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cite please - I'd love to see the orders that told a type XXI
>>>to sail into mid Atlantic with a full war load in April 1945
>>>and refrain from firing.
>>>
>>>As it happens I recall that U-2511 sailed from Bergen on 30th
>>>April for a patrol in the Caribbean. This was to be a full operaional
>>>mission but they received the order to stand down on 4th May
>>>
>>>Feel free to prove otherwise.
>>>
>> U 2511 was at Bergen when the war ended. She had done one "war
>> patrol" starting May 3, got the stand-down May 4 and was back May
>> 6 where she was surrendered. So, if you want to say one day at
>> sea by one boat makes a deployed system go right ahead.
>
>It does.
>
As I said, go right ahead.
>
>> The boat that made the patrol with orders not to engage was, of
>> course, 3008. She passed under a convoy May 4. She already had
>> the cease-fire order by then, but was under orders not to engage
>
>Well of course she had AFTER being ordered back.
>
>What were her orders when she sailed ?
>
Not under contention.
>> as was 2511 on her run from Keil to Bergen. That was a passage,
>> not a patrol, of course. 3008 was running from a port under
>> shell-fire.
>>
>
>Wrong - she sailed from Keil to Bergen on 16th March
>
Just what is wrong Keith? Did 3008 not run from a port that was
under shell-fire? Did 2511 not run from Keil to Bergen? Something
else? Be specific and provide references.
>> (The bulllshit about mid-Atlantic with full war load is the
>> product of your fevered imagination and not related to anything I
>> wrote.)
>>
>
>Try proving that when she sailed she had orders not to engage
>allied ships.
>
Not a claim I made about 2511, was it?
Peter Skelton
David Lesher
>> Getting shot at before going into service does not make them a
>> fielded system. There were no operational patrols - those partols
>> had orders prohibiting operations, they were tests.
>Cite please - I'd love to see the orders that told a type XXI
>to sail into mid Atlantic with a full war load in April 1945
>and refrain from firing.
>As it happens I recall that U-2511 sailed from Bergen on 30th
>April for a patrol in the Caribbean. This was to be a full operaional
>mission but they received the order to stand down on 4th May
<http://uboat.net/boats/u2511.htm>
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:11:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>
:>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
:>:<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>Type XX1 - 1600
:>:>
:>:
:>:not fielded
:>:
:>
:>They sure built a lot of them (118) for a boat that was "not fielded".
:>
:
:I can name any number of items made in 1944 that were not fielded
:weapons.
:
But none of them are major warships produced in the hundreds.
:>Of course, you could be referring to the fact that only two of them
:>actually made war patrols (in early 1945) and there wasn't time for
:>them to really accomplish anything before Germany surrendered.
:>
:>But they were fielded, however briefly.
:
:Two patrols in wartime with orders that precluded combat do not
:constitute a fielded weapon.
:
They had no such orders when deployed.
I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Weatherlawyer
Are they the ones that were always imploding?
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:11:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>:>:<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>Type XX1 - 1600
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:not fielded
>:>:
>:>
>:>They sure built a lot of them (118) for a boat that was "not fielded".
>:>
>:
>:I can name any number of items made in 1944 that were not fielded
>:weapons.
>:
>
>But none of them are major warships produced in the hundreds.
>
There is a great deal of controversy over whether one or two of
them was finished and worked up by war end. None of them fought,
there's no controversy over that at all.
>:>Of course, you could be referring to the fact that only two of them
>:>actually made war patrols (in early 1945) and there wasn't time for
>:>them to really accomplish anything before Germany surrendered.
>:>
>:>But they were fielded, however briefly.
>:
>:Two patrols in wartime with orders that precluded combat do not
>:constitute a fielded weapon.
>:
>
>They had no such orders when deployed.
>
"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
>I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
>we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
Try not to be too much of an idiot Fred.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
No, they're the ones you can run into a seamount at speed and
they'dd still get you home. Somebody did some seriously good
design and construction.
Peter Skelton
Tiger
Huh? what are you talking about?
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:52:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>
:>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:11:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:26:22 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
:>:>:<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Type XX1 - 1600
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:not fielded
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:>They sure built a lot of them (118) for a boat that was "not fielded".
:>:>
:>:
:>:I can name any number of items made in 1944 that were not fielded
:>:weapons.
:>:
:>
:>But none of them are major warships produced in the hundreds.
:>
:There is a great deal of controversy over whether one or two of
:them was finished and worked up by war end. None of them fought,
:there's no controversy over that at all.
:
We've got lots of systems that have 'never fought'. So none of them
are fielded?
:>:>Of course, you could be referring to the fact that only two of them
:>:>actually made war patrols (in early 1945) and there wasn't time for
:>:>them to really accomplish anything before Germany surrendered.
:>:>
:>:>But they were fielded, however briefly.
:>:
:>:Two patrols in wartime with orders that precluded combat do not
:>:constitute a fielded weapon.
:>:
:>
:>They had no such orders when deployed.
:>
:"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
:toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
:
Wrong.
:>I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
:>we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
:
:Try not to be too much of an idiot Fred.
:
That's almost unavoidable when talking with you, Peter.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
<S>
>:>They had no such orders when deployed.
>:>
>:"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
>:toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
>:
>
>Wrong.
>
Reference please.
>:>I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
>:>we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
>:
>:Try not to be too much of an idiot Fred.
>:
>
>That's almost unavoidable when talking with you, Peter.
True Fred, you have a very long and inglorious history of being
an idiot when talking to me. Trying to equate weapons system that
served on the first line for decated with one that might have a
service record under 24 hours is a fine way of displaying that
talent.
Peter Skelton
Weatherlawyer
>
> Huh? what are you talking about?
Scorpion and Nautilus.
Obviously not the LA class.
Not so obviously a KGB mole. Or is there a good explanation that
Scorpion got the bum's rush?
BlackBeard
No. Neither the Scorpion or the Nautilus were LA Class Boats. The
Nautilus is berthed on the Thames River in Conn. As for the second
line, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Fred J. McCall
:On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:13:06 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:<S>
:>:>They had no such orders when deployed.
:>:>
:>:"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
:>:toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
:>:
:>
:>Wrong.
:>
:
:Reference please.
:
First, there were TWO, not 'it'. One of them indeed was as you
describe. It was the SECOND of the two to start a patrol.
The first was U-2511. It left Bergen for the Caribbean on April 30
1945. It was under orders not to attack on the OUTBOUND trip (but
rather to launch its attacks once in the Caribbean and on its way
home). On May 3, 1945, Germany surrendered.
http://www.uboataces.com/uboat-type-xxi.shtml
:>:>I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
:>:>we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
:>:
:>:Try not to be too much of an idiot Fred.
:>:
:>
:>That's almost unavoidable when talking with you, Peter.
:
:True Fred, you have a very long and inglorious history of being
:an idiot when talking to me.
:
Yes, because talking to you pretty much requires a fairly high level
of idiocy.
:
:Trying to equate weapons system that
:served on the first line for decated with one that might have a
:service record under 24 hours is a fine way of displaying that
:talent.
:
You said "never fielded". You're wrong. Get over it and move on and
stop your wriggling and spewing of rhetorical tricks. The facts
remain the same.
Two of them were fully armed, crewed, commissioned, and dispatched on
combat patrols.
To anyone sane, that's 'fielded'. You, of course, are going to
continue to argue.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Weatherlawyer
> On Jul 23, 1:53 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Weatherlawyer wrote:
> > > >>On Jul 22, 12:34 pm, "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> He was the one who pretty much ran the program to build the Nautilus
>
> > > > Are they the ones that were always imploding?
>
> > > Huh? what are you talking about?
>
> > Scorpion and Nautilus.
> > Obviously not the LA class.
>
> > Not so obviously a KGB mole. Or is there a good explanation that
> > Scorpion got the bum's rush?
>
> No. Neither the Scorpion or the Nautilus were LA Class Boats. The
> Nautilus is berthed on the Thames River in Conn. As for the second
> line, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
My bad, Thresher and Scorpion I was not concentrating.
Weatherlawyer
> On Jul 23, 11:47 pm, BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 1:53 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Weatherlawyer wrote:
> > > > >>On Jul 22, 12:34 pm, "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> He was the one who pretty much ran the program to build the Nautilus
>
> > > > > Are they the ones that were always imploding?
>
> > > > Huh? what are you talking about?
>
> > > Scorpion and Nautilus.
>
In editing the thread the word Nautilus etched over the Thresher for
some reason.
My point was that there were major concerns about their plumbing even
before the Thresher sailed. There was major rerouting going on
apparently even as it was commisioned.
Or was that lessons half learned for the Scorpion?
I feel I can remember the news as it happened but as it was in the
early sixties I may be mis-remembering later stories about the
affairs. Were there documentaries on such hi tech security sensitive
stories in the 70's?
I can't imagine even the US had a freedom of information that allowed
access to such data. Or maybe it was just flaccid speculation I
watched some 10 years after in a memorial?
That sounds more like it.
I vaguely remember speculation on the horror of the lost in their last
few minutes or hours as rescue efforts failed -we knew not why. I just
looked the affair up again and see that they were assumed dead almost
immediately.
But what do I know about who gets what top job in political spheres of
the upper brass etchelon?
For all I know the KGB were hand in glove with the CIA in order to
maintain a clam economy where all the participants in world war three
had vast stocks of money to spend wihi nilhi on killing their own
civilians.
Or as in the case of Britain and France, someone else's dark skinned
ones. USA, Britain and France for the Hydrogen enhanced versions. I
wonder how many tribes of harmless reindeer herders the Soviets
killed.
But as I am one of the idiots that finds it interesting how well
designed the Triple Towers were in the way that they were able to fall
in on themselves so easily despite the strange and disparate methods
of their collapse...
And everyone evacuated as far as possible given the radios that the
Mayor had saddled the Fire Department with...
Is Motorola still in business?
More and more implosions and the more closely you look, you see it in
the pattern overall. Interesting.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:13:06 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>:<S>
>:>:>They had no such orders when deployed.
>:>:>
>:>:"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
>:>:toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Wrong.
>:>
>:
>:Reference please.
>:
>
>First, there were TWO, not 'it'. One of them indeed was as you
>describe. It was the SECOND of the two to start a patrol.
>
>The first was U-2511. It left Bergen for the Caribbean on April 30
>1945. It was under orders not to attack on the OUTBOUND trip (but
>rather to launch its attacks once in the Caribbean and on its way
>home). On May 3, 1945, Germany surrendered.
>
>http://www.uboataces.com/uboat-type-xxi.shtml
>
OFCS Fred you freaking idjit. First, I've refered to this one, it
is the only war patrol. 3008(?) which I also described was not
That account on U-boat net was incorrect. Someone else already
posted it and I referrred him to the proper section of the sdame
site for correct data.
>:>:>I guess you don't count ICBM's as 'fielded weapons', either, since
>:>:>we've never fired one in anger and neither has anyone else...
>:>:
>:>:Try not to be too much of an idiot Fred.
>:>:
>:>
>:>That's almost unavoidable when talking with you, Peter.
>:
>:True Fred, you have a very long and inglorious history of being
>:an idiot when talking to me.
>:
>
>Yes, because talking to you pretty much requires a fairly high level
>of idiocy.
>
>:
>:Trying to equate weapons system that
>:served on the first line for decated with one that might have a
>:service record under 24 hours is a fine way of displaying that
>:talent.
>:
>
>You said "never fielded". You're wrong. Get over it and move on and
>stop your wriggling and spewing of rhetorical tricks. The facts
>remain the same.
>
SO you back doen from your inane copmparison. Good.
The facts remain the same. From the beginning, I've said that if
you want to count one day of war service at the very end of the
war (by a ship who's reliablity is very questionable, as I did
not say at then), go ahead. I don't for good reasons that have
been beaten to death.
>Two of them were fully armed, crewed, commissioned, and dispatched on
>combat patrols.
>
One Fred.
>To anyone sane, that's 'fielded'. You, of course, are going to
>continue to argue.
Fred, you're the one who wants an argument. I don't mind
correcting your obvious distortions for a while, but the issue
was settled while you were still trying to sahy they had
completed a hundred and whatever of the things.
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:19:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>
:>:On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:13:06 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>:<S>
:>:>:>They had no such orders when deployed.
:>:>:>
:>:>:"It", and was it deployed? It got several hours out of base
:>:>:toward deployment and was called back, never got near the enemy.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:>Wrong.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Reference please.
:>:
:>
:>First, there were TWO, not 'it'. One of them indeed was as you
:>describe. It was the SECOND of the two to start a patrol.
:>
:>The first was U-2511. It left Bergen for the Caribbean on April 30
:>1945. It was under orders not to attack on the OUTBOUND trip (but
:>rather to launch its attacks once in the Caribbean and on its way
:>home). On May 3, 1945, Germany surrendered.
:>
:>http://www.uboataces.com/uboat-type-xxi.shtml
:>
:OFCS Fred you freaking idjit.
See you in a month, asswipe. Perhaps in that time you will learn some
manners. I've repeatedly explained I'm not interested in your stupid
slanging matches and rhetorical quibbling.
<plonk>
[remainder elided unread]
--
"He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue."
-- Andrew Lang
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thank god
Peter Skelton
tankfixer
a1a061...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com
says...
No, but go ahead and continue to display your ignorance
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
tankfixer
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com says...
> On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Weatherlawyer wrote:
> > >>On Jul 22, 12:34 pm, "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>> He was the one who pretty much ran the program to build the Nautilus
> >
> > > Are they the ones that were always imploding?
> >
> > Huh? what are you talking about?
>
> Scorpion and Nautilus.
When did Nautilus implode ?
Or did they stitch her back together for display ?
> Obviously not the LA class.
>
> Not so obviously a KGB mole. Or is there a good explanation that
> Scorpion got the bum's rush?
I'd ask you to expand on that statement but fear the answers will be as
incoherent and wrong as the rest you have given in this thread.
Michael Shirley
>
>> He was the one who pretty much ran the program to build the
>> Nautilus and
>> follow
>> on boats like the Triton.
>>
>
> ... and ended with his personal favorite, the LA class.
Which is still probably the best attack boat out there.
Michael Shirley
Most likely a torpedo fire.