Activism Discussion: Why Submarines Are IMPORTANT

Why Submarines Are IMPORTANT
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Joe Fretzl
2008-10-18 23:06:10 EST
Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz once said,

\ufffdWhen I assumed command of the Pacific Fleet on
31 December 1941 our submarines were already
operating against the enemy, the only units of
the Fleet that could come to grips with the
Japanese for months to come.

"It was to the Submarine Force that I looked to
carry the load until our great industrial activity
could produce the weapons we so sorely needed to
carry the war to the enemy. It is to the everlasting
honor and glory of our submarine personnel that they
never failed us in our days of great peril.\ufffd

Fleet Admiral Nimitz was a submariner early in his career.


The Fucking Boudha
2008-10-19 00:43:42 EST
the Chinese have the same point of view ,
with their Song and Han class subs .


.



Oct 19, 10:06 am, Joe Fretzl <jfre...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific
> Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz once said,
>
> “When I assumed command of the Pacific Fleet on
> 31 December 1941 our submarines were already
> operating against the enemy, the only units of
> the Fleet that could come to grips with the
> Japanese for months to come.
>
> "It was to the Submarine Force that I looked to
> carry the load until our great industrial activity
> could produce the weapons we so sorely needed to
> carry the war to the enemy. It is to the everlasting
> honor and glory of our submarine personnel that they
> never failed us in our days of great peril.”
>
> Fleet Admiral Nimitz was a submariner early in his career.


BlackBeard
2008-10-19 01:39:53 EST
On Oct 18, 9:43 pm, the Fucking Boudha <voivodv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  the  Chinese  have  the  same  point  of  view ,
> with  their  Song and  Han  class  subs .
>

Their point of view is untested, so it is only bravado. The US
Submariners of WWII earned their reputation. It wasn't the S-class,
Balao class or Gato class boats that accomplished the deeds, it was
the men who manned them.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.

Hcobb
2008-10-19 05:53:21 EST
On Oct 18, 10:39 pm, BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com> wrote:
> Their point of view is untested, so it is only bravado. The US
> Submariners of WWII earned their reputation. It wasn't the S-class,
> Balao class or Gato class boats that accomplished the deeds, it was
> the men who manned them.

The American submariners carried most of the load in beating Japan,
but it helped that they were operating against really sucky ASW.

The quality mismatch between the American and Japanese navies is best
documented by the Battle off Samar. With rigid Japanese Command and
Control being beaten down by American initiative, though this was a
surface action.

Now, what exactly does the Chinese submarine force intend to do during
the battle for Taiwan? Chase flattops it looks like. That's why a
mix of DDG and LCS will see them off.

-HJC

Vaughn Simon
2008-10-19 09:44:33 EST

"hcobb" <henry.cobb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce902cee-6b3a-4513-903d-048bbc53c451@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> Now, what exactly does the Chinese submarine force intend to do during
> the battle for Taiwan? Chase flattops it looks like.

More likely sit quietly on the bottom and wait for a flattop to come to them.
Yes, we will probably find and kill many of them, but they only need for one of
them to succeed. You know the old saw, (usually attributed to Joe Stalin)
"Quantity has a quality all its own."

Vaughn



Fred J. McCall
2008-10-19 11:40:31 EST
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
:
:"hcobb" <henry.cobb@gmail.com> wrote in message
:news:ce902cee-6b3a-4513-903d-048bbc53c451@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
:> Now, what exactly does the Chinese submarine force intend to do during
:> the battle for Taiwan? Chase flattops it looks like.
:
: More likely sit quietly on the bottom and wait for a flattop to come to them.
:Yes, we will probably find and kill many of them, but they only need for one of
:them to succeed. You know the old saw, (usually attributed to Joe Stalin)
:"Quantity has a quality all its own."
:

They're going to wait a long, long time if that is their tactic.

Hint: They don't have quantity, either.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Richard Casady
2008-10-19 14:55:22 EST
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:53:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.cobb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The American submariners carried most of the load in beating Japan,
>but it helped that they were operating against really sucky ASW.

Not quite most, but almost exactly half of the Naval and merchant
tonnage. As it was Japan lost nearly everything they had along those
lines. Half is not bad for 52 boats lost, including accidental
groundings and friendly fire. At the end torpedo targets got so scarce
that one frustrated boat blew up a train with one of her four 70 lb
scuttling charges. Another desperate-for-a-target boat went inside a
harbor after a ship and ran for it on the surface. Got hit just once
and sunk by a shore battery. Japs said oil and air came up for weeks.
Parch maybe?

Casady

BlackBeard
2008-10-19 17:21:47 EST
On Oct 19, 11:55 am, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:53:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The American submariners carried most of the load in beating Japan,
> >but it helped that they were operating against really sucky ASW.
>
> Not quite most, but almost exactly half of the Naval and merchant
> tonnage. As it was Japan lost nearly everything they had along those
> lines. Half is not bad for 52 boats lost, including accidental
> groundings and friendly fire.

Closer to 55% sunk by roughly 2% of the Navy.


>At the end torpedo targets got so scarce
> that one frustrated boat blew up a train with one of her four 70 lb
> scuttling charges.

Fluckey, CO of the Barb;
In November 1943, he attended the Prospective Commanding Officer's
School at the Submarine Base New London, then reported to Commander
Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet. After one war patrol as the
prospective commanding officer of the Barb (SS-220), (her seventh), he
assumed command of the submarine on April 27, 1944. Fluckey
established himself as one of the greatest submarine skippers,
credited with the most tonnage sunk by a U.S. skipper during World War
II: 17 ships including a carrier, cruiser, and frigate.
In one of the stranger incidents in the war, Fluckey sent a landing
party ashore to set demolition charges on a coastal railway line,
destroying a 16-car train.[1] This was the sole landing by U.S.
military forces on the Japanese home islands during World War II.

>Another desperate-for-a-target boat went inside a
> harbor after a ship and ran for it on the surface. Got hit just once
> and sunk by a shore battery. Japs said oil and air came up for weeks.
> Parch maybe?

PARCHE survived the war and was sold for scrap. PERCH was scuttled
after a battle with two destroyers North of Java. 60 men taken
prisoner, 52 survived the war.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.


Dennis
2008-10-19 22:39:03 EST
Joe Fretzl wrote:

I hope you're no relation to Joe Fritzl, the one who should never see
the light of day again.

Dennis

D*@hotmail.com
2008-10-19 23:43:48 EST
On Oct 19, 2:21 pm, BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> Fluckey, CO of the Barb;
> In November 1943, he attended the Prospective Commanding Officer's
> School at the Submarine Base New London, then reported to Commander
> Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet. After one war patrol as the
> prospective commanding officer of the Barb (SS-220), (her seventh), he
> assumed command of the submarine on April 27, 1944. Fluckey
> established himself as one of the greatest submarine skippers,
> credited with the most tonnage sunk by a U.S. skipper during World War
> II: 17 ships including a carrier, cruiser, and frigate.
> In one of the stranger incidents in the war, Fluckey sent a landing
> party ashore to set demolition charges on a coastal railway line,
> destroying a 16-car train.[1] This was the sole landing by U.S.
> military forces on the Japanese home islands during World War II.

Sole landing? What about this?:

http://www.aerofiles.com/tice.html
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron