July 16, 2010: USS Pampanito

The USS Pampanito is a WW II, diesel powered submarine, that's been preserved in San Francisco as a museum open to the public, and a National Historic Landmark.

What's long, hard , and full of seamen?

S.F.??? I never knew.. I'll have to check it out.

Pampanito?! We better detain her until we can check on immigration status.

She got depth charged on her first patrol and still made 5 more. Quite a boat...

Sorry, but I'm really struggling for recipe ideas here.

I toured the russian sub in San Diego. I would go crazy crawling around those cramped places, through little holes to other cramped spaces!

And if you meet a submariner, don't make my mistake and ask them for stories. The tradition is silent service, whatever happened out there they will not tell you.

Leaves port with 120 men and returns with 60 couples...

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin Leaves port with 120 men and returns with 60 couples...

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Sorry, but I'm really struggling for recipe ideas here.

Thanks guys - I knew I could count on you.

Now Shel - I gotta ask ....

With or without mayo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Thanks guys - I knew I could count on you. Now Shel - I gotta ask .... With or without mayo.

My cousin flew planes in the Navy, and once when we went to visit him we got an informal family member tour of a submarine that happened to be in port.

Not only was the whole thing unbearably small even for a less-than-fully-grown early teen girl, but the cook in the galley assured us that it was much more cramped when they first set out for a long trip, because of all the canned foods they hadn't eaten yet. He said they would line the hallways with stacks of cans until they could eat their way through them.

Awwww, cute ... no... wait ... it's Friday, innit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scriveyn Awwww, cute ... no... wait ... it's Friday, innit?

Start with one large nookyalur submarine;
Add one under-sea mountain.
Combine in a very large ocean.

That'll pretty much make lunch outta your sub...

I've toured the Pampanito a couple of times. As Bruce says, it is seriously cramped. It is also really retro without trying; reminds me of my grandparents' house during and after the war, with Bakelite the most modern material.
I didn't know until I read Wikipedea today that it was "credited" with sinking the Kachidoki Maru on September 12, 1944. The Kachidoki Maru carried 900 British and Australian prisoners of war; the Pampanito picked up 73 survivors 3 days later. This seems to have been part of a wolfpack operation that resulted in the sinking of Japanese ships carring 2,100 POWs, of which only 127 survived.

I guess I need a red face here. The stats I got from three Wikipedia subjects about the numbers of POW's on board the Japanese ships and the number rescued differ from what are probably better sources.
It is more likely that there were at least 951 survivors, about a third rescued by American subs and the rest by the Japanese.
It must have been an unimaginably chaotic and tragic scene.

Thanks Djim, I hadn't realized the Pampanito was part of that debacle.

I have some submarine questions to throw out here, and none of them involve a treadmill.

When submarines dive in the movies, the hull makes groaning sounds as the pressure builds up. Do they really do that, or is that just Hollywood being dramatic?

In movies, we often see a submarine hiding below while a destroyer lobs depth charges at it. Why can't submarines strike back? They could push mines out through the torpedo tubes which would float to the surface and endanger the destroyer. There could even be a special vertical launch torpedo they could fire. Why not, huh?

My uncle who is approaching his 90s and still going strong was a cook on a submarine.
He is Filipino and oh man can he cook. ...still.

Great tour thanks for peek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe My uncle who is approaching his 90s and still going strong was a cook on a submarine. He is Filipino and oh man can he cook. ...still.

In WWII, we were unable to even get our early torpedoes to explode on contact. No shit. Our torpedoes had been given a new controller, ("fuse"), and it simply didn't work.

The Germans had seen the value of their subs in WW I and had continued their development ever since. True for tanks, also.

We had not, and our subs and tanks (especially our Sherman Tanks), just weren't good, in comparison. Can you imagine a gasoline engine driving a tiny tank with a tiny gun, and almost useless armor?

Torpedoes in WWII were "aim and fire", and unable to "acquire" a target and follow it. There was no facility to fire a torpedo, upward. They're longer than you think, so the tubes are only horizontal (bow and stern).

We did develop a proximity fuse which was great, but that came about later in WWII.

It's interesting that the Russians have a vectored thrust new fighter plane, the Brits have had one for a decade or two, and just unveiled a brand new unmanned fighter concept plane. Canada is buying the new F-35 vectored thrust fighter. And we're still giving our Navy pilots F-18's that are 35 years old, to fly in war zones.

But YOU BET! we are "supporting the troops"!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum When submarines dive in the movies, the hull makes groaning sounds as the pressure builds up. Do they really do that, or is that just Hollywood being dramatic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum In movies, we often see a submarine hiding below while a destroyer lobs depth charges at it. Why can't submarines strike back? They could push mines out through the torpedo tubes which would float to the surface and endanger the destroyer. There could even be a special vertical launch torpedo they could fire. Why not, huh?

Not to mention breaking the back of the sub in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak It's interesting that the Russians have a vectored thrust new fighter plane, the Brits have had one for a decade or two, and just unveiled a brand new unmanned fighter concept plane. Canada is buying the new F-35 vectored thrust fighter. And we're still giving our Navy pilots F-18's that are 35 years old, to fly in war zones. But YOU BET! we are "supporting the troops"!

Yeah, true grav

and it was a great post. I sent it along in e-mails to people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce And those Navy F-18s are fighting what? The likelihood of coming up against a superior aircraft is somewhere between slim and none. Where there might be a real threat, they send the F-22s, which are unequaled anywhere. But the reality of the world today is they don't need $160 million dollar F-22s, which is why they are building the F-35s. Actually, I think the F-18 with a hot pilot, might be a match for an F-35.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunMaster357 ...In another area, the Concorde plane when flying at Mach2 was known to elongate by 28 centimeters (nearly a foot) due to speed friction and less external pressure. ...

In the 18th and 19th century, that was true. We didn't even have a Navy, for several decades. Didn't need one. Each state raised it's own "Army" (a militia really). and decided how many "soldiers" to send to any battle or campaign. It was a nightmare.

That's just not the way of things, today. Our biggest trouble spots in the world, are heavily militarized - Iran with new SAM's it's getting from Russia, North Korea with it's huge militarization and help from China, probably top the list.

If we get involved - when we get involved, because we have close ties to both Israel and South Korea, it would sure be good to have those newer fighters.

I don't know if you can REALLY feel the importance, if you don't have close relatives in the Navy/etc. Whether we lose 20 servicemen or 2000, in the next "clash", may not affect you, directly.

If you haven't seen the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", I heartily recommend it. It's a true story, quite funny, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts -- good stuff.

CLEARLY shows what having the right weapons means in a war.

Just the right weapons, and the Afghan's (not the Taliban), went from Cannon Fodder to Rambo, and sent the mighty Red Army/Air Force, right back where they came from.

18th & 19th century? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

The Taiban sent the Soviets packing because they advocated exactly what you are, bigger, faster, more complex, weapons systems. That is not the future.

The future is wars of insurgency, where helicopters are more valuable than fighter jets. What we should be building is A-10s, instead piloted missiles.

Thanks, Adak, for sending me to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
The idea that the US is not spending enough on "defense" is so absurd that I can feel little sparks going off in my brain.
I'm afraid that any one who thinks we need to spend more needs to be in a secure environment where sharp objects are kept locked up. But when I think of the company there .....

Don't forget that 650 Billion doesn't include fighting the wars, Afghanistan, Iraq or Terror, not to mention the Billions that are spent indirectly by other departments, on behalf of the military.

That 35 year old f-18, is still leagues and leagues beyond what most of the rest of the world is using...I said most...

Try to get input from Korean war pilots who were getting their asses kicked by migs in the early part of the war. We didn't need state of the art war planes then either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce 18th & 19th century? Dwight D. Eisenhower? The Taiban sent the Soviets packing because they advocated exactly what you are, bigger, faster, more complex, weapons systems. That is not the future. The future is wars of insurgency, where helicopters are more valuable than fighter jets. What we should be building is A-10s, instead piloted missiles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunMaster357 From the pictures, you can imagine that space is at a premium. You have to put in that tin can over a hundred men,torpedoes, engines, computers for detection, targeting firing, counter-measures, communications.And everything to keep them going for a minimum of three months. And I nearly forget, ballistic missiles when the sub is a boomer. My brother served for 3 year on a Nuclear Attack Submarine. He told me that, at the start of the missions, cans of food were stacked everywhere. He also told me that an active submarine smell of, I quote, "death, unwashed bodies and beer". Also, letting a mine float up to the surface is fine... but to be effective, the ennemy ship has to be more or less at the exact vertical of the sub. And just the sending of the mine will create a noise giving the sub's position to the ennemy. Same problem with trying to escape at full speed, you create noise due to the cavitation of the propeller. Even worse, the performance of detection systems are so degraded that the sub is nearly running blind. Since the major risks of detection are in coastal areas, it's like going full speed on a highway with Steevie Wonder at the wheel. Nowadays, subs can be very fast, at least nuclear ones, and can outspeed most anti-submarine ship. But torpedoes can do the job nicely, can be launched from a chopper, and some of those fuckers are real fast.

Sonar detection in WWII was in its infancy as no country had ever imagined submarines deployed on the scale used by Germany. So, part of the game was to play dead up to push oil, debris and even bodies through a lock.

Never forget that this era was the first time submarines were used as an effective weapon integrated as such in the navy at least in Germany. In other countries, they were considered something of a special weapon to be use at specific places and moments, or even worse, as toys.

Therefore, it's only logical that designers didn't think of every contengency.

Back to the problem of space.

A submarine, even today, has a very delicate equation to solve: flotability. If you put too many things in it, once you dive, you wont be able to resurface again.

For example, a bathyscaphe (very deep water exploration vessel - down to 30000 feet) do not use ballasts to dive but an enormous steel weight that is left on the ocean floor once they want to get back to the surface.

I used to work for a DoD contractor and I tested these thingys that were used for sub sonar testing. Can't say much...it was all classified and I don't know if it still is, but it was fascinating!

You're watching too much history channel, Adak. No more dog fights, any air to air is long now long distance. The need for ground support, helicopters and a-10s is the future. The Taliban is the successor to the Mujahideen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce You're watching too much history channel, Adak. No more dog fights, any air to air is long now long distance. The need for ground support, helicopters and a-10s is the future. The Taliban is the successor to the Mujahideen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak If you want peace - walk softly, and carry a big stick. No one who wants to tear you up, will respect you when you're carrying a handful of rocks, or a feather from a pure white dove.

Thanks, Classicman. :thup:

@Shawnee, it's quite obvious that Charlie was no angel - apparently his line for why he hired VERY buxom and beautiful women was:

"You can teach typing, but you can't teach tits"

Smart guy though - and he sat on just the right committee's. Julia Roberts was great as the ultra rich widow with the passion for Pakistan & Afghanistan.

The CIA guy in his boss's office -- and bugging Charlie's office - had me rolling.

Charlie incredously asking the CIA station chief in Pakistan:
"The Russians have invaded. Those people are being slaughtered, and you tell me you don't want to upset things?" "I don't even know what that means."

And best of all:
The Texas bellydancer is VERY provocatively belly dancing, and the Egyptian minister they have to butter up, asks:

"What religion is she?"

Just as the dancer drops into the most sensous splits imaginable, Charlie answers:

< Censored >

Well, you need to see Charlie Wilson's War now, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak Thanks, Classicman. :thup: @Shawnee, it's quite obvious that Charlie was no angel - apparently his line for why he hired VERY buxom and beautiful women was: "You can teach typing, but you can't teach tits"

Since it was mentioned earlier, the Brewster Buffalo was manufactured partly at the NADC Warminster, PA...about five miles from Willow Grove NAS.

I was even there a few years ago, before it became an office park. The flying club in Norfolk was looking to acquire a wrecked trainer aircraft from their flying club, hoping for enough parts to rebuild one of ours that had been damaged heavily in a taxiing accident (instructor pulled up the landing gear on the ground).

That deal went through and the Norfolk aircraft is flying today.

ETA: that club was disbanded in 2000. It is unknown what happened to the aircraft. Many were leasebacks and the owners presumably took the planes somewhere else or leased them to the flying club at Langley AFB. Some were not flyable and likely were sold for parts or scrap.

And for the newest US Submarine, click here.