So how deep did the u.s subs go max?

[oscar19681]

I know that the earlier class of us subs was about 90 meters of test depth . Later it was 120 meters . But could they go deeper then the test depth? Of was this just the depth at which they imploded . German u-boats had a test depth of 150 meters but could go much deeper . Was this the same with u.s subs?

[Hylander_1314]

Yes later subs could go 300 to 400ft, but there were cases where they went passed 600ft. Not too often as it was very dangerous to do.

[bookworm_020]

U.S.S Tang went to 600 feet during her first depth test. She went deeper when she went on patrol.

[Schatten]

Well technically they can go down all the way...but you probably wouldn't want to be on it. ;)

I know that's not what you meant but I just couldn't resist. The actual depth varied from class to class and boat to boat, but the accepted max safe depths for the US subs were:

S-Class, Baracuda Class : ~200 feet
P-Class, Salmon, Sargo, Tambor, Gar Classes: ~250 feet
Gato Class: ~300 feet
Argonaut, Narwhal Classes: ~330 feet
Balao, Tench Classes: ~400 feet


I know the Gato, Tench and Balao classes were actually test dove to the figures given for them. The others I'm not sure if they were actually tested or if the figures were based on builders' specs. Also those were the "safe" depths, the subs could and did go deeper. The only people who found out the actual crush depth of a boat would never be able to tell.

[CCIP]

Yep, just remember that U-boats technically had a safe rated depth of 90m (300ft), whereas in actuality they'd go down to 200m (700ft) and deeper, with the deepest recorded dives being in the area of 270m (900ft). It'd only be fair to assume the relationship between tested and actual maximum dive depths would be about same for US subs. Just that they didn't push it as often as the U-boats.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

The Gato's had a Test depth of 315 feet but they could comonly go to 400+/- feet. The Balo and Trench classes could go down to 600 feet. They could of gon deeper but that was as far as the depth guage went.:doh:

[geetrue]

Well, it wasn't WWII that's for sure, but about twenty years after the war (1964)we took the USS Salmon SS-573 down to 650' in a hurry. Her test depth had been limited by Nav Ops to 450' due to the huge radar set up on her rear deck.

The Salmon had been built in 1956 as a radar picket boat SSR, but after the nuc's came out in 58 or so they didn't need her anymore. They took the radar off in 1961. She was the largest diesel submarine in the world (after they scrapped the ugly Jap seaplane boats that is).

She was 350' long/displacement 2,334 tons surface/3,168 tons submerged

We were out on special ops training Marine Commando's (pre seal) off of San Clemente Island ... We were suppose to surface in an old fashioned battle surface, but it had never been done in a boat this big.

I was on the stern planes and the OOD said, "Were going to do a battle surface"

I said, "Sir what is a battle surface?" He explained that I would go to full dive on the stern planes and that the bow planesman would go to full rise. Then they would blow the tanks at the same time.

He said that we should pop up like a cork and let our (now they are friends, but in those days it was more like well you know) Marine Commando's depart the sub as soon as they could on the rubber rafts they had brought with them.

We had about thirty of them up forward in the toroedo room waiting for their chance to do their thing.

Now understand you don't tell officers what to do, but in my mind I'm thinking if you put these planes on full dive she's going to go on full dive.

Following orders: "Battle surface" "Battle surface" and sure enough I put the stern planes on full dive and the bow planesman put his on full rise and they blew all of the tanks (except sanitary :lol: )

You guessed it ... we were at 400' and she went straight down ... We had really nice comfortable chairs with joy sticks and all of a sudden I was standing instead of sitting .

The controlerman back in the controller room goes all back full (on the battery is very dangerous) without recieving an order to go all back full. That alone saved us, because we were out of air. He didn't get in trouble later either.

We came up stern first of course exceeding test depth by over 200' with a real bad down angle. I was second man up with the captain coming up after me ... Just us three on the bridge as the Marines came out of the forward escape trunk to do their thing.

The OOD and the Captian and me all drew in a big gulp of air and looked at each other and started laughing ... We didn't say anything due to the seperation between officer's and enlisted men is real (know what I mean).

Later the Marines asked us if this was normal and we of course said, "Oh you bet we do it all the time" :D

http://theworldwideweather.com/PhotoDraw31.jpg


USS Salmon SS-573

[Schatten]

Great story there Geetrue. :up:

Every time you have 2 or more services operating together you get some opportuniies for those "Yeah of course we do it all the time" moments. They're always a hoot. :D

[Zero Niner]

I read in "Red Scorpion" that the USN had a safety factor of about 2.5x when it came to max depths for their boats. So if for instance a Balao class was rated for 400ft, in reality it could have been able to go to as deep as 800 ft safely.

[MadMike]

The USS Salmon (Salmon class) went to 500 feet when depth charged by the Japanese (then battle surfaced!)-

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97573

And here's the link to the story of the USS Chopper (Balao/Guppy I) :o

http://www.usschopper.com/Chopper%20Deep%20Dive%20Report.htm

Yours, Mike

[TheSatyr]

Remember though that in alot of situations it isn't going to matter how deep your sub can go because you will be in water too shallow to need to worry about it,heh.

[Redwine]

I think so here we will have the same matter than in SH2 and SH3, max operative depths and max safe depths are not the same than crush depths. :up:

[Safe-Keeper]

I took the liberty to run the feet through Google's calculator.

S-Class, Baracuda Class : ~200 feet = 60.96 meters
P-Class, Salmon, Sargo, Tambor, Gar Classes: ~250 feet = 76.2 meters
Gato Class: ~300 feet = 91.44 meters
Argonaut, Narwhal Classes: ~330 feet = 100.58400 meters
Balao, Tench Classes: ~400 feet = 121.92 meters

[Sailor Steve]

But those are only approved test depths. It's like saying a type VIIb can only go to 90 meters.

[Subnuts]

I read in "Red Scorpion" that the USN had a safety factor of about 2.5x when it came to max depths for their boats.

I wouldn't take an S-boat to 500 feet if I were you! :dead:

[cmdrk]

I read in "Red Scorpion" that the USN had a safety factor of about 2.5x when it came to max depths for their boats.
I wouldn't take an S-boat to 500 feet if I were you! :dead:

The safety factor probable applies to fully welded hulls. I think the P class was the first to have them.

[AS]

Sorry to say so, but you are WRONG if you compare the VIIb depth (90m) to that of a U.S. Sub. The reason is quite simple: The German Navy calculated a safety-factor of 2.5 for their "operational depth", while the U.S Navy calculated with approx. 1.5. This means:

Type VII U-Boat: 100m "safe" operational depth, multiplied by the factor 2.5 = 250m assumed maximum depth close to crash depth (today we know that the crash depth assumption were too pessimistic in those days, as you all know, U-Boats could go a bit deeper than 250m)

US-Sub: 90m (later 120m) operational depth, multiplied by 1.5 = 135 (respectively 180m) maximum depth near crash depth.

So, U.S. subs couldn´t go very deep, but they were not meant to, either, because in the Pacific both crash dive time (VIIc: 25sec., US Gato: 50sec.) and maximum depth didn´t play such an important role, whereas long range travelling, a huge torpedoe load-out and comparatively comfy crew accomodations were much more important for the Pacific theatre.

My two cents, AS

[Sailor Steve]

The German Navy calculated a safety-factor of 2.5 for their "operational depth", while the U.S Navy calculated with approx. 1.5.
Calculated crush depths are not necessarily the reality. I've heard of at least one Gato surviving 600 feet and more. Also, I've seen one source that shows the German depth as twice the test depth, not 2.5. This is not to say the German boats didn't go deeper, but US boats could go quite a bit deeper than they were rated.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

The German Navy calculated a safety-factor of 2.5 for their "operational depth", while the U.S Navy calculated with approx. 1.5.
Calculated crush depths are not necessarily the reality. I've heard of at least one Gato surviving 600 feet and more. Also, I've seen one source that shows the German depth as twice the test depth, not 2.5. This is not to say the German boats didn't go deeper, but US boats could go quite a bit deeper than they were rated.
Yes the Later boats(Balo and Trench) could easly go down to 600ft. But thats only as far as they went because that was the limit on the guage.

[MadMike]

From what I can find in historical narratives,the deepest depth that an S-boat went to was 267 feet (81.38m) by S-37.

Yours, Mike

[Cpt. Stewker]

EDIT: bad info. I was under the wrong assumption that the boat I mentioned was one of the US s-class submarines that America gave to the UK to use during WWII and not a newer UK built S-class boat. Very confusing.

To: Subnuts

Gotcha

[Subnuts]

From this account, which you can find at http://www.marinefoundation.org/wreckshmsstubborn.htm, it seems that the deepest dive survived by an S-class sub was 166 meters.
That's a British S-boat. They're completely different designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_S_class_submarine_%281931%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-boat

[Sailor Steve]

Yes the Later boats(Balo and Trench) could easly go down to 600ft. But thats only as far as they went because that was the limit on the guage.
:rotfl:

Excellent point!:sunny:

[CruiseTorpedo]

The safety factor probable applies to fully welded hulls. I think the P class was the first to have them.

Ummm wait a minute.. They didnt weld the hulls all the way around on the early boats? How the heck were they water tight without welds going all around them? Did they use seals and crap instead of relying on tougher welds??

[Hylander_1314]

No boat is completely "sealed". That's why you have bildge pumps, and during Silent Running, they get shut off completely so as not to give away the position of the boat.

[geetrue]

Words of wisdom ... "Never trust a boat that has a bilge without water" :o

[AS]

Even if one US sub went to 600 feet, what´s the point? I just said that the safety factor was 2.5 in the German Navy, and about 1.5 in the US-Navy. Both the American and English Navy didn´t set their depth charges deeper than about 80 or so meters because THEY DID NOT EXPECT U-BOATS TO BE ABLE TO GO DEEPER THAN THAT in the beginning of the war. Their assumption was based on their own submarine constructions. In other words: it was not known (or believed) that any sub could go much deeper than approximately 100m (~300ft). This implies that American subs were not supposed or meant to be capable of deep diving.

Cheers, AS

[cmdrk]

The safety factor probable applies to fully welded hulls. I think the P class was the first to have them.
Ummm wait a minute.. They didnt weld the hulls all the way around on the early boats? How the heck were they water tight without welds going all around them? Did they use seals and crap instead of relying on tougher welds??

From here:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/history/subsaga6.html

Here's a snippet:
Between 1932 and 1941, Portsmouth built an additional 22 submarines in the 1500-ton category. It was during this period that the first all-welded submarine, USS Pike (SS-173), was completed. The welded hull allowed Pike to submerge to much greater depths than her predecessors and at the same time provided greater protection against depth-charge attacks.

[Oesten]

For me, I wouldn't call '2.5 times rated operational depth' a safety factor! Rather an 'unsafe' factor.....

I wouldn't want to go deeper than 180 meters (600 ft) in a Type VIIB unless in a dire emergency. That's twice the rated depth of 90 metres. Going deeper than that, and you're risking your lives on whether your particular boat is as well constructed as you hope it is! A Type VIIC I'd take to 200 meters, but no lower unless I had no choice.

For US subs, I wouldn't want to go deeper than 1.5 times the rated depth if I could help it. That's:

Barracuda Class : ~300 feet = 91 meters
P-Class, Salmon, Sargo, Tambor, Gar Classes: ~375 feet = 114 meters
Gato Class: ~450 feet = 136 meters
Argonaut, Narwhal Classes: ~465 feet = 151 meters
Balao, Tench Classes: ~600 feet = 182 meters

The old S-class I wouldn't dare take lower than 200 feet even under the heaviest depth charging, because they are so old I wouldn't trust them any lower! The older a sub is, the less likely it is to withstand pressures significantly greater than test depth.

The S-37's captain must have been truly desperate to take her to 267 feet!

[AS]

:damn:Why is it so hard to understand the point of a "safety factor"???:damn:

A "safety factor" is used to provide SAFETY under normal conditions. In war, you don´t have "normal" conditions, so you´ll push it to the limit in an emergency - what else could you do?

If you take a ride in a rollercoaster, you´ll rely on a safety factor for weight. If it´s built for 20 people you can count on it that it had been tested with much more weight. The decrapancy between normal operation and tested (or calculated) operation is expressed in a safety factor.

If you want a NORMAL OPERATIONAL depth of, say, 100m, would you build a hull that will collapse at 110m? Probably not. But maybe you feel "safer" if you know all parts are able to endure the pressure you´ll find at 250m (which means they can take more than twice the pressure they will encounter under "normal" conditions).

The US Navy thought 1.5 was enough, which simply means that normal operational depth was closer to critical depth compared to German subs. Taking this into account, you´ll probably not try to dive two times deeper than operational depth in SH4, while you CAN do this in SH3. It is pretty obvious that Captains only dived deep to avoid depth charges or detection, it wasn´t fun. I talked to a U-Boat veteran and he told me that sometimes they dived so deep that the hull bended inside and "you could take a shower" in the engine rooms.

Cheers, AS

[fabel]

:damn:Why is it so hard to understand the point of a "safety factor"???:damn:

A "safety factor" is used to provide SAFETY under normal conditions. In war, you don´t have "normal" conditions, so you´ll push it to the limit in an emergency - what else could you do?

If you take a ride in a rollercoaster, you´ll rely on a safety factor for weight. If it´s built for 20 people you can count on it that it had been tested with much more weight. The decrapancy between normal operation and tested (or calculated) operation is expressed in a safety factor.

If you want a NORMAL OPERATIONAL depth of, say, 100m, would you build a hull that will collapse at 110m? Probably not. But maybe you feel "safer" if you know all parts are able to endure the pressure you´ll find at 250m (which means they can take more than twice the pressure they will encounter under "normal" conditions).

The US Navy thought 1.5 was enough, which simply means that normal operational depth was closer to critical depth compared to German subs. Taking this into account, you´ll probably not try to dive two times deeper than operational depth in SH4, while you CAN do this in SH3. It is pretty obvious that Captains only dived deep to avoid depth charges or detection, it wasn´t fun. I talked to a U-Boat veteran and he told me that sometimes they dived so deep that the hull bended inside and "you could take a shower" in the engine rooms.

Cheers, AS
I agree:yep:

[Hylander_1314]

Fact is, because of the way the U-boats were designed and built, they could go much deeper than their U.S. counterparts, and far greater depths than the dockyard certificate stated as "safe".

[Sailor Steve]

That's the whole point of this discussion. The American boats could also go much deeper than the certifications said was "safe". How deep did either one actually go without being crushed? Was there really that much of a difference?

[AS]

I don´t know how many times I´ve referred to the "safety factors" but here´s a wild guess: a WW2 US-sub will probably collapse between 1.6 and 1.7 times the operational depth. I´m curious though how SH4 is going to handle this.

Cheers, AS

[Schatten]

I don´t know how many times I´ve referred to the "safety factors" but here´s a wild guess: a WW2 US-sub will probably collapse between 1.6 and 1.7 times the operational depth. I´m curious though how SH4 is going to handle this.

Cheers, AS

Probably by crushing the boat...

WWII captains didn't know exactly how deep their boats would go, so that's why there were safe depth listings for them. If you stayed above that depth you knew you were always safe. You knew the boat was capable of diving deeper and if you had to you'd try it. How deep it could actually go? Well you wouldn't know that until you either went deep and came back up, or crushed like a beercan under a semi.

That's what we'll have to deal with as Captains as well, the uncertainty.

As for which exact numbers the Devs use, that's up to them. Unlike real skippers though we'll be able to figure it out eventually since even at DiD no one is going to hit you with a brick so you can never try it again...or tell anyone else.

[AS]

...but WW2 captains knew the "secret" code for the estimated/calculated crash depth which was "3xR+60" (I guess "R" was about 50 or 60). Although considered a big secret, most U-Boat men knew about this later in war.

When early in war a Type IXb (U-123 I think it was) accidently dived to 200m Dönitz laughed at the captain and said: "Glad you proved how deep our U-Boats really can go, but was it really necessary to go for the world record?"

Cheers, AS

[Hylander_1314]

AS,

I don't know too many sub games that give you any more depth than the red line on the depth guage. Anything over that and you're toast. And soggy at that. For instance the late war US subs that could go to 400 ft safely, but in the games I've played, you go 1 foot deeper, and the hull crushes every time. I understand your point too. The boats were known to go well beyond the limit that the dock certificate stated, and there is yet to be a game, or simulator that reflects that very point unless some enterprising soul comes up with a mod for it.

It makes me wonder also how the game will deal with this aspect.

Very good point there AS.

[TwistedFemur]

U.S.S Tang went to 600 feet during her first depth test. She went deeper when she went on patrol.


All the way to the bottom?

[cmdrk]

U.S.S Tang went to 600 feet during her first depth test. She went deeper when she went on patrol.

All the way to the bottom?

Yes, which was about 180 feet in the Formosa Straits.

[AS]

Talking about US dive depths we shoudn´t forget that real deep (I mean deeep) diving wasn´t that important for U.S subs, because the Japanese had mayn depth charge problems and in the beginning of the war they couldn´t actually re-set the depth parameters. From what I´ve read so far they didn´t even care much and their depth charges were often misplaced or went off in shallow depths like 35m.

Another point is that Japanese subs couldn´t dive very deep (about 75m), so they didn´t expect enemy subs to go deeper.

To cut it short: Dive depths were not as important for US skippers than it became in the Atlantic. Japanese ant-submarine technology and SKILL was rather limited---

Cheers, AS

[Hylander_1314]

The Japanese didn't use their subs as the US did either, and to make them playable in the game, would be a lesson in extreme tedium. Most missions cinsisted of resupplying the island outposts

That's not to say that they didn't sink any allied ships. The Yorktown, and Indianapolis are just a couple examples.

[azn_132]

The Japanese didn't use their subs as the US did either, and to make them playable in the game, would be a lesson in extreme tedium. Most missions cinsisted of resupplying the island outposts

That's not to say that they didn't sink any allied ships. The Yorktown, and Indianapolis are just a couple examples.

And the Wasp and damaged the Saratoga and sink the liscome bay whatever.

[JSF]

The US Navy was very concerned with the development of ever deeper diving submarines. COMSUBPAC was able to gather substantial information from the many detailed submarine patrol reports. As the war progressed many new tactics were formulated from these reports in an effort to combine safer operations as well as increase thier killing effeciency. One of those tactics ofen used was to dive as deep as neceassry to find a boundary layer or thermal. Sometimes this was only a couple hundred feet. However, there were instances of having to go a deep as 400 feet.

The Balao, thick skin boat, was developed in large part to take full adavantage of this tactical evasion technic. In the deeper waters surrounding Japan this maneuver was widely used with much success.

[bookworm_020]

U.S.S Tang went to 600 feet during her first depth test. She went deeper when she went on patrol.

All the way to the bottom?
Yes, which was about 180 feet in the Formosa Straits.

Some of the crew were able to escape before being overcome by chlorine gas. These were people who weren't aft of the control room when the torpedo hit.

[Capt. D]

AS,

I don't know too many sub games that give you any more depth than the red line on the depth guage. Anything over that and you're toast. And soggy at that. For instance the late war US subs that could go to 400 ft safely, but in the games I've played, you go 1 foot deeper, and the hull crushes every time. I understand your point too. The boats were known to go well beyond the limit that the dock certificate stated, and there is yet to be a game, or simulator that reflects that very point unless some enterprising soul comes up with a mod for it.

It makes me wonder also how the game will deal with this aspect.

Very good point there AS.
Hylander,

I just finished a patrol on SH I with a Balao sub. Their test depth was 400 but I went right down to 500' with no issues (none either in SH II or III). Not even the "cracking" sound of the hull. I think with the Tang's ability to go to 600' - and that depth probably a rare occasion, US subs did go deep on occasion. Having bathythermograph equipment to test the thermal layer temps - from March '43 on - may have given reason for some deep dives to get away from sonar detection or the attempt to do so. Hopefully SH IV will continue to allow for such dives.

Happy Hunting :ping:

[Hylander_1314]

I'll have to look over my SHI install, as everytime I go deeper than the "crush depth" my sub is doomed. No matter which boat I've got.

[Finback]

There are many facts to be considered determining crush depth. Probably the most important is where the sub was built. Manitowoc probably built the strongest hulls because they rotated the hull as they welded it which allowed the welders to always weld top-down. This meant that the welds were the same strength all the way around the hull. It was an innovative technique at the time.

The USS Puffer (Gato Class-Manitowoc) sat out one of the worst depth charge attacks of the war at 500 feet--200 feet past test depth. The Tang (Balao Class-Elictic Boat Company) went to 700 feet at one time. They could read depths beyond 600 feet by measuring outside water pressure and doing the math.

I talked to a crew member of the SSR Redfin (refitted Gato Class--Radar Picket Boat) who claimed that due to an human error, they went to 700 feet!!! (Test depth was still 300).

I believe I read in George Grider's book "War Fish" that they were subjected to a wild ride in the Pollack (P Class-Welded Hull) that took them down to 500 feet.

So what should crush depth be for these boats in the SH4? Personally, I would like to see a wide variable from 1.3 to 3X rated test depth. That would keep me honest! If the boat was riveted hull construction (Old S Class and pre-Pollack P Class) this factor should be less IMO. If I find out that I can take all Balaos to 550 feet witout a problem, it takes some of the intensity out of the sim for me. I actually want to be Very Concerned when pushing depth limits on a boat-to-boat basis.

Just my 2 cents and shot of rum.

Cheers All!

Finback

[geetrue]

There are many facts to be considered determining crush depth. Probably the most important is where the sub was built. Manitowoc probably built the strongest hulls because they rotated the hull as they welded it which allowed the welders to always weld top-down. This meant that the welds were the same strength all the way around the hull. It was an innovative technique at the time.

The USS Puffer (Gato Class-Manitowoc) sat out one of the worst depth charge attacks of the war at 500 feet--200 feet past test depth. The Tang (Balao Class-Elictic Boat Company) went to 700 feet at one time. They could read depths beyond 600 feet by measuring outside water pressure and doing the math.

I talked to a crew member of the SSR Redfin (refitted Gato Class--Radar Picket Boat) who claimed that due to an human error, they went to 700 feet!!! (Test depth was still 300).

I believe I read in George Grider's book "War Fish" that they were subjected to a wild ride in the Pollack (P Class-Welded Hull) that took them down to 500 feet.

So what should crush depth be for these boats in the SH4? Personally, I would like to see a wide variable from 1.3 to 3X rated test depth. That would keep me honest! If the boat was riveted hull construction (Old S Class and pre-Pollack P Class) this factor should be less IMO. If I find out that I can take all Balaos to 550 feet witout a problem, it takes some of the intensity out of the sim for me. I actually want to be Very Concerned when pushing depth limits on a boat-to-boat basis.

Just my 2 cents and shot of rum.

Cheers All!

Finback


Wow! That's a lot of good information ... Finback.

Where did you get those sea stories?

and about this rum for only two cents ... that reminds me of the time we
played host to a English submarine in San Diego, back in 1964.
The boat was called the HMS Tapiar out of Austrailia on her way
back home after several years down under.

Talk about rum ... they had rum call everyday and beer too. Crazeist
bunch of boat sailors I ever did meet.

They were so drunk after going to Disenyland ...
I can't figure out how they rembered to close the hatch
before they dived, but I love em.

[Finback]

well...information--yes. Good information? LOL. It just proves that I should try some other hobbies besides sub history :lol: .

Anyway--Thanks geetrue!

The Manitowoc info is from a book I got from the museum there when I was a kid (a VERY long time ago). I was at that museum when they opened the USS Cobia for tours. I still have the book kicking around here somewhere so I'll try to find the title for you.

The info regarding the Puffer is in a few books I've read, most notably the 2 volume Silent Victory. Lots of good stuff in that one.

Tang information was taken from Clear the Bridge by Richard O'Kane. That's a good read to as O'Kane explains how in trials he would dive the boat until something broke and then would go to the yard, have it fixed, go back out and dive deep again. He did this until he could make 600 feet (I think that's the depth stated in the book). Its worth noting that the crew was not pleased by this. That's the book where I found that the crew could read depth by pressure gauges as well as the depth meter.

The Redfin crewmen I met in Manitowoc at a bar. I think I had Guiness that night :lol: .

Cheers!

[dean_acheson]

"Batfish: The Campion Submarine Killer Submarine of World War II" by Hughsont E. Lowder and Jack Scott, 1st printing, 1980.

Batfish was a Balao class, now in Oklahoma serving as a musemn.

On page 23, "Although the maximum recorded depth survived by a fleet sub is still classified material, it was believed that this would happen to Batfish at approximately 850 feet."

[geetrue]

Thanks dean for bringing this thread back up from the depths of the forum :lol:

Which reminds me of another sea story while waiting for SH4 ... Not only did I serve two years on one of the last diesel boats, USS Salmon SS-573. I also served five more years on FBM (boomer) submarines.

It was 1968 somewhere in the Med near the end of a 90 day patrol, on the USS Ethan Allen SSBN 608 blue crew, when the captain decided to test the boat's ability to go down to test depth. He did not consulte me on this decision of course.

I was a 2nd class sonarman on watch, but you have to understand that sonar wasn't in the control room in those days. We had our own little room measuring perhaps 14' long by 8' wide, bigger than radio or missile control center.

Everyone had to get out of their bunks for this test, plus it was exciting and a change of normal routine. The captain took us down from our normal patrol depth of 200' in 100' depth changes. The men in crews mess tied a line from one side of the bulkhead to the other and threaded it through a coffee cup, then pulled the line taught and tied it off.

By the time we got down to 1,000' (16 missiles on board too) the coffee cup was almost touching the deck, that's how far the hull had contristiced inward.

One of those extroverted sonarman bored from having to get up when he wasn't on watch managed to get a syringe from the corpsman and filled it with water. He then gets in the back of sonar and starts squirting it a little at a time at the other two sonarman on duty.

They kept swiping at the drops of water and looking up at the overhead, but they didn't say anything as we passed 1,100' the long grab rails that led from our deck to the next deck down starts poping and coming off the false bulkhead it was attached to, but the noise was horrible causing the sonarman on the stack to turn around cusing this event ... just in time to catch his shipmate spraying water up in the air with his little trick.

The captain stopped the test at 1,200' and I was hiding my nerviousness by laughing at the two on sonar wondering what was going on with the water coming down on their heads.

We came back up and the coffee cup came back up too, but not as tight as it had been of course. That was the life I led 39 years ago ... and I'm glad I did. :yep:

[dean_acheson]

"He did not consult me on this decision of course."

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That's great. There are days that I wish that I have made some different decisions about how to spend my life.....

Here's another quick quote from the Batfish book of a conversation after an attack on what was believed to be a UBoat before the boat's first patrol, pg. 34:

"you guys remember old what's his face, the quartermaster from the sub school? The one who just got out of the sack to go on watch, and asked how the weather was topside? And the Chief tells him, 'It's wet topside.' So the old guy dresses full out in foul weather gear and red goggles and marches through the control room, up the conn... then up the ladder to the bridge to stand watch.... and drives his skull down to his collar buttons trying to go through the closed hatch! We was at two hundred feet!" We'd heard it before, but we liked hearing it again."

[sunvalleyslim]

Good story geetrue,
I think the old string across the bulkheads has always been happening. Took the USS Segundo SS398 down to test depth in '69, 34 years after her commissioning. As I stated in another thread, she was decommished in 1970. they used her as a target bait off San Francisco. Shot one torpedo into her and she went down to 1,000 ft before imploding....with a test depth of only 400 ft............lots of room to spare......:up: :up: :up:

[Crosseye76]

On the George Bancroft, we did the string bit, and I also still have 4 styrofoam coffee cups I tied in one of the line lockers under the superstructure. After going all the way down to test depth, they are about the size of a shotglass, and almost rock hard. Kind of a neat momento.

[joea]

Holy coffee cup Batman, you've had some amazing experiences geetrue! :D Love it!