Posted on 02/11/2020 6:16:15 PM PST by bkopto
>> After a while I realized that meant:
they were messing around with new technology and water depths.
He was full of crap.
There are very few things that are comparable in the Thresher and Scorpion sinkings except for the end result.
And neither was about messing around at water depths with the implication that they intentionally went too deep.
There was no “Fast Scram Recovery” procedure at that time. That was one of the lessons learned from the disaster. Also, we got the “Sub Safe” program.
I did not mean it that way.
It will be interesting to learn many things, for a fact- if they are allowed to be released.
Bob Ballard’s discovery of the Titanic location was after a still classified mission, under the work cover of the Woods Hole Center “oceanography” cruise, had to do with checking on reactor vessel status (it is said, but was much more), corrosion/leakage and such- from both Thresher and Scorpion.
Doubt that those records (far more recent) will be released.
But the thing that killed their propulsion was the procedure to shut the steam stops on loss of MSW to protect the condensers at all costs. That changed too after Thresher. The scram was very late in the casualty after the loss of depth control.
If the gauges fail,
if the pumps fail,
if the welding fails,
if the engineering specifications fail,
you are faced with the unforgiving water depth.
(was what I meant)
“After a while I realized that meant:
they were messing around with new technology and water depths.”
Not what you think.
I was just saying that your Naval Intelligence source was full of crap.
Yeah, it’s kind of like the rule that
if a guy tells you he is CIA, he probably ain’t.
Few times was offered and went on what was a kind of PR “trip” was all I could tolerate. High admiration for our submarine force crews. Pretty sure they don’t do those anymore, not after the Greeneville collision with the Ehime Maru, while demonstrating to VIPs an emergency blow surfacing.
>> you are faced with the unforgiving water depth.
(was what I meant)
Submariners face failures of equipment at unforgiving water depths all the time and still surface. The pressure of sea water at depth is a cruel bitch and we know it.
>> Yeah, its kind of like the rule that
if a guy tells you he is CIA, he probably aint.
Exactly. ;-)
Still off the mark.
581 and 633 here
I thought that only people who are serving or who had served in the Navy could call a ship a boat.
I ain’t Navy, much less a submariner.
My respect to those who are.
I spent my 6 years in the National Guard (71-77).
My dad was a Merchant Mariner in “the big war”.
There is an aircraft carrier named after a distant relative.
(CVN 70)
I tried to join the Navy twice in 1969-1970...
...both times they wanted to put me on submarines...
...both times I walked away from the offer.
I just could not see myself doing that.
Too damn claustrophobic...
My respect to both of you.
As in Unterseeboot.
Pass the popcorn, please... This is going to be intense...
Jah— “Das Boot”. Uncle from wwII sub service said it was quite accurate for the borrowed US “fleet submarine” design— borrowed from the Germans, and that the scenes were pretty darned accurate as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.