PDA

View Full Version : A close look at Narwhal Class boats



klcarroll
02-12-2007, 06:56 PM
DEMAND NARWHAL CLASS BOATS!!!!!!

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/ss-167.jpg

As many of you are painfully aware, I have been rather vocal on the subject of including the Narwhal and Argonaut Class boats included in SH4: This discussion is intended to be a more in-depth examination of the issue.

Below is a picture of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SS-168) during early trials:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/ss-168a.jpg

The U.S.S. Narwhal, the U.S.S. Nautilus, and the U.S.S Argonaut were built in the 1930's as the largest of the "V-Boat" class. All three were huge boats by the standards of the time, with the Narwhal and Nautilus measuring 371 feet overall, and having a submerged displacement of 3960 tons. The Argonaut differed in that she was built as a minelayer, with an overall length of 381 feet and a submerged displacement of 4080 tons.

This picture shows "The Three Musketeers" tied up together in the early ˜30s:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/ThreeMuskateers.jpg

These boats were obviously not designed as "Fast Attack Boats": .....What they were was an American Enhancement of the WWI German "U-Cruiser" concept. It is this design philosophy that explains their size, their extremely long range, and the deck guns these boats were equipped with.

All three boats carried the largest deck guns ever installed on a U.S. submarine: .....and they weren't low velocity, low recoil "chuffers" either!! .....The TWO six inch, 53 caliber guns mounted by these boats were the same guns the U.S. Navy used in tandem mounts as the secondary batteries on battleships, and in triple mount turrets on Brooklyn Class Cruisers!


http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/v-4gun2.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/v-4gun3.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/v-4gun1.jpg

........And in spite of the fact that these boats were quickly employed in missions that were vastly different than what they were designed for, these big guns were not mere "Eye Candy"! .....They were used to good advantage in numerous instances, including the remarkable bombardment of Bula Ceram Island by the Narwhal; .....where she fired 53 rounds of 6" HE, destroying a gasoline storage facility, a pumping station, and a powerhouse.

On another occasion, The Nautilus, after landing an assault force on Kenna, was called on to "reduce" the bunkers occupied by the Japanese forces: ....And again, the "big guns" went to work, sparing the Marines the daunting task of digging the enemy out of those bunkers.

On yet another occasion, the Narwhal was given the unenviable task of drawing the enemy's attention away from the Etorofu Strait, so that the U.S.S. Plunger, U.S.S. Permit, and U.S.S. Lapon could escape from the Sea of Japan; which they had daringly invaded several weeks earlier:

.....So, the Narwhal surfaced, and proceeded to shell the Japanese shore installations. She was so effective that the Japanese (convinced they were experiencing a major assault) were soon throwing everything they had at their off-shore tormentor: ....Allowing the American "Mini Wolfpack" to escape, completely undetected!

.....And, of course, no discussion of these boats and their big guns would be complete without mentioning the amphibious attack on Makin Atoll, where the Nautilus and the Argonaut landed 211 Marine Raiders, and then supplied the naval gunfire necessary to support the landing. This gunfire was not limited to shore targets: .....during the bombardment, the Nautilus was also able to sink two coastal vessels and a patrol boat in the lagoon!

The picture below shows the Marine Raiders and submarine crew manning the deck as they arrive back at "Pearl".

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/makinraidersatPearl-1.jpg

This picture graphically illustrates the other huge advantage these boats brought to the table: ......Cargo Capacity!!

The assault on Makin Atoll required that the Nautilus and the Argonaut each take on more than 100 men over complement, AND all their combat equipment and supplies! (Try that with your TypeIX.)

The U.S. Navy quickly came to appreciate that these boats were some of the most effective "Special Ops" boats they had. These boats routinely delivered strike teams, intelligence personnel, and as much as 100 tons of supplies to places far behind enemy lines: ....And all the while, sinking Japanese ships where ever they found them! In spite of their size, and slightly lower performance level, the U.S. Sub Command would have been delighted to have ten more just like them! .....As things were, many Baloa and Gato class boats were given similar assignments: ....which is certainly not the best use of their capabilities!

On the subject of size and performance, we need to do a "Real World" comparison to the other U.S. Fleet Boat Classes:

Yes, the Narwhal Class boats were over 50 feet longer and displaced 75% more than the Baloa and Gato class boats, but in spite of that, they were only three knots slower on the surface, and had virtually no submerged speed disadvantage! ..........So, in spite of what some of their critics might say, they weren't "Lumbering Dinosaurs" waddling slowly towards extinction!

While their large physical size set them apart from the typical "Attack Boat"; ...it gave them some of their unique advantages: Their large size enabled them to mount, AND effectively use their six inch deck guns. It also gave them their amazing payload capability and remarkable range. The minimum cruising range listed for this class is 18,000 miles, with some sources quoting figures as high as 25,000 miles. (I suspect that the 25,000 mile figure was for the Narwhal, at "most efficient" speed, as the Nautilus had been modified to transport 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel for the purpose of refueling seaplanes at sea.)

It is frequently mentioned that their large size made them easily detectable by Japanese DDs: .......Well, that may be true, but the depth chargings they received in the course of their war careers demonstrated that they weren't particularly fragile. Of the three, only the Argonaut failed to survive the war.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q84/klcarroll/ss-168b.jpg


So............., what we have here, even if you ignore the other "V-Boats", are three unique, innovative, and interesting boats that all had distinguished war careers: What possible reason can be offered for omitting them from SH4???

The "Not Historically Significant" argument dies instantly, when one considers that UBI worked very hard to include the TypeXXI boats in SH3.

As we all know, the TypeXXIs never inflicted any damage on the enemy: ....So why were they included???? .....Simple: They were interesting and innovative designs! (Just like the Narwhal Class.)

I just don't think that it's asking too much to include historically significant (...and interesting) boats in a game product that is billed as a Historical Simulation.

..........But hey!! ......I've always been a little on the "simple" side, so maybe I'm missing something.

geoffwessex
02-12-2007, 07:10 PM
A very good case, very well put. Get them in!

wikingsh2006
02-12-2007, 07:56 PM
I agree that these boats should be in SH4. Good job putting this together.

blastomatic1759
02-12-2007, 09:52 PM
I kinda like that name the Argonaut. heres another one that was the argonaut.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c379/BoattrashBill/100_0415.jpg

klcarroll
02-15-2007, 07:34 AM
With all the problems associated with the MK14 torpedo, many of you are going to come to appreciate the 6 inch guns mounted by these boats!

.....Other than that observation, ...This is a shameless "bump". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

*

WilhelmSchulz.
02-15-2007, 09:16 AM
The Argonaut was a minelayer. And her first attempt at convoy work ended in disaster(ie sunk). A cripled fleet boat could of done better that a fully oprational Argonaut.

klcarroll
02-15-2007, 12:12 PM
.......And her sister ships, The Narwhal and he Nautilus both survived the war, with 15 and 14 combat missions respectively; ....and the Narwhal winning 15 Battle Stars.

...Besides, if you send a specialty boat like a minelayer in to attack a convoy, then you must be prepaired for negative results! (Personally, I think The Argonaut deserves the "Cajones of the Year Award" for even trying it!)

Only one out of four men who served in the German U-Boat Service survived the experience; ...and yet no one criticizes the quality of their service, or the capablities of their boats based on those losses!

What point are you trying to make???

*

Celeon999
02-15-2007, 01:22 PM
Hmmmm. That coming back to Pearl pic made me thinking....


I hope we will see the effects of the attack on Pearl harbour on our way out of the port.

Evading wrecks etc.... Maybe even people working on them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

klcarroll
02-15-2007, 01:35 PM
Well..........., In the "Original Game", the IJN made sure there was plenty of "eye candy" in and around "Pearl". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Stuntcow
02-15-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
Hmmmm. That coming back to Pearl pic made me thinking....


I hope we will see the effects of the attack on Pearl harbour on our way out of the port.

Evading wrecks etc.... Maybe even people working on them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Celeon999
02-15-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
Well..........., In the "Original Game", the IJN made sure there was plenty of "eye candy" in and around "Pearl". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif


Well, for historical accurency of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There was surely lots of traffic in the months after the attack with all the repair and salvaging efforts the harbour must have been the most crowded place in the pacific. Full of ships and swimming work platforms with hundreds of people working.

I assume getting in and out wasnt so easy and required some coordination ?

klcarroll
02-15-2007, 02:10 PM
All joking aside, ....the post-attack salvage efforts were still going on in 1943!

For a pretty good summary, see the following link. (..and it's attached links.)

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/ph-salv.htm

*

RedTerex
02-15-2007, 05:42 PM
I think that these class of subs WILL be included in the game, I'de give a 95% chance on it.

They were in SH-1 so they should be in SH-IV, The Devs know all about this sub.

It was a great sub to have in SH-1 especially for the twin for and aft deck guns.

you have a great quality post as well klcarrol, great photos and well ensembled thread, thanks

klcarroll
02-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Thanks for the kind words! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

NeoDeo1955
02-16-2007, 04:54 PM
It is a shame that Narwhal and Nautilus made it thru the war only to be torpedoed by SH IV. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

dsheerin
02-16-2007, 06:36 PM
Perhaps they'll be included in a patch? Or expansion?

NeoDeo1955
02-17-2007, 11:36 PM
I hope the game will be modable enough to include US sub classes SH IV has left out.

Then maybee we could get at least mods of the Narwhal class. Maybe even an R or O class mod too.

Dominicrigg
02-18-2007, 03:30 AM
Ohh wow, imagine missions to blow up refineries or shell some far of base. That would be fun and add a cool element to the game. I would love that.

NeoDeo1955
02-19-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Ohh wow, imagine missions to blow up refineries or shell some far of base. That would be fun and add a cool element to the game. I would love that.

I would like to shoot up far off enemy harbors full fo Sampans untill the shore batteries get too close then break off and find another distant outpost to harass. Or land some raiders inorder to find some sake for the Skipper.

klcarroll
03-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Well......, This definitely falls under the heading of "Shameless Bump": .....But the inclusion of these boats is something I feel strongly about.

(.....Even if it does seems to be a case of "Jousting with Windmills"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif)

*

Liddabit
03-11-2007, 03:34 PM
Fight on Donquixote! I love deck guns! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

klcarroll
03-11-2007, 03:54 PM
Thanks Liddabit!

Your support means a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*

NeoDeo1955
03-11-2007, 07:34 PM
I though this was interesting.

Post card of Argonaut's deep dive test in 1937 showing 323 feet.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7079/argonaut11hj2.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=argonaut11hj2.jpg)

aaronblood
03-11-2007, 08:19 PM
I dunno... seems like a lot of work for just 2 boats.

The Argo was a minelayer, and I just don't see mine laying as the most exciting patrol objective. So basically it's two boats we're missin out on? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If it will bring a Japanese sub adversary in to the picture faster, they can ignore the Narwhals completely as far as I'm concerned...

gazs_sub
03-11-2007, 08:23 PM
I agree, though the 2 boats would be a nice inclusion.

Just outta curiosity, were there many if at all sub vs sub confrontations with japanese/american vessels?

Time to read up on the pacific! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

IsaanRanger
03-11-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by aaronblood:
I dunno... seems like a lot of work for just 2 boats.

The Argo was a minelayer, and I just don't see mine laying as the most exciting patrol objective. So basically it's two boats we're missin out on? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If it will bring a Japanese sub adversary in to the picture faster, they can ignore the Narwhals completely as far as I'm concerned...


Yes of course its a great patrol! wait till DD detects you and circles above you, you crash dive then you go to a complete stop. the DDs hover and circle you. you then launch mines to the surface. and DD hits them and explodes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I proved it in SILENT SERVICE

NeoDeo1955
03-11-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by IsaanRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aaronblood:
I dunno... seems like a lot of work for just 2 boats.

The Argo was a minelayer, and I just don't see mine laying as the most exciting patrol objective. So basically it's two boats we're missin out on? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If it will bring a Japanese sub adversary in to the picture faster, they can ignore the Narwhals completely as far as I'm concerned...


Yes of course its a great patrol! wait till DD detects you and circles above you, you crash dive then you go to a complete stop. the DDs hover and circle you. you then launch mines to the surface. and DD hits them and explodes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I proved it in SILENT SERVICE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Argonaut was refit in 1942 where she was turned into a diesel electric as opposed to prewar direct drive and stripped of her mine laying equipment.

"The diesel engines were underpowered and unreliable and were later replaced. Early in World War Two, she was re-engined at Mare Island with four GM 12-258S diesels and a 300kW GM 8-268A auxiliary diesel to increase her main propulsion horsepower to 3,600, and additionally received two external aft-firing torpedo tubes. Tt Pearl Harbor – having never laid a mine in anger – her mine-laying gear was stripped out to facilitate conversion to a troop-carrying submarine In 1942 she was converted to a troop transport submarine, and redesignated APS-1 on 22 September 1942. She took part in the landing of marine commandos on Makin in the Gilbert Islands."

Following SH 3 upgrade system you should be able to refit just like any other sub.

BTW.

You can only skipper one boat at a time.

klcarroll
03-12-2007, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by aaronblood:
I dunno... seems like a lot of work for just 2 boats.

The Argo was a minelayer, and I just don't see mine laying as the most exciting patrol objective. So basically it's two boats we're missin out on?

If it will bring a Japanese sub adversary in to the picture faster, they can ignore the Narwhals completely as far as I'm concerned...

You've raised three reasonable points; ....and I feel obligated to respond. (Even though most of these points have been touched on before.)

Your first comment was; "I dunno... seems like a lot of work for just 2 boats.":

Well, ....first of all, there were nine boats in the "V Class". All of them served in WWII, with six of them assigned to Pacific Operations. The Narwhal, Nautilus, and the Argonaut were simply the largest and most heavily armed variant within the class: ....and they were boats with distinguished war records. The Narwhal was awarded fifteen Battle Stars; ....one for each of her FIFTEEN combat patrols!!

When you consider that on Dec. 7, 1941 the U.S. had only 112 submarines in commission, you can appreciate that omitting nine of them is a serious issue.

........And I don't think that the programming effort required is a valid argument for leaving out boats with distinguished war careers: .....not when you look at the effort the Devs put into including the TypeXXI in SH3. (Boats which never sank so much as a case of beer!)


Your next comment was; "The Argo was a minelayer, and I just don't see mine laying as the most exciting patrol objective."

The first thing I have to point out is that while the Argonaut was indeed configured as a mine layer, all that modification cost her was her two stern tubes. She still had her forward torpedo room, she still had her massive six inch deck guns, and she still had her incredible cruising range. When she was lost, she was conducting a torpedo attack against a heavily escorted convoy: ....So her Real Life commander obviously didn't feel too heavily handicapped by her original design mission!

I think that you're seriously underestimating both the value and interesting nature of mine laying missions. (Easily understood; ....as SH3 never addressed the issue.) I personally think that mining a straight, and then sitting quietly off to the side to watch the mayhem when a convoy comes through would be GREAT! (Socko has a "chubby", and is mumbling something about AA guns and "floating debris".)

Your final comment was; "If it will bring a Japanese sub adversary in to the picture faster, they can ignore the Narwhals completely as far as I'm concerned...".

Well......, Sorry......, But don't hold your breath! After reading the Devs' comments for the last four months, it has become clear to me that there is a HUGE difference in programming effort between adding a "Human Controlled" sub to the game, and giving enemy subs "AI" in all operational respects.

****

Since it's already far too late to "make a long story short", I'll take this opportunity to speculate on the real reasons for not including the Narwhal Class:

If you'll recall, the initial reason the Devs gave for not including these boats was; "...They do not fit the type of gameplay planned".

This is a very interesting statement: ......And one is immediately inclined to ask "Why???".

If you think about it for a little bit, it seem like a fair assumption that the "planned gameplay" would revolve around torpedo attacks against convoys and escorts: ....something that was a known programming model from SH3. Using this basic combat model, all of the related items that are based on tonnage, like renown awards, decorations and promotions, and crew experience are familiar programming efforts based on previous models.

If we take that as a given, then it is easy to see why the Narwhal Class boats might "upset the applecart". They were designed not as "Fleet Boats", but as an "Americanization" of the WWI German "U-Cruiser" concept. The two six inch guns they carried are the same guns that were mounted by Brooklyn Class cruisers! They were the largest deck guns ever mounted on a U.S. submarine, and were far more effective (and practical) than the British and French experiments with mounting large guns on submarines.

If the "planned gameplay" was centered around the typical attack that a Gato or Balao would conduct, then it's absolutely beyond question; ....the Narwhal Class would be out there "rollin' with a whole ˜nother set o' dice"!

It is easy to anticipate that a skilled "Cyber-Skipper" could rack up a 100,000 ton patrol without ever firing a torpedo! (Particularly early in the War.) This would certainly "skew" any easily programmed effort to make the game generally parallel actual history.

OK....., I already know that some are asking; "If these were such "super guns", then why didn't they rack up huge tonnages in real life??"

History provides that answer. The Narwhal Class boats were never allowed to go out on "U-Cruiser Patrols" due to the early War circumstances:

The U.S. had just lost a significant portion of it's surface fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese controlled the Western Pacific, and the Allies were busy loosing the Philippines and virtually all of the islands north of Australia. Cut off garrisons were pleading for supplies or evacuation, and this was impossible to do with surface vessels due to the Japanese air and sea superiority. The job fell to the submarine service.

The Narwhal Class boats, due to their size, were the first to be grabbed for these missions, and once so employed, they were never released. We never got to find out how a "U-Cruiser" would fare in the Western Pacific; .....which is a shame, because the situation re-created the environment that originally brought the "U-Cruiser" concept into existence.

This is not to say that they didn't get to use their guns in real life! These boats conducted numerous shore bombardments in support of other operations.

It's amusing to imagine the look on some poor Japanese commander's face when six inch shells start dropping around him (the kind normally requiring a Light Cruiser for a "dispenser"): .....from what had been an empty ocean only five minutes before!

********

All in all, I have trouble understanding why more players aren't interested in trying a few patrols with such uniquely armed boats: ....After all, isn't it the whole purpose of a simulator to provide an insight into circumstances we haven't experienced before?

*

Tater-SW-
03-12-2007, 11:10 AM
As a noob here, why would the addition of an IJN SS have to be AI? What about an IJN B1 type as a player controlled boat?

Seems like you'd get more utility out of adding an IJN boat than a lower production US boat.

I'm certainly interested in the Narwhal Class, but given the choice (assuming finite resources for add ons) I might take the large increase in diversity that a japanese sub would offer (assuming that is not fundamentally impossible).

aaronblood
03-12-2007, 03:50 PM
My short attention span <yawn> and lack of interest in Narwhals prohibited me from actually reading most of what was posted above...

However from what I skimmed you're, obviously an avid fan of these boats. Although I can't seem to locate any interesting reading that includes em. I guess Dic O'Kanes recollections of the Argo being a slow lumbering, difficult to stabilize, platform sorta turned me off to the whole class. I figure there was probably good reason they didn't make too many of em.

But... I'll keep readin and see if I can locate any decent published material.

A more interesting and I think relevent inclusion would be the option to swap out the deck gun for rockets!

klcarroll
03-12-2007, 03:59 PM
As a noob here, why would the addition of an IJN SS have to be AI? What about an IJN B1 type as a player controlled boat?

Since I obviously do not have the actual code in front of me, I can only speculate: .....But I have to note that the existing SH3 "engine" doesn't seem to allow for the human control of "enemy units". If the SH4 "engine" is based on the one used in SH3, then I can anticipate that adding such a feature would be a MAJOR re-write.

Programming issues aside, no one has yet explained to me why they expended the effort to include a historically insignificant boat like the TypeXXI in Sh3, only to turn around and ignore historically significant boats in SH4.

I suspect, however, that I already know the answer: Somebody with authority thought the TypeXXI was cool, and that the Narwhal Class wasn't. If that was what happened, then I have to say that it's not a decision that can be logically supported. It certainly is not the sort of decision that is compatible with the phrase "Historical Simulation".

*

NeoDeo1955
03-13-2007, 11:36 PM
Nautilus has a Baby! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7774/0816813lu7.jpg

klcarroll
03-14-2007, 07:19 AM
NeoDeo

Great Picture! ...I've seen a lower res version, but this one is nice and crisp!

It certainly shows the difference in size between the Nautilus and one of the old "S" Class, doesn't it!! (It looks like they could almost load it on the aft deck, like one of the Japanese minis! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif)

.......And look at those deck guns! (drool)

*

NeoDeo1955
03-16-2007, 05:46 PM
You probably thought the first modern tear drop design was the USS Albacore.

Not so. Take a look at this picture of the SS-167 USS Narwhal attacking the Stinko Maru!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6985/ss167cartoon02600gv8.jpg

switchman72
03-20-2007, 11:19 AM
I have no problem whatsoever demanding Narwhal class boats klcarrol. But you did leave out two major problems and disadvantages of the Narwhal class. 1) Very...Very...VERY poor manuevrability, above and especially below the waves. Not adept at avoiding depth charges at all. 2) and probably more important from the U.S. Navy's point of view, Narwhal and Barracuda class boats along with S-class Didn't have the 21 inch torpedo tubes that were required for the mark 14 torpedo. They carried Mark 10 torpedoes which were smaller and had much less explosive power, as they only carried 400lbs of TnT or Torpex, compared to 610lbs from the Mark 14. The navy was continualy trying to phase out the Mark 10 That was one of the main reasons These subs were relagated to minelaying and supply missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

klcarroll
03-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Yes, ......The Narwhal Class boats were large, somewhat cumbersome boats. This relative lack of quick maneuverability did not, however, prevent the Narwhal and Nautilus from surviving the War, racking up 15 and 14 distinguished combat patrols respectively.

The large size of these boats was one of the factors that made their massive deck gun armament practical. As noted earlier in this thread, these 6" guns were the same gun that was used on "Brooklyn Class" cruisers. (I personally feel that these guns offer simulation players some really fascinating gameplay options, and I think it would be a real shame to miss that.)

I have to submit, with all due respect, that your torpedo data isn't entirely accurate: ...The MK10 was indeed a 21 inch torpedo, and carried a 500 lb warhead. The Various U.S. classes built between the wars were configured to use this torpedo. The reason that they were unable to deploy MK14 torpedoes had more to do with "hardware interface" issues.

Like all U.S. boats built "between the wars", the "V Class" was originally equipped with the MK10 torpedo, and this is probably how the Narwhal, Nautilus, and Argonaut began the war: .......It must be noted, however, that all three boats were "modernized" at Mare Island in early 1942.

This refit included new engines, four external torpedo tubes (two forward firing, two aft), and modernization of the on-board electronics. My research indicates that MK14 compatibility was included in this refit.

As a side note, even though the MK10 didn't pack the "punch" of the Mk14 (particularly the ones fitted with TORPEX warheads), and did not have a magnetic exploder, it did not suffer from many of the problems displayed by the early war "pre-fix" MK14s. (A torpedo that actually goes "BANG" is infinitely better than a more powerful one that doesn't!)

*

banzai_billy
03-20-2007, 01:31 PM
I just finished reading "Impossible Victory."
Or "Incredible" or "Amazing" or something along those lines, the cover is gone.
Anywho, SS Nautilus was the only submarine to engage enemy ships at midway, firing three torpedoes at the sinking Soryu, two going to bow and aft, and a third hitting but resulting as a dud.

I hope I got that right if anyone has more details I'm all ears.

klcarroll
03-20-2007, 01:52 PM
@Banzai;

Your information is correct.

I have always acknowledged that the Narwhal Class wasn't large numerically, but the fact remains that they were very significant boats; ....particularly in the early war years.

I continue to feel very strongly that their inclusion in SH4 is necessary.

......And besides, from a strictly gameplay standpoint, their six inch deck guns would be outstanding toys!! (I can't believe that other people don't want to get their hands on them!)

*

growlerxmg
03-20-2007, 04:15 PM
Back in my wasted youth I was a very huge fan of subsims and the original Silent Hunter ranked chief among those that I played. The large V-Boats were my favorite class, although under my command I never once managed to bring one to war's end successfully. I specifically remember that when employing the deck guns you could hit the space bar twice in quick succession to fire both guns back-to-back or keep up a constant rate of fire by alternating them. The crowning glory of my various careers was defeating a destroyer escort that had forced me to the surface with depth charges.

I would definitely like to see them in SHIV and I think that they have just as much of a place in this game as any other class of submarine that served in the Pacific Theatre of the war. Whether or not they actually make an appearance is the question.

In the meantime, I think I'll try my hand with the S-Boats.

switchman72
03-20-2007, 06:59 PM
klcarroll by no means doi want these historical boat ommited from the game. I just was trying to shed some light on possibly why the game dev. teams would leave them out. I am also a little dissapointed as well. The Tench class isint represented either even though a small number of them did manage to get commisioned in 1945. I think that this submarine class had a much more similar playability span as the type XXI. Game wise.

klcarroll
03-20-2007, 11:24 PM
klcarroll by no means doi want these historical boat ommited from the game. I just was trying to shed some light on possibly why the game dev. teams would leave them out. I am also a little dissapointed as well. The Tench class isint represented either even though a small number of them did manage to get commisioned in 1945. I think that this submarine class had a much more similar playability span as the type XXI. Game wise.

@Switchman;

Rest assured that I took your original post in a very positive way. I am delighted when someone else shows an interest in some of these older boat classes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

As I am sure you have noticed, finding the hard core, "Nuts & Bolts" type of technical information on submarines that have been extinct for 60 years is getting tougher: ......This makes all input on the subject very welcome.

Since this thread is full of my opinions on the Narwhal Class, I will not continue to "beat that horse" here in this post.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you about the Tench Class boats; ...and your reference to the German TypeXXI was very relevant.

Several of the Tench Class boats finished two or more SUCCESSFUL war patrols: ......A very hard thing to do when you consider how little of the Japanese naval and merchant inventory was still afloat at that late date. They were very modern, very capable boats: .....a point illustrated by the fact that the U.S.S. Tench herself remained in service until 1973.

I simply do not understand the omission of these boats! How can one justify the programming effort it took to include the TypeXXI (a boat that never hurt anybody) in SH3, and then, in SH4, turn around and ignore boat classes that had productive (and in some cases distinguished) war careers???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oh well, ..........maybe one of our beloved Modders will write us a Christmas Present. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Thanks for your support!

*

NeoDeo1955
03-21-2007, 12:18 AM
I found this picture of the Nautilus under construction.

Of considerable note, The huge steel supports for the the two six inch 53 caliber deck guns. These guns weighed in at over 18 tons each.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2377/0816825uj0.jpg



It has been suggested earlier that these guns were mounted on The Brooklyn Class cruisers. In fact, The 6 inch 47 caliber guns were installed on the Brooklyn class cruisers and were a newer design which was first put into service in 1937. They were rapid fire guns that could fire 8 to 10 rounds a minute. The Sub cruiser 6 inch 53 caliber guns fired 6 to 7 rounds a minute and the gun was first put into service in 1923. They were also the main armament on Omaha class light cruisers.


http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5205/h97971bn1.jpg


The six inch projectiles weighed in at 105 pounds.

That is almost twice the weight of the second largest submarine gun the 5 inch 25 caliber that projectile hit the scales at 54 pounds.

switchman72
03-21-2007, 12:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I wholeheartily agree with you klcarrol. Its a shame that Ubi is so dead set on their deadlines to release a incomplete, game that they overlook (purposely or not) the very reason for making such a game in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

klcarroll
03-21-2007, 05:29 AM
@ Neodeo;

That's a GREAT picture! ......I hadn't seen that one before; .....where did you find it??

......And you're right; ....those gun mounts are no mere afterthought!

Also, thank you for pointing out the gun discrepancy. I was the one who made reference to Brooklyn Class cruisers. Upon double checking my stuff, two of the articles I have in my files do indicate that the Brooklyn Class was armed with the 6/53; .....and as you point out, that appears to be an error.

This is one off the things that makes researching these older ships interesting: .....Much of the hard equipment data is being lost, or corrupted through careless re-writes. (You end up doing a lot of "data sifting".)

......But now you've got my curiosity up! I'm wondering about how the performance of the 6/53 compares to the shorter 6/47. Normally, a shorter tube would result in a small loss in ballistic performance. I'll post after I do some more digging.

(Obviously, a submarine's lack of a coordinated fire control system makes actual ballistic differences something of an academic issue; ......but it's still fun!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*

NeoDeo1955
03-21-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
@ Neodeo;

That's a GREAT picture! ......I hadn't seen that one before; .....where did you find it??

......And you're right; ....those gun mounts are no mere afterthought!

Also, thank you for pointing out the gun discrepancy. I was the one who made reference to Brooklyn Class cruisers. Upon double checking my stuff, two of the articles I have in my files do indicate that the Brooklyn Class was armed with the 6/53; .....and as you point out, that appears to be an error.

This is one off the things that makes researching these older ships interesting: .....Much of the hard equipment data is being lost, or corrupted through careless re-writes. (You end up doing a lot of "data sifting".)

......But now you've got my curiosity up! I'm wondering about how the performance of the 6/53 compares to the shorter 6/47. Normally, a shorter tube would result in a small loss in ballistic performance. I'll post after I do some more digging.

(Obviously, a submarine's lack of a coordinated fire control system makes actual ballistic differences something of an academic issue; ......but it's still fun!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*

Arggh! I forgot to mark the link for the pictures. I know it has to be from exsisting link i have marked so I will go back and check them.

The 6 inch 47's also could fire a super heavy AP projectile (130 pounds) that increased the penetration.

NeoDeo1955
03-22-2007, 11:50 PM
The skipper and patch of the Argonaut.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9026/cmdrjohnpiercess166argodu3.jpg

NeoDeo1955
03-23-2007, 10:12 PM
The first skipper of the Nautilus and patch.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5781/brocman2sf8.jpg

NeoDeo1955
03-24-2007, 09:18 PM
The second skipper of the Narwhal.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5483/lattafd371bgn3.jpg

NeoDeo1955
03-25-2007, 03:19 AM
Not the Narwhal, but in SH IV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6127/sentokune5.gif

klcarroll
04-11-2007, 03:24 PM
Bump!

mastergas
04-11-2007, 07:58 PM
hey ubi ill buy this game if you include it in the next patch.

vietvettwo
04-11-2007, 09:30 PM
I'm sort of 50/50 on the issue. I have found myself using my guns more than I expected, and these boats obviously have a great advantage in that arena. I'm not sure if I would want to command one when the majority of the time I was out hunting convoys or task forces.

I would take command for a special mission if that were possible, and then return to my regular boat when I got back.

Accused_Raptor
04-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
Bump!

Ok, you have officially peeked my modding interest on the subject. I have been lurking just below the surface of these here forums and I must admit, I would love to use on of these in the game.
A few questions first tho.
Is it possible to add player controlled subs to the game? If so would it also be possible to add interiors and the dual guns?
And finally can anyone provide some decent reference drawing of the sub to model from?
I have done a few google searches and did not find much in the way of quality drawings.
But knowing how it is to be passionate about a subject, I am sure there has to be at least one person out there who could scan some reference.

lubecknj
04-11-2007, 09:55 PM
I am sure someone has said this already but I am not in the mood to read through 3 pages of posts...

Listen these subs were amazing ships, they are unique and I am sure you could have fun with them....

But if you were to accurately model them into the game they would be deathtraps. You honestly think your 6" guns are going to make you uberships unstoppable? You might catch a merchant here or there in the beginning of the war, but come convoy time those DDs will come after you, and in that situation you are in a severe disadvantage.

15 battle stars? The Narwhal was a glorified cargo ship. What did it sink? Two coastal freighters and a 2500 ton freighter? Yeah great war record for a ship whose most common mission was delivering cargo. Why bother adding a sub that had horrible combat characteristics and whose major role in the war was as a shuttle? Or do you guys want to do delivery of agents/supplies/spies all war long? Man that sounds like a blast!

Accused_Raptor
04-11-2007, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by lubecknj:
Why bother adding a sub that had horrible combat characteristics and whose major role in the war was as a shuttle?
I think you answered youre own question.

Originally posted by lubecknj:
Listen these subs were amazing ships, they are unique and I am sure you could have fun with them....
And besides isn't that what video games are all about?

klcarroll
04-12-2007, 08:26 AM
Originally by lubecknj;


I am sure someone has said this already but I am not in the mood to read through 3 pages of posts...

So you don't really care about other points of view and any facts that they might contain???


And again by lubecknj;


15 battle stars? The Narwhal was a glorified cargo ship.

Are you really questioning the historical facts, or are you implying that Battle Stars were just "eye candy" that the Navy scattered around??

I begin to wonder if you have researched this subject as thoroughly as you imply.

*

Jarrod69
04-12-2007, 09:44 AM
quality post klcarroll

certainly deserves a rather large BUMP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

davejb1167
04-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Okay, I give in -
if it were up to me you could have the Argonaut... I think it was Veovis69 (I prefer the 'accidental' renaming, as you can tell) who produced the picture with both guns arrowed in response to my previous 'manoeuvres like an elephant' style comment.

I thinjk you need a bigger mod however - there seems little point to me in including these boats then tasking them with standard ops... the raider ops (that I have yet to be given, suffering countless repeat missions in all careers so far - I've dropped off more passengers in Japan than the bullet train). You need extra tasking, they should be given a mix of scouting, bombardment, cargo and minelaying ops.

I've nothing (really) against adding new boats and classes to the game - why complain about having more to play with?

Re 15 battle stars - with the benefit of hindsight, JANAC and the like, we can see that many wartime patrols didn't accomplish what was claimed... explosions heard from premature detonations, scope later raised and nothing seen = a probable kill, where in reality the target simply sailed out of the limited visual horizon.

This sort of thing still happens today, and I don't doubt it always has done - what is often not understood is that these 'honest' reports (honest, but mistaken in a good number of cases) still reflect bravery, and determination on the part of the crew at the time, operating on imperfect understanding far from friendly bases. It's easy to take postwar data and see that the torps didn't hit, the ship didn't sink - at the time the sub went into a dangerous situation, the captain then carried out a difficult attack (try auto TDC off, now imagine someone is randomly spraying the vicinity of your PC with a shotgun while you do it) and he deserves those battle stars - it's not his fault the torps ran deeper than set, the exploder didn't, and COMSUBPAC is going to spend 2 years insisting the problems are crew maintenance faults.

klcarroll
04-12-2007, 11:06 AM
This sort of thing still happens today, and I don't doubt it always has done - what is often not understood is that these 'honest' reports (honest, but mistaken in a good number of cases) still reflect bravery, and determination on the part of the crew at the time, operating on imperfect understanding far from friendly bases. It's easy to take postwar data and see that the torps didn't hit, the ship didn't sink - at the time the sub went into a dangerous situation, the captain then carried out a difficult attack (try auto TDC off, now imagine someone is randomly spraying the vicinity of your PC with a shotgun while you do it) and he deserves those battle stars - it's not his fault the torps ran deeper than set, the exploder didn't, and COMSUBPAC is going to spend 2 years insisting the problems are crew maintenance faults.

Very well said, my friend! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Let us honor brave men, regardless of how their efforts turned out in the cold, clear light of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking"!

*

lubecknj
04-12-2007, 02:21 PM
So you don't really care about other points of view and any facts that they might contain???

I am just trying to say that these subs in a realistic situation would be incapable of doing what the fleet boats did. Which makes me ask why you would want to get a sub that is a deathtrap. Those 6" guns you want so bad...why do you think they were used more as shore bombardment than against ships?

Are you really questioning the historical facts, or are you implying that Battle Stars were just "eye candy" that the Navy scattered around??

I begin to wonder if you have researched this subject as thoroughly as you imply.

*[/QUOTE]

Battle stars are not just given for having a successful patrol and sinking ships.

First War Patrol: 6515 ton ship damaged, 1244 ton sunk. (Probably a battle star, hurt the enemy at the beginning of the war)

Second War Patrol: Defense of Midway (guarunteed a battle star for that even though it did nothing)

Third War Patrol: 2 coastal tramps, and two 2500ish ton freighters (another combat battle star)

Fourth War Patrol: First cargo run, delivered troops to Attu prior to the invasion. No ships engaged. No doubt for its role in retaking Attu got another star. That is 4/4 so far and while my previous quick read missed some ships so far her count is 2 coastal tramps, 2 2500ish freighters, and a 1250 ton freighter with one damaged freighter. Not bad...but keep in mind this is when the Japanese were amaturing at best in ASW.

Fifth War Patrol: Bombarded Japanese air base to provide diversion to allow three subs to get out of the Sea of Japan. The three ships got out. Another battle star...5/5 still at 5 ships sunk 1 damaged.

Sixth War Patrol: Ok I definetaly read the info on her way too fast late last night, a 4500 ton freighter...followed by a severe punishing by depth charges. I question if they got a battle star for this one but it wouldn't surprise me.

Seventh War Patrol: Delivered supplies to the guerillas in the Phillipines...the kind of missions that inspired the devs to include supply and agent insertion missions. Returned with 32 evacuees. Battle star most likely.

Eighth War Patrol: Dropped off more supplies and picked up more evacuees from Phillipines. Caught a 834 ton freighter and took it out with her guns. Ok so she could take on an unescorted little freighter with her guns...I am not impressed but combined with more daring insertions and taking on evacuees battle star. 7/8 and maybe 8/8 at this point.

Ninth War Patrol: More supplies and agents, more evacuees, no engagements.

Tenth War Patrol: More dropping of supplies and more evacuees. Damaged a river gunboat. Took a heavy beating from destroyers and returned to Fremantle for repairs.

Eleventh War Patrol: More supplies and insertions, no engagements.

War Patrol # Twelve: More of what was now her usual mission...the missions that I said would be the hallmark of commanding this glorified cargo ship. Bombarded some fuel tanks ashore...again why I commented have fun bombarding shore targets.

#13: More of the usual

#14: Usual, then picked up prisoners of war on a ship sunk by another US sub...picking them up would be a sure battle star.

#15: Final war patrol...with 15 battle stars that would mean she got one for each mission. Usual mission.

Why did she get 15 battle stars? Because her missions were extremely dangerous, going right up to the beach to drop off supplies, agents, and soldiers to the Phillipines under the nose of the Japanese.

Final Scorecard:
2 Tramp Freighters
1 850 ton freigther
1 1250 ton freighter
2 2500 ton freighters
1 4500 ton freighter
1 6500 ton freighter

Total Tonnage (Minus tramps): 18,100. Primarily sunk by torpedoes, not the deckguns you crave.

The reason she was used as a cargo ship 9 out of 15 missons was because of her ability to carry a large amount of cargo. That much I am 100% sure of. As a person who reads a lot on WWII I am pretty sure I recall that she had horrible performance statistics when it came to diving fast. Her deckguns were useless in all but the best weather, and were 100% useless against Japanese warships.

All of that leads me to feel that it would be a waste of time that could be better spent fixing the numerous near-gamebreaking bugs to add a submarine that after a year passed in the war was relegated to cargo duty because she was found unworthy of patrol duty. If you want the challenge fine good luck, but this type of thing should be left to modders to add if they can.

klcarroll
04-12-2007, 03:11 PM
Hmmmm......

You say; "Why did she get 15 battle stars? Because her missions were extremely dangerous, going right up to the beach to drop off supplies, agents, and soldiers to the Phillipines under the nose of the Japanese."


...And then in the next breath you refer to the Narwhal as; "....a submarine that after a year passed in the war was relegated to cargo duty because she was found unworthy of patrol duty."

Maybe I'm just "simple", ....but those two statements seem to contradict each other.

*

lubecknj
04-12-2007, 03:22 PM
How so? How is running cargo to the Phillipines and returning evacuees to Australia a war patrol? A war patrols primary task is to hunt out the enemy and destroy them, which is not what the Narwhal was doing. It is not contradictory at all.

veovis39
04-12-2007, 03:23 PM
I thought my arguments were so convincing too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif Some people are just hard to please.

Wolfvram
04-12-2007, 03:38 PM
@ veovis, I thought so too. They convinced me (even more than already)

As for a war patrol, to me, that means anything done within the theatre of operations that relates to the war effort. Whether or not that was the US navy's viewpoint I don't know.

To answer another point, the reason the Narwhal class boats were mainly used for cargo transport was due to the lack of surface ships capable of doing it, because of pearl harbour. As has already been stated in this thread I believe.

davejb1167
04-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Submarines were used to run supplies into the PI simply because there was no alternative - surface vessels would never have made it to port under Japanese air superiority. As the waters were shallow in many places even sub supply runs would have been pretty dangerous work - as well as not being overly popular with the crews and skippers as the cargo was a drop in the bucket compared to what was needed.

A war patrol - what on Earth do you think constituted a war patrol then? A war patrol doesn't mean going in with guns blazing, 'doesn't count unless you get shot at' etc, generally speaking being officially in combat is a matter of being in a given area during a certain period doing something operational. I have no problem with somebody driving a boat into Manila counting it as a war patrol - rather more hazardous than a good number of the trips to patrol the Marshalls etc I would have thought, I doubt any vets would disagree.

klcarroll
04-12-2007, 04:10 PM
lubecknj;

To use your own words, the missions assigned to these boats were "extremely dangerous".

If these boats were the "lumbering targets in search of an incoming round" that you imply, then obviously the Japanese would have had no problem interdicting those missions. Unfortunately for your argument, history does not bear this out.

I am curious; ...why are you so vehement on the subject?? I would think that any avid gamer would welcome a boat class that was decidedly different from the general run of U.S. Fleet Boats: (If you were a Japanese lookout, can you honestly say that you could tell the difference a Salmon and a Balao from 3000 yards away???)

In a game full of "almost-the-same" boats, doesn't a real difference appeal to you??

Sure we all want the bugs fixed, ....but give us some interest too! The SH3 Dev Team put in hundreds of hours of programming time to include the TypeXXI: .....Why? ......Because it was interesting! (Never mind the fact that a TypeXXI never hurt anybody!) Why shouldn't we have some interesting classes in SH4???

I think it's a shame that you seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a simulation; .....and that one of the really fun things about simulations is their ability to model scenarios that didn't actually occur.

*

Captain_Chase
04-12-2007, 04:20 PM
Anybody know of any good books/pictures/blueprints?

I would love to build one of these bad boys (1:72 scale) just need a bit more data to convert over a spare kit I have any info would be great

klcarroll
04-12-2007, 04:27 PM
Anybody know of any good books/pictures/blueprints?

If anyone turns you on to something good, let me know!

You'd be amazed how confused the technical data is, a mere 60 years after the fact: ....good, confirmed info is hard to find!

*

Accused_Raptor
04-12-2007, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Captain_Chase:
Anybody know of any good books/pictures/blueprints?

I would also be interested in getting my hands on these drawings or prints.
Not to build a scale model mind you but a 3d model for the SH4 engine.

davejb1167
04-12-2007, 05:39 PM
Can't help there, I know there's a large GATO model available. I resurrected a hobby (one of a number) from my distant youth simply to ensure I didn't spend all my spare time at the PC - I've a garage full of radio control planes and helos that seldom see daylight, and I'm part way into the Tamiya waterline range sticking models of targets together. When I pop off some kid is going to make out like a bandit on all the toys they'll find....

VikingGrandad
04-12-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Captain_Chase:
Anybody know of any good books/pictures/blueprints?

I just found some Narwhal plans on eBay http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://cgi.ebay.com/USS-NARWHAL-plan_W0QQitemZ600756442...yZ4248QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/USS-NARWHAL-plan_W0QQitemZ6007564423QQihZ009QQcategoryZ4248QQc mdZViewItem)

(check the seller's shop (http://stores.ebay.com/PLANS-N-THINGS_submarine-plans_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ11QQftidZ2QQtZkm) for plans of many other subs)

bunkerratt
04-12-2007, 06:54 PM
USS Narwhal SS-167 Log
(Data From: The Dictionary of American Fighting Ships)

1927 - 1930
10 MAY 1927 Keel Laid as V-5 by Portsmouth Navy Yard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
17 DEC 1929 V-5 Launched - sponsored by Mrs. Charles F. Adams (wife of the Secretary of the Navy)
15 MAY 1930 V-5 Commissioned
Lt. Comdr. John H. Brown Jr., Commanding Officer
11 AUG 1930 Departed Annapolis, Md. for cruise to the West Indies.
11 SEP 1930 Returned to Portsmouth
SEP 1930
JAN 1931 Training in New England Waters

1931
31 JAN 1931 Sails for the West Coast via the Panama Canal
04 APR 1931 Arrives San Diego, California
19 FEB 1931 V-5 renamed Narwhal
01 JUL 1931 Reclassified as SS-167
Date Unknown Enters Mare Island Navy Yard for overhaul

1932 - 1941
02 FEB 1932 Departs Mare Island Navy Yard for fleet exercises off Hawaii.
17 MAR 1932 Returns to San Diego
1932-1934 Patrol Duty on the West Coast
12 JUL 1934 Cruise with Submarine Division 12
18 SEP 1934 Returns to San Diego
1934-1935 Patrol Duty - North as far as Seattle - West as far as Hawaii
?? MAR 1935 Completes the first submarine rescue of a downed naval aviator, taking aboard a victim of engine failure of a biplane float plane off Coronado. - Narwhal also tows the downed plane back to North Island.

(editor's note: Is this the only known aircraft salvage tow by a submarine?)
1935-1937 Continues Patrol Duty
Date UNK Assigns Homeport at Pearl Harbor
1938-1941 Continues Patrol Duty

7 DEC 1941
07 DEC 1941 Inport - Pearl Harbor Submarine Base - Narwhal's crew man their .30 caliber guns within minutes of the first enemy bomb explosions on Ford Island. Narwhal's gunners assist in the destruction of two torpedo planes. The kills were shared with the crew of the USS Tautog (SS-199) and a nearby destroyer.

NARWHAL's Report

1942
02 FEB 1942 First War Patrol - Lt. Comdr. Charles W. Wilkins, USNR, commanding. -

Complete Narwhal Report
First Endorsement to Narwhal Report - Submarine Division Forty Two
Comments on Narwhal Report - Submarine Squadron Four
7 FEB 1942 Narwhal grounds in sand at Midway pier and later surges into pier.
15 FEB 1942 Narwhal reconnoiters Wake Island.
16 FEB 1942 Narwhal continues reconnoiter of Wake Island then continues on to the Ityukyu Islands.
28 FEB 1942 Narwhal makes her first torpedo attack of the war, - heavily damaging 6,515-ton Maju Maru.
06 MAR 1942 Narwhal sinks 1,241-ton Taki Maru in the East China Sea.
28 MAR 1942 First War Patrol completed
28 MAY 1942 Second War Patrol in defense of Midway Atoll. - Lt. Comdr. Charles W. Wilkins, USNR, commanding. - - Narwhal joins USS Plunger (SS-179) and USS Trigger (SS-237) scouting east of Midway in support of Task Force 16 (USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Hornet (CV-8), and USS Yorktown (CV-5)) prepares to meet the Japanese attack.

(This was the Battle of Midway [June 3 thru 6] - and was the first US victory in the Pacific.)
13 JUN 1942 Second War Patrol completed
07 JUL 1942 Third War Patrol - Lt. Comdr. Charles W. Wilkins, USNR, commanding.
Searching out Japanese shipping off the Kuriles.

not quite Complete Narwhal Report
Comments - Commander Submarines, Pacific Fleet
24 JUL 1942 Narwhal sinks a small interisland freighter.
28 JUL 1942 Narwhal sinks a second small interisland freighter.
01 AUG 1942 Narwhal sinks the 2,921-ton Meiwa Maru. Heavy aircraft bomb and depth charge retaliation follows.
08 AUG 1942 Narwhal sinks the 2,559-ton Bifitku Maru.
14 AUG 1942 Narwhal raises her periscope to discover three enemy destroyers crossing her stern in column. She resubmerged to wait it out while the destroyers, according to one of her submariners, "were running all over the ocean" dropping depth charges at her. Only slightly damaged, Narwhal departed her patrol area the next day.
26 AUG 1942 Third War Patrol completed
08 SEP 1942 Departed Pearl Harbor for the west coast.
15 SEP 1942 Arrived Mare Island Navy Yard for overhaul.

1943
04 APR 1943 Departed Mare Island.
06 APR 1943 Arrived San Diego to embark the 7th Infantry Scout Company for the invasion of Attu Attlit Island.
18 APR 1943 Departed San Diego ordered to Alaska.
27 APR 1943 Arrived Dutch Harbor.
30 APR 1943 Fourth War Patrol - Lt. Comdr. Charles W. Wilkins, USNR, commanding. - - Departed Dutch Harbor for the western Aleutians.
11 MAY 1943 Rendezvoused with Nautilus (SS-168) off the northern side of Attu, and the two ships, debarked Army Scouts in rubber boats for the preliminary landings in the recapture of the island. - - (This venture successfully completed 29 MAY 1943)
14 MAY 1943 Arrived Dutch Harbor.
18 MAY 1943 Departed Dutch Harbor enroute Pearl Harbor.
25 MAY 1943 Fourth War Patrol completed
26 JUN 1943 Fifth War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. - Underway for the Kuriles
11 JUL 1943 Narwhal assigned to create diversion by bombarding an air base on Matsuwa. - USS Lapon (SS-260), USS Permit (SS-178), and USS Plunger (SS-179) were about to attempt an exit from the previously impenetrable Sea of Japan which they had so daringly invaded.
15 JUL 1943 Narwhal draws so much enemy shelling she was forced to dive, but she accomplishes her mission. The other submarines slip through Etorofu Strait without detection.
07 AUG 1943 Fifth War Patrol completed
31 AUG 1943 Sixth War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. - Underway for the Marshall Islands.
11 SEP 1943 Narwhal torpedoes and sinks 4,211-ton Hokusho Maru. - Japanese escorts attack with a severe depth charging. - Narwhal then departs for the Kwajalein Atoll area.
?? SEP 1943 Enroute Brisbane, Australia, via the Solomons.
02 AUG 1943 Sixth War Patrol completed
AUG 1943
OCT 1943 Narwhal prepares to assist in the campaign to reoccupy the Philippines begun in January 1943 when USS Gudgeon (SS-211) disembarked six Filipinos and a ton of equipment on Negros Island.

(Veteran Narwhal eventually became the leading submarine in supporting the Philippine guerrilla movement with nine secret transport missions to her credit.)
21 OCT 1943 Seventh War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. - - Underway for the Philippine Islands.

Narwhal was loaded down with 92 tons - of ammunition and stores and a party of ten.
10 NOV 1943 Narwhal in the Stulu Sea, off Mindanao en route to Puluan Bay when two Japanese ships astern opened fire.
13 NOV 1943 Narwhal enters Ptiluan Bay stealthily at night to disembark her passengers and half of her cargo while lying off the starboard side of the Japanese registered Dona Jitana Maru. - By midnight Narwhal was safely on her way to Nasipit, Mindanao.
15 NOV 1943 Narwhal docks in Nasipit, Mindanao to unload the rest of her stores to the tune of "Anchors Aweigh" played by a grateful Filipino band. - She then embarked 32 evacuees, including 8 women, 2 children, and a baby, destined for Darwin, Australia.
22 NOV 1943 Seventh War Patrol completed
25 NOV 1943 Eighth War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. - With the usual cargo and 11 Army operatives Narwhal sails for Cabadaran, Mindanao.
02 DEC 1943 Arrives Buttian Bay for disembarking. Picking up seven evacuees, Narwhal sails for Majacalar Bay
03 DEC 1943 Arrives off Negros Island. Takes on 9 more people
05 DEC 1943 Narwhal stands out of Alajacalar Bay. Around sunrise she sinks the 834-ton Hinteno Maru in a blaze of gunfire.
11 DEC 1943 Narwhal dismbarks her passengers at Port Darwin.
18 DEC 1943 Ends eighth war patrol at Fremantle, Australia.

1944
18 JAN 1944 Ninth War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. - Narwhal returns to Darwin to embark observer Comdr. F. Kent Loomis and more stores. Following a nighttime transit of Surigao Strait, Narwhal, slips west and north, makes a submerged patrol off Naso Point, Panay, then heads for Pandan Bay to transfer cargo to sailing craft.
07 FEB 1944 With six new passengers Narwhal lies just off Negros Island to deposit 45 tons of supplies. Narwhal then received 28 more evacuees for the trip to Darwin.
15 FEB 1944 Ninth war patrol ends in Freemantle.
16 FEB 1944 Tenth War Patrol - Comdr. Frank D Latta, USNR, commanding. -
02 MAR 1944 Narwhal delivers more ammunition to Butuan Bay and embarks 28 passengers.
03 MAR 1944 Departs for Tawi Tawi. This evening she sinks the 560-ton river gunboat Karatsu, the captured American gunboat USS Luzon (PR-47), and is heavily bombarded with depth charges by enemy escorts for her trouble.
05 MAR 1944 Two small boats, assisted by rubber boats from Narwhal, put off for shore with cargo. Three Japanese destroyer types close in later; she eludes them.
11 MAR 1944 Transfers her passengers, now a total of 38, to RAN tug Chinampa
20 MAR 1944 Tenth War Patrol ends in Freemantle.
07 MAY 1944 Eleventh War Patrol - Commander Jack C. Titus, commanding, Sailing for Alusan Bay Samar.
24 MAY 1944 Lands 22 men and supplies, including electric lamps, radio parts, and flour for the priests, during the night.
01 JUN 1944 Unloads 16 men and stores on the southwest coast of Mindanao.
09 JUN 1944 Ends eleventh war patrol in Port Darwin.
10 JUN 1944 Twelfth War Patrol - Commander Jack C. Titus, commanding
13 JUN 1944 Narwhal submerges for reconnaissance of Bula Ceram Island, a source of enemy oil. That night the submarine closes the shore and fires 56 rounds of 6-inch projectiles to destroy several gasoline storage tanks and set fires around a power house and pumping station area before she retreating from the salvos directed at her.
20 JUN 1944 Three minutes before sunset Narwhal rendezvous with native boats to send her cargo ashore during a suspenseful nine and one-half hours. Within 30 minutes after she had completes unloading and taking on 14 evacuees, a submarine chaser is in her wake. Narwhal evades successfully.
21 JUN 1944 Narwhal shoots at a Japanese sea truck.
22 JUN 1944 Narwhal shoots at an unidentified tanker.
29 JUN 1944 Puts her evacuees ashore at Port Darwin.
07 JUL 1944 Ends twelfth war patrol at Freemantle.
12 AUG 1944 Thirteenth War Patrol - Commander Jack C. Titus, commanding -
30 AUG 1944 Narwhal surfaces in Dibut Bay on the east coast of Luzon for her usual disembarking procedures, greatly speeded this time by the use of bamboo rafts built by the shore party under direction of Comdr. Charles Parsons, a liaison man in the Philippine supply and evacuation missions.
02 SEP 1944 Before midnight Narwhal sends a party and supplies ashore to a beach off the mouth of the Masanga River and receives four evacuees in return.
10 SEP 1944 Ends thirteenth war partol at Port Darwin.
14 SEP 1944 Fourteenth War Patrol - Commander Jack C. Titus, commanding -
27 SEP 1944 Narwhal deposits men and stores on Cebu. Departs for Sairi Bay.
29 SEP 1944 Narwhal receives 31 liberated prisoners-of-war rescued from the sea after Paddle (SS-263) sank several Japanese transports off Sindagan Point 6 September.

(editor 2 Feb 2001: I don't quite understand this. Paddle's history shows she sank one cargo ship (SHINYO MARU) on 7 SEP 1944 - there is no indication of Paddle being damaged. Are these Americans liberated from POW status or Japanese from the cargo ship becoming POWs? Who is Narwhal receiving them from and who exactly are they? Anyone know?)

(editor 6 Feb 2001: I Just got a message from Al Anceravage. He says "Regarding the POWs, it was the 14th patrol, 14 Sept to 15 Oct 1944, there were 81 POWs involved. The paddle (SS263) sank the Shanyo Maru (hell ship) off the coast of Mindanao. There was a plaque dedicated on 8 sept 98 by remaining survivors in Fredericksburg, Texas at the Ad[miral] Nimitz Museum. Somewhere along I read there where 750 POWs involved but only 81 survived."
30 SEP 1944 Narwhal finds herself in danger this afternoon when she submerges to avoid a Japanese antisubmarine patrol plane, her stern planes lock in a 20 degree angle. Forced to blow her main ballast to stop the steep dive Narwhal reverses direction and pops out of the water stern first just 2 minutes after she went down. Luckily the patrol plane could not maneuver fast enough to return before Narwhal again dives.
05 OCT 1944 Ends fourteenth war patrol.
Date Unknown Narwhal based at Mios Woendi, Dutch New Guinea
11 OCT 1944 Fifteenth War Patrol - Commander William G. Holman, USNR, commanding -
13 OCT 1944 Friday, the 13th brought a near attack by a PBY. Once the submarine was recognized, the plane signaled "good luck" -- Narwhal and crew felt they might need it after that.
17 OCT 1944 Narwahl offloads 11 tons of food stuffs while sitting off Tawi Tawi beach.
19 OCT 1944 Narwahl offloads the balance of her cargo and 37 men at Negros Island and embarks 26 passengers.
02 NOV 1944 Ends fifteenth war patrol at Brisbane.

1945
06 JAN 1945 Narwhal departs Brisbane for the east coast via the Panama Canal
21 FEB 1945 Arrives Philadelphia Navy Yard
23 APR 1945 Decommissioned
19 MAY 1945 Struck from the Navy List
Date Unknown Sold for Scrap
Narwhal's two 6-inch guns are permanently enshrined at the
Naval Submarine Base, New London, at Groton, Conn.
Narwhal earned 15 battle stars for her World War II service.

klcarroll
04-13-2007, 07:17 AM
bunkerratt;

Yup! .....That pretty much covers it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*

merrillbear
04-13-2007, 10:31 AM
Love the pictures, yes,yes, include the Narwal
class boats in SHIV !!!!!

Spartan Hoplite

Captain_Chase
04-14-2007, 10:57 AM
Thanks for that Viking Granddad I should very shortly be the proud owner of a set of blue prints for far more subs than is healthy and shortly after have yet more model subs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh and a new scottie puppy as that was the price my wife extracted from me for more subs in the house/garden/pond

WingZero2005
04-19-2007, 07:55 AM
has anybody tried to make a mod for the Narwhal class boats yet

mastergas
04-22-2007, 12:40 AM
yet another erason reason to include the narwhal class boats. if any of you's have played MOH pacific assault. wellon the makin atol mission the uss nautoliss and another boat of teh same class bring you and your marines there and back. well if it was important enougth to be included inthat game well shoudnt it be important enougth for this game

pacace_063
04-22-2007, 09:31 AM
I saw on the History channel ,an episode that was latter "pulled", that the Narwhal class boat was made of ice and straw as opposed to ice and aspen shavings. I'm not sure how it could submerge but that doesn't matter because it would be bulletproof.

klcarroll
04-24-2007, 08:24 AM
Bump!

wh1skea
05-31-2007, 10:27 AM
I know this thread is somewhat old, but since I'm new, and have been made aware that none of the V boats (specificly V4-V6) aren't in the game, I did a search on the subject. I found this being the original post, so I'm replying here. I think that Ubi should release an expansion to include the Barracuda, Narwhal, Argonaut, Dolphin, Tench, and maybe Cuttlefish classes, along with missions to compliment them. Granted, the V1-V3 never did have any combat encounters, the did patrol the Pacific coast near Panama.

Until we get our V Boats, I shall bear the image in my sig to support the movement for them.

As for Narwhal's battlestars....didn't she get one for her participation in the defense of Pearl Harbor?

klcarroll
05-31-2007, 10:37 AM
wh1skea;

Your research is "Spot On"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks for your support in this "crusade"!

*

wh1skea
05-31-2007, 10:41 AM
But, wouldn't the fact that she received a star for 7Dec41 mean that she didnt get on for one of her patrols?

I am an ametuer WW2 PTO historian....mainly focusing on the silent service and naval aviation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

klcarroll
05-31-2007, 10:46 AM
A good question! ......I'll have to go back and re-read her mission summaries.

(....And BTW, I think it's great that we have so many people on these forums that are REAL students of history!)

*

wh1skea
05-31-2007, 11:55 AM
Also, for those exclaiming about V4-V6's maneuverability and not being able to avoid depth charges, that's why you try extra hard not to get caught. There is a reason its called the Silent Service.

Anti_Ship_Fella
05-31-2007, 12:03 PM
i would reallllllyyyyyy like the narwhal tench and argonaut http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Deepbluewolf
05-31-2007, 12:48 PM
great thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

and my only grown up comment is...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gifI WANT ONE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

V.C._Sniper
05-31-2007, 05:44 PM
The Narwhal class and the Argonaut are extremely awesome subs!!! Their size filled my mind with wonder and awe. I love them soo much! They are soo huge and beautiful and special!! They also have quite a history around them.

I would soo enjoy sinking Jap destroyers with those two ultra massive 6" deck guns! Love those guns

vietvettwo
05-31-2007, 08:16 PM
I'd agree that if they sent you out of port, into a hostile area it's a war patrol. If they sent you into a Jap harbor and you didn't find anything to shoot at does it make it less worthy? It's the effort and the potential risks.

During WW2 my dad was in light attack bombers (A-20's and A/B-26's), they didn't take part in those giant raids like the B-17's & B-24's, they were closer to what we would consider tactical air today. Maybe a dozen planes going after a gun battery or something like that. They also didn't get to go home after 25 missions, he had 125 under his belt by the time it was done.

They always felt cheated because they didn't get credit for a mission if they didn't put bombs on target (might be fogged in, moved, what ever), but they still might have had to fight their way in and out. If they caught a flak burst on the way home from a non-mission were the German's gonna give them a free pass back to England and tell them to try again next time?

wh1skea
06-01-2007, 02:09 PM
After reading several of the discussions on this subject, I find that the only opposition are those that want the game fixed, but I take it that is really everyone, so I'll leave that reason out. And those that say things like "its slow", "have fun being sunk by depth charges", and other such comments. The "double-sixers" (my new name for Narwhal, Nautilus, and Argonaut) had the same submerged speed as a Gato boat. And yeah, Argonaut was sunk by dc's. So were Gato's and Balao's. NEXT!

Jacob2739
06-01-2007, 04:59 PM
I'd definately like those boats, since I'm an @ss at firing torpedoes.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Anywayz...more boats would just be more toys for us...that sounds good to me.

Jacob

lane2512
06-01-2007, 10:46 PM
klcarroll..........

God bless you sir! That photo of Argonaut is the best resolution shot I have ever found of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion onboard either the Argonaut or the Nautilus. You probably remember me telling the story awhile back but my father was one of those Marines.
He shipped out on Nautilus but he said in the confusion getting back to the subs the groups got all mixed up between the boats. While I still can't recognize his face it still is a much better shot then any I have come across before.

Clipped that shot and going to have it printed at a shop and replace the lo-res shot I have in a frame with his ribbons and globe-n-anchor.

I owe you one fella. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/lane2512/raider-patch02.jpg

wh1skea
10-03-2007, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by wh1skea:
But, wouldn't the fact that she received a star for 7Dec41 mean that she didnt get on for one of her patrols?

I am an ametuer WW2 PTO historian....mainly focusing on the silent service and naval aviation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Narwhal got battle stars for:

7Dec1941 Pearl Harbor Attack
2Feb42-28Mar42 Patrol 1
3Jun42-6Jun42 Battle of Midway
8Jul42-26Aug42 Patrol 3
11May43-16May43 Attu Occupation
31Aug43-2Oct43 Patrol 6
23Oct43-22Nov43 Patrol 7
25Nov43-18Dec43 Patrol 8
18Jan44-15Feb44 Patrol 9
16Feb44-20Mar44 Patrol 10
7May44-9Jun44 Patrol 11
10Jun44-7Jul44 Patrol 12
21Jul44-10Sep44 Patrol 13
14Sep44-5Oct44 Patrol 14
11Oct44-11Nov44 Patrol 15

klcarroll
10-03-2007, 01:14 PM
Here's hoping that Patch V1.4 will finally give us these grand old boats! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


klcarroll

Vlad381
10-03-2007, 01:27 PM
I spend a lot of time using my deck gun on merchants. I get fairly annoyed when some silly tanker out-guns me or when it takes my entire ammo to sink a small freighter. I want one of these!!!!!!!! seriously, it would be very cool. I don't care if it comes with it's own special missions, I want those guns. I know, i know, primary weapon is the torpedo, bla bla bla... I still like shelling things!!!

wh1skea
10-03-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Vlad381:
I spend a lot of time using my deck gun on merchants. I get fairly annoyed when some silly tanker out-guns me or when it takes my entire ammo to sink a small freighter. I want one of these!!!!!!!! seriously, it would be very cool. I don't care if it comes with it's own special missions, I want those guns. I know, i know, primary weapon is the torpedo, bla bla bla... I still like shelling things!!!

Torpedoes arent your primary weapon......your men are!

Vlad381
10-03-2007, 03:43 PM
and my men are much happier in the open breathing fresh salty sea air and gunpowder than cooped up in a sweaty tin can pushing big torpedoes into tubes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

klcarroll
10-03-2007, 04:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


klcarroll

lane2512
10-03-2007, 04:26 PM
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/lane2512/DurnPlanesAnyway.jpg

klcarroll
10-03-2007, 04:50 PM
COOL!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I want one!


klcarroll

anti-destroyer5
10-03-2007, 06:53 PM
One thing i like doing is wielding big guns, and the Narwhal class has the biggest submarine deck guns. I'd really like it if this class would be included, then this game will truely be complete, err, well, as well as with the last of the bugs taken out too. This class will put in some new game experiences in SH4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TalladegaHack
10-03-2007, 07:50 PM
Oh, if only they were included! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

VikingGrandad
10-04-2007, 10:05 AM
Lane - "Pimp my Salmon"! I like it!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

klcarroll
10-04-2007, 10:41 AM
As I mentioned in another thread; ....The Narwhal Class boats never got the opportunity to sail on the missions they were designed for: ....I would sure love to use SH4 to check that out!!!


klcarroll

Capt.Thomsen
10-06-2007, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by wh1skea:
After reading several of the discussions on this subject, I find that the only opposition are those that want the game fixed, but I take it that is really everyone, so I'll leave that reason out. And those that say things like "its slow", "have fun being sunk by depth charges", and other such comments. The "double-sixers" (my new name for Narwhal, Nautilus, and Argonaut) had the same submerged speed as a Gato boat. And yeah, Argonaut was sunk by dc's. So were Gato's and Balao's. NEXT!
Actually the Narwhal boats only made about 6 knots under water, but even if they are death traps in the face of depth charges, I say "So what?" I personally would welcome the extra challenge of trying to dodge depth charges. Plus I want the long range of those boats and those six inch guns. I used to play as the narwhal class in Silent Service II and I put many ships to the bottom with those guns.

klcarroll
10-07-2007, 12:11 AM
Actually the Narwhal boats only made about 6 knots under water, but even if they are death traps in the face of depth charges, I say "So what?"


I am curious about the source of your information that indicates a 6 knot submerged speed. All of the data I have accumulated seems to support the 8 knot speed recorded during their acceptance trials.

I think you are also overstating the case a bit when you call the big V-Boats "Death Traps in the face of depth charges": ....The Narwhal was depth charged multiple times during her career, and on two occasions, these attacks rated a description of "Vigorous" or "Severe"; .....yet she survived the War.


klcarroll

odjig292
10-07-2007, 11:11 AM
I hadn't seen this thread before until it got bumped back to a higher level but it answers a question I have had since I was 9. In the summer of 1943, my father was XO of HMCS Prince David that had participated in the landing of Canadian troops as part of the joint US-Canada naval task force for the Attu-Kiska campaign. When the ship returned to Esquimalt (Victoria) they had a US submarine tied up alongside. The RCN had a "wet" officers' wardroom and they had entertained the Sub's officers the night before. After several rounds, the US officers wanted to return the hospitality. Not only did I get a tour of the sub, but had lunch on board. I had two servings of ham and pineapple. This was a huge treat because ham was rationed, and pineapple was not seen by civilians. They told me stories about sitting in a harbor watching the horse races, which I posted elsewhere, but find that this may have been a bit exaggerated. To a 9-year-old, this was a major life experience, but I was sworn to secrecy. The sub must have been the Nautilus (SS168) because it went to Mare Island for a refit while Narwhal went to Pearl. I have been wondering what submarine I was on for many years. Bunkerratt's clues about Narwhal led me to the history of Nautilus. I had no idea I was on such a famous sub. Thanks for this thread, guys. The picture of the Chief Steward and the picture of the gun triggered some memories that look familiar. Now I'm even a stronger supporter for 1.4. with the larger subs included.

klcarroll
10-07-2007, 12:12 PM
odjig292;

Thanks for the GREAT personal anecdote!

Personal stories like that have a way of bringing history alive!

Yes, ...the Nautilus was a great ship; and I truly hope that UBI will eventually give us her, and her sisters; .......the Narwhal and Argonaut.


klcarroll

Capt.Thomsen
10-07-2007, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually the Narwhal boats only made about 6 knots under water, but even if they are death traps in the face of depth charges, I say "So what?"


I am curious about the source of your information that indicates a 6 knot submerged speed. All of the data I have accumulated seems to support the 8 knot speed recorded during their acceptance trials.

I think you are also overstating the case a bit when you call the big V-Boats "Death Traps in the face of depth charges": ....The Narwhal was depth charged multiple times during her career, and on two occasions, these attacks rated a description of "Vigorous" or "Severe"; .....yet she survived the War.


klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm probably mistaken regarding the 6 knots submerged speed. As for the "Death Traps" I was just referring to what others said about them. Personally I would like to see them in the game as well.

klcarroll
10-09-2007, 07:19 AM
One of the thngs that amazes me is how difficult it is to find definative data on some of these boats: ....Every time you compare three different sources, it seems like you see three different numbers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


klcarroll

edjcox
11-16-2007, 09:03 PM
I'm looking forward to trying this class out. Unfortunately the coders are having dificulty with dual guns, impacts, etc.

I just don't think it's going to be..

Ducimus_Rapax
11-19-2007, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
One of the thngs that amazes me is how difficult it is to find definative data on some of these boats: ....Every time you compare three different sources, it seems like you see three different numbers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


klcarroll

What have you found? Im more intrested in surface endurance, but i woudlnt mind hearing the whole spiel. As surface endurance goes, ive read 18,000 NM @ 8 kts.