I'm researching an article on the centenary of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service inspired by this article:
https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11415 (https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11415)
It will take the form of an interactive illustrated timeline and I need to identify the 10-15 most significant or influential (or downright rotten) classes, submarines or operations that would best illustrate the past 100 years of British submarine since 2014. What say you, Languish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Royal_Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Royal_Navy)
I honestly can't think of a single noteworthy event performed by a Royal Navy submarine. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 11:22:35 AM
I honestly can't think of a single noteworthy event performed by a Royal Navy submarine. :mellow:
A few hints here :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service)
QuoteThe Submarine Service proved its worth in World War I, where it was awarded five of the Royal Navy's 14 Victoria Crosses of the war, the first to Lieutenant Norman Holbrook, Commanding Officer of HMS B11.
Quote
During World War II the major operating arenas were the Norwegian waters; the Mediterranean where a flotilla of submarines fought a successful battle against the Axis replenishment route to North Africa; and the Far East where Royal Navy submarines disrupted Japanese shipping operating in the Malacca Straits.
Quote
HMS Conqueror made history in 1982 during the Falklands War when she became the first nuclear-powered submarine to sink a surface ship, the ARA General Belgrano.
Sinking the Belgrano is good. The other two are PR fluff. "They operated against Japanese shipping?"
Something from the history of HMS Seraph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Seraph_(P219)), possibly even a summary of her storied career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)
QuoteHer most famous mission, however, was her eleventh patrol out of the British submarine base at Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, under the command of 25-year-old Jimmy Launders, which included the only time in the history of naval warfare that one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged.
The Resolution class is significant for being the first Royal Navy SSBN in 1968, carrying the Polaris. Not perhaps influential or revolutionary, but still important in a British context.
If it's notoriety you're looking for, a British-built submarine (Upholder-class) caught fire shortly after being sold to the Canadians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Chicoutimi_(SSK_879)
In 1998 Britain sold Canada four Victoria class submarines. Shortly after their activation, one of them, HMCS Chicoutimi, two days out from from Scotland on its way to Halifax when a fire broke out on board taking the life of one sailor. This caused some diplomatic strain between Canada and the UK when the British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that Canada would have to pay for the rescue operation and that Canada should have obeyed the maxim "Caveat Emptor", essentially that the UK sold Canada some lemons.
Quote from: Syt on October 06, 2014, 11:48:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)
QuoteHer most famous mission, however, was her eleventh patrol out of the British submarine base at Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, under the command of 25-year-old Jimmy Launders, which included the only time in the history of naval warfare that one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged.
QuoteAfter three hours Launders decided to make a prediction of U-864's zig-zag, and released a spread of his torpedoes into its predicted course. This manual computation of a firing solution against a three-dimensionally manoeuvring target was the first occasion on which techniques were used and became the basis of modern computer-based torpedo targeting systems. Prior to this attack, no target had been sunk by torpedo where the firing ship had to consider the target's position in three-dimensional terms, where the depth of the target was variable and not a fixed value. The computation thus differs fundamentally from those performed by analogue torpedo fire-control computers which regarded the target in strictly 2D terms with a constant depth determined by the target's draft.
The torpedoes were released in 17 second intervals beginning at 12:12, and all taking four minutes to reach their target. Launders then dived Venturer suddenly to evade any retaliation. U-864 heard the torpedoes coming, dived deeper, and turned away to avoid them. The first three torpedoes were avoided, but U-864 unknowingly steering into the path of the fourth. Exploding, U-864 split in two, and sank with all hands coming to rest more than 150 m (500 ft) below the surface.
I don't care what firing solution you used - if you shoot an unguided torpedo underwater at a submerged target than knows they are coming and maneuvers at all, and you hit them...that is just dumb, blind luck.
Gotta talk about the K-class steam-powered subs. They were designed to work with surface ships (hence steam engines to get the speed required), but they were un-maneuverable and a large number were lost to collisions. IIRC, they were of such poor design/workmanship (no one had built a sub of that size before) that their safe depth was less than their length, and so a normal 30-degree down bubble would put the bow past its safe depth while the stern was still on the surface.
For the cool shit, look up the RN's submarine operations in the Sea of Marmara during WW1. Passage of the Dardanelles minefields was so hazardous that, once a sub made it into the SoM, the RN didn't want to have it try to leave. They'd bring in new torpedoes sling under float planes, and use captured diesel or olive (or any other kind of suitable) oil to run the engines. Food was mostly captured to stretch out the rations they went in with. In the end, 8 of 13 subs were lost, but they pretty much shut down the Sea of Marmora and sank 8 warships (including 2 battleships), a bunch of steamers, and many, many fishing and work boats.
I was going to write my book about these SoM operations, back when I had ambitions to write a book. Here's a piece about the sub ops during the Gallipoli campaign: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html)
Also write about the U class ops out of Malta. All the subs did well there for as long as they lived (13 out of 15 died, IIRC), but HMS Upholder was, ton for ton, the most successful ship of the war. She should be spoken of in the same breath as HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise (and Upholder died in '42, so didn't even have a whole war to rack up stats).
British subs are probably the most under-reported and under-rated fighting service in the war.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 12:13:03 PM
They'd bring in new torpedoes sling under float planes, and use captured diesel or olive (or any other kind of suitable) oil to run the engines. Food was mostly captured to stretch out the rations they went in with. In the end, 8 of 13 subs were lost, but they pretty much shut down the Sea of Marmora and sank 8 warships (including 2 battleships), a bunch of steamers, and many, many fishing and work boats.
That's pretty hard core.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 12:13:03 PM
British subs are probably the most under-reported and under-rated fighting service in the war.
They may have to share that honour with the US submarine service in the pacific - tpgether with the RN's, it was instrumental in paralizing Japan's economy, but is rarely discussed.
Come to think of it - the Brit subs' contribution to strangling the Japanese economy (alongside the US service) rates a mention.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
Come to think of it - the Brit subs' contribution to strangling the Japanese economy (alongside the US service) rates a mention.
I have it on good authority, from an Admiral no less, that the UK contribution on that front is mere "PR fluff".
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2014, 12:12:07 PM
I don't care what firing solution you used - if you shoot an unguided torpedo underwater at a submerged target than knows they are coming and maneuvers at all, and you hit them...that is just dumb, blind luck.
Well, yes and no. The wiki article is inaccurate, as most wiki articles are, but the firing solution was based on some good guesswork and the prediction that the U-boat would dive. Launders knew the initial depth of the U-boat, as he was tracking its periscope so it had to be at periscope depth. There certainly was a strong element of luck in the kill, but there was also some very sound judgement.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
They may have to share that honour with the US submarine service in the pacific - tpgether with the RN's, it was instrumental in paralizing Japan's economy, but is rarely discussed.
In the US, it is discussed quite a bit. Maybe even over-played.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
They may have to share that honour with the US submarine service in the pacific - tpgether with the RN's, it was instrumental in paralizing Japan's economy, but is rarely discussed.
In the US, it is discussed quite a bit. Maybe even over-played.
That's not the impression I get, at least outside of professional naval circles: most authors seem to think it is understated. Of course, those who are stating that may simply want to drum up interest in their own books! :D
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 12:25:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2014, 12:12:07 PM
I don't care what firing solution you used - if you shoot an unguided torpedo underwater at a submerged target than knows they are coming and maneuvers at all, and you hit them...that is just dumb, blind luck.
Well, yes and no. The wiki article is inaccurate, as most wiki articles are, but the firing solution was based on some good guesswork and the prediction that the U-boat would dive. Launders knew the initial depth of the U-boat, as he was tracking its periscope so it had to be at periscope depth. There certainly was a strong element of luck in the kill, but there was also some very sound judgement.
Fair enough - what I meant was that it seems to me at the ranges in question, firing four torpedoes using the best possible knowledge about the current location and speed of the target, your best case scenario is still a miss 9 times out of 10, if not 19 times out of 20.
That is certainly better odds than the 0.1% you would have NOT making very sound judgement, but still pretty much damn lucky.
These torpedoes are contact igniters right - they require a direct hit to take out the target?
Wouldn't they have been magnetic rather than contact?
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2014, 01:22:18 PM
Fair enough - what I meant was that it seems to me at the ranges in question, firing four torpedoes using the best possible knowledge about the current location and speed of the target, your best case scenario is still a miss 9 times out of 10, if not 19 times out of 20.
That is certainly better odds than the 0.1% you would have NOT making very sound judgement, but still pretty much damn lucky.
These torpedoes are contact igniters right - they require a direct hit to take out the target?
Agreed that it was far more likely to fail than succeed.
In 1945, as derspiess notes, they would likelier have been magnetically fused. I think the Brits had a workable magnetic fuse first, and their late-war torps had good depth control.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:42:02 PM
That's not the impression I get, at least outside of professional naval circles: most authors seem to think it is understated. Of course, those who are stating that may simply want to drum up interest in their own books! :D
H.P. Wilmott (a Brit historian who publishes mostly in the US) argues that the case for the submarine force impact on merchant shipping has been over-stated; that it wasn't until Nov 1944 that the submarine force was really able to take big bites out of the Japanese merchant fleet. The loss of the Philippines restricted Japanese shipping routes, and the many US subs were reassigned from fleet support and island interdiction.
That's not to say the US submarine force wasn't effective in doing what it was tasked to do; by that point they had crippled Japanese auxiliary shipping (tankers, tender, transports, and the like under IJN and IJA control) to the point that the Japanese couldn't operate their fleets effectively nor hold their bases. Still, something like half the Japanese merchant shipping lost in the war was lost in the last nine months of it.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:42:02 PM
That's not the impression I get, at least outside of professional naval circles: most authors seem to think it is understated. Of course, those who are stating that may simply want to drum up interest in their own books! :D
H.P. Wilmott (a Brit historian who publishes mostly in the US) argues that the case for the submarine force impact on merchant shipping has been over-stated; that it wasn't until Nov 1944 that the submarine force was really able to take big bites out of the Japanese merchant fleet. The loss of the Philippines restricted Japanese shipping routes, and the many US subs were reassigned from fleet support and island interdiction.
That's not to say the US submarine force wasn't effective in doing what it was tasked to do; by that point they had crippled Japanese auxiliary shipping (tankers, tender, transports, and the like under IJN and IJA control) to the point that the Japanese couldn't operate their fleets effectively nor hold their bases. Still, something like half the Japanese merchant shipping lost in the war was lost in the last nine months of it.
I haven't read H.P. Wilmott's work - here are some contrary views:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html
Quotehave attempted to roughly calculate costs of each side's effort in order to determine whether the U.S. campaign was "efficient." The cost of merchant ships and warships lost to U.S. submarine attack were calculated using actual Japanese prices and added to the cost of all Japanese ASW frigates and corvettes (but not fleet destroyers or ASW aircraft).(48) Using U.S. Navy figures I calculated the cost of the entire fleet of 288 U.S. submarines that served or were built during the war (regardless of whether they served in the Pacific). The result is impressive although not surprising: the Japanese spent at least 42 times more on anti-submarine warfare and in losses attributed to submarines than the U.S. spent on her Submarine Force. When one considers the fact that the Japanese economy was only 8.9% of the size of the U.S. economy in 1937, the submarine campaign was clearly both an extraordinarily cost efficient and effective means to employ U.S. forces against Japan.(49) Regardless of the cost effectiveness of the U.S. submarine campaign, the military effects were stunningly clear. Fully a year before the end of the war, and before the extensive bombing of mainland Japan, the war against Japanese lines of communication resulted in decisive impact on the Japanese war economy and on the Japanese military logistical system.
[emphasis]
And from here:
http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm
QuoteThe overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated.
Not being a professional historian, I dunno who is right.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 12:42:02 PM
That's not the impression I get, at least outside of professional naval circles: most authors seem to think it is understated. Of course, those who are stating that may simply want to drum up interest in their own books! :D
H.P. Wilmott (a Brit historian who publishes mostly in the US) argues that the case for the submarine force impact on merchant shipping has been over-stated; that it wasn't until Nov 1944 that the submarine force was really able to take big bites out of the Japanese merchant fleet. The loss of the Philippines restricted Japanese shipping routes, and the many US subs were reassigned from fleet support and island interdiction.
That's not to say the US submarine force wasn't effective in doing what it was tasked to do; by that point they had crippled Japanese auxiliary shipping (tankers, tender, transports, and the like under IJN and IJA control) to the point that the Japanese couldn't operate their fleets effectively nor hold their bases. Still, something like half the Japanese merchant shipping lost in the war was lost in the last nine months of it.
I haven't read H.P. Wilmott's work - here are some contrary views:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html
Quotehave attempted to roughly calculate costs of each side's effort in order to determine whether the U.S. campaign was "efficient." The cost of merchant ships and warships lost to U.S. submarine attack were calculated using actual Japanese prices and added to the cost of all Japanese ASW frigates and corvettes (but not fleet destroyers or ASW aircraft).(48) Using U.S. Navy figures I calculated the cost of the entire fleet of 288 U.S. submarines that served or were built during the war (regardless of whether they served in the Pacific). The result is impressive although not surprising: the Japanese spent at least 42 times more on anti-submarine warfare and in losses attributed to submarines than the U.S. spent on her Submarine Force. When one considers the fact that the Japanese economy was only 8.9% of the size of the U.S. economy in 1937, the submarine campaign was clearly both an extraordinarily cost efficient and effective means to employ U.S. forces against Japan.(49) Regardless of the cost effectiveness of the U.S. submarine campaign, the military effects were stunningly clear. Fully a year before the end of the war, and before the extensive bombing of mainland Japan, the war against Japanese lines of communication resulted in decisive impact on the Japanese war economy and on the Japanese military logistical system.
[emphasis]
And from here:
http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm
QuoteThe overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated.
Not being a professional historian, I dunno who is right.
Your "contrary views" are not contrary at all.
The Allied submarine campaign became markedly more effective as the Allies gained bases closer and closer to the line between Indonesia and Japan.
At any rate, make sure to talk about the U-class subs and their adventures in the Med. That was good stuff.
You could also mention that Robert Whitehead, the guy who invented the torpedo (which made submarines useful weapons of war) was an Englishman, although one who was working in Austria.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 12:13:03 PM
Gotta talk about the K-class steam-powered subs. They were designed to work with surface ships (hence steam engines to get the speed required), but they were un-maneuverable and a large number were lost to collisions. IIRC, they were of such poor design/workmanship (no one had built a sub of that size before) that their safe depth was less than their length, and so a normal 30-degree down bubble would put the bow past its safe depth while the stern was still on the surface.
For the cool shit, look up the RN's submarine operations in the Sea of Marmara during WW1. Passage of the Dardanelles minefields was so hazardous that, once a sub made it into the SoM, the RN didn't want to have it try to leave. They'd bring in new torpedoes sling under float planes, and use captured diesel or olive (or any other kind of suitable) oil to run the engines. Food was mostly captured to stretch out the rations they went in with. In the end, 8 of 13 subs were lost, but they pretty much shut down the Sea of Marmora and sank 8 warships (including 2 battleships), a bunch of steamers, and many, many fishing and work boats.
I was going to write my book about these SoM operations, back when I had ambitions to write a book. Here's a piece about the sub ops during the Gallipoli campaign: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html)
Also write about the U class ops out of Malta. All the subs did well there for as long as they lived (13 out of 15 died, IIRC), but HMS Upholder was, ton for ton, the most successful ship of the war. She should be spoken of in the same breath as HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise (and Upholder died in '42, so didn't even have a whole war to rack up stats).
British subs are probably the most under-reported and under-rated fighting service in the war.
As an additional plus, the Sea of Marmara stuff really chaps the Turks' asses. It is by far the most hardcore WWI operation in subs. Makes the Germans look like punks.
Brilliant, thanks guys, just the sort of "I'm actually interested in this stuff" insight I was hoping for :P
I shall make my own decisions over the more controversial choices then post the final article for you to ridicule.
Quote from: grumbler on October 06, 2014, 06:27:24 PM
Your "contrary views" are not contrary at all.
I know this is Grumbler argument time ... but how is "The overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated" not contrary to "Maybe even over-played"? :hmm:
It seems to me at least that the one is saying something rather different than the other ... unless there is some sense in which the overall impact can be both "often understated" and "overplayed".
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
I know this is Grumbler argument time ... but how is "The overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated" not contrary to "Maybe even over-played"? :hmm:
I know that you are a lawyer and so statements in Just Plain English confuse you, but it is entirely possible that something is "often' understated and, at other times, "maybe even" over-stated. They are not at all mutually exclusive conditions, and so not contrary.
QuoteIt seems to me at least that the one is saying something rather different than the other ... unless there is some sense in which the overall impact can be both "often understated" and "overplayed".
What "it seems to [you]" doesn't constitute evidence about anything but your own ability to understand logic and cases.
Dunno why you are picking this fight, but if you want to continue it, you should probably pick a better horse to ride than that some people might understate the contribution of submarines to something something.
Quote from: Brazen on October 06, 2014, 11:18:52 AM
I'm researching an article on the centenary of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service inspired by this article:
It will take the form of an interactive illustrated timeline and I need to identify the 10-15 most significant or influential (or downright rotten) classes, submarines or operations that would best illustrate the past 100 years of British submarine since 2014.
.....
Brazen, number 11 or 16 on you list should be below the surface of discussions on submarine warfare, there are treacherous hidden depths.
Quote from: mongers on October 07, 2014, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 06, 2014, 11:18:52 AM
I'm researching an article on the centenary of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service inspired by this article:
It will take the form of an interactive illustrated timeline and I need to identify the 10-15 most significant or influential (or downright rotten) classes, submarines or operations that would best illustrate the past 100 years of British submarine since 2014.
.....
Brazen, number 11 or 16 on you list should be below the surface of discussions on submarine warfare, there are treacherous hidden depths.
She will succumb to the pressure and include them though - she seems out of her depth, to be honest.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
Quote from: mongers on October 07, 2014, 09:21:08 AM
Brazen, number 11 or 16 on you list should be below the surface of discussions on submarine warfare, there are treacherous hidden depths.
She will succumb to the pressure and include them though - she seems out of her depth, to be honest.
I like submarines. They're long, hard and full of seamen.
Wanna inspect my Long Lance tube?
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 09:12:06 AM
I know that you are a lawyer and so statements in Just Plain English confuse you,
:lol:
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2014, 05:25:57 AM
Brilliant, thanks guys, just the sort of "I'm actually interested in this stuff" insight I was hoping for :P
There was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story, "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans", revolving around stolen submarine plans.
I really hate my education.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 09:12:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
I know this is Grumbler argument time ... but how is "The overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated" not contrary to "Maybe even over-played"? :hmm:
I know that you are a lawyer and so statements in Just Plain English confuse you, but it is entirely possible that something is "often' understated and, at other times, "maybe even" over-stated. They are not at all mutually exclusive conditions, and so not contrary.
Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?
QuoteQuoteIt seems to me at least that the one is saying something rather different than the other ... unless there is some sense in which the overall impact can be both "often understated" and "overplayed".
What "it seems to [you]" doesn't constitute evidence about anything but your own ability to understand logic and cases.
Dunno why you are picking this fight, but if you want to continue it, you should probably pick a better horse to ride than that some people might understate the contribution of submarines to something something.
See, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.
You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede
anything.
There was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it.
I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.
Yep, I played that on my Atari computer. For some reason I was always able to find unescorted tankers around Celebes. Good times.
That said, I yearned for an Atlantic U-boat version. A few years later, Wolfpack came out for PC & everything was awesome.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 07, 2014, 10:24:37 AM
I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.
I need to try to dig up the C64 version, because I sunk millions of tons in the NES version.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?
I wasn't 'arguing" with you. I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well. I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined. Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.
QuoteSee, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.
You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.
I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people. You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see). You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.
QuoteThere was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it.
What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote
Silent Victory in 1975. Some guy on the internet notwithstanding. We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede
anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
Quote from: derspiess on October 07, 2014, 10:38:46 AM
That said, I yearned for an Atlantic U-boat version. A few years later, Wolfpack came out for PC & everything was awesome.
Never played that, but Aces of the Deep was one of my first-ever computer game purchases.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?
I wasn't 'arguing" with you. I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well. I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined. Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.
QuoteSee, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.
You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.
I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people. You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see). You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.
QuoteThere was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it.
What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote Silent Victory in 1975. Some guy on the internet notwithstanding. We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.
And throw in a
tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 07, 2014, 10:24:37 AM
I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv450%2Fjohele%2F1941_1.jpg&hash=6fa3647cee099140e66b0e16d56bf06bd69337b6)
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 10:59:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?
I wasn't 'arguing" with you. I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well. I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined. Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.
QuoteSee, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.
You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.
I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people. You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see). You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.
QuoteThere was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it.
What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote Silent Victory in 1975. Some guy on the internet notwithstanding. We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.
And throw in a tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!
Yep, no need to go down the Grumbler rabbit hole in a perfectly good thread.
When he goes into this mode the explanation Dr. Maturin gives as to why one should never become a teacher comes to mind. Fans of the series will probably get the reference. And it is more or less on topic.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 10:59:08 AM
Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.
Close, but no reading comprehension. I wasn't arguing, I don't know what the debate is supposed to be, and I don't understand how you could construe your contention about what you "can see" into an invitation to debate.
QuoteAnd throw in a tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!
Might want to look up what a
tu quoque argument is before you use misuse the term again. :bowler:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 11:45:22 AM
Yep, no need to go down the Grumbler rabbit hole in a perfectly good thread.
:lmfao: I'd bet 9 of 10 readers of this thread would agree that I have contributed far, far more to make this a "perfectly good thread" than either you or Malthus.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 11:45:22 AM
Yep, no need to go down the Grumbler rabbit hole in a perfectly good thread.
:lmfao: I'd bet 9 of 10 readers of this thread would agree that I have contributed far, far more to make this a "perfectly good thread" than either you or Malthus.
No-one (least of all me) is doubting your knowledge of naval subjects and contributions. You know a lot and you are smart.
You are just impossible to discuss anything with. That's all.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:00:11 PM
You are just impossible to discuss anything with. That's all.
For you and CC, that's probably true. For people willing to debate or discuss intellectually or humorously and not emotionally, that's not true. Again, I have no idea why you picked this fight or why you are repeating the same tired arguments-by-assertion that it is my fault that you can't start a debate about what you can see, but at least you have dropped (when faced with evidence to the contrary) the absurd assertion that I cannot ever admit when I am wrong. That's progress.
What do you need when you've got two lawyers squaring off against grumbler in a grudge caged match over semantics?
More lawyers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
What's do you need when you've got two lawyers squaring off against grumbler in a grudge caged match over semantics?
More lawyers.
You rang?
Reinforcements! Get 'em, g!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:17:05 PM
Reinforcements! Get 'em, g!
BB and I disagree on a lot of things, but generally pretty amicably. He doesn't pull the Malthusian/CC the-reason-you-won't-admit-you-are wrong-about-this-is-because-you-never-ever-admit-you-are-wrong schtick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2014, 05:25:57 AM
Brilliant, thanks guys, just the sort of "I'm actually interested in this stuff" insight I was hoping for :P
There was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story, "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans", revolving around stolen submarine plans.
I really hate my education.
Like in the Billy Wilder movie? I wasn't aware it was based on a Conan Doyle story.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:17:05 PM
Reinforcements! Get 'em, g!
BB and I disagree on a lot of things, but generally pretty amicably. He doesn't pull the Malthusian/CC the-reason-you-won't-admit-you-are wrong-about-this-is-because-you-never-ever-admit-you-are-wrong schtick.
Do you always project this much?
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
BTW, the response to this challenge was exactly as expected: a red herring argument, followed by the sound of crickets. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
BTW, the response to this challenge was exactly as expected: a red herring argument, followed by the sound of crickets. :lol:
Shrug. You may well be right about me. I, too, may rarely if ever concede anything. You also may well be right that the problem here is me and not you. I have no real interest in combing through past threads to find places where I have conceded stuff.
All I know is that *I* find debating with you isn't much fun. Discussing, sharing a joke - yes. Asking for views - yes. Debating - no.
Others may have a different experience.
This thread is a hoot
Hopefully she got the info she was after, before you monkeys shitted up her thread. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Hopefully she got the info she was after, before you monkeys shitted up her thread. :lol:
I gave her a lot of stuff, before people started shitting up her thread. :cool:
But, frankly, there wasn't much to say after the data dump. As I pointed out, Brazen was asking about maybe the most under-reported and under-appreciated fighting service of the war.
I wouldn't have known much about it, had I not worked in the submarine business and written a submarine design history for the US Navy.
Ank is being fired out of a torpedo tube right now off the Syrian coast, armed only with a garrote and list of targets.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2014, 05:52:33 PM
Ank is being fired out of a torpedo tube right now off the Syrian coast, armed only with a garrote and list of targets.
Are you kidding me, the guy's a commissioned officer in the Royal Jordanian Army. I've been to his house. I saw the uniform. Two more years, and he's Deputy Chief of Staff.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Hopefully she got the info she was after, before you monkeys shitted up her thread. :lol:
What the fuck happened here? I feel like parents coming home from holiday to find their teenagers advertised a house party on Facebook.
Quote from: Brazen on October 15, 2014, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Hopefully she got the info she was after, before you monkeys shitted up her thread. :lol:
What the fuck happened here? I feel like parents coming home form holiday to find their teenagers advertised a house party on Facebook.
At a guess, what Always happens here. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first. I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence. Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?
BTW, the response to this challenge was exactly as expected: a red herring argument, followed by the sound of crickets. :lol:
To be fair, aren't you the guy who got on my case for calling Russian leaders "psychotic", and then slinked away without further comment when I pointed out that I never called them that?
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2014, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
To be fair, aren't you the guy who got on my case for calling Russian leaders "psychotic", and then slinked away without further comment when I pointed out that I never called them that?
No. You used the term "psychopath" as I recall, and so did I.
To be fair, do you still contend that Russia has always been run by psychopaths, or are you slinking away from that contention?
Quote from: Brazen on October 15, 2014, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 09, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Hopefully she got the info she was after, before you monkeys shitted up her thread. :lol:
What the fuck happened here? I feel like parents coming home from holiday to find their teenagers advertised a house party on Facebook.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2014, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
To be fair, aren't you the guy who got on my case for calling Russian leaders "psychotic", and then slinked away without further comment when I pointed out that I never called them that?
No. You used the term "psychopath" as I recall, and so did I.
To be fair, do you still contend that Russia has always been run by psychopaths, or are you slinking away from that contention?
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 15, 2014, 12:03:13 PM
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
It has all the quality of a British second hand sub.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 15, 2014, 12:03:13 PM
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
With a pack of Skittles and an iced tea.
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2014, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2014, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
To be fair, aren't you the guy who got on my case for calling Russian leaders "psychotic", and then slinked away without further comment when I pointed out that I never called them that?
No. You used the term "psychopath" as I recall, and so did I.
To be fair, do you still contend that Russia has always been run by psychopaths, or are you slinking away from that contention?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 15, 2014, 12:03:13 PM
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
The Hood was a fine warship in its day, but it probably shouldn't have been sent up against Bismarck.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 06:55:20 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 15, 2014, 12:03:13 PM
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
The Hood was a fine warship in its day, but it probably shouldn't have been sent up against Bismarck.
Should have sent some subs. Brazen, you got that?
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 06:56:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 06:55:20 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 15, 2014, 12:03:13 PM
This thread is going down faster than the Hood.
The Hood was a fine warship in its day, but it probably shouldn't have been sent up against Bismarck.
Should have sent some subs. Brazen, you got that?
Submarines didn't exactly have a great record against fast, maneuvering warships. Maybe they could get put those two big, River-class subs out there in front of it, but their odds of success would be pretty slim.
The dreadnought battleship was still the ultimate antiship weapon in the North Atlantic at that time. It would have made more sense to send KGV with Prince of Wales.