|
SlothfulCobra posted:Are there people who put spiritual importance on the german emperor, or is this guy talking 100% out his rear end? I am assuming it's weird German speaking Catholics being reverent for the Holy Roman Emperor
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I am assuming it's weird German speaking Catholics being reverent for the Holy Roman Emperor People are reverent about pretty much anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I agree with most of what you're saying, but if the U-boats' success was due entirely to "circumstance" then the same applies -- more prominently -- to US subs. Or really, to any weapons system ever that took advantage of favorable circumstances. You are singling the Type IX as praiseworthy in the context of design. It clearly wasnt an optimal design for the circumstances where it succeeded, the most successful Type IX subs were Type IXBs, who had to trundle across the Atlantic at 5 knots to make it to the American seaboard. A Gato in the same situation is theoretically twice as efficient, because it can make the trip cruising at a regular 10 knots while carrying more torpedoes As for the circumstances, you can look at the Type IXC, which actually had the same range as a Gato, but ended sinking less tonnage per sub than the Type IXB. The reason for this is undramatic, the Type IXC only started coming into service in mid 1940, and didnt get the chance to sink any shipping during the lax security of the early war and First Happy Time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
The main thing I've gotten from the uboat chat is consonant from what I got from german helmet chat and german uniform chat and german tank production chat, which is that Germany pre-Cold War had not made a full conversion to assembly lines and mechanized production in nearly any field, and were reliant on artisans and skilled workshop production techniques to do what the US and USSR were doing with assembly lines. A lot of serial rather than parallel production, and maybe more importantly, they can't really count on any particular element of the construction meeting the same spec reliably. So the engineers just design the best thing they can think of and hope the workers do good enough instead of knowing with some clarity how precise/strong they can expect every weld/seam/drill to be. Is this an inaccurate impression?SlothfulCobra posted:
Internet white supremacists will mimic reverence for anything that can be squished into looking like a white tradition (even if its shite like the goddamn HRE) and it always fucks up because their whole praxis has been "you can't prove that I'm not doing satire" for decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
I mean you could just assume that he's a white supremacist or you could actually look at his twitter and see he's just a weirdo really into german history and architecture, whose retweeted numerous tweets in rememberance of the holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I mean you could just assume that he's a white supremacist or you could actually look at his twitter and see he's just a weirdo really into german history and architecture, whose retweeted numerous tweets in rememberance of the holocaust. So it's someone HEY GUNS knows?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Tulip posted:The main thing I've gotten from the uboat chat is consonant from what I got from german helmet chat and german uniform chat and german tank production chat, which is that Germany pre-Cold War had not made a full conversion to assembly lines and mechanized production in nearly any field, and were reliant on artisans and skilled workshop production techniques to do what the US and USSR were doing with assembly lines. A lot of serial rather than parallel production, and maybe more importantly, they can't really count on any particular element of the construction meeting the same spec reliably. I think that's a fair assessment. Tulip posted:So the engineers just design the best thing they can think of and hope the workers do good enough instead of knowing with some clarity how precise/strong they can expect every weld/seam/drill to be. Is this an inaccurate impression? Yes - which, given slave labor, doesn't always happen. I also think it is fair to say that the designers either didn't have access to or didn't incorporate "lessons learned" in a lot of ways. In tanks, for example, they would upgrade tanks with thicker armor or bigger guns, but they very rarely seemed to design better engines or suspensions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Aw poo poo check out this guy: Late to the party (I spent a lot of time re-reading Cessna's fantastic Nazi equipment posts), but is anyone else getting strong Nobby Nobbs vibes off of this photo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Late to the party (I spent a lot of time re-reading Cessna's fantastic Nazi equipment posts), but is anyone else getting strong Nobby Nobbs vibes off of this photo? Now that you point it out, absolutely. I think it's the dog-end combined with the multiple (looted?) rings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Beardless posted:Now that you point it out, absolutely. I think it's the dog-end combined with the multiple (looted?) rings. Those features, plus the nose really just made it for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well that's much bigger than I would have thought. Was it ever actually worn? Like I wouldn't expect it to be outside of a coronation, but still. Is it intended to fit on top of a helmet or something? Maybe there was a smaller everyday crown and the big crown fits on top of it like some sort of bling voltron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Tulip posted:The main thing I've gotten from the uboat chat is consonant from what I got from german helmet chat and german uniform chat and german tank production chat, which is that Germany pre-Cold War had not made a full conversion to assembly lines and mechanized production in nearly any field, and were reliant on artisans and skilled workshop production techniques to do what the US and USSR were doing with assembly lines. A lot of serial rather than parallel production, and maybe more importantly, they can't really count on any particular element of the construction meeting the same spec reliably. So the engineers just design the best thing they can think of and hope the workers do good enough instead of knowing with some clarity how precise/strong they can expect every weld/seam/drill to be. Is this an inaccurate impression? This is very true. If you look at German tank building factories, you'll see they are industrialized, but they aren't really set up for assembly line work. You'll also won't see nearly as much hard tooling, instead more generalized tooling. Combine this with the Wehrmacht constantly tweaking little poo poo, you end up with tons of tiny little variations. So for these six tanks, the commander's rain cover is here. On the next six it's over ever so slightly. Which does require being communicated to everyone building. So you take smaller workshop style assembly, combine it with a customer who isn't price sensitive but will not stop tweaking poo poo, and throw in the odd bit of supply interruptions due to needing to repair the rail lines...and yeah German production for a lot of stuff is a poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 00:22
|
|
Beardless posted:Now that you point it out, absolutely. I think it's the dog-end combined with the multiple (looted?) rings. My god, I see it too.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:they just pretended to be swamp germans with Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw I love that "swamp german" was a stupid joke that HEYGUNS and I made up in some 4 times removed old iteration of this thread, but it continues to have a life of its own. ********* Since we're talking about subs, I have a vague memory of an anecdote that isn't cogent enough to google and I'm hoping someone here can give clarification. It was one of the World Wars, I think the second, and a sub-commander took some kind of monster poo poo in the toilet, but didn't know how to flush properly underwater/was too ashamed to ask for help. This led to him loving up so badly that water got into the electrical system and made poisonous (chlorine???) gas come out of the battery so they had to surface. Upon which they were promptly captured by the Allies. Because of some dude being ashamed by his poop stink. Was this a fever dream I had?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
That was U-1206.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
Molentik posted:That was U-1206. Thanks a mill!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
All this talk about Uboats, does that make Cessna a sub scribe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
He also hangs around like a mold listening to people asking for help. Pleas lichen sub scribe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Molentik posted:That was U-1206. The sub sank near the coast of Scotland, did they get picked up by the Royal Navy pretty much right away? Or did they perhaps row to shore?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
More sub stuff; here is some very nice colour footage of U.S.S. Cod and the Dutch O-19 which ran aground on a sandbank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF0OVO1QXJ0 See that dark rectangle on the side of the Dutch sub? That is a double torpedo laucher on a rotating mount for side shots, which is pretty unique for a sub I think? 
Molentik fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
IIRC there were attempts at introducing "Fordism" to German factories during and before the war; iirc it was mentioned in the thread in the previous iteration that you'd have factory owners and so on bragging to Hitler about how much like Ford they managed to make their factories, so it wasn't a totally unknown thing either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
This deadly Texas cold snap got me to finally start reading The Wages of Destruction. I hope people don't mind me asking about stuff because I don't think I've ever tried to swallow a book this dense on my own. I'm still only in the middle of chapter 3, so there's a lot of 1934 going on. They make it sound like Hjalmar Schacht (president of the National Bank) was effectively carrying out policy for Hitler but looking him up on my own shows that "a falling out" would be an understatement. I guess it's more like two entities that just coincidentally were following a compatible path until they weren't. Like, if Hitler wasn't around, Schacht might have still done the same things. Adam Tooze put in a graph show how textiles started to get hosed around 1934 as well based on how international trade policy and emphasis on heavy industry and militarization. I wonder how much of this plays into the insanity Cessna talks about in their gear. I could see just kind of dismissing it as some German nature of intricacy crossed with the aesthetic, but I wonder now if it is more a byproduct of neglect. I've seen it plenty were you starve something out enough that they lose the resources to basically do anything more intelligently. Also, the strangling of textile related imports must have had some effect on the available materials and forced things to be made the way things were. I'm also curious what the US reaction was to the general period in 1934 when everybody just decided to default on their war debts to the US so they could use that money to make more weapons and blow each other up again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:This is very true. If you look at German tank building factories, you'll see they are industrialized, but they aren't really set up for assembly line work. You'll also won't see nearly as much hard tooling, instead more generalized tooling. Combine this with the Wehrmacht constantly tweaking little poo poo, you end up with tons of tiny little variations. So for these six tanks, the commander's rain cover is here. On the next six it's over ever so slightly. Which does require being communicated to everyone building. So you take smaller workshop style assembly, combine it with a customer who isn't price sensitive but will not stop tweaking poo poo, and throw in the odd bit of supply interruptions due to needing to repair the rail lines...and yeah German production for a lot of stuff is a poo poo show. Was it really that different in the variations of everyone else except the US? I know I read a Russian tank commander (on here?) commenting on how every single T-34 factory would have minor variations that must have made parts replacement a nightmare (or not worth worrying about because the tank has a life expectancy less than it would be for the parts being needed). And the British had lots of hand made stuff that was wonderfully put together..until you needed to shove a round spare part into a well crafted square hole. And I'm sure Italy and Japan were worse. So now we all know how the Germans did it and the US did it...how did everyone else go?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC there were attempts at introducing "Fordism" to German factories during and before the war; iirc it was mentioned in the thread in the previous iteration that you'd have factory owners and so on bragging to Hitler about how much like Ford they managed to make their factories, so it wasn't a totally unknown thing either. They kinda got it and kinda didn't. Like for instance the use of hard tooling. The German factory owners saw that Ford was using machining to produce parts so they did. Without understand that Ford tended to have lots of dedicated tooling. The use of dedicated tooling dropped the skill level the worker needed dramatically. The trade off for it is that it's more capital intensive. General tooling can be set up to make lots of parts with a skilled machinist but it's slower. But cheaper. However, the Wehrmacht withheld contracts from companies that used heavy amounts of hard tooling. Because they wanted flexibility and hard tooling doesn't give you that. Generalized tooling does. So the Wehrmacht got it's way. And one of the things that they are consistent with they are the nightmare customer. Too much money to ignore, way to willing to throw their weight around, and having complete control of the specs. Quite a lot of German vehicle factories were using stand methods to make tanks rather than assembly lines. So basically each tank is built in place by a single team. Again, this ups the skill level required for the workers. This is how a lot of naval and aviation stuff is built even now, but for tanks or ground vehicles it's sub optimal. It's slower because you have a team remembering multiple tasks. And the Wehrmacht go apeshit in terms of tweaking. One of the things that made the Model T work, is that once you get to the assembly line ones, there isn't much variation. Same with the Model As. You have the core chassis doing a lot of different roles but once the model for that role is made, it doesn't change a hell of a lot. This isn't something you can say about a lot of German fighting vehicles. It's a bit like Agile is to modern management. Lots of companies saying they are implementing it but not really understanding it. And a lot of it is management saying "We're doing something! See! We add value!". Comstar posted:Was it really that different in the variations of everyone else except the US? I know I read a Russian tank commander (on here?) commenting on how every single T-34 factory would have minor variations that must have made parts replacement a nightmare (or not worth worrying about because the tank has a life expectancy less than it would be for the parts being needed). My understanding is the Soviets tinkered a lot but they were trending toward simplification verses the Germans getting just generally fiddly. The Germans did make design changes for simplification but they also did stuff like moving tool holders. As for building, the French are a lot like the Germans. Smaller factories, more skilled workers, with some of their automobile factories having assembly lines, closer to Olds model of them than the advancements Ford made. I haven't ever looked at Italy but given their production numbers, I am guessing they were lagging behind the French and Germans. The Soviets are very Fordist however. During the 30's they made a huge industrialization push. And they bring in Albert Kahn's firm to design a lot of their new factories. So if you cleaned them up, you'll see a lot of commonality between Soviet tank factories and American ones. My understanding is that Soviet factories tended to be more vertically integrated rather than the horizontal integration you'd see in American factories. But Ensign Expendable will know more about that than I.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Bowfin stuff That's all nice to hear! And yeah, a more functionally-minded philosophy is good for museums. I ask because I've got a relative that works there and did some research for them on the inter-war sub fleet and the casualties suffered by the fellas running those. Battery explosions, gassing, and of course the accidental ramming of the S-4. Edit: for the record I've really enjoyed subchat. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Tangentially related to uboat chat, when did countries start giving full names to all their ships/subs, rather than just a letter/number designator? Canada's first subs were CC-1 and CC-2, but we name them these days. The US seems to have already been using full names since before WW2. Uboats are famously just U-###, and the Deutsche Marine still does that today. Didn't the KM also not have names for their destroyers and small craft either? Soviet subs were K-whatever. Does the Russian navy name all their subs these days? Curious if there's some sort of rationale behind the conventions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 06:42
|
|
|
Were u-boat crews given any special privilieges to make up for their tours, or was it just universal suckitude?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Tangentially related to uboat chat, when did countries start giving full names to all their ships/subs, rather than just a letter/number designator? Canada's first subs were CC-1 and CC-2, but we name them these days. The US seems to have already been using full names since before WW2. Uboats are famously just U-###, and the Deutsche Marine still does that today. Didn't the KM also not have names for their destroyers and small craft either? Soviet subs were K-whatever. Does the Russian navy name all their subs these days? Curious if there's some sort of rationale behind the conventions. Additional question, was thought given to giving the O, R, & S-Boats full names once they were serving right alongside the named classes? Were number designations viewed as any less valid sacrosanct talisman of the ship than a fish name?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
On the subject of the Panzer IV, were there ever attempts to make them larger in some way, like lengthening the chassis and adding extra road wheels? Seems like if they were getting heavier throughout the war someone would have wanted to give them better weight distribution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
White Coke posted:On the subject of the Panzer IV, were there ever attempts to make them larger in some way, like lengthening the chassis and adding extra road wheels? Seems like if they were getting heavier throughout the war someone would have wanted to give them better weight distribution. Doing this would strain the engine and transmission more, as you are making both the treads and the overall mass heavier. Would it really improve mobility then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Were u-boat crews given any special privilieges to make up for their tours, or was it just universal suckitude? I remember reading about how they lived like kinds in France in between cruises. In 1941 that must have sounded like a great deal, but in 1944, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Tangentially related to uboat chat, when did countries start giving full names to all their ships/subs, rather than just a letter/number designator? Canada's first subs were CC-1 and CC-2, but we name them these days. The US seems to have already been using full names since before WW2. Uboats are famously just U-###, and the Deutsche Marine still does that today. Didn't the KM also not have names for their destroyers and small craft either? Soviet subs were K-whatever. Does the Russian navy name all their subs these days? Curious if there's some sort of rationale behind the conventions. I think it's mostly because early submarines were viewed as a sort of submersible torpedo boat, and in many navies names were reserved for large oceangoing ships. In the early years the largest torpedo boats tended to get names, but these sort of evolved in to / were overtaken by destroyers. Smaller torpedo boats that required tenders (much like submarines) received numbers in most navies, so it was logical that submarines, a kind of small torpedo boat also requiring a tender, also received numbers. Some exceptions, of course. The French used names from the beginning - all the experimental boats had names, the first full class of French submarines Emeraude were named, and subsequent French submarines were named. The USN did numbers, then names briefly for the G and H class, then back to numbers, with a return to names in 1931.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Tangentially related to uboat chat, when did countries start giving full names to all their ships/subs, rather than just a letter/number designator? Canada's first subs were CC-1 and CC-2, but we name them these days. The US seems to have already been using full names since before WW2. Uboats are famously just U-###, and the Deutsche Marine still does that today. Didn't the KM also not have names for their destroyers and small craft either? Soviet subs were K-whatever. Does the Russian navy name all their subs these days? Curious if there's some sort of rationale behind the conventions. Bundesmarine submarines tend to get inofficial nick-names, which is kind of a tradition with German number-ships like U-Boats and torpedo boats. Sadly, they tend to stay nearly unknown outside the service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Molentik posted:More sub stuff; here is some very nice colour footage of U.S.S. Cod and the Dutch O-19 which ran aground on a sandbank. The Cod survives today as a museum ship in Lake Erie, Cleveland. It is unique among museum subs in that it's hull wasn't cut to allow for better tourist access. Pampanito, for example, had its torpedo loading hatches cut out with a torch at some point in the 70's when the Navy lent* it out to be a museum. They still have the hatches, but they, and the housing they're mounted on, are on the pier and tourists walk onto and out of the sub by stairs. In contrast the Cod is intact and you use a ladder to get into the hull. The curator of the Cod, still there as of the last time I checked, is a great guy named Paul Farace. If you ever are in Cleveland go see the sub. * Different branches of the military have different regulations about the disposition of their stuff. The Army and Air Force, don't really care what happens to their stuff once they're done with it and sell it off. It is possible to own an old tank or USAF plane outright. But the Navy NEVER gives up old ships entirely - technically they still hold the ship's title. This even applies to old navy planes; if you find one at the bottom of a lake, raise it, and restore it technically the navy could claim to still own it. But what about the old "right of salvage" laws, where if you recover a sunken ship you own it? That doesn't apply to warships according to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 113. They always own the ship, forever. In practice, what this means is that once per year the Navy sends out an inspector who walks onto the pier and wanders through the boat, then goes out to lunch with everyone. They aren't doing some sort of white-glove inspection, but if you've let the boat turn into an embarrassing disaster that makes the Navy look bad, they might tell you to keep it ship-shape. Or, for that matter, they might even send help to do this. When I was at the museum there was still an active Navy base at Alameda in the East Bay, and the Navy people there were very helpful and supportive. Sometimes they'd send over a few sailors to land a hand with big jobs that involved a lot of people, like painting or re-working the lines (ropes) that held the sub to the pier. As a point of trivia, modern subs don't have the famous "dive claxon" from sub movies. ("Aoogah! Aoogah!") Instead they play a disappointing electronic beep. As a museum we had several of these which we'd looted from other old subs over the years. We had a good relationship with an SSBN (USS Henry M Jackson) that parked in Alameda regularly, and the museum director gave an old claxon to the sub as a thank you for the help they gave us. In return, the sub's captain took the museum staff out for an overnight cruise, where they put through diving and underwater maneuvers (angles and dangles), went through the drill of firing the missiles (having your hand on "the button," even if it is inert, is a weird feeling), let us turn the wheel to steer the boat, fed us dinner, etc. It was a great experience. Arrinien posted:The US seems to have already been using full names since before WW2. US Fleet subs (not old "S-boats") were named after "Maritime life" since their inception. "Maritime life" was mostly fish but technically also contained other marine organisms like "Nautilus" (a mollusc) or "Narwahl" (a mammal). This changed in the Cold War. For a while nuclear SSBNs were named after old patriotic figures ("George Washington") but soon Rickover started naming subs after cities (attack subs) or states (SSBNs). Why? "Fish don't vote." (I.e., subs were named after districts of politicians who gave more money to the Navy.) HookedOnChthonics posted:Additional question, was thought given to giving the O, R, & S-Boats full names once they were serving right alongside the named classes? Were number designations viewed as any less valid sacrosanct talisman of the ship than a fish name? Nope. The Lone Badger posted:Were u-boat crews given any special privilieges to make up for their tours, or was it just universal suckitude? In the US Navy sailors received between an extra $5-$20 a month (depending on rank) for being on subs. Cessna fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
This is the basic trend for the RN as well. From the original A-class Holland-type subs in 1903 to the L-class in 1918 all had simple alphanumeric class+number designations. Even the stuff like the K-class which were very large proto-fleet boats and rather more than a submersible torpedo boat which needed the support of a tender to remain operational for any length of time. The exception was the one-off Swordfish, which was another go at the long-range fleet boat concept and was stripped of its proper name when it proved disappointing in trials. Then in 1927 you get the first post-WW1 subs with the O/Odin-class which were big boats for the time (bigger than a WW2 Type IX) and intended for Pacific operations. From then on, and all the way through WW2, British subs were named, with the names starting with the letter of the class. The exception would be the decidedly non-independent midget sub types which went back to the alphanumeric designations. When nuclear subs entered service they were given names previously allocated to capital ships, reflecting their importance and their true independent nature. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
I mean submarines have gone from torpedo boat- or corvette-sized to cruiser-sized strategic weapons, of course they'd be getting more prestigious names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:I mean submarines have gone from torpedo boat- or corvette-sized to cruiser-sized strategic weapons, of course they'd be getting more prestigious names. The Soviets kept letter/number designations for submarines. For example, the lead sub of the Typhoon class, bigger than a WWI battleship and carrying 20 nuclear missiles, was named TK-208.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:"Ocean going submarines intended to sink enemy ships." I love the Pampanito and conservation, so yes. Did they even consider running the engines for the chase scenes in Down Periscope instead of just towing it? Are you hella jealy of the Jeremiah O'Brien's D-Day cruise?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The Soviets kept letter/number designations for submarines. For example, the lead sub of the Typhoon class, bigger than a WWI battleship and carrying 20 nuclear missiles, was named TK-208. Wow, that's interesting. Did not know that. You'd think they'd name them LENINS WRATH or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Greg12 posted:Did they even consider running the engines for the chase scenes in Down Periscope instead of just towing it? That wouldn't have worked, because the Pampanito doesn't have propellers. That was part of the conditions the Navy puts on museum ships, that they can't drive under their own power. There may be (and probably are) exceptions to this, but this was part of the conditions the sub was held under. Greg12 posted:Are you hella jealy of the Jeremiah O'Brien's D-Day cruise? When I worked there the sub was at Pier 45 and the O-Brien was parked on the other side of the city, just south of the Bay Bridge. This was the late 90's, so some of the old WWII vets were still alive and volunteered on the museum ships. The former merchant sailors on the O'Brien HATED anything to do with submarines, to the point of refusing to meet with them, refusing to go to dinners where former sub sailors were present, etc. As a result we didn't have any real relationship with them. Apparently sailing back and forth through U-boat infested waters had an effect on them. Even though it was an American sub, they still hated it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 18:43
|
|