"US WWII subs extend range" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two at Sea
|
| thomalley | 08 Oct 2019 12:13 p.m. PST |
|
| jdpintex | 08 Oct 2019 2:49 p.m. PST |
Tsk Tsk Flushing oil into the sea. Weren't they concerned about the environment? (sarcasm for those who can't recognize it) |
| rmaker | 08 Oct 2019 8:10 p.m. PST |
As noted in a later comment, the 21000 NM range is apocryphal (and probably meant to be KM), standard was 11000. One wonders what similarly sized vessels the original questioner had in mind. The Gato class had a surface displacement of 1510 tons, the essentially contemporary Gridley class weighed in at 1570 tons. Endurances were 11000 NM at 10 kt and 7000 NM at 12 kt. Slowing the DD to 10 kt would have extended its range by possibly 1000 NM, and the difference is easily explained by the much better efficiency of the sub's diesels compared to the very high pressure steam plant in the destroyer. |
| Dynaman8789 | 09 Oct 2019 9:03 a.m. PST |
Keep laughing at that "sarcasm" till there are no more fish to eat. (sarcasm for those who can't recognize it) (see how that makes it ALL better?) |
| Only Warlock | 09 Oct 2019 9:44 a.m. PST |
Great Article thomally! Also:
a LOT more Oil seeps up naturally in the sea bed per year than all spillage by humans. Great article here: link |
hindsTMP  | 09 Oct 2019 4:12 p.m. PST |
I agree; nice article OP. BTW guys, the COP natural seep releases 25 tons per day; Exxon Valdez released 37,000 tons in several days. Big difference in the rate of accumulation, and presumably in the ability of the environment to cope. We already know that oil exists in the wild (that's where it comes from after all). |
|
