Talk:Gato-class submarine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary[edit]

That's a lot of boats. Could someone summarize the most notable successes of the Gatos? Bastie 16:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I rewrote to this:

  • -- General characteristics --
  • Displacement: 1526 tons surfaced, 2424 tons submerged
  • Length: 307ft (93.6m) waterline, 311ft 9in (95m) overall
  • Beam: 27 ft 3in (8.31m)
  • Draft: 15 ft 3in (4.65m)
  • Test depth: 300ft {91.4m})
  • Speed: 20.25 knots (37.5 km/h) surfaced, 8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged
  • Armament: 10 x 21 in (53cm) torpedo tubes (6 forward, 4 aft, 24 torpedoes); 1 x 3 in (76 mm)/50 caliber AA gun 2x0.5" (12.7mm) and 2x0.3" {7.62mm} machineguns
  • Crew: 80 – 85 officers and men
  • Powerplant: 4 x 1350 hp (1 MW) 16cyl General Motors 278A diesel engines (except SS228-239 and SS275-284 10cyl Fairbanks-Morse 38D-1/8), 2 x 1370 hp (1020kW) General Electric electric motors (except SS228-235 Elliot Motor or SS257-264 Allis-Chalmers)
  • Range: 11,800 nautical miles (21,900 km) at 10 knots (19 km/h) surfaced

I base that on Lenton, American Submarines. The 4x6500hp diesel is such an obvious mistake I can only conclude somebody didn't notice there were 2 engines on each shaft & that was a total hp. The "4x" electric motors is wrong, too. There were 2 motors, 1 on each shaft. The original 1800t surfaced tonnage doesn't agree with any published figure I've ever seen, either, & it's well above the published numbers for Gato & Tench, which it should be close to, since the design didn't change significantly til after the Tenches were completed. I should also mention, parenthetically, Gato, Balao, & Tench had a design capacity of 26 torpedoes (with the additional bow tube, according to Beach); by my count, it's 30, but... Trekphiler 22:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the battery makers, again from Lenton. BTW, can anybody say how it's pronounced? Trekphiler 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the USS Silversides (SS-236) mentions 9-cylinder Fairbanks-Morse opposed piston engines. I visited this sub recently in Muskegan and can confirm that the engines are 9-cylinders, not 10-cylinders. In-line engines with odd-numbers of cylinders are common among medium-speed and slow-speed marine diesels. --JoeM42 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early-war F-M boats (all Gatos and Balaos until USS Sand Lance (SS-381)) had 9-cyl engines and all afterward had 10-cyl engines. And all Gatos and all but 18 Balaos had four electric motors total, two on each shaft's reduction gears. The late-war 2-motor boats had "double armature" direct-drive motors (no reduction gears) which are consistently listed as two motors. All of this makes for a lot of confusion. RobDuch (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dealey[edit]

This page says he sank 5 destroyers...however, his page says sank 3, damaged 2. Which is correct? Afabbro 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Class[edit]

I always thought that German Typ VII U-boats formed the largest (warship) class ever built. Can someone confirm or disprove? 84.133.64.41 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this [[1]] and changed the article text to ... american ... .
--Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed this, but I think they were confused by the wording. It's "largest" in the sense of greatest number of individual boats, not in the sense of each boat being bigger than the subs of any other class. Rees11 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-351[edit]

"1-351" would seem to be a typo, but the article on Japanese submarine I-351 doesn't mention a sinking by a US sub. Rees11 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war service[edit]

The article needs to mention that some Gatos served in Italy, Greece, Japan, Brazil and Turkey, it doesn't say anything81.37.165.59 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guns[edit]

I reverted the part about "one or two" deck guns, but actually (according to Subs thru 45) by the end of the war, captains were given the option of mounting two five inch guns. Also, at the beginning of the war the subs had .30 and .50 machine guns, but by the end they had 20mm and 40mm cannon. Rees11 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Gato Class subs had the 3" guns removed and were refitted with a 4"/50 caliber gun on the aft deck. The USS Silversides (SS-236) is moored in Muskegan and is fitted with an aft 4"/50. Do you know if the original 3" guns were mounted fore or aft? 4"/50 caliber gun refit on the Silversides also included some ammunition storage above deck.--JoeM42 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3-inch gun was always mounted aft as far as I know. I've seen the 4-inch mounted both forward and aft. Gato had her aft 3-inch replaced with a forward 4-inch in November 1944, which you can see in the photos at [2]. I think the original idea was the deck gun would be used to shoot it out with pursuing destroyers so needed to be mounted aft. Of course this was ludicrous. Late in the war large targets were hard to find, so guns were mounted forward to sink small craft on the surface. The CO seems to have been given a lot of latitude as to armament. I think Subs thru 45 has a chapter on this. Rees11 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Karafuto is a home island, then so is Okinawa[edit]

This article appears to reference the Fluckey book to say that the ground attack on Karafuto was the only attack of the war on the Japanese "home islands". But how was Karafuto (Sakhalin Island) a "home island" but Okinawa was not? This is ridiculous. The "home islands" were and are Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido, not Sakhalin. If anything, Okinawa was more of a "home island" than Sakhalin, since Okinawa was a "ken" (prefecture), and Karafuto was a "cho". It is wrong for the ignorance of Fluckey's book to reappear in this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, then I will remove the sentence. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gato-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gato-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Ships in the class " section / list[edit]

Hello everybody ,

I found out this article , unlike others like Fletcher-class destroyers , didn't have " Ships in class " section / list.

So I'd like to make a list for it. I may need someone to provide me information if it's needed as well since I don't have any material in my place.

Who's gonna have the same thought or now making in progress , please respond. Otherwise , I will do it when I have time.

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any interest in this topic, the book to get hold of is Alden, John D., Commander (USN Ret) (1979). The Fleet Submarine in the U.S. Navy: A Design and Construction History. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-85368-203-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I have a copy here, but there were a lot of Gatos, and so it's a lot of time and typing. A basic list could be copied from Category:Gato-class_submarines, but would need sourcing as well from something like Alden. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you brother , let's make a list first , as for the reference , just put a problem template onto it to let any folks like you know to put reference to fix it. As for the information , see if you have time to provide information. I had also make a same asking to folks in Talk:Balao-class submarine and Talk:Tench-class submarine as well , see if you are interested. -- Comrade John (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think such a list needs to be more than a list. Otherwise we already have the category, if all we want is a list.
So what other columns would be in there? Dates, builders, patrols, final end? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. As for the columns , Ship name , Hull number , Builder , Laid down , Launched , Commissioned , Decommissioned , Fate. Or maybe Service Note , just like what it did in " List of Clemson-class destroyers ". -- Comrade John (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the "Register of Ships of the United States Navy 1775-1990" and I will be assisting Comrade John in preparing the list as a separate article. RobDuch (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Along with creating class list articles, I am proposing to restructure the Gato/Balao/Tench information in accordance with the "Register" by Bauer & Roberts. The existing information is largely derived from Lenton, whose main problem is an assumption that all submarines SS-417 and later were or would have been Tench-class. Bauer & Roberts break out the situation in more detail. Also, SS-361-364 were initially ordered as Balao-class, but were completed as Gato-class due to Manitowoc not receiving the Balao plans from Electric Boat in time. This is detailed in Friedman. Lenton lists these with the Balaos, although noting their 300-foot test depth, same as the Gatos. RobDuch (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gato-class_submarine&oldid=1216455018"