U r amazing, the highest respect to you sir

No you didn’t.

@@alanmydland5210 he’s lying. He never served on any submarine.

@@Bombarded1n he’s lying and never served on any submarine. Stolen valor punk.

@@JohnDoe-yq9ml wdf

I lived in Lockwood Terrace on Guam!

If it's a sub doc u want to see then report to sick bay sailor !

Your last name is "Buoy", learn how to spell "SEA".

Two different worlds? Thank you for every minute of your service.

My older brother did that, he was on the HardHead and Pargo. He taught Sonar school in Key West also. He was in from 62-75. He had enough. I have a brothers-in-law that retired from boomers in the early 80s. I was in P3s. I grew up near Groton and worked a EB for a short time to know enough that sub duty wouldn’t be for me. Heck I love big open woods and views as I sit here on the deck with the sun still high at 9:30. We have mountains to the east and west.

Sounds like something that dumbass pervert O'Reilly would say.

There is a good shot of Rickover at 32:21. At least you see his face, even if the narration does not mention him.

I served in the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine navy from 1961 -1968. Admiral Rickover was universally feared by submarine nuclear power engineering officers. Those of us who were enlisted didn’t fear him because we were, as the say, too far down the totem pole.

he was a joke. 😂

I agree, Nimitz my butt!!!

It s a hoax ! Dis info ...vfake news.!.

Hi, U S submarines were responsible for sinking seventy-five percent of all Japanese ships , including Japanese warships. Peace

In this case supersonic waves just means above 20,000 hertz

It should be noted that sound travels at 1130 feet per second (770 mph). The "speed of sound" (or Mach 1) is a measurement relative to sounds travel rate through air. Underwater, sound travels at 4900 feet per second (3300 mph) or mach 4.3. Therefore, sound under water is 4.3 times faster than the "speed of sound"... or "supersonic".

That's a huge error for a "professional" documentary to make, especially when the two men look nothing alike and Nimitz's appearance should be familiar to anyone with any historical expertise at all. I can understand not recognizing Lockwood . . . I recognize him, but my wife would not. She would, however, almost certainly know "that's NOt Nimitz."

Yeah, that looks like Lockwood, the man who put Flag level proof that the MK14 was trash.

It was giant . . . for a submarine. A World War II Gato Class submarine had a submerged displacement of 2463 tons, a little over 310 feet long, and had a beam of 27 feet 3 inches. The Nautilus had a submerged displacement of 4092 tons submerged, 320 feet long, and a beam of 28 feet. What doesn't show up in these statistics is how much "taller" the Nautilus was--it had two habitable decks while the WWII type submarines had only one. Here's a cutaway of a Gato/Balau Class: archive.hnsa.org/doc/fleetsub/appendix/pages/figa-01.htm. And here's one of the Nautilus: imgur.com/98hnVkR. So, if you're used to a surface ship, Nautilus is cramped. If you're used to the submarines that came before Nautilus, she would hae seemed capacious.

Serviced on the dallas, nuatilus wasn't that bad it believe it had berthing the engine room aft. The nr 1 was small got go down it and did repairs . It was only 120 ft long. You could see both end of the on sub inside once inside.

Thanks for the very informative post, H. Paul!

If you ever make it to Mobil they have ww2 submarine there. It is drydock on the ground on concert block no longer in the water. You can get a good picture of it on size and you get to go thru the whole boat. The nuatilus was fashioned after the ww2 boats because it was true and tested design and that help keep the cost lower. The ssbn sub was regionally a fast attack sub cut and stretch with missile tube installed.

The pre WW II Submarine Nautilus was a giant at 371 feet long. Sistership Narwhal was also. The real giant was Argonaut at 381 feet long. The US didn't build anything bigger until the USS George Washington class and follow on subs.

Wow what a BS. It's a well known fact that active sonar kill loads of whales, dolphins and other marine life. Precisely why it shouldn't be used unless there is no other way, and not just "because they can".

@@pieterveenders9793 Sorry Only you are partly as right. Only ultra low frequency SONAR does haved the potential for hurting sea mammals and only at close range too. Just be cause you do play submarine games on a computer does not meand you are some of expert and you gived the response in your ownd blabbering : “ It’s a well known fact that active SONAR kill lots of whales, dolphins and other marine life. “ A well known FACT that “lots” whales and dolphin have been killed? I don’t thinked so Ined reality there is noned of any proof that “lots” of whales haved been killed. There haved been 7 whales that have been positively killed by SONAR that I am aware of. And 6 were killed because the SONAR either scared them ined to beaching or damaged their own navigation. There is being certainly the potentials for injury or death, but as far as do I know there haved been no mass killings. And my comment was made overs a year ago dude. Is that how do you try to get attention? Find old comments and try for attacking them? I was at 13 when I mad it that post. Now flaked off pleased.

They're trying to make War seem sexy. Isn't it? You're the demographic. So the music is perfect.