I was watching the movie U-571 last night, which in its bonus materials claims to be one of the most accurately researched WWII submarine movies ever made. I noticed that when the U-boat was on the surface there were a variety of guns mounted on the deck that were readily available should the need arise. Of course when it dived those guns would be submerged in salt water, often for weeks at a time. I also assume the US submarines had a similar setup. So how did they/we make guns that were able to be submerged for long periods of time in salt water and still be able to fire? Wouldn’t they rust, jam or get encrusted with marine life? I suppose they could have made them out of stainless steel, but they would have to be 100% stainless, which seems like it would be difficult to accomplish. So how did those guns work reliably?
I’ve wondered this myself. I’d assumed that the deck guns had their muzzles plugged (I assume the breeches were watertight) to keep seawater out. Machine guns could be stored inside and mounted upon surfacing.
Since I don’t have an answer, I wasn’t going to reply to this thread; but there was one thing that stuck out: I don’t think WWII subs didn’t submerge for weeks at a time. They needed to surface to run on diesel engines to recharge their batteries (the Germans had Schnorkels on some subs so they could run at periscope depth), and they were faster on the surface than they were underwater.
Johnny L.A. pretty much has it. The submarines in WWII could not actually stay down that long, which is why we have movies like “Das Boot”. The snorkels did enable them to stay down longer, but they were not developed until 1943.
When on patrol, a WWII sub’s main guns spent ~20 hours per day submerged and the other 4 on the surface exposed to salt spray. The guns on any WWII naval surface ship spent 24 hours a day on the surface exposed to salt spray.
As to corrosion, exposure to air while wet is the worse situation. In modern day preservation efforts, there is a rush to immediately get the retrieved artifact back into a salt water bath at the lab with as little exposure time to the air as possible.
The kinds of marine critters and plants which attach themselves to ships’ underwater parts do so when the ship is at rest. Subs, especially WWII subs, did not spend much time underwater & stationary.
His double negative implies they did stay down for weeks a time. Just sayin’ 
The muzzle plug is called a “tampion.”
No, it didn’t. English is not algebra. Nothing wrong with double-negatives and they emphasize a negative rather than reversing it.
And forgetting to remove it could have unfortunate consequences.
I think they didn’t submerge for long periods of time.
I don’t think they submerged for long periods of time.
FWIW, according to Wikipedia, “In Standard English, double negatives are usually understood to resolve to a positive.”
Your rebuttal? I understand usually is not equal to always, so I’m not sure nothing is out there.
Only upon the advent of the “electroboot” (German Type XXI) did anybody truly have something which was a true submarine-the only times a typical WWII boat went underwater was to torpedo something, to avoid enemy escorts, and (later in the war for the Germans at least) to avoid enemy aircraft. I’d imagine the guns were liberally slathered in grease as a matter of normal routine.
It depends on the type of vessel, the time period, and the area of operation. Submerged 20 hours a day is generally only something that would apply to German U-boats operating relatively close to Europe in calm weather from about late 1943 onwards. Most subs spent almost all of their time on the surface, only submerging to attack (sometimes) or evade attack.
:rolleyes:
They must be fucking joking!
Typical yanks taking credit for british achievements.
While it’s true that the movie was a joke from any historical perspective, it really isn’t the case of the Americans taking credit for what the British did except in very vague terms (getting an engima machine) - nothing like what happened in that movie ever happened.
Actually Americans obtained at least one Enigma from a captured submarine (though later in the war than the British did and apparently not as critical from an intelligence standpoint).
As noted in other threads about this movie, the incident U-571 apparently was based on was the defeat and boarding of a captured sub (after the Germans had all evacuated it) by the British, who carried off a trove of intelligence data including an Enigma. An important and risky job (the Brits involved were decorated for it) but related in only a miniscule way to the far more exciting plot of the movie.
If the Japanese could make a water tight aircraft hanger on a submarine then a gun shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
I edited that sentence and forgot to take out the ‘didn’t’. :smack:
They would also submerge when the weather was really bad and at regular intervals at night - for one thing, because it’s so thin and low on the water, a submarine rolls and pitches like crazy on the surface, much more so than a regular ship, making life on board uncomfortable to say the least ; for another when visibility is low, or waves are high enough that watchmen on the conning tower risk being swept away, it’s better to look for targets via hydrophone (even in a raging sea, a good operator could hear a loud merchant from ten to twenty nautical miles away using the equipment of the time)
They said it was accurately researched - but they didn’t say anything about whether any of the accurate research made it into the movie 
No, never! Now, did I just agree with you?
This is one more reason not to believe Wikipedia. While English teachers make this statement, they can never actually point to an example where it’s actually true. If you say, “I don’t got no money,” no native English speaker would ever think that you were claiming to be rich. If you say, “I didn’t do nothing to stop him,” no one would ever think you did something to stop him. As far as meaning is concerned, a double negative is the same as a regular negative.
This “double negatives equal a positive” is an ex post facto rationalization of the dislike of the use of double negatives. They are considered bad speech because at some point English “experts” decided that, like ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting infinitives, it was “bad English.” There was a certain amount of class bias in this, as well as the usual affinity for Latin.
Double negatives still remain nonstandard English, but they do not indicate a positive.
I am not unconvinced that you are correct.