Depends on the rocket.
Only if they’re lucky…
I disagree. Both involve operating in a multi-axis configuration. Instead of aerodynamic control surfaces there are directional thrusters.
This story reminds me of when I was a midshipman who spent a couple of months aboard a ballistic missile sub on patrol in the North Atlantic. (Midshipmen are the naval equivalent of cadets from the Naval Academy or NROTC units, like myself.)
Anyway, one of the other midshipmen aboard decided very quickly that a career in submarines was not for him. He got despondent and abandoned his training and quals and spent most of his time in a spot looking up at one of the escape trunks. The crew half-jokingly wondered if he would just decide to leave one night. 
(Unlike the space shuttle hatch, it is a pretty complex operation to open a submarine escape trunk hatch underwater. You’d have to enter the escape trunk, close the lower hatch, unlatch the outer hatch, and then equalize the pressure with high pressure air. At which point the outer hatch would pop open and you would find yourself deep underwater in the middle of the North Atlantic. Where even in the unlikely event you actually made it to the surface, you wouldn’t last long.)
As to the question raised in the OP, there are some similarities between submariners and astronauts, especially on longer missions like aboard the ISS, but the original Mercury astronauts’ mission profiles were a much closer fit with that of the test pilots they used, I think.
I doubt it could ever even come close to being surpassed.
Heck, subs have heads. Military pilots are already used to things like catheters and diapers.
Navigation, for one thing. While the trajectories and burns were custom designed and planned for, the astronauts themselves were a final check on the attitude and all that stuff. They did carry and use ancient mariner tools - star charts, and sextant, and compass. They had a vested interest in making sure everything was just so. They were like a modern day Magellan or Cook or Lewis & Clark expedition.
One of the interesting things the early Moon explorers described, for much of the journey out for the three days it took to get there, they didn’t really see the moon. Until they got really close. They felt it more than saw it, and it was right there only 40 miles away.
They double checked the numbers one more time. Because, to the eye it looks a little like the trajectory is leading you to crash right into it. The margin for error was small at the velocities and distances, an error on the return trip to Erf too steep meant burning up in the atmosphere. Too shallow, and they would bounce off the atmosphere never to return, bouncing like a flat stone off water. Only get one chance, no go arounds. I always figured Buzz Aldrin was maybe included on the 1st because he wrote his dissertation on lunar orbit rendezvous. If the computer horked, what better man to be navigating to try and stagger back to the CSM in orbit?
It is almost a miracle there aren’t yet today 3 very deceased Apollo astronauts in permanent orbit around the sun. I wonder sometimes how that would have affected the overall space program.
One thing I will say, while “space nerds” read up on all these individuals - Even as a little kid I could tell Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin seemed to be extremely guarded individuals. They were under extraordinary pressure, all of them were. It’s difficult to explain, but the best or better qualified people in a situation like that don’t necessarily have the skills to be television stars or “ambassadors for the space program” and go on ticker tape parades. Neil was maybe the guy you wanted on the controls for the first landing, but temperamentally, he probably wasn’t the most outgoing or forthcoming individual for the PR side of things?
That makes sense. Subs do too but really few are involved in that aspect?
Did most pilots have those skills or did this group learn it for the task?
It is (or at one time was) part of survival training.
Back in the day navigators used celestial navigation.
In the 60’s the SR-71 had a computer that tracked stars. I talked to one of those pilots years ago and he said the hangers in England had pin holes in the roof and the computers would try and resolve a location from sunlight coming in.
For pilots only? Submariners not?
That’s a good question, and one I don’t know. At minimum they knew how to navigate on earth using stars, and the principles of latitude and longitude. “Whiz wheels” or analog flight computer would have been familiar. Jeppeson might be the brand? Wouldn’t surprise me if they brought one.
They also brought what is basically nothing more than a wind up kitchen timer with a bell, like grandma had. Lots of testing on the ground showed it was a convenient way of measuring short periods of time and reminders, so they left it in for the missions too.
Not for survival training, per se, but we were taught celestial navigation in Naval ROTC. It did get limited use on the boat.
But subs do it at a much slower rate. A plane, or a space craft, can begin spinning/tumbling so fast you’ll black out, as almost happened to Armstrong on one mission during Gemini.
And I am sure it was fictionalized but most pilots failed the g force tests and were filtered out in The Right Stuff.
I’d WAG that a nearly equal number of Navy folk could pass that physiologic filter.
I’m increasingly getting the impression that test pilots were the pool thought of due to stereotypes about their personal characteristics. Looking to push the envelope. Really just that. Not past training or skill sets.
Sure, physically they could pass the test, but did they have the experience to keep working under those conditions?
You don’t expect NFL quarterbacks to hit home runs, after all. Athleticism alone isn’t enough, you also need training and practice.
Meh. I suspect few of the pilots had much such experience. And such could be easily trained in anyone who had the physiological ability if such was felt to be a vital skill.
Training pilots is pretty expensive and time-consuming endeavor*. I don’t think it would be quite so easy as you think. Why put that effort into training someone, if you already have lots of pilots with the needed experience? Even the Navy personnel they chose were aviators, so it wasn’t just the Air Force pushing the “Pilots are great!” line.
*Currently, it looks like two years to become just a rookie pilot. There’s no way they’d stick someone that new on top of a rocket, so add a few years actual experience on top of that.