Submarine hits underwater mountain?

[DrQuest]

As I recall, soon after it happened the USS San Francisco, a US sub limped into its port in Guam, they said that it had hit an undersea mountain range not on their maps.
Give me a break, am I supposed to believe that probably the most technical piece of submarine in existance failed to see a fricken mountain?
I think it was doing something in the vicinity of the epicenter, and things went horribly wrong?

 

[m249saw]

Have been in the Navy I can tell you it is possible.

 

[Pyromaniac]

And I agree with the above - ex submariner that I am. unlike the movies we dont have windows and dont 'ping' all the time.

We might know where we are - but unless its on the charts we cant 'see' anything unless actually active and searching for it. (unless its making a noise)

 

[Marek K]

And I agree with the above - ex submariner that I am. unlike the movies we dont have windows and dont 'ping' all the time.

We might know where we are - but unless its on the charts we cant 'see' anything unless actually active and searching for it. (unless its making a noise)

...which puts being a submariner on my short list of professions you couldn't pay me enough to do...

 

[letterboy]

kinda like being a tanker. . . not going to be trapped in a steal box I can't get out of. . .

 

[Marek K]

kinda like being a tanker. . . not going to be trapped in a steal box I can't get out of. . .

Hey, now, that remark I resemble. (Remember the M60A2? At least each crew member had his own hatch... not that it would have helped much with a turret and hull full of 152mm combustible-casing rounds, with no blow-out panels.)

Hijack alert.

 

[letterboy]

Hey, now, that remark I resemble. (Remember the M60A2? At least each crew member had his own hatch... not that it would have helped much with a turret and hull full of 152mm combustible-casing rounds, with no blow-out panels.)

Hijack alert.

You mean like this? HMMM still not going to catch me in one of those. . . I can make just as big a bang with my M102 105mm Howitzer. . . with much less danger

 

[Marek K]

You mean like this?

Yup. That's one of the earlier ones, without the closed-breach scavenging system. Or at least they left the bore evacuator on it, which happened a lot. And no camo paint, that I can see.

Brings a tear to my eye. Where is it? I thought they'd all been long converted into NTC OPFOR vehicles, or worse...

Hey, to bring this all back to the original post... why is it that tanks use so many nautical terms? Hull... bow... hatch... even turret...

I think we're about to get kicked over into Non-Diving Related Stuff.

 

[Desert_Diver]

Yup. That's one of the earlier ones, without the closed-breach scavenging system. Or at least they left the bore evacuator on it, which happened a lot. And no camo paint, that I can see.

Brings a tear to my eye. Where is it? I thought they'd all been long converted into NTC OPFOR vehicles, or worse...

Hey, to bring this all back to the original post... why is it that tanks use so many nautical terms? Hull... bow... hatch... even turret...

Because the Brits, who developed the first tanks, rightly considered them to be a revolutionary military development. The "cover story" to maintain security was that they were researching and developing a naval weapon. They were afraid that the Germans would seize on the idea and use it. (Were they right, or what?).

Art

 

[El Orans]

I think we're about to get kicked over into Non-Diving Related Stuff.

You must be a psychic...