From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balao class submarine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Funny, it doesn't look like a submarine. Very busy, not at all streamlined. Did World War II sub operating doctrine have them operating on the surface much of the time? -Toptomcat 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good eye. Up until the Type XXI, subs were more like submersible torpedo boats, which is the doctrine Dönitz developed. That led to the GUPPY boats & the Albacore hull. Trekphiler 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

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: 400 ft (122m) (except SS361-364, 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 (in SS.361-364), 1x4in (102mm)/50 cal deck gun (in SS.285-291), or 5in (12.7cm)/25 cal (in rest), 1 x 40mm AA cannon (except in SS.361-364), 1x20mm AA cannon (SS.313-360 & SS.365-416 only), 2x0.5" (12.7mm) MG (except SS.361-364 0.3" {7.62mm} MG)
• Crew: 80 – 85 officers and men
• Powerplant: 4 x 1350 hp (1 MW) 16cyl General Motors 278A diesel engines (except SS292-312 and SS381-416 10cyl Fairbanks-Morse 38D-1/8), 2 x 1370 hp (1020kW) General Electric electric motors (except SS292-312 and SS381-416 Elliot Motor)
• 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 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the battery makers, again from Lenton. BTW, can anybody say how it's pronounced? Trekphiler 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's deep

Can somebody confirm Balao used higher-yield steel? From what Beach & Blair imply, they had heavier frames & thicker skins, not better steel. I don't have Alden in front of me, so I can't say... Trekphiler 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The (SS-310) Batfish

I have had the pleasure of joining the crew that maintains the SS-310 Batfish and have recently camped out on its deck. We're replacing the rotted deck with an Egyptian teak currently. Sleeping in the crew quarters is a very good night sleep, as it is dead quiet. The deck is just as comfortable in a sleeping bag, I had the fortune to pull up some sleeping real estate on the deck where the AA gun is mounted.

My experience with the Batfish was incredible. I am happy to join the crew and continue to restore and maintain this wonderful piece of human history. Sitting in the mess I couldn't beleive that this kind of structure was built during a time when we didn't have computers or microwaves or any of the modern technologies that would have made this scale of a vessel tangible.

I was in awe of the entire experience and will continue to make a 2.5 hour drive there several times a year to lend a hand. We also perform re-enactments on the boat and have rigged up a boat-wide sound system that makes the entire length of the boat come alive with ambient audio, alert sirens, torpedo launch sounds...all bounced off the hull it is very real sounding. Makes for a great tourist experience and takes visitors back in time with us.

Anyone near the Batfish should come see this piece of our history. She won't dissapoint you.