Talk:USS Nautilus (SS-168)

Kuma

Please verify. Indeed, there exists Kuma Island, but Gilbert Islands, mentioned in the immediate context of "Kuma" in this article, lists Kuria. mikka (t) 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cruisers?

I really doubt any cruisers were dropping DCs. They were DDs. I believe it was Yahagi & her resemblance to Akikaze that led to the freq confusion early in the war; many sub war patrols mis-ID DDs as cruisers.

On another point, can somebody confirm the cruisers maneurvering to avoid were Mogami & Mikuma? Memory sez so, but... If you can, add it to the Mogami page? Thanks! Trekphiler 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cruisers in Kurita's CruDiv 7 maneuvering to avoid were Kumano, Suzuya, Mikuma and Mogami. Mikuma collided with Mogami according Parshall & Tully's "Shattered Sword" (p.344-347) 69.22.240.126 14:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) [email protected]

Plagairism?

Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The proper term is "public domain". See DANFS as well as the reference note at the bottom of the article. Lifting directly and exactly from DANFS is okay. Why wouldn't it be? The source is properly referenced and the source is in the public domain. This one could probably use a bit of NPOV (the term "enemy" is obviously biased), but otherwise is okay. Jinian 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is plagairism. You're claimin another writer's work as your own. Don't tell me "public domain" makes that okay. Or do you mean to suggest I can copy works of Dickens & pass them off as my own? Trekphiler 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming this work as their own. The DANFS notice gives full credit. Jinian 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tricky.Legaly you would not have to give credit. You would not be able to claim them as your own as far as copyright is concernded but I'm not sure what the legal status of A Tale of Two Cities by trekphiler would be. However I feel the statement "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" clears up any issues. If not all our EB 1911 articles are in trouble.Geni 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Trekphiler, your accusation is absurd. Who exactly is the "you" in "You're claimin [sic] another writer's work as your own"? ➥the Epopt 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Absurd? Tell it to your lawyer. You pass off somebody else's work as yours, it's plagairism. Don't tell me "fair use" applies when it's a verbatim lift. You suppose the Napster guys thought they were OK when they didn't actually copy any songs? Trekphiler 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming fair use. We're claiming that works of the United States Federal Government are in the public domain. No copyright exists. The notice clearly states that the text is from the DANFS. It's not plagiarism because no one is claiming it as anything but what it is. But, of course, you know all of this. Jinian 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trekphiler, I am the one who copied the material from DANFS. If you have a problem with this article, you have it with me. Please, please, please feel free to take action, legal or otherwise, against me.

Oh, and to make your case as strong as possible, I hereby admit and boast that I copied DANFS as the bases for nearly every American submarine article on Wikipedia, and many of the skimmers, too. ➥the Epopt 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to know this site is populated by unethical scumbags. "Fair use" or lack of copywright doesn't justify or excuse plagairism. If you think it does, I suggest you examine how you'd like having credit for your work claimed by somebody else. I guess "ethics" isn't in your lexicon. I'm ashamed I contributed money to a site that tolerates this. Trekphiler 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, if you're plagairising, you've made Wikipedia off limits to serious research. No writer will risk using plagairised material. I guess you don't care about that, either.)

Department of corrections

I rewrote this

"one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes"

to this

"cruisers(more probably a cruiser and three destroyers, misidentified as they often were early in the war). Within "

And this:

"had disappeared. At 12:53,"

to this:

"had disappeared. (Unknown to Brockman at the time, the destroyer counterattacking him, in her rush to rejoin, was tracked by

Enterprise's VB-6, led by Wade McClusky, back to the Japanese task force.) At 12:53," and added:

"Evans F. Carlson (the Marine Raiders, or "Carlson's Raiders")"

I'd also mention Adamson, Hans Christian's Guerrilla Submarines, if I could recall the co-auther & publisher. Non-plagariser 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Walter Lord in “Lonely Vigil,” the Nautilus did not take the 14 Catholic nuns, other adults, and children to Brisbane. The Nautilus transferred the passengers to a surface ship and resumed its patrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkiernan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Commander USS Nautilus during Midway

Here the USS Nautilus' commander is listed as Anderson. In a recent book on Midway, "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully the commmanding officer is stated to be Lieutenant Commander William Brockman. 69.22.240.126 12:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Brandon Musler ([email protected])

I have at least three sources that list William H. Brockman, Jr. as the commander of the Nautilus during the Battle of Midway:

- United States Submarine Operations in World War II, by Theodore Roscoe; Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 1949.

- Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan, by Clay Blair, Jr.; J.B. Lippincott Co., New York, NY, 1975.

- History of United State Naval Operations in World War II: Coral Sea, Midway and Submarine Actions May 1942--August 1942, by Samuel Eliot Morison; reprint by Castle Books, Edison, NJ, 2001 (original copyright 1949).

I went ahead and made the edits. JM8Austin 03:08, 18 July 2007

No. of Torpedo tubes

The article and serveral other sources I found [1] say 6 torpedo tubes, however the Naval Historical Center says 10 torpedo tubes [2]. Anyone knows which number is correct? One source speaks of 4 "topside" torpedo tubes [3]. What does this mean? --JogyB (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was built with six - four forward and two aft. During the 1942 modernisation (just before Midway), four torpedo tubes were installed in the superstructure just below the main deck. In this photo [4], you can see one of the forward deck tubes below the forward gun; the aft ones were installed in the aft gun deck. I don't think they saw much use, however. During Midway, one of the depth-charge attacks started a hot run in one of the topside tubes and demonstrated how useless they really were. --Fireflyer87 (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Torpedo miscount

These don't add up:

"Sighting on Kirishima, she fired two bow tubes; one misfired, one missed."

"Nautilus launched four torpedoes at the carrier from less than 3,000 yards"

"Nautilus resumed her patrol, having expended five torpedoes and survived 42 depth charges"

Two plus four would be six, not five. The only source I have in front of me is Morison, and he says Nautilus only fired one torpedo at Kirishima, from 4500 yards, and it missed. But he also says Nautilus fired three torpedos from 2700 yards at the carrier, which he identifies as Soryu, and all three hit. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

hospital ship-war crime? maybe not?

From the U.S. gov't military history page on this vessel:

"... While en route on 6 March, Nautilus came upon another enemy convoy at 22°19'N, 143°54'E, and subsequently engaged them. She struck the transport (ex-hospital ship) America Maru between her after stack and after mast, as well as at her stern. Nautilus then dove as a depth charge attack began and shortly thereafter continued on her course. When struck by Nautilus, America Maru had been en route to repatriate 551 civilian evacuees from Saipan, primarily consisting of women and children. Only 43 of the 642 on board were rescued."

At the time, was she still painted with hospital ship colours? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - since being 'conscripted' by the Imperial Japanese Navy as a troop transport in '43, she should have been repainted per international law - but was not. As tragic as her sinking was, she had clearly been identified as an active war vessel and no longer a hospital ship by Allied intelligence. As such, the article is correct. The situation is comparable to the sinking of the Lusitania (see Wiki article).50.111.51.247 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)