News

Pike II SS-173 - History

Pike II SS-173 - History

Pike I

The first Pike (SS-6), commissioned 28 May 1903, was renamed A-6 (q.v.), 17 November 1911.

Pike II

(SS-173: dp. 1,310 (surf.), 1,934 (subm.) 1. 301', b. 24'11" dr. 13'1"; s. 19 k. (surf.), 8 k. (subm.j; cpl. 50; a. 1 3", 6 21" tt.; cl. Porpoi~e)

Pike (SS-173) was laid down 20 December 1933 by Portsmouth Navy Yard, Portsmouth, N.H., Iaunched 12 September 1935; sponsored by Miss Jane Logan Snyder, and commissioned 2 December 1935, Lt. Heber H. McLean in command.

After shakedown in the Atlantic, Pike departed Newoort, R.I., 10 February 1937, and proceeded via the Panama Canal to San Diego, Calif. During 1937 and 1938, she participated in maneuvers near Hawaii. Entering Manila Bay 1 December 1939, she served with Submarine Squadron 5 out of Cavite P.I. Departing 20 June 1940, she cruised along the coast of China from Shanghai to Tsingtao. Returning to Cavite 24 August, she voyaged in the Philippines.

In response to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, she put to sea 8 December to guard sea lanes between Manila and Hong Kong. Sailing from Manila, she moored at Port Darwin, Australia, 24 January 1942. On her third war patrol 5 February to 28 March, she detected the enemy off the Alor Islands 20 and 24 February, and off Lombok Strait on the 28th. On her fourth war patrol, she sailed from Fremantle, Australia, 19 April, and patrolled north of the Palau Islands and off Wake, before reaching Honolulu 25 May. From 30 May to 9 June, she patrolled north of Oahu. Overhauled at Mare Island, Calif., she guided bombers to Wake Island in December, and escaped from a severe depthcharging 14 January 1943 during an attempted attack off Japan. Departing Pearl Harbor 31 March, she fired torpedoes at targets

off Truk 12 to 14 April, and shelled Satawan Island on the

Getting under way from Pearl Harbor 22 July, Pi.ke sank 2,022-ton Japanese cargo ship Shoju Maru near Marcus Island 5 August. Sailing from Pearl Harbor 28 September, she arrived at New London, Conn., 3 November. During the remainder of World War II, she trained submarine crews at New London.

Decommissioned 15 November 1945 at Boston, she became a Naval Reserve training ship at Baltimore, Md., in September 1946. Upon completion of this duty, she was struck from the Naval Vessel Register 17 February 1956, and sold for scrapping 14 January 1957 to A. G. Schoonmaker Co., Inc., New York, N,Y,

Pike received four battle stars for World War II service.


Pike II SS-173 - History

8 Dec 1941
After the attack on Pearl Harbor USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. William Adolph New) left Manila for her first war patrol. She was to guard the shipping lanes between Manila and Hong Kong.

31 Dec 1941
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) left Manila for her second war patrol.

24 Jan 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) ended her second war patrol at Darwin, Australia.

5 Feb 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) left Darwin for her third war patrol.

28 Mar 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. William Adolph New) ended her third war patrol when she returns to base at Fremantle, Australia.

19 Apr 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) leaves Fremantle for her 4th war patrol. She was to patrol north of the Palau Islands and off Wake Island.

25 May 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) ended her 4th war patrol when she returned to base at Pearl Harbor.

30 May 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. W.A. New) leaves Pearl Harbor for her 5th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol north of Oahu.

9 Jun 1942
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. William Adolph New) ended her 5th war patrol when she returned to Pearl Harbor, and was sent to the Mare Island Naval Yard for an overhaul.

14 Jan 1943
During her 5th war patrol USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. William Adolph New) guided bombers to Wake Island in December 1942, but on 14 January 1943 she was damaged by bombs and depth charges off Ichie Saki, southern Honshu, Japan. due to this damage the patrol is aborted and returns to port.

31 Mar 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. Louis Darby McGregor, Jr.) left Pearl Harbor for her 6th war patrol, and was to patrol in the Caroline Islands area.

14 Apr 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. L.D. McGregor, Jr) torpedoed and damaged the Japanese transport ship Madras Maru (3802 GRT) north of the Admiralty Islands in position 01°25’N, 148°22’E.

25 Apr 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. L.D. McGregor, Jr) shells Satawan Island, Caroline Islands.

22 Jul 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. L.D. McGregor, Jr) left Pearl Harbor for her 7th and last war patrol. She was to patrol off Marcus Island.

5 Aug 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. L.D. McGregor, Jr) torpedoed and sank the Japanese transport ship Shoju Maru (1992 GRT) west of Marcus Island in position 24°30’N, 158°50’E.

22 Aug 1943
USS Pike (Lt.Cdr. L.D. McGregor, Jr) torpedoed and damaged the Japanese transport ship Toun Maru (1915 GRT) in the Philippine Sea in position 21°22’N, 137°50’E.

28 Sep 1943
USS Pike left Pearl Harbor bound for New London on the U.S. east coast as she was now assigned to training duties.

23 Oct 1943
USS Pike arrived in the Panama Canal Zone from Pearl Harbour.

27 Oct 1943
USS Pike departed the Panama Canal Zone for New London, Connecticut.


Service history [ edit ]

After shakedown in the Atlantic, Pike departed Newport, R.I. on 10 February 1937, and proceeded via the Panama Canal to Naval Station San Diego. In 1937-1938, she participated in maneuvers near Hawaii. Entering Manila Bay on 1 December 1939, she served with Submarine Squadron 5 (SubRon 5) out of Cavite, P.I. Departing on 20 June 1940, she cruised along the coast of China from Shanghai to Tsingtao. Returning to Cavite on 24 August, she voyaged in the Philippines.

In response to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, she put to sea on 8 December, commanded by Lieutenant Commander Willam A. New to guard sea lanes between Manila and Hong Kong. Sailing from Manila, she moored at Port Darwin, Australia, 24 January 1942. On her third war patrol from 5 February-28 March, she detected the enemy off the Alor Islands 20 February and 24 February, and off Lombok Strait on the 28th.

On her fourth war patrol, she sailed from Fremantle, Australia on 19 April, and patrolled north of the Palau Islands and off Wake Island, before reaching Honolulu on 25 May. From 30 May – 9 June, she patrolled north of Oahu. Overhauled at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, California, she guided bombers to Wake Island in December, and escaped from a severe depth-charging on 14 January 1943 during an attempted attack off Japan. Departing Pearl Harbor on 31 March, she fired torpedoes at targets off Truk from 12–14 April, and shelled Satawan Island on the 25th.

Getting under way from Pearl Harbor on 22 July, Pike sank 2,022-ton Japanese cargo ship Shoju Maru near Marcus Island 5 August. Sailing from Pearl Harbor on 28 September, she arrived at New London, Connecticut, 3 November. During the remainder of World War II, she trained submarine crews at the Naval Submarine Base New London.


Service history USS Pike (SS-173)_section_0

After shakedown in the Atlantic, Pike departed Newport, R.I. on 10 February 1937, and proceeded via the Panama Canal to Naval Station San Diego. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_5

In 1937-1938, she participated in maneuvers near Hawaii. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_6

Entering Manila Bay on 1 December 1939, she served with Submarine Squadron 5 (SubRon 5) out of Cavite, P.I. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_7

Departing on 20 June 1940, she cruised along the coast of China from Shanghai to Tsingtao. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_8

Returning to Cavite on 24 August, she voyaged in the Philippines. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_9

In response to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, she put to sea on 8 December, commanded by Lieutenant Commander Willam A. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_10

New to guard sea lanes between Manila and Hong Kong. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_11

Sailing from Manila, she moored at Port Darwin, Australia, 24 January 1942. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_12

On her third war patrol from 5 February-28 March, she detected the enemy off the Alor Islands 20 February and 24 February, and off Lombok Strait on the 28th. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_13

On her fourth war patrol, she sailed from Fremantle, Australia on 19 April, and patrolled north of the Palau Islands and off Wake Island, before reaching Honolulu on 25 May. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_14

From 30 May – 9 June, she patrolled north of Oahu. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_15

Overhauled at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, California, she guided bombers to Wake Island in December, and escaped from a severe depth-charging on 14 January 1943 during an attempted attack off Japan. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_16

Departing Pearl Harbor on 31 March, she fired torpedoes at targets off Truk from 12–14 April, and shelled Satawan Island on the 25th. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_17

Getting under way from Pearl Harbor on 22 July, Pike sank 2,022-ton Japanese cargo ship Shoju Maru near Marcus Island 5 August. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_18

Sailing from Pearl Harbor on 28 September, she arrived at New London, Connecticut, 3 November. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_19

During the remainder of World War II, she trained submarine crews at the Naval Submarine Base New London. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_20

Decommissioned on 15 November 1945 at Boston, Massachusetts, she became a Naval Reserve training ship at Baltimore, Maryland, in September 1946. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_21

Upon completion of this duty, she was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 17 February 1956, and sold for scrapping on 14 January 1957 to A. G. Schoonmaker Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. USS Pike (SS-173)_sentence_22


Service history

After shakedown in the Atlantic, Pike departed Newport, R.I. on 10 February 1937, and proceeded via the Panama Canal to Naval Station San Diego. In 1937-1938, she participated in maneuvers near Hawaii. Entering Manila Bay on 1 December 1939, she served with Submarine Squadron 5 (SubRon 5) out of Cavite, P.I. Departing on 20 June 1940, she cruised along the coast of China from Shanghai to Tsingtao. Returning to Cavite on 24 August, she voyaged in the Philippines.

In response to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, she put to sea on 8 December, commanded by Lieutenant Commander Willam A. New) to guard sea lanes between Manila and Hong Kong. Sailing from Manila, she moored at Port Darwin, Australia, 24 January 1942. On her third war patrol from 5 February-28 March, she detected the enemy off the Alor Islands 20 February and 24 February, and off Lombok Strait on the 28th.

On her fourth war patrol, she sailed from Fremantle, Australia on 19 April, and patrolled north of the Palau Islands and off Wake Island, before reaching Honolulu on 25 May. From 30 May – 9 June, she patrolled north of Oahu. Overhauled at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, California, she guided bombers to Wake Island in December, and escaped from a severe depth-charging on 14 January 1943 during an attempted attack off Japan. Departing Pearl Harbor on 31 March, she fired torpedoes at targets off Truk from 12–14 April, and shelled Satawan Island on the 25th.

Getting under way from Pearl Harbor on 22 July, Pike sank 2,022-ton Japanese cargo ship Shoju Maru near Marcus Island 5 August. Sailing from Pearl Harbor on 28 September, she arrived at New London, Connecticut, 3 November. During the remainder of World War II, she trained submarine crews at the Naval Submarine Base New London.


Liberty Ship Design Flaws

Many early Liberty ships were affected by deck and hull cracks and indeed several were lost. About 1,200 ships suffered from cracks during the war (about 30% of all Liberty-class ships), and 3 were lost when the ship suddenly split in two. Though the work force was largely untrained in the method of welding ships together, it was not worker error that caused these failures. Rather, the failures were caused by a design oversight.

The cause of the failures was discovered by Constance Tipper, an engineering professor at Cambridge. She found that the grade of steel used to make Liberty ships suffered from embrittlement, in which materials become brittle. Ships operating in the North Atlantic were often exposed to temperatures below a critical temperature, which changed the failure mechanism from ductile to brittle. Because the hulls were welded together, the cracks could propagate across very large distances this would not have been possible in riveted ships.

A crack stress concentrator contributed to many of the failures. Many of the cracks were nucleated at an edge where a weld was positioned next to a hatch the edge of the crack and the weld itself both acted as crack concentrators. Also contributing to failures was heavy overloading of the ships, which increased the stress on the hull. Engineers applied several reinforcements to the ship hulls to arrest crack propagation and initiation problems.


History and the Fighting Stance Part II: Pike, Shotte and Gunfighting

Continued from Part One: Firearms went from curious toys to battlefield nuisances to the primary arm of all self-respecting army an incredibly short period of time (relatively speaking). Training for the use of the weapon was adopted from what was already known: sword, pole arm (poll arm) weapons, and of course the crossbow. As with traditional weapons, new tactics were vetted on the battlefield and what didn't work was discarded.

The natural and stable position of the feet looked much the same as it does today (though the shoes might have been different).

The firearm evolved, as did the consistency and quality of training to use it. Unfortunately for the line soldier, that natural desire genetically encoded in man to remain in a stance favoring quick movement in any direction was soon lost. Ironically, it was slowly regimented out of man by the same military training initially on that very instinct. Man still faced his enemy, but he did so in closed ranks. This began with the first known battle involving formations of troops, the the Battle of Kadesh. It was fought between men of the Egyptian and the Hittite empires who were the historical analog of today's grunts. These early formations were the rough (very rough) draft for what would become known as the phalanx. The phalanx needs little introduction to anyone with even the slightest interest in history. It's interesting to note that the phalanx may well be the most venerable formation ever used with regard to versatility and the sheer length of time it was employed effectively as an infantry tactic. The phalanx fell out of favor with the Roman Empire after it faced more lightly armored troops with the audacity to work independently of a massed formation in battle. It largely disappeared from combat after that, though some enterprising Scots under William Wallace dusted it off, changed the name, and stuck it to the English with it a few hundred years later. By the 18 th century it had breathed its last breath.

From 1274 BC to the 18 th century — not a bad run.

Other notable battle formations occurred during and after the phalanx, though widespread adoption of the firearm on the battlefield demanded some differences. The volley line of forward rotating soldiers saw use with the “Pike and Shotte” formations (such as the Spanish Tercios) and as the technology improved from arquebus to musket and the tactic took hold as an accepted and effective form of combat with all armies. Variations like the infantry square were developed to combat charging cavalry but used the same technique of fresh loaded rifles rotating forward to replace troops who had already fired.

We fast forward though the Revolutionary War and the Civil War and arrive at WWI, when the volley fire tactic finally became obsolete (along with cavalry) due to an inventor and later a more eccentric inventor John Gatling and Hiram Maxim. The Maxim machine gun, predicated in part by the innovations and new technology developed previously by Gatling, changed the way war was fought forever.

What does this have to do with individual shooting stance? The same as fighting with knives and swords bear with me.

Mass battle lines stood little chance against its power, though that didn’t stop countries from trying. Nature had the decency to say I told you so and tactics (slowly) evolved towards smaller, more flexible and mobile units. Man was facing his enemy again, free (to some extent) to move.

Science was behind in all of this. The study of combat was mostly relegated to tactics, techniques, and medical research. The mind was examined and discussed by some early pioneers in the 19 th century, though didn't develop into a complex field of study until WWI. From there it advanced quickly in the civilian world and, as usual, moved at a snail’s pace in that of the military. The psychology of combat would not be connected to the exercise of tactics in a meaningful way until the close combat nature of law enforcement necessitated it. Officers experienced things under stress that had no ready explanation (obviously the same affects are experienced by soldiers, but only during times of war and not with the same civil context). The nature of investigations into use of force begged answers for decisions made under extreme stress and the study evolved rapidly through the late part of the 19 th century until today. What we have learned about the human mind and its actions and reactions under stress is amazing. From performance thresholds to motor skill function, the science is being perfected.

What we have also learned is what nature has programmed into us is something we are hard pressed to fight, even with repetitious memory created by training squaring off to our threat is a natural response. Watch candid video of LEOs in gunfights and you will see how they revert to the same stance that was centuries old before the invention of gunpowder.

Firearms training in law enforcement as we know it today began with a focus on the handgun. This hasn’t changed. The handgun takes emphasis because it is the primary weapon of the law enforcement for defense his own or others'. For decades, the handgun was also the only weapon a typical line officer had at his disposal. The revolver was the dominant firearm in law enforcement as well as the citizen until the semi-automatic designs came down in price and up in reliability. Because they held the spot as the handgun of choice for so long, many shooting techniques were developed around them.

As you will see in Part 3, those first pistol shooting techniques did not stray far from the fighting stance of the pikemen and musketeers who preceded them.


History of Murfreesboro

In 1811, the Tennessee State Legislature appointed a committee to select a new site for the Rutherford County seat. The site eventually chosen was 60 acres of land belonging to Captain William Lytle.

Naming of Murfreesboro

The General Assembly named the new town Cannonsburgh, honoring Newton Cannon, a young politician in Williamson County, but upon Captain Lytle's request, changed the name to Murfreesboro one month later. The naming was in memory of Lytle's friend, Colonel Hardy Murfree. In 1817, Murfreesboro was recognized as an official city by the State Legislature and, in 1818, was named the capital of Tennessee because of its central location. However, Nashville regained the title as the state capital in 1826.

The Early Years

In the early years of Murfreesboro, it was mainly an agricultural community, with corn, cotton, and tobacco being the main crops. By 1853, the Murfreesboro area was home to three colleges and several academies, prompting it to be called the "Athens of Tennessee" by a visiting religious reporter. Although education suffered from the military occupation and the trauma of the Civil War, by the early 1900's it began to regain momentum.

Schooling

Post World War II

After WWII, Murfreesboro and Rutherford County began to change from an agricultural based economy to industrial and manufacturing. Industrial growth has been steady since that time, contributing to a stable economy and phenomenal growth. In the past decade, Murfreesboro has enjoyed substantial residential and commercial growth. The city's population has increased 53.2% from 44,922 in 1990 to 68,816 in 2000. In 2017, Murfreesboro now has a population of more than 130,000.


The GermanStamps.net Collection

The following is a database of feldpost numbers (FPN) used by the German armed forces during WWII.

Feldpostnummern / Feldpost Numbers — Feldpost numbers for most units consisted of a 5-digit number. Prefixes were sometimes used to denote service (L for the Luftwaffe, M for the Kriegsmarine, SCH for coastal defense units, etc.), but as these were not always used, they are not included in the the database.

Sammelfeldpostnummern / Collective Feldpost Numbers — These numbers were used in locations with a high concentration of troops, primarily in large cities. They typically consisted of a 5-digit number, followed by a 1- or 2-digit letter (A, B, C, AB, etc.). These are not yet listed in the database.

Date Ranges — The original feldpost number directories published during WWII did not list with specificity the start and end date of use for each number. Rather, they were published on an irregular basis, and listed those numbers in use at the time of publication. For this reason, subsequent compilations of this data (including this database) have had to rely on date ranges to indicate periods of use. Any specific dates known are included within the text of the unit description.


More Comments:

Gerald D'Arcy - 6/11/2008

A good book written in French by Spanish Mathausen survivors is 'Triangle Bleu - Les républicans espagnols à Mathausen' preface by Pierre Daix (Editions du Félin) ISBN 2-86645-410-3. Though they might be accused of not being objective, these men have a right to tell their own story.

Gerald D'Arcy - 6/11/2008

Julio,
Si podeis leer en Frances, hay dos libros que son muy bien. 'Les Camps sur la plage, un exil espagnol' par Geneviève Dreyfus-Armand y Emile Teminme y 'Triangle Bleu - Les Républicans espagnols à Mathausen' préface de Pierre Daix. El ultimo es contado par los que estaban alli.
Enmas, en francia, hay un 'web site' de los amis de Mathausen.

Raul G - 3/3/2005

Why this is unbelievable? You can see some pictures of the camp with a big banner IN SPANISH welcoming the americans. That may suggest something, isnt it?

Clive Smith - 1/17/2005

This writer is certainly not a historian by profession and not even a doctor, but I can certainly say that SS guards did not deliver death to prisoners as a "whim".

Roberto, you were there then?

Eric - 1/23/2004

It says in the text that Ziereis' son used to shoot prisoners at age 11 with his father's pistol (and permission). Yet, eventually he spat on his father's body.
Is this because he came to his senses in the formative years between ages 11 and 15-6.

Elvira González - 9/10/2003

Dear(s) Friend(s):
After all, excuse me that my English is not very well. I am from Spain. My name is Elvira González Gozalo and I send you this letter because I want to know more about one of the brothers of my mother. His name was JULIO GOZALO and he dead in Gusen in the concentration camp in forties. Can anybody help me to know more about him, if anybody has known him.
Thank you very much.

Roberto - 6/10/2003

I admit I didn't bother to finish to the end of the article.When I read that "fewer Spaniards were thrown live into the crematoria" that was the laughable end. This writer is certainly not a historian by profession and not even a doctor, but I can certainly say that SS guards did not deliver death to prisoners as a "whim". That didn't happen in Nazi Germany, not in the Soviet Gulag, not even in the US prison system. In a totalitarian government system, a prison guard has no authority to deliver a death sentence: that comes from above with alot of paperwork. Dr Whealey noticeably fails to mention the volunteer fascist soldiers that fought on the eastern front. Just seems to have a bone to pick about communists in Austrian territory.

Robert Whealey - 12/18/2002


If I might add a few footnotes to my own article: This article was an abstract of a longer review I did for
a book published in 2000 by David Wingeate Pike. He is the ultimate authority of this subject. In the process of
of condensation, the 6503 Spaniards mentioned above were IMPRISONED in Mauthausen. They did not all
die by 1945, although probably it was more than 50%. The survivors were not able to return to Franco's Spain

Gus Moner - 12/12/2002

I disagree that I am not engaging the topic Mr. Suetonius. I am, that's why I raised it. Have you anything to contribute?

I repeat, the piece was rehashing well trodden ground. A new line of inquiry, much more important and relevant in scope, is surfacing. So, rather than bemoan, you can go look into it too.

Suetonius - 12/11/2002

And perhaps you too should engage the subject as well instead of rudely dismissing the piece as a waste of time.

Gus Moner - 12/11/2002

Rather than revisiting the well trodden path of the Nazi camps, if the author is really interested in learning about an unfolding story about the holocaust, he should use his research skills to bring into focus insurgent general Franco’s own holocaust in Spain proper.

After the 1936-39 conflict ended with victory for the insurgents, tens of thousands of Spanish loyalists to the legally elected government were hunted down, murdered and buried in mass graves after the Civil War.

These graves are, since this year, being identified and the ramains unearthed. The tales of this mass murders have yet to be heard.


Watch the video: SCP-682 VS SCP-173 SFM (December 2021).