Talk:Minesweeper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other Purposes etc.[edit]

Can we start a section about the other purposes that minesweepers have been used for or are equipped for. For example, most/all? minesweepers carry some armament- a main gun and some machine guns-

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes?[edit]

Can we say anything useful about their sizes? Do they vary much? I believe they do.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Numbers?[edit]

How many are in various navies?

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the ship type is the primary use of the term. Therefore the ship article should be housed at that title and the current use of the title should be at a dedicated disambigution page. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose a person who sweeps for mines is also very prominent, what with them being continuous employed in Vietnam and Cambodia, and several other regions of the world with unexploded munitions in the ground. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support -- This is clearly the primary use, the others on the present dab page are clearly derivative. We do not have an article on men who sweep the ground for mines. That subject is covered by Demining, which might have a direcet dab-hatnote On the article. Traditionally demining was one of the functions of sappers and engineers. In certain wars (such as the present one in Afganistan), this has become something many soldier have had to learn to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derivation is not a criterion for determining primary topic. Powers T 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly, Minesweeper (video game) had 15,135 pageviews last month and Minesweeper (Windows) had 4725, compared to 7,181 for Minesweeper (ship). I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure it's what most people are looking for. Station1 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the video game is primary if anything is. Powers T 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Powers - The well-known video game would be a better contender for any proposed move. Try googling minesweeper without ship in the search box. Only two of the first 50 hits will be about the ship (one being the WP article). GoneIn60 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarity[edit]

Speaking as someone unfamiliar with military armament, I wanted to draw the of the attention of the editors to a non-expert reading of this article. The Operations and Equipment section is difficult to understand and would benefit from additional information and clarification of the information provided. Below is a proposed rewrite. Please considering formatting and using this text:


Operation and requirements

Conventional minesweepers are designed to tow a submersible glider, called a sweep, alongside or behind its hull to perform the process of mine detection or detonation. Modern mine-sweeping techniques use remote controlled sweeps that precede the vessel. To reduce the chances of detonation from unintentional contact, the hull of the ship is often constructed using wood, glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) or non-ferrous metal. Additional precautions taken include degaussing to reduce the magnetic signature and soundproofing to reduce the acoustic signature of the ship (http://snet.elth.pub.ro/snet2004/Cd/camp/camp_P2.pdf).

Minesweepers are equipped with either mechanical or emulation sweeps used to perform the function of mine detection or detonation. The type of sweep used is determine by the type of mine deployed. A mechanical sweep is a device designed to cut the anchoring cables of a moored contact mine, and attach a beaconing tag use to signal location and aid in subsequent neutralization. Mechanical sweeps, such as an oropesa (link) or paravane (link) sweep, maintain a desired depth and position relative to the ship depending on the type of mine and body of water. An emulation sweep, also called an influence sweep, is a device designed to replicate the conditions of a ship in transit across the effective path-range of an influence mine. The mine logic of influence ordnance detect and actuate on the mechanical and electromagnetic energies produced by a ship or submarine (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_30/underwater2.html).

Emulation sweeps operate in two distinct modes. When an emulation sweep replicates a ship's signature it is considered to be sweeping in target emulation mode (TEM), also called target setting mode (TSM). This mode emulates the acoustic and seismic signatures, hydrodynamic (pressure) signals, static magnetic and electric fields, or electromagnetic (alternating electric and magnetic) fields generated by a ship or submarine's hull, machinery, or electrical equipment (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_30/underwater2.html). Emulation sweeps also have the ability to manipulate the signature produced for optimal performance against a particular mine sensitivity and logic setting (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-03/minesweeping-mine-hunting-success). The capability to optimize performance in this capacity is called operating in mine setting mode (MSM). However, since modern microprocessor-controlled mines "apply a number of logics and sensitivity settings simultaneously to the various magnetic-field vector components" (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-03/minesweeping-mine-hunting-success), MSM would be used only when the specific mine settings are known, for example, against older mine types or if the minefield was a protective deployment laid by allied vessels (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-03/minesweeping-mine-hunting-success). The essential difference between the target (TEM/TSM) and mine setting (MSM) modes is that target mode is "designed to clear those mines that would be a threat to the emulated vessel class, regardless of mine sensitivity, settings, or logic", while mine setting is "designed to have improved performance against mines for which logic and sensitivities are known" (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-03/minesweeping-mine-hunting-success).

The minesweeper differs from a minehunter; the minehunter actively detects and neutralises individual mines. Minesweepers are in many cases complementary to minehunters, depending on the operation and the environment; a minesweeper is, in particular, better suited to clearing open-water areas with large numbers of mines. Both kinds of ships are collectively called mine countermeasure vessels (MCMV), a term also applied to a vessel that combines both roles. The first such ship was HMS Wilton, also the first warship to be constructed from glass-reinforced plastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringoflamingo (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree.

I visited this article to gain information on the specific techniques minesweepers use to clear mines. The article fails in this respect. I walk away still ignorant. Asgrrr (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved, moved, and not moved, respectively. While there's strong consensus for this proposal overall, it would appear that the current article at Minesweeping fulfills the essence of the request such that a second disambiguation page is not necessary. Contact me with any concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Over the past few days I have disambiguated all of the hundreds of links to Minesweeper and Minesweeping, and though there were hundreds of these, they uniformly referred to the current Minesweeper (ship). This is not surprising - looking at real world reference sources (books, news reports), the first and foremost meaning of that word, historically, is ships that clear naval mines. 20th century books, 20th century news reports. There is a 1943 film that is not at all significant to film history, but which as it happens is so named because it is about the adventures of a sailor aboard a minesweeper. There is also the windows game, which is probably well known, but not historically as significant as the ship whose work it invokes. The game is a few decades old, but minesweepers have been in use since about 1855 and are referenced as such in literature predating World War I. I respect that googling the word gets mostly hits for the video game, but that reflects the recent bias of the internet, but try googling the plural, minesweepers.

Minesweeping is a very similar situation, but with no film or game competing for the name. All references are to the work of the minesweeper in clearing harbors and bays. There is not really an article on naval minesweeping, but there is a strong section at Naval mine#Mine sweeping, which is basically the core of an article itself. Since Naval mine is already a pretty long article, mostly with coverage about actual kinds of naval mines, this section should be cut and copied to create an article at Minesweeping. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The game gets enough Google hits that moving this would case confusion. ONR (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; lots of evidence has been presented that the term is commonly used to refer to the ship, but no new evidence regarding the primacy of that usage has been presented. The recentism argument regarding the game would be a reason not to make the game the primary topic, but it doesn't contribute much to an argument that the ship is primary over all over uses. In the end, the important thing to ask is whether we would be leading a significant percentage of viewers astray by directing them to the ship article, and the answer to that is clearly "yes". Minesweepers, to address the "googling the plural" argument, should of course redirect to the ship article. Powers T 02:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I came into this as a reader looking for information about the naval activity of removing mines - looking from a historical perspective. Until the recent edits to minesweeping, this was a redirect page that took you to demining where the words "naval mine" are used, but there is not information about the subject at all. (There is some discussion about the request to make Minesweeping a broad concept article on the talk page for user BD2412.) "Minesweeper (ship)" was totally clear to me as a reader, but a more prominent link to the section under naval mine would have been helpful, as that is the most informative. The minesweeper disambiguation page seemed entirely appropriate. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support (as on previous RM). The other uses seem to be (1) Microsoft minesweeper a computer game; (2) sweeping for landmines. The concerns of the other contibutors can be adequately resolved by means of an "other uses" hatnote. Those who arrive at the ship article, which is certainly the primary use will only need to make one further click to get to the dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Right now 100% of people who search for "minesweeper" are guaranteed to land on the wrong page. However, contrary to LtPowers argument that "no new evidence regarding the primacy of that usage has been presented", the nominator has presented very compelling new evidence, in that incoming links are all pointing towards the ship. As for the Google hits issue, this is similar to the situation at Apple; most Google hits will be about the computer company, but the title goes to the topic having clear long-term historical significance, with a hatnote to the secondary topic. If this article was moved as proposed, with a hatnote linking to the computer game, readers and disambiguators would be in a much better situation than they are now. Obviously, I also support addressing the plural minesweepers and the action, minesweeping as proposed, but since the minesweeping disambiguation page was created without discussion, it can be disposed of as proposed without discussion. I will do so now. bd2412 T 13:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I kind of discount incoming links in this case due to the fact that many examples of minesweeper ships, most of which are notable, will link the term. The military history project has been very thorough in creating these articles, even just to a stub level, but even a stub will likely link to the ship type. Powers T 13:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, there is (or was) a corresponding lack of incoming links intended for the game, which suggests either that editors are not linking to the game at all, or that when they do, they correctly assume that it is not the primary topic of the term. I think what we have here is virtually a WP:TWODABS situation, with one meaning being variations on the theme of means of removing actual explosive mines, and the other being the computer game (the film is not significant enough to weigh in on the question). In terms of long term historical significance, the game is a flash in the pan, whereas the ships have been used for a century and a half, and will probably be used for as far into the future. On a side note, does anyone else think it's odd to have the game titled at Minesweeper (video game)? It is not what I think the average person would consider a "video game", and since there is no other kind of game by this name, perhaps it should be at Minesweeper (game). Cheers! bd2412 T 17:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I'm surprised it's taken this long. One look at What links here should tell the whole story. We went through this with corvette a year or two ago, and this is much more clear cut. Shem (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The vessel is the primary usage, and the game is only derivative. And google hits are only a tool, nothing more. How many books have been written about the game? What's next (and perhaps I should not even mention it)-- change Battleship to the game? Kablammo (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, if we went by Google hits, the article at the title, Battleship would not be about ships constructed to do battle, but about games and films derivative of that concept. bd2412 T 21:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC both on usage and significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After hearing both sides, I have to support the proposal. We can't deny the change, simply because clicking a hatnote to the ship article is easy (the reverse is just as true). The Apple and Battleship examples also demonstrate why the number of Google hits isn't always the defining factor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Apple" is a common English word, with "Battleship" only somewhat less so. "Minesweeper", on the other hand, is common only in military circles. There's a big difference. Powers T 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Apple" and "Battleship" have obvious reasons why they are exceptions to the rule. "Minesweeper (ship)" also has one. It has "long-term significance...greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not so much as to allow us to ignore the overwhelming expectations of readers, as evidenced by pageviews. Powers T 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of opinion, but page views can be a misleading statistic as it seems to be in this case. If I google Apple, Apple Inc. shows up as the first hit for Wikipedia. Naturally, more people are going to visit that article more than the primary topic selected on Wikipedia. Still, it's not the primary topic. When it comes to Minesweeper, if I search the term, the video game article is the first Wikipedia hit, despite the fact that Wikipedia has the disambiguation page set as the primary. When the entrance point cannot be controlled, you can't say with much confidence that the number of page views is the result of more Wikipedians looking for the video game article as opposed to the ship article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it interesting that even with Google (and other search engines) on its side, the Minesweeper game article only gets 2-3 times more traffic on average. I would have expected that to be a lot higher if a significant majority were not interested in the ship article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support "Minesweeper (video game)" -> "Minesweeper (game)", per superfluous disambiguation. walk victor falk talk 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Overwhelmingly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support School example of a wp:primarytopic. Per the second major aspect of wp:ptopic: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Emphasis added. A class of vessels that has been very important in naval warfare for almost two centuries has greater enduring notability and educational value than a widespread but trivial computer game in the last couple of decades.
    Regarding the first aspect, on raw quantitative usage, I see no sign that the video game is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" of being the term sought than the ship, the film and the practice of de-mining. walk victor falk talk 02:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The ship is more historically significant than the game.--Typing General (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the video game has been included with versions of Microsoft Windows for as long as I can remember, and for many (including me) this will be the primary connotation they have for the term. Personally I didn't even know there was a ship called a Minesweeper, though obviously I do now. This is a very clear case of no primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did you think the name of the game came from? bd2412 T 22:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Where do you think the city of Boston got its name from? Boston, Lincolnshire presumably. But that doesn't mean Boston, Lincolnshire should be primary for the topic Boston. Just because one thing is named after another does not make the original thing primary, and arguments about long term significance are not well founded because the game has been around for twenty years or more and has remained significant throughout that time; there is no indication that its significance will reduce drastically in future.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Minesweepers have been around for one hundred years or more and there is no indication that their significance will reduce drastically in future either. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a compendium of pop culture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The Minesweeper game reached the height of its popularity in the late 90's. Sure, many people still remember it and may even still play some variant of the game today, but its significance is undoubtedly in decline. Long-term significance may be debatable, but it is also only one aspect. Having greater educational value is just as important. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survival?[edit]

I see that modern minesweepers have a number of ways to avoid setting off a mine during a sweeping operation, but how did minesweepers during WWII, for example, not get sunk while moving through a minefield? I don't see what countermeasures would work against a contact mine. Did they just hope for the best, tie pillows to the bow, or what?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A sweep is either a contact sweep, a wire dragged through the water by one or two ships to cut the mooring wire of floating mines, or a distance sweep that mimics a ship to detonate the mines. The sweeps are dragged by minesweepers, either purpose-built military ships or converted trawlers. Each run covers between 100 and 200 meters (330 and 660 ft), and the ships must move slowly in a straight line, making them vulnerable to enemy fire." "Minesweepers protect themselves with an oropesa or paravane instead of a second minesweeper. These are torpedo-shaped towed bodies, similar in shape to a Harvey Torpedo, that are streamed from the sweeping vessel thus keeping the sweep at a determined depth and position. Some large warships were routinely equipped with paravane sweeps near the bows in case they inadvertently sailed into minefields—the mine would be deflected towards the paravane by the wire instead of towards the ship by its wake. More recently, heavy-lift helicopters have dragged minesweeping sleds, as in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.[1]" Telecine Guy (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Paravane - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2011-12-31.

Chinese had Naval Mines long before Crimean War…[edit]

Hi, I think I'll edit this article to make it less Eurocentric, less contradictory with the Huolongjing article and more factually accurate by noting that the Chinese had naval mines by at least the 14th century. Just a heads up! Jamutaq (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minesweeper&oldid=1213136799"