Talk:Submarine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First subs dispute

embora toda a gente pense que o D. joão IV ia nos navios ele levava dois dias de avanço porque ia de passarola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.133.150 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article claims: "The first submarines were the U-boats of Nazi Germany, used to great effect against the merchant ships of the United Kingdom during World War II." But this is false. It's pretty hard to say what the first submarine was. The first modern submarines, that's an easier question, but still up for considerable debate. Perhaps John Holland's Great Fenian Ram fits this bill? I'm not sure, but I am sure that WWII submarines were most assuredly not the first submarines. --Anon I

I've seen the Turtle listed as first (1776). Not sure about this but I think it deserves at least a mention in the entry.

Nice article at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4870/DrGeorgePCPage9Turtle.html

The Fenian Ram and other subs from John Holland late 1800s.

Nice page at http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/people/holland.htm --Anon II

The H.L. Hunley during the American Civil War

"The first military submarines to see effective use..." I'm certain that the German's used submarines extensively in WWI - the Lusitania sinking in 1915(?) comes to mind. --Anon III

Indeed they [the Germans] did [use U-boats in WWI], and it's covered in some detail in the book by Stern (Battle Beneath the Waves; see the article's references). --Wernher 20:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The first Military Submarine was built in SPAIN by Issac Peral (Spanish Engineer and Sailor), for the Spanish Navy. It was launched in September 8th, 1888. This is the first fully capable Submarine warship with electrical propulsion, torpedoes, and other news system. In Cadiz Bay,(Spain) June 1890 the Peral's Submarine launch the first torpedo under sea. This submarine displays the lines of an Albacore hull and a small conning tower, along with a cruciform tail similar to most current submarines. More info in Spanish at http://www.geocities.com/micartagena/perals.htm --Anon IV

Nonsense. That's Spanish propaganda. The first military sub was Turtle, the first successful attack was by Hunley. Trekphiler 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: two or more of Anon I to IV may refer to the same anonymous contributor; the placeholders were inserted when (re-)formatting/organizing the thread. --Wernher 20:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peroxide driven?

How can it be peroxide driven? The peroxide link does not support that, it only refers to the carbon dioxide/oxygen conversion. --Anonymous I

Maybe calling it "peroxide driven" is not exact for Ictineo and German submarines (Walter turbine) employing a chemical reaction including a peroxide component that is used to produce heat that drives a steam turbine while Oxygen is liberated by the peroxide ingredient that can be used for breathing purposes. Calling them "steam driven" is also not fair because this usually means burning something like in a locomotive to produce steam (e.g Resurgam) and this is a far less sophisticated method and needs to take air from the surface. I like peroxide because it implies a chemical reaction and the production of Oxygen but a more exact perhaps could be found. --Anonymous II

Periscope usage pattern

"The periscope is only used occasionally, since the range of visibility below the sea is short." Well, the periscope is not used to look around below the surface, is it? If one for any reason does not use the periscope, it is because your too deep, or wan't to avoid detection.\

yes, the periscope is used underwater, to see underwater, but mostly for seeing above water, while slightly submerged, as it isn't very useful on the surface because of wave actionPedant 01:11, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Well, as you agree that it is mostly used above water, the argument against using it cannot be the low range of visiblilty below the sea. On the few trips I have been on with submarines, the periscope was frequently used. In addition to the visual information it provides it also has laser ranging equipment used for both target tracking and navigation aiding in the littorals. Demo mar6, 2005

As a former US Submariner, before all subs "go to periscope depth" a safety search is made to look for any shadows from surface ships sitting "dead in the water".

The periscope is used quite frequently, and the statement in the "submersion and navigation" section that says that they are only used occasionally should be changed. The periscope is an important part of submarining. It is used continuously when the submarine is on the surface, and is typically used at least several times a day while at "periscope depth." When you are at Periscope Depth, the ship is submerged, but is shallow enough for the periscope optics at the top of the scope to rise a few feet out of the water. Sometimes the ship will stay at Periscope Depth for extended periods of time in order to observe something (visually or otherwise) but not be seen itself. Submarines also use the periscope below Periscope Depth (where the top of the scope is not sticking out of the water)--for safety before coming up to periscope depth and at certain other times for special reasons. Rmc6198 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asked if there were any windows on a submarine? Used above or below the surface? Thanks?

Some large submarines have windows in their sails for surface use only, e.g. the russian Akula (Typhoon), no military submarine I know has windows in the pressure hull. There isn't much use for it anyway. - Alureiter 23:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

More SSBN operators

The discussion of SSBNs should include the fact that both the UK and France also operate them (rather more effectively than China).

Sub(mersible vs -marine)

"A submarine is a specialized ship that travels under water for military purposes."

As far as I can tell, "military purpose" is not inherent in the definition of "submarine". Civilian submarines may not currently exist, but if built would not require a separate name.

see for example http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/S0845000.html

---

Civilian submarines most certainly do exist. Consider Alvin, or any number of other research submarines. -- Paul Drye

The article seems to say they must be called "submersibles".

According to dictionary.com, submarine and submersible are pretty much exact synonyms. There is no restriction of the term "submarine" to military vessels. I would suggest the major contents of this article be shifted to "military submarine" and a general article mentioning things like the Turtle, the Alvin, robot and human-crewed research subs, and so on.

In my dictionary, submarine (noun) is a warship while various other terms (submersible, bathysphere, etc) are used for scientific craft. In casual usage, all are called submarines, though, so perhaps this should become the main article that links to the various types. --- hajhouse

A submersible is a unit that can dive but is generally not self-sufficient. I.E. it can not make it's own way to the dive site, has limited endurance, or requires surface support. a submarine is generally a unit that can dive and support itself for extended operations. the Submersible/Submarine is akin to the Boat/Ship relationship —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.0.147.98 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

As I'd use the terms (and I'm no authority on usage), a submarine is bigger than a submersible. Research craft are too small for me to call them a submarine. But there is no reason why civil craft couldn't be submarines... it just happens to be in practice that there aren't any, although we could build them, because it is not worth it to do so -- SJK

---

There are some civilian 40-50 passenger tourist submarines. They certainly deserve the name submarine, not submersible. --rmhermen

---

The little research I have done seems to indicate that 'submersible' is used primarily for unmanned underwater vehicles, although it is also used for manned research vehicles - possible because the same builder that built unmanned submersibles continued calling them submersibles when the added manned vehicles to their lists. There are certainly many examples of civilian vehicles being called submarines; most tourist submarines seem to be called exactly that. Some military research vehicles are also called submersibles. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Ictineo II was effectively a submarine but its civilian use makes that it has to be included on the section about submersibles. I would support the introduction of a new organisation for the article with no separation between civilian and military use. What about:

1- Description of how a submarine works 2- Types of submarines 3- History of submarines (and submersibles) 4- See also, etc...

---

The Merriam-Webser dictionary defines submarine as:

Submarine
Function: noun
A machine that functions or operates underwater

By this definition, all civilian summersibles should be considered submarines, including smaller ones such as Alvin. I've seen the word submarine used more often to describe ships like Alvin than the word submersible. EisenKnoechel

submersibles are less maneuverable than submarines, but essentially they are interchangeable terms... submersible is more of an archaic form, now mostly used for less maneuverable types, manned or unmanned... a bathysphere or bathyscaphe are submersibles, but not submarines, Sealab was a submersible...Pedant 01:07, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Links

The links/see also list is getting large and unweildy, should we consider linking to categories instead? Elde 18:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've split off the list of submarine classes into its own article.--Carnildo 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The whole article is getting rather unwieldy, I suggest we carefully break out some sections, and provide summaries and links as suitable. As a former submariner, I expected to find this article in need of attention, but I am quite pleased with it, so far. It could use a whole lot more about non-US submarines, and maybe some more pictures.?Pedant 01:15, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Section 5 (on the US submarine services) should probably be split off into its own article, and parallel articles for other submarine services added. Any suggestions for article titles? --Carnildo 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

Rewrote Battle of the Atlantic. The Germans came no where close to an effective blockade.

Whoever you are who did this, you may want to check some more research. My reading of Churchill and others is that the U-boat blockade came closer than anything to putting Britian out of the war. Remember that while the amount of shipping sunk may have looked small, it required only a tiny reduction in industrial capacity or food import to force Britian into submission. Unless you have other figures, in which case please cite them. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Second that. Until the Allies started to take the U-boat campaign as a really significant, serious, threat, the wolfpacks had "field months" repeatedly, as we know. Do some reading, please, before coming to (short-circuited) conclusions. --Wernher 14:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clay Blair's recent two-part 'Hitler's U-Boat War' [1] argues that the U-boats accounted for roughly five per cent of allied shipping losses, and that 99% of allied shipping reached port. I have no opinion either way, and I have only read the back cover and the first few pages of the introduction, whilst standing the local library. Churchill is famous for saying that, of all the things which happened during the war, the U-boat offensive was the thing which scared him most; but that doesn't make it a fact that the U-boat offensive was the most scare-worthy thing, albeit that I am sure it was scare-worthy. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was 7% of ships in convoy, for the duration. Doubt it? Compare Japan. Trekphiler 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

keep in mind that this was not a classical blockade to keep ships from reaching the ports, but a war of attrition. If the number of ships available would been less than the required amount to sustain Britain, Germany would have won.

Additionally the convoy-system automatically required up to 50 % more ships to transport the same amount of cargo than in peacetime because of it's natural inefficencies. These are:

1. All ships travel at the speed of the slowest vessel.

2. Ports can only handle a certain number of ships at any time, so delays occur while waiting for the entire convoy to be loaded/unloaded

3. Detours taken to avoid the shortest route (convoy would have been to easy to find)

That's why Jellicoe refused to introduce convoys in WWI, he considered that equal to losing a third of the merchant fleet. But in the end it proved to be the lesser evil.85.176.72.146 19:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually there were other benefits to convoys: All ships arrived/left port at same time, allowing better schedulling of work, ships to arrive during the daytime rather than at night etc. apart from the obvious protection thing. Depends on how many ships and how big the port is etc.

Thresher and Scorpion

I removed this sentence: "Both hulks [Thresher and Scorpion] were salvaged by the USS Sappa Creek in 1995, recovering the undamaged reactors and their nuclear ordinance for storage and eventual destruction in 1998." I am unable to find any reference to such a remarkable feat. If whoever added that statement can provide a citation to support it, I will be very grateful. --the Epopt 21:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The offical cause of the Thresher loss was attributed to a sea water piping failure. The official cause of the Scorpion loss was attributed to a torpedo accident. However,there are many both inside and outside the Navy who feel that the exact cause has yet to be determined. At one end of the spectrum there are conspiracy theorists who claim that the Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets. Oldbubblehead 17:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Refac of this Talk page

Refactored Talk page to collect various discussions into categories. Elde 18:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Personnel"

Discuss: From the 'Personnel' section downards the article becomes a rough guide to the US Navy's implementation of a submarine force, rather than an article about submarines. I believe it should either be part of an existing article on the US Navy, or split into a separate article. - Ashley Pomeroy 13:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be best to split it into a separate article, since the US Navy article already contains much information about submarines, compared to other ships. How about Submarines in the United States Navy ? Sietse 13:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Sietse 14:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Navy experts wanted

Dear Wikifellows, those of you navy-interested are invited to develop Military of Ukraine (namely to expand its navy stuff), Black Sea Fleet, Russian Navy and everything related. As a local, I'm kind of expert in all this :), but having problems with proper English navy terms as well as with particular ship names, dates, NATO classification etc. Ready to cooperate (like localizing your knowledge, checking in local sources, translate and transliterate). Best wishes, AlexPU

Images

The Images

When looking at the article, I started wondering why, with almost no exception, the images were of U.S. submarines, and that no other countries' submarines are shown. This makes the article look a bit like it is made considering only the U.S. point of view, and barely mentioning that other countries than the U.S. have submarines. Why not replace some of the images, such as the "Closeup of USS Los Angeles' conning tower" (which shows a poor picture of a conning tower of a submarine, half covered by the sign stating the sub's name). with images of other countries' submarines? For example, the image of the Russian typhoon class sub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Typhoonsub.jpg) would be a good one to replace the Los Angeles picture. What do you people think about this?

Go ahead. The reason that American subs dominate is because those are the ones easiest to get pictures of. --Carnildo 00:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. But it is probably just a selection effect. All US Navy images are public domain and it is not so easy to find free use images from other navies. -- Solipsist 04:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um. Maybe don't use the typhoon sub picture. I agree, we should support diversity in our portrayal of weapons of global annihilation, but that particular picture is of unknown copyright status, hopefully fair use, whereas the US sub pictures are all safely in the public domain. Now if you could track down some free pictures, that would be great... (Somewhere I have a picture I took of a Canadian sub in dry dock) --Andrew 09:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the quality of selection is slowly enhancing, thanks to everybody working on that, but please if you (i.e. any editor) add or swap pictures, ask yourself: Does it add value to the article? I already removed two pictures and probably will remove more (there are still two images of the LA class). Submarines on the surface essentially look all the same and a diashow of submarine sails and bows sticking out of the water isn't that interesting. If you want to add submarine pictures just because they show submarines, please do it and add them to commons:Category:Submarines. - Alureiter 10:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've a diff prob with the pix: they're all nukes. Isn't there anything in public domain of Turtle, Hunley, Peral, Plongeur, Holland/A-1, E-12, U-20, U-99, U-47, U-100, Unbroken, Tang, Wahoo? Or, given non-U.S. (nuke), K-3, K-19 or K-129? Trekphiler 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We've already got pictures for Turtle (submarine), CSS H. L. Hunley, USS Holland (SS-1), USS Plunger (SS-2) (A-1), USS E-1 (SS-24), USS E-2 (SS-25), Unterseeboot 47, USS Tang (SS-306), USS Wahoo (SS-238), Soviet submarine K-3, Soviet submarine K-19. Also, check out commons:Category:Submarines

—wwoods 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought leaving the Collins Class Submarine picture would be justified seeing as it is the most advanced diesel-electric submarine currently - I think the Typhoon picture could be better, and do we really need 2 ww2 era German subs, why not just 1? How about replacing 1 of those with the Collins Class sub?--Nirvana- 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's okay to put the Alvins photo to this page. She consists of a spherical, pressure-resistant sphere and a 'float' made out of plastic, so technically, she is a bathyscaphe, not a submarine.--Alperkaan 10:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image change?

Just wondering about peoples thoughts on changing the image of 'HMAS Rankin', it doesn't seem like a very good picture to me, its slightly obscured by bushes and very dark, and compared to the other 3 it really looks to be the odd one out..

There are a lot i've seen, mostly on the Navy.gov.au site that are much more in line with the other 3 images, e.g :

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4620/IMAGES/03-rankin.jpg http://www.asc.com.au/images/photos/full/01_collins_rollout.jpg - not like the other images in the article, but i thought a pretty cool photo, so worth a mention :P

Or similar to those anyway..

Thoughts?--Nirvana- 12:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sinkings

Re the Bat of Atl controversy, why isn't it mentioned in ref WW1, when unquestionably brought Br near defeat?! Also, should the article include famed firsts? I'm thinking of Weddigen (U-9) sinking Aboukir et al., for instance. I've come across a claim Fregatten-Leutenant Zelenzny, Impl Austro-Hungarian Navy, scored the first sinking of sub by seaplane, on HMS B-10 (@ her moorings, Venice), & first at sea, on Fr Navy's Foucault on 15 Sept 1916; also, the first sinking by sub of a warship underway, by U-21 (Korvettenkapitän Hersing) on CL HMS Pathfinder 5 Sept 1914 (commonly, mistakenly, regarded as first sinking of a warship by sub). U-31 was sunk twice, 11 March 1940 by 82 Squadron, Bomber Command, and in Nov 40 by HMS Antelope (after U-31 was raised & returned to service...), the only case (so far as I know) of a sub being sunk in action twice.

On a related note, U-30 on 14 Sept 1939 downed two Coastal Command Skuas with their own bombs (they ricocheted after trying to sink her...). Trekphiler 10:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

More: #1 ace of WW1, & ever, is Lothar Arnim de la Perrier (U-35?), over 500000 tons, all by gun & within the Cruiser Rules (a record I frankly am astonished by).

On the other side, F/O Ken Moore, 224 Squadron, Coastal Command, RCAF, earned DSO for sinking 2 U-boats (U-629 & (U-373), by VLR Liberator without Leigh light, in <30min 7-8/6/44, the only time it was ever done. F/L David Hornell, 162 Squadron, Coastal Command, in an attack on U-1235, in a crippled & burning Canso (aka PBY), 24/6/44 earned posthumous VC. And F/O John Cruickshank, 210 Squadron, Coastal Command, wounded 72 times by fragmentation from an exploding shell (in command of a Catalina) 17/7/44 still sank U-347, becoming the only airman to earn a VC for an attack on a U-boat to survive. Trekphiler 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This article probably should be more chronologically arranged, and include mroe about early French subs of the period 1885-1900. They were the most advanced in the world at this stage. SpookyMulder 10:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Schnorkel

You might mention that in English it is "snorkel." The snorkel is basically two tall pipes, an air intake pipe and an air exhaust pipe, which are extended when the submarine is submerged at periscope depth. Fresh air for the diesels goes in the intake pipe and the diesel exhaus fumes and gasses go out the exhaust pipe. When submarines are below periscope depth they shut down their diesels and shift to battery power. The United States did not use the snorkel during World War II. Primarily, because it did not feel that it needed the extra edge of "invisibility" offered by the snorkel. Up until the advent of the nuclear submarine, and even with the snorkel, virtually all submarine transits by the U.S. Navy were conducted on the surface using the diesel engines. Oldbubblehead 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit lacking for FA?

Currently the bulk of the article is history and propultion. Isn't there a bit more to a submarine?Just to name one where do they dock?Is this a normal harbour or is this like something the germans had?

Or the principle of how a sub dives,Life on board,weapons,subhunting,stealth,life support.

Lastly the civilian part is a bit lacking,is there a picture of a civ class sub?

In a way http://science.howstuffworks.com/submarine.htm puts this article to shame.

some other links :

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/subhistory.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/subsecrets/life.html

--Technosphere83 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is no reply by the end of the week I'll be passing it to Feature article review.--Technosphere83 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, I'm quite surprised that there is nothing about how a submarine uses ballast tanks to surface and dive. Isn't that integral to its functioning (and far different from the other use of ballast in reference to sailing ballast)? I'll be sure to add a section when I get the chance. - Istvan 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Big page

This page is getting big. Is it time to split out another section into its own article (with a paragraph or 2 here and a Main article tag)? Perhaps the Military submarine section is ripe? Ewlyahoocom 17:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the history section is ripe too.But the article still needs news sections to continue it's FA status.--Technosphere83 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Plans to improve the article

I suggest the following changes to make this article more fitting:

1. Move the complete history to new article (Submarine history). Leave only a summary for periods before WW1, remove details from WW2 history. *Copying done, cleanup not yet*

2. Add/replace pictures and info to include post-WW2 non-US submarines. Add some 'dry' pictures and some pictures for specific sections.

Replacing the pictures on the top with pictures of more various subs: UC-1, U-47 WWII boat, Typhoon class SSBN; leaving Virginia. While the 2nd picture is a model, it's very comprehensive, showing both inside and outside - it's better than repetitive surfaced boats. CP/M 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Add sections:

- Stealth (describe the concepts and denote the noise channel problem)

- General submersion (buoyancy, tanks) *done*

- Hull structure (including hull compression problem, multi-hulls, hulls evolution) *done*

- Armament (types and abilities, targeting systems, protection)

- Crew (including life support, crew rescue, functions) started

I can do most of it, but help is needed with pictures of submarines interior and popularized schematics.

Please write what you agree or disagree with and what you also suggest or intend to do.

CP/M 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I placed a notice on the Ship project maybe someone can help you out.The sections you suggest sound very good.I don't have the time to write full articles that's why I mostly do smaller things on wikipedia.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/submarine.htm has some sections you might be interested in.The encarta article is also a good starting point. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567260/Submarine.html

Hope that helps even a small bit.Oh my mistake I see that doesn't help much :) (read your user page)--Technosphere83 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

us sub pics:

http://www.history.navy.mil/cgi-bin/htsearch?restrict=;exclude=;config=htdig;method=and;format=builtin-long;sort=score;words=submarine;page=10

http://www.navy.dnd.ca/mspa_fleet/vic_tour_int_e.asp > click on the yellow cicles for interior pictures.The copyright says :

Non-commercial Reproduction Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that: Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department and The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence. Commercial Reproduction Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Communication Canada. Through the permission granting process, Communication Canada helps ensure individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes, please contact: copyright.droitdauteur@communication.gc.ca

Thanks, I think these pictures would make the article less dry. Still it lacks some schematics. As for now, I've created the Submarine history article and copied the historical info there. Cleaning up the main one now. CP/M 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting link http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08726.htm has picture of an attack boat in drydock and schematics,I think these pics are fairgame because these are navy pictures.

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/

Has a bunch of schematics but I'm not sure about the legal status.It's a WWII training manual.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

Has some too but again,not sure about the legal status.

http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAone.htm

might be interesting too.

--Technosphere83 09:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess works of US government, especially over 60 years old, are public domain or at least fall under fair use. In practice it's very unlikely anyone would be against their use; thanks for the link. I've started the preliminary work. CP/M 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article for the first time, and came across the claim in the submarine hulls section that all nuclear subs have a thin outer hull around the main pressure hull. I find this somewhat suprising; I am not a former or current sub crewmember, or US Navy sub designer, but I have a degree in Naval Architecture and I've seen hull plans for US subs.... and the main pressure hull is the externally visible hull plating, excluding anaechroic tiles. The article accurately describes Russian design practice; they use an inverted structural system, with a thin outer hull, the ring stiffeners and longitudinals in the intermediate space, and then the inner pressure hull.

There are plenty of pictures of US subs under construction, showing hull barrel sections being assembled, which clearly back up this design approach. I didn't want to jump in and make major changes to the sub structure area w/o notifying people here, but I do intend to do so over the next few days... Georgewilliamherbert 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've forgotten about the difference in design approaches and went on describing almost specific subs. No need to justify, that's right, I'll fix it right away. Thanks for spotting that. Actually, it doesn't even constitute a major change, as both types have light hulls, but US subs have it only in forward and aft parts. The article is in the process of modification, so edit it wherever necessary. CP/M 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the fix and other improvements. Thanks for all your hard work on this article! Georgewilliamherbert 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly should regain its featured status, it just needs some improvement. By the way, you have mentioned pictures of subs under construction - could you give a link to some such pictures that are public-domain or otherwise usable? I think they would be a good way to illustrate the hull structure itself. CP/M 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21.htm copy right status must be checked. another http://www.rddesigns.com/subs/192.html also http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm--Technosphere83 12:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I did a whole bunch of image searches online to find stuff which was conveniently available, and unfortunately BRLCad's install process took a dump all over my virtual memory and Mozilla barfed and died before I could collect the URLs. What I'd done to that point was start with an image search in Google Images for "submarine hull". I found a few ok ones; one of a section of Virginia's hull at her keel laying ceremony (aux machine room), with most of it draped off but you could see the hull plating and internal transverse stiffener rings pretty clearly. Some civilian sub assembly photos. A few long, poor shots of the ends of hull modules for SSN-21 and Virginia class subs. Offline sources have much better, including looks at the hull rings with stiffeners being welded up. I'd have to go back to the engineering library at UC Berkeley to get some of those; what I have at home is not so great. Copyright is going to be a major problem. I'm still fishing around. Georgewilliamherbert 07:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes... there's a great site in Russia (URL also lost in the crash, will be looking around again) which had hull dissassembly photos of a bunch of ex-Soviet subs which were being cut up for scrap. Excellent illos of the Soviet design philosophy there. Georgewilliamherbert 07:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any articles on SUBSAMs?

Are there any articles on SUBSAMs at Wikipedia? A SUBSAM is a submarine launched, subsurface-to-air missle. It gives the submarine a defence against anti-submarine fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. There have been some tests in the British, German, Russian, and USA navies with this type of rocket, but, not too much has been written about them. A modified AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missle might work, since it was a highly devloped weapon, and the F-14 Tomcat, (the only USA aircraft that carried them), has since been retired.204.80.61.10 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Please sign contributions with ~~~~, four ~ characters in a row, so that we know who asked.

As far as I know, no articles are here on the subject. None of the Submarine based SAM missiles used an air to air airframe; they either have to vertical launch out of the sail, or out of a floating container, or out of a torpedo tube including rising to the surface like a Harpoon or Tomhawk missile does (or Exocet, or ...). AAM's are just too different. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Groundbreaking submarines

It seems a bit odd to me that there aren't any groundbreaking subs between 1897 and 1943, especially since there are three of them between 1953 and 1955. Latre 12:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's because the 1950s marked the appearance of the first dedicated submarines. Prior to that, subs were effectively surface ships that happened to attack from underwater. --Carnildo 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone added really a lot of subs to the template. I suggest to review and seriously cut down the template. Discussion is at Template talk:Groundbreaking submarines. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a problem: the reference link to Silas Halsey, of whom it is said died in the War of 1812, links to a man who died in 1834, with no discussion of a submarine -- he was a US Congressman. (And if somebody researches this, I'd be interested to know if he an ancestor of WWII's Bull Halsey.) Great article!

US Navy Bars Women From Submarine Service

One of the only assignements in the US Armed Forces that prohibits women from applying for, (no matter how qualifed they might be), is submarine service. I do not believe any Navy of any country, (past or present), has allowed women to serve on their submarines. I think this fact should be included in the article on submarines since women are allowed to serve on most of the other ships in the US Navy.24.195.56.44 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Be bold. You might want to do some research into the policies of other navies, to avoid the US-centricity. Jinian 01:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to google.com and I read that "women commenced trainning in 1998 to serve on submarines in the Australian Navy". A far as the US Navy is concerned, women are not allowed to be assigned to submarine service, execpt for few days for women civilain technicians. I am not finding any other examples of women ever being allowed to serve on any other submarines in the Navies of any other nation. If anyone else is aware of any other examples of women serving on board military submarines, I would certainly like to know about it.204.80.61.10 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I just added the Royal Norwegian Navy's own claim that their captain Solveig Krey is the first submarine captain in the world. I then removed the 'so far only' bit from the first sentence since it's obviously no longer the case. :) Joffeloff 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two decades ago, one concern the US Navy had regarding women submariners was the radiation exposure they'd receive. Embryos and fetuses are much more susceptible to radiation effects. The Navy's health physicists worried women might be working around reactors in the earliest stages of a pregnancy. I don't know the Navy's current thinking on this issue.

There's not a task on a submarine that a woman can't do. At the same time, a submarine is a very confined intimate space occupied by healthy young men mostly in their early 20s living very intense lives in isolation for weeks or months at a time. There's virtually no privacy. Think of an overcrowded prison but with smarter, nicer people doing interesting things. Adding a group of 20-something women into such an isolated, confined space might create unmanageable personnel issues. By comparison, an all-woman submarine or a submarine with a mixed population of middle-aged men and women would work better. The world's other navies are probably watching the Norwegians and Australians very closely.

How would a military submarine, (that is normally underwater for months), deal with the possibility that a woman submariner could be pregnant at the start of the deployment, (the woman not knowing she was pregnant when the submarine left port)? I think this is a major reason women are kept off military submarines, since having a pregnant submariner could affect the combat efficiency of the ship, and it was removed from the article. The possibility of sexual activity taking place is another reason given for keeping women off of military submarines.24.195.243.10 14:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

It isn't really much of a problem. Pregnancy generally can be detected, and most submarines don't spend half a year underwater to let it develop far; and, at last, most people have some common sense. This factor relies to surface ships as well. Sexual activity aboard military ships is extremely rare, and even less possible on a submarine, as hard life conditions suppress sexuality; add complete lack of privacy.

As far as I know, the reason is just hard conditions aboard, both physical and psychological. Men generally endure them better. For the same reason most pilots are male. Also, seamen traditions include a strong prejudice against women aboard, which has long disappeared from civilians, but still not completely from military, where women at all are considered not entirely in place.

Overall, it's not that women are unacceptable on submarines, there simply are no practical reason to have them in crew, as there's enough fitting men to complement all submarines; minor factors and inconvenience of mixed crews were enough to prevent changes. However, today US has no enemies to use submarines against, so I won't be surprised if this restriction is cancelled.

CP/M 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Whenever they put to sea, sexual activity was rampant on board the two submarine tenders I knew something about back in the early 1980s. (At the time, women only served aboard 'support ships', not 'combatant ships', in the U.S. Navy). Most of the crew were in their late teens and early 20s. On a long plane ride last year, a senior enlisted person in the Canadian navy last year noted that there was also a fair amount of sexual activity on board Canadian ships today; she thought this was pretty much inevitable, given the ages of so much of the crews. As for a reason to put women aboard submarines: in U.S. society today, the majority consensus seems to be that women should generally get the same opportunities as men; any proposed exceptions require strong justification. U.S. laws even require equal opportunities for women in the private sector, however these laws don't cover the military.--A. B. 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this specifically, but, as far as I hear from crewmen, only a small fraction of them ever engage in sexual activity aboard (this, of course, applies only to military ships), and such events aren't considered normal by most of them. This is probably even more so on submarines. The social opinion surely is a factor for allowing women aboard submarines, but I guess Navy just prefers not to attract attention to this. Anyway, there won't likely be many women who would like to serve aboard a submarine. In my personal opinion, it is a bad idea (if it works - don't fix it), especially mixed crews, but for the article it would be better to find what the Navy officially stated, if it did, and make a reference. CP/M 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is at odds with published news reports. A good example is the USS Acadia during the 1991 Gulf War, where 10% of the female crew members became pregnent during Operation Desert Storm [2]. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't stand for the point, as I might have been misinformed. People are likely to "soften" issues which may affect their own reputation and in this case of all the crew; and it's possible that it depends on specific ship and specific time period. I've only heard from a few related people, which don't represent everything. Anyway, we need some official's statement explaining the reasons, it will be the best way for the article. CP/M 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the references I was able to find on the subject; (1) Canada and Spain allow women to serve on submarines, (2) The three conditions for the American Navy to allow women to serve on submarines, and (3) The amount the Navy says it would cost to allow women to serve on submarines. I think in the US Armed Forces, as most other places, the thinking is: We have done something a certain way for a reasonable amount of time, it works and therefore we should go on doing it that particular way. The US Navy needs to be given an air-tight reason to allow women to serve on submarines, because, otherwise they are not going to change. "If it's not broken, do not fix it". From the Navy's point of view; the men only on submarines policy is not broken and does not need to be fixed.204.80.61.10 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Also to be considered is the cost of modifying a submarine to serve the needs of female as well as male crew members - seperate heads, maybe living spaces, etc. To modify an existing submarine would undoubtedly present a prohibitive cost, not to mention the expense of removing whatever previously filled that space. And designing female-crew spaces into future boats would either 1) make them bigger or 2) prohibit some other piece of equipment, and increase the cost. Any boat with a mixed crew of men and women might likely sail with a "mandated" ratio or number of each, to "justify" the various costs incurred... And this would complicate things if the crew needed to be changed, for some reason.

Bennett Turk's references may point out some of this, but I thought it might be useful here. PaladinWhite 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2560 - From the Royal Navy website. The FAQ has a question regarding women serving on subs. A citation was requested on the page for this info. My apologies for not doing it myself or signing my post here, but I have no idea what I`m doing. I only signed up to help everynow and then. Not very computer savvy I`m afraid. Hope it helps.

Editorial and organizational comments

Petty stuff: The last 10 hours have seen multiple acts of petty vandalism. I went through the article to find any that were overlooked but only made it halfway (to the start of the History section) due to time constraints. Along the way I noticed numerous little typos and grammatical errors probably developed during the course of all the cutting and pasting done (especially after vandalism). I tried to fix the most egregious.

I hate battles and reversion wars fought over British/Canadian/etc. vs. American forms of English. This article is a mix of both and that's fine by me. If I have accidentally Americanized some British spelling or grammatical convention thinking it was a mistake, feel free to change it back.

I encourage others to go over the other half of the article checking it both for any remaining vandalism as well as editing errors in general. It also wouldn't hurt to check over what I've done; nobody would ever accuse me of being a skilled grammarian.

Organizational: This article is flagged as possibly being too long. It certainly is a bit of a mish-mash but it also contains a lot of good stuff added by many knowledgeable people over many months. I think it would pay to consider streamlining the article, perhaps splitting some sections off into articles of their own.

I note that the article is no longer a featured article -- see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Submarine for the comments on why this change was made.

Having said that, it seems that doing something like this unilaterally without consensus might ruffle feathers and waste time in revert wars. Besides, two heads are better than one. Perhaps folks could mull this over and post their thoughts here on the talk page first.--A. B. 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Submarine H.L. Hunley, built by the Confederates during the American Civil War and that particular submarine did manage to sink the USS Housatonic, along with it self.

Under the entry for attack boats I removed part of a sentence commenting that Trafalgar class submarines were named after the Battle of Trafalgar. It was not relevent to the current subject, and no explanations are given for any other submarine names. Since there is a page for Trafalgar class submarines and it is properly linked to I think the information should be kept there. 24.117.100.4 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

French submarine categories

We're about to get more categories than articles -- take a look at Category:Submarines of France We got another one today. Maybe consolidate some of this?--A. B. 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Turtle myth

Bushnells design is continued to be added into numerous books, magazines, but the idea is a total muth! read some primary documents and you will realize no such submarine ever exhisted in the form it is protrayed, besides the H.m.s Eagle was not at the location on the day it was said that the submarine attempted to attack it.

Some interesting submarine history

Some of the history on this website is missing from the article. Can someone please rewrite and source the material into the article? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

H.L. Hunley

Placing this in its own headline so it can be acknowledge and removed without cluttering up other unrelated topics. I removed the prefix 'CSS' from the reference to the Hunley's attack on USS Housatonic. While operated by the CS navy, she was not commissioned in it.

"Boats" or "ships"?

Another editor added language that nuclear submarines are referred to as ships not boats. At least in the U.S. Navy, they're still boats except in some very formal legal documents (but then that was true of the diesel boats, too). The formal title of the senior enlisted person is even "Chief of the Boat". I reverted the change to the previous language while adding in the part about special cases (formal legal documents).

My knowledge is confined to the U.S. -- others feel free to alter the language if other navies have a different tradition. --A. B. 02:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Referencing help needed

The article is quite short of references, but unfortunately I find it hard for myself to find non-obvious statements which would specifically need inline citations. It would be appreciated if you checked this article or at least some part of it and added references where needed. If you aren't well familiar with syntax, you can take Wikipedia:Wikicite, which is very easy to use.

Most of the links and books are already here, but need to be turned into references. It takes just looking through the article finding points non-obvious to most readers. It would also help to at least simply copy here phrases that need sources so I know what references to add, and mark with {{verify}} ones that seem questionable.

Thanks in advance to everyone contributing to improvement of the article. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the ARA General Belgrano "antiquated"?

I've noticed some disagreement over the last sentence in the section "Modern submarines""

"The sinking of the antiquated cruiser ARA General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror was the first sinking by a nuclear-powered submarine in war."

Specifically, should "antiquated" be used here? Also, another editor substituted "battle" for "antiquated".

Comments:

• The Argentines did not think it so antiquated that it could not be used to attack the British fleet.
• The British saw the cruiser as a threat that had to be sunk.
• The cruiser was old but still on duty.
• The classifiactions for cruiser have evolved, but it doesn't look like it would ever have been called a battle cruiser.
• The U.S. Navy initially designated the ship a "light cruiser" (CL) when built. Later, it was redesignated a "gun cruiser" (CA), however CA had previously been used to designate "heavy cruisers".
• At the time of its sinking, the Belgrano was among the heaviest surface combatants (other than carriers) in the world outside the Soviet Navy.
• The Belgrano had some anti-torpedo armor, unlike most surface combatants.
• It's unclear what the Belgrano had in the way of ASW capabilities in 1982.
• "Antiquated" expresses an opinion (i.e., it's POV).

References:

• ARA General Belgrano
• USS Phoenix (CL-46) (the Belgrano was originally a U.S. Navy cruiser)
• Cruiser
• Battlecruiser
• Light cruiser
• Hull classification symbol#Surface Combatant Type
• WP:NPOV

I'm going to just edit this sentence to say "cruiser" for now pending any consensus here on the talk page re: modifiers (if any) to preceded "cruiser". --A. B. 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. "Aniquated" is a bit harsh as well as POV. She was 44 years old when sunk[3], why not just put that, and leave the opinion up to the Reader?

Somethings to point out:

• The different designations within the same type i.e. 'battlecruiser' or 'Heavy Cruiser'

has less to do with size and more to do with their intended role and armament , such as the USS Atlanta (CL-51) and sister ships, which were 'Anti-Aircraft Cruisers' DANFS

• Even this did not prevent confusion. See: USS Alaska (CB-1) the prefix 'CB' Literally Stands for Battle Cruiser, However her official Designation was 'Large Cruiser', despite the fact she was designed as a 'Crusier-Killer', a role traditionally given to Battlecruisers DANFS (uh)
• Last but not least, Designation can be determined by postion in the fleet.
  • ARA General Belgrano was the largest 'big gun' combatant in the Argentine Navy at the time[4].
  • She was operating as an independent fleet unit at the time of her sinking [[5]] .

This makes me believe that the 'modifier' would not be absloute, however 'Heavy Cruiser' seems to be the most accurate due to her position in the Argentine Fleet.-- Cybersquire 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First air sinking

The following paragraph has intrigued me:

"In 1916, Serbian pilot Konjovic entered the history books as the first pilot who destroyed a submarine from the air, a French submarine Foucault in the Adriatic. When he saw that there were survivors after he dropped the bombs, he came down in his Lohner hydro-plane and saved them. For this heroic act, the French Government awarded him on 14 February 1968 a special recognition for heroism, humanity and compassion in sea battles. Even today at the official site of the French Navy there is a picture depicting Konjovic saving the sailors."

Serbia and France were on the same side in this conflict, so either Konjovic was not flying for Serb forces, or the sinking of the submarine was a "blue-on-blue" accident - either way, it possibly ought to be mentioned.

On a slightly more general note, should the description of this one incident take up fully one-third of the section on Submarines in World War I? Perhaps a more concise version might be appropriate?

During World War I, a Serbian pilot named Konjovic bombed and sank the French submarine "Foucault" in the Adriatic Sea in 1916, becoming the first man to sink a submarine from the air. Spotting survivors in the water, he landed his seaplane and rescued them, an act for which the French government awarded him a special recognition in 1968.

Brickie 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have edited as above - Wikipedia page on 1916 in aviation refers to the submarine being sunk by "Two Austrian Lohner flying boats" so presumably Mr Konjovic was flying in the Austrian military - goodness knows there were enough ethnic minorities in the Habsburg armies, but it seems odd that he was apparently involved in a theatre where he might have to fight other Serbs. I guess the Austrians didn't have too many places where flying boat pilots were useful... Brickie 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Submarines are etc. in the second paragraph

It says on the second paragraph "Submarines are a good motherfuckin way to get around always referred to as "boats" except in some formal documents". I tried to edit this, but noticed that on the edit page it said simply "Submarines are always referred to as "boats" except in some formal documents.". So, how should this be corrected? Seemed a bit odd to me...

It's just that someone vandalized the page, and someone else reverted it in the time before you opened it and clicked "edit". CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ictini / ictineo

"Ictini" is the real (catalan) name given by Monturiol to his submarine, and "Ictineo" is actually the spanish translation of its original name... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.49.208.146 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Screen door

I heard there really was such a thing as a screen door on a sub. I'll believe it when I see it, so does anyone have proof? --Jnelson09 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's normally classified information in most navies. Sign up for a five year obligation and I'll bet they tell you (but only if you ask around) :) --A. B. ^(talk) 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, at sea they obviously don't need them and underwater they obviously can't have them. The heavy duty interior ventilation system is heavily filtered (because of the requirements to maintain a healthy atmosphere underwater). In port when the hatches are open and bugs can fly in, they'll quickly get sucked into the air filters, so there's no need for screens.

There is one exotic time when they have something vaguely similar. If they're dealing with potentially contaminated material (or simulating it with a drill), they may set up a little tent over a hatch with controlled access. In this case it's too keep contamination in rather bugs out.

"Useless as a screen door on a submarine" is one of several leg-pulling lines involving submarines. Another example is the unrelated "Let's watch the submarine race" phrase (used in a totally different context!) --A. B. ^(talk) 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The new Ohio-class SSGNs definitely don't have screens, because they can't figure out how to fit them over the revolving doors. ➥the Epopt 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When in the shipyard, we would put wooden shack-like assemblies over the hatches, and cover the outside opening of those huts with loose sheets of heavy plastic to keep dirt and metal dust out ... but no screens. No revolving doors, either. ➥the Epopt 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you making fun of me? Seriously, wasn't there really one once? --Jnelson09 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We started out genially kidding you (the classified information and revolving door entries) because it sounded as if someone off of Wikipedia had already pulled your leg about screen doors on submarines. It's an old joke and I have never heard of this in real life.

But then I thought, "wait a minute, why don't submarines need them tied up to the pier?" and came up with the comments about the filter system. I also noted how they do sometimes have something vaguely analogous, only to keep potential contamination from being tracked off the ship. Another editor noted this as well. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Name, rank, & contradiction

The article says, "In 1916, a Serbian pilot named Konjovic" scored the first kill by aircraft. Antisubmarine warfare says, "Fregatten-Leutnant Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft on 15 September 1916" (a name & date I've seen elsewhere, & I never heard of Konjovic). Who's right? Trekphiler 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there nothing we can do to stop this vandalism I mean its day in and day out and every day that someone is vandalising Wikipedia from Westmoor High School and I think we should do something because young students come here too so lets set an example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hauller (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC).--hauller 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you can contact the internet provider for the school and request they block wikipedia. there also needs to be a seperate artical for nuclear submairnes or more information. Reborn Master 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article says Silas Halsey died in a submarine in 1814. The article about the man himself says he died in 1832.--91.148.159.4 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Must be a different Silas Halsey. The one linked to above would've been in his 70s if he were the submarine operator - possible, but not likely! I've removed the wikilink. Ken Gallager 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo mama?!

"A submarine's ability to yo mama is perhaps its most useful attribute." What, exactly, is this phrase doing in a wikipedia article? 69.12.155.64 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not doing anything, anymore - it was vandalism, and I removed it. PaladinWhite 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Submarines in fiction and games - edit or remove

As a general rule, I find myself supporting the inclusion of "trivia" or "references in..." sections in many articles, even when the general WikiPublic doesn't. However, I must object to the one found here.

Most importantly, this is a scientific and historical article, not one about a band or TV show (not to say that those articles should be any less encyclopedic). To include a trivia section here trivializes the 60-something kB of information above.

Secondly, this is not an article about a specific submarine, or even a specific type of submarine, references to which could be easily compiled. To include a "trivia" section here is an open invitation for a bullet point about every submarine ever used, ever, anywhere, and by anyone. I'm sure that if we put in a concerted effort, we could expand the "Submarines in fiction and games" section to be just as long as the preeceeding article itself.

I think there are only two sensible options. First, we could delete the section altogether, and in one fell swoop do away with the mindless list of uncyclopedic references. The plus side here is the "black-and-whiteness" which doesn't leave much room for the section re-ballooning in the future. On the other hand, we could just decrease the size of the section. I believe that limiting it only to named submarines in fiction might be a good choice - each bullet being something like:

• The Nautilus, featured in Jules Verne's Twenty Thousands Leagues Under the Sea
• The seaQuest, featured in the television show seaQuest DSV

This would keep the list at a manageable size, and at the same time, keep all its entries notable. On the other hand, maybe there are far more of these famous submarines than first spring to my mind, and perhaps this pared list would end up getting out of hand too.

Moving the section to its own article is an option too, but I don't think it's the best idea. The fact here is that some of the entries are so obscure, unclear, or irrelevant that they don't belong at all, whether they're here or there (see the recently-added entry on Lost for an example). PaladinWhite 04:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As no one else seems to have an opinion on this, I'll probably start going through later this afternoon and expand/reference what I can, and remove what I can't. PaladinWhite 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to keep a brief one or two paragraph general entry here with a link to a new article with some title such as "Submarines in fiction and games". I think this may draw off repeated attempt to add still another book/game/video/whatever to this article. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

William Bourne

The first submarine was designed by William Bourne. Drebbel merely tested it and built the actual design; he had no part or influence on its invention. Shouldn't the invtentor himself get at least a mention on the page? I think it would be a good idea for someone to tactfully mention both, remembering that Bourne was the actual inventor, of course.

Fine, if no-one has any problem with it, I'll change it myself. If you have a problem with it, say something here, or don't bother reverting.

A remark

Currently the article says:
"Due to the Treaty of Versailles limiting the surface navy, the rebuilding of the German surface forces had only begun in earnest a year before the outbreak of World War II." Shouldn't the fact that the Treaty of Versailles explicity forbade germany from having any submarines also be mentioned? The current phrasing implies that Germany was allowed to have subs prior to Hiters revokation of the treaty. A better sentence might be:
"Due to the Treaty of Versailles which limited the surface navy and forbade all submarines, the rebuilding of the German surface forces had only begun in earnest a year before the outbreak of World War II." andreas_td 00:30, February 17 2006 (UTC +2)

You are correct regarding the ban on German submarines. But there are several incorrect passages in this article.

The rebuilding started earlier, as early as 1933/34 already, if you look closely, at the time when the NS-government decided to plan all new rebuild-programs for the Navy (the Z-plan[s]). It still took 2 years until Hitler dared to unilaterally declare Germany's military sovereignty (in 1935) - thus unilaterally rescinding the military regulations of the treaty. The treaty explicitly stated that Germany was not allowed to have submarine units, but the British-German naval treaty (1935) allowed Germany to have 45% of the registered tonnage of British submarines, therefor Karl Dönitz was ordered to rebuild the submarine branch in 1935. This was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles, but conformed to the British-German treaty. It's not surprising that Hitler violated this treaty as well. Prior to 1935, submarines were only tested secretely (IIRC there was a co-operation with the spanish navy)

The "Republic of Weimar", the democratic predecessor of the "Third Reich", already deployed some rebuilding plans, for the new cruisers for example, fooling the Allied countries by mounting weaponry that conformed to the treaty's regulations regarding gun calibre, but these ships were constructed in a way that gun-upgrades could be made anytime, which would have turned them into heavy cruisers effectively, as these cruisers already had many features only heavy cruisers had at the time.

When the NS movement took over, some of these ships' armaments received upgrades (bigger guns), and, in addition, planning of the so-called "pocket-battleships" started, modern ships which matched the quality/range (not necessarily the calibre) of the guns employed in British battleships, where the German ships' guns had a state-of-the-art fire-control-system. These ships lacked armor protection, despite them receiving upgrades (skirts), though, but proved to be a brilliant PR coup, as the Brits regarded them as adequate battleships. The pocket-BB "Graf Spee" was one of them. When the fully-fledged battleship "Bismarck" had been laid down in 1936, even the British-German naval treaty (1935) had been violated, as the top tonnage limit had been set at 35,000 GRT. --84.44.226.235 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Gee-Man

Groundbreaking Submarines

In the box for Groundbreaking Submarines at the bottom I think that the H. L. Hunley deserves mention since its action in the American Civil War was the first time a submarine proved to be a viable weapon of war. I wanted to change it but I can't seem to edit this section.

First of all, you should edit the template itself, not the article. Second, the template once got overbloated, so we've discussed and decided to remove all submarines except for ones groundbreaking both in construction and application - not just one of them. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions?

The intro states:

A submarine is a watercraft that can operate underwater at pressures beyond the range of unaided human survivability. Submarines were first widely used in World War I and are used by all major navies today.

However, as is well known historically and spoken of later in the article:

The first military submarine was Turtle (1775), a hand-powered egg-shaped device designed by the American David Bushnell, to accommodate a single man. It was the first verified submarine capable of independent underwater operation and movement, and the first to use screws for propulsion. During the American Revolutionary War, Turtle (operated by Sgt. Ezra Lee, Continental Army) tried and failed to sink a British warship, HMS Eagle (flagship of the blockaders) in New York harbor on September 7, 1776.

This is a clear contradiction, the introduction seems to be very wrong. Is there any reason for the intro to say what it does? --Matthew 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple, just delete "at pressures beyond the raing of unaided human survivability" from the first sentence. I'll do that if it hasn't been done already. =Axlq 06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he was referring not to the pressure as being a contradiction, but the introduction of the submarine. The way it currently reads implies, to me, that although the submarine was invented in 1775, it did not gain wide acceptance until WWI. By this reading, I see no contradiction. Sketch051 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommended resource for submarine termonology?

What is your reccommended resource for submarine jargon/terms/slang? 24.165.176.188 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BrendaStarr

PNS Ghazi

the article currently contains the following:-

Pakistani PNS Ghazi was a Tench class submarine on loan from US USS Diablo (SS/AGSS-479) was lost in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 near Visakhapatnam, it was the first submarine casualty since World War II.

this is just plain wrong, it either need qualifying, citing or removing. the same paragraph states above that K-129 was lost in 1968, so PNS Ghazi can't have been the first submarine casualty since world war II! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Groundbreaking subs

In 1864 Catalonia was part of Spain - hence Ictineu II (1864) should be accompanied by a Spanish flag. As may late father(a proud Galician) said "Inside Spain we are Galicians, Basques, Catalans, Castilians, outside we're Spaniards!" Could somebody please change the flag in the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.83.163 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just plain confused

What does this sentence mean While conning towers have disappeared from some designs, a "bathtub" of a certain height is still required for classification with most class societies. The society in Rochester is fairly classy- we have onsuites and showers- and my bathroom furniture was the height of fashion in 1920. I suppose that a "class society" is one where one inherits ones furniture rather than buys it. But, in cases of not having running water, does ones butler fill a bathtub rather than draw a bath? ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A bathtub, in the context of smaller submarines, is a metal cylinder attached to the hull which surrounds the hatch and prevents waves from breaking directly into the cabin. It is needed because submarines on the surface don't have a lot of freeboard; they lie very low in the water. A Classification society issues the vessel class and has rules that must be followed to remain 'in class'. Vessels with no class have basically no chance at being insured. It has nothing to do with furniture.

I have been trying to fit this in better but have been struggling to find the right words without being overly long. Bathtubs are related to conning towers but are only for smaller submarines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj245 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Change it back if I got it wrong. ClemRutter (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bathyscape

To say that this is derived from the diving bell is pushing it. The designs have nothing in common. Adresia (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Female submariners

Its stated that the Royal Australian Navy was the second to allow female submariners to serve on submarines in 1998. That statement must be false, since they have served (or at least being allowed to serve) on Swedish submarines since the eighties. However, Sweden has not, like fellow Scandinavian country Norway, appointed a female submarine commander. I assume that it is typo in the text and that the Royal Australian Navy did appoint their first female commander in 1998, if else, it should be corrected.

As far as I know, Norway did allow for female submariners slightly before Sweden, and this sometime in the early-to-mid eighties. (There is a ongoing political struggle between Norway and Sweden, on which has the bragging rights as being the most equal country in the world.) Ssteinberger (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Keelhauled

I've heard of an L D Phillips who allegedly built a sub around 1851. Can anybody confirm? Include him? Trekphiler (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication

A SHF 'flashlight' beam to a satellite can be used, but I have no reference on this. LorenzoB (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Museum object

Please see this request for info. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bouyancy

Under Technology: Submersion and Trimming, the article claims that submarines are in unstable equilibrium. However, the reference (and my understanding of the Archimedes principle) does not support this. A submarine will not, under normal conditions, drift to the surface or the sea floor; while some variation is to be expected, any object, submarines included, will descend until it either hits bottom or displaces an equal amount of mass. Thus, if the ballast tanks contain water to bring the boat to a depth of, say, 500 feet, it will stay at 500 feet give or take a few. Compression of the hull is very, very minor at normal operating depths, and has no significant effect on the displacement/buoyancy. Anyone can observe the ubiquitous "Galileo thermometer" and realize that submerged objects do not need constant control to maintain a particular depth.

The beginning of the paragraph states that the pressure on a steel sub can reach 4MPa and on a titanium sub 10MPa. I'm pretty sure the pressure on a submarine's hull depends on depth, not on composition. Apparently the author was looking at the figures on tolerance--that is, the pressure to which the submarine can be exposed without damage. Thus, a titanium sub can be safely taken to greater depths without significant hull compression than a steel sub.

What does have a great effect on bouyancy is water temperature. Pressure has very little effect on water density, but temperature can affect it greatly. So if a sub wanders through a blast of warm water, it might descend--the water is less dense, so it has to descend further to displace an equal mass. This is only a concern near the surface, however, since further down water temperature is fairly constant.

I am editing the paragraph to reflect this.71.110.219.107 (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There's just one teeny little problem: The paragraph you changed has a source (an online one). Have you checked the source to see what it actually says? Perhaps the info was changed from what is in the source, or it may be exactly what the source says. To add or change any information on WP, Reliable Sources should be cited; this is especially true of items with existing sources. If you have (or do) checked the source,and what is in it is erroneous, then you need to provide new sources to back up your changes. Ideally, they sources should explain why the existing source is in error. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear that I did take your concerns seriously, I added {{verify source}} and {{disputed-inline}} tags after the citation. These will let other editors know that there are problems with this section, and hopefully they'll come to the talk page to find out what they are. - BillCJ (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The source in questions is listed as note 2; if you take a look at note 4 I think it is also relevant to this discussion and this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.153.134 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Hull compression is related to (1) the pressure differential between the ocean outside and the air inside the sub, (2) The compressibility of the material used for the hull, (3) the thickness of the hull material, and (4) the volume enclosed (radius of curvature of hull).

The other major factor which affects the stability is the trim tanks. If a is tank exposed to outside sea pressure that contains air, the air will compress significantly with change in depth and more water will enter these tanks. Swlenz (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the relevant chapter in "Concepts in Submarine Design" (Roy Burcher, Louis Rydill) and what it seems to say is that all the buoyancy effects are irrelevant except very close to the surface. The boat is usually going fast enough that hydrodynamic forces take over. It does need to be intrinsically stable in the vertical plane, but that's done by the designer. Rees11 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally found what I think is a good reference. O'Kane, Wahoo p.12 talks about a dive to test depth, talks about hull deflection and says, "it was normal and required the expected pumping to sea to compensate for the reduced displacement." Rees11 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft WWI

I’ve removed this:
"In 1916, two Serbian pilots, Dimitrije Konjović and Walter Zelezny of the Austro-Hungarian air service, bombed and sank the French submarine Foucault in the Adriatic, becoming the first to sink a submarine from the air. Spotting survivors in the water, they landed their flying boats and rescued all of them, an act for which the French government awarded Konjovic special recognition in 1968",
Because it gives undue weight to a single incident in a general article. The place for this detail would be on the Foucault page (when there is one). Also the reference to Konjovic, and the French award, is unsubstantiated; but it seems unlikely a Serbian would be flying for the Austrians against the French in WW I, n’ est ce pas?. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I came across this discussion page by searching the Foucault after finding a painting of the referenced incident on eBay ( http://cgi.ebay.com/Merv-Corning-Compassionate-Hunter-Print_W0QQitemZ390070458963QQihZ026QQcategoryZ360QQcmdZViewItem ) I also searched The Heritage of the Air Collection, and found some info that may lend credence to some of the questioned information: http://www.esterline.com/heritage/collection.stm My apologies for intruding, but I hope some of this may help your group. 130.47.34.2 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

diesel-electric

removed this:

Submarines

When the diesel engine was first installed in submarines before the First World War, it revolutionized submarine tactics because its range (or operating time) far surpassed that of the gasoline engine, and the lower volatility fuel meant that fuel and vapors were far less prone to catch fire or explode if they leaked into a submarine cabin. The fuel was also easier to stow. In submarines, the engine is connected to generators to produce electric energy that is stored in batteries for running underwater where oxygen is not available to feed the engines. It had been standard for them to use a driveshaft directly connecting the diesel engine, generator and propellers. There were a variety of clutch mechanisms for various connections as well. However, the long driveshaft has often been a source of trouble, also producing noise and vibration.

Some Soviet submarines had three propellers, and could be used in a variety of ways: each running on its diesel engine; either the central one or the outer two could each be connected to a diesel engine with or without the other propeller running on electric; or the engines could via snorkel be recharging the batteries while the central propeller was quietly running on its electric motor; or all three could be running on electric motors.

The diesel engine performance was critical for a conventional submarine's success. Navies imported and copied successful designs. The Germans had some excellent diesel designs for their U-boats, but they also had some designs which were not so good. The Americans had a similar history; their last diesel engine design was radial in form, its driveshaft axis angled vertically. These designs were subsequently abandoned. Older submarines had to be cut in half through the engine room and proven engines installed in a lengthened hull section to replace the unreliable but space-efficient designed engine. Since the correction, European submarine diesels have shown advances.

Modern diesel-electric submarines don't have a direct connection of the diesel engine to the propeller anymore: The usually single propeller is driven directly by an electric motor. Two or more diesel-generators provide electric energy for loading the batteries and/or driving the electric motor. This mechanically insulates the noisy engine compartment from the outer pressure hull and reduces the acoustic signature of the submarine. Even some nuclear submarines decouple their reactor room this way, e.g. all French classes, like the Rubis and Redoutable and the Chinese Type 093 class, have turbo-electric propulsion.

from the linked page - whilst interesting - it was not all relevent to the page. Hopefully someone here may have a use for it.213.249.232.187 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong translation of the German word for Submarine

Lizzy1986 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Submarines are referred to as "boats" for historical reasons because vessels deployed from a ship are referred to as boats. The first submarines were launched in such a manner. The English term U-boat for a German submarine comes from the German word for submarine, U-Boot, itself an abbreviation for Unterseeboot ("undersea boat").

the German word See translates to the English word Lake. the German word for sea is Meer.

Literal translations may not always be the appropriate choice. The main point is to translate the proper meaning. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "See" has two meanings in German: der See (male) = the lake, die See (female) = the sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.89.65 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Was that a serious suggestion that unterseeboot should be translated as "under-lake-boat"? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not from me (194.145.89.65). I just wanted to show that the translation "undersea boat" is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.89.65 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

English invention?

Does this really belong in Category:English inventions? Even if you credit Drebbel, which depends on your perspective, he wasn't an Englishman. Rees11 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

History Section

This section is HUGE and needs to be trimmed into a shorter summary section (with content to be moved to the history article as needed), as this content dominates the article. If someone wanted that level of detail they'd click on over to the history section. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately it can't simply be moved or deleted because there is some duplication. It's going to be a non-trivial merge job. Rees11 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lusitania sinking wasn't an example of unrestricted warfare

The kriegsmarine placed newspaper adverts in american papers before the ship sailed warning that it would be attacked by submarines, so how can the attack be considered to have taken place without a warning?

And, the lusitania carried Materiel, making it a legitimate target. 86.137.134.53 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article not ventilating opinions; do you have a suggestion for an improvement? And do you have a reliable source for your statement that this wasn't unrestricted submarine warfare? Also you might want to check your facts; it wasn't the "kriegsmarine" that sank the Lusitania, it was the Imperial German Navy. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the links to Unrestricted submarine warfare and Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) I think you'll find that the Lusitania sinking did violate the 1907 Convention and therefore was an example of unrestricted warfare. The British may have violated the Convention too but that's a different question. I don't think any changes are called for in the article. Rees11 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't using this page for "ventilating opinions", I was just intrigued by the unrestricted submarine warfare page statement "Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchant ships without warning"

As I thought National newspaper adverts warning people that the boat would be attacked would constitute a warning.

And as I said before doesn't the fact that the Lusitania carried ammunition mean it was a legitimate target?

I don't want to discuss anything particularly, I just wanted the article to be accurate 86.137.134.53 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "warning" in the various Conventions refers to a warning to be delivered by the belligerent warship to the ship which it plans to sink. As noted in the RMS Lusitania article, this proved impractical in the case of submarines versus the larger merchant and passenger vessels. As also noted in the article, the question of whether or not the Lusitania was a legitimate target due to its carrying ammunition was argued at length (and still is). Salmanazar (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion, while interesting, is pointless, as it's not our job as Wikipedians to interpret the Hague Conventions. That would be original research using primary sources. Rather, it's our job to find reliable secondary sources, and the ones I've found seem to agree on the "unrestricted warfare" label, and that this was a major contributing factor in the US entry to WWI. So I think the article accurately reflects the sources. I added one source but there are others if anyone cares. Rees11 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, that is what I wanted to know. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this matter. 86.137.134.53 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Polar operations

I would vote for removing the Polar operations section. It seems out of place, and the article is already too long. Also imcomplete, as it's missing that Russian sub that landed on the bottom under the North Pole and tried to claim it for Russia. Rees11 (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

After that section first got removed, I copied it to History of submarines. There does not appear a good section to place the list at either article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the recent removal of the section because the edit comment wasn't logical. However, surely the earlier polar traverses are relevant to an article on the Submarine? It was a significant test of capability - endurance, range, navigational, etc. Hohum (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, but I think it deserves a couple sentences, not a bulleted list. The full list could go in History of submarines as Fnlayson suggests. By the way, much of the history in this article should go away or be merged to the History article. Rees11 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hohum (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this the discussion on what to do with the History section (the template links to the top of this page)? Moving and summarizing is certainly a good idea, but I was looking at the History of submarines page, which has a big section on history of submarine technology. Wouldn't that be better here? Or is that a separate subject again? Hos is already 69 MB long, after all, and this is 94 MB. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, see History section above. Rees11 (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)