Talk:Submarine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

soviet union submarines during ww2

The article is missing a subsection in the ww2 section about soviet union submarines. I am not an expert, but it should be added..--169.232.119.114 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Navy's record of submarine activities during WW II was pretty poor, and not the sort of record to give the Cold War Soviet submariners confidence if war against NATO had ever broken out. In short, they were pretty ineffective and achieved almost nothing. The Royal Navy sent out some liaison officers to work with the Soviet submarine fleet in around 1942-43 and they thought the Soviet's were poorly-trained and suffered undue interference from their on-board political officers to the detriment of operational efficiency. But that was just their opinion, I'm sure someone will disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.85.235 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The USSR claimed that one of its submarines put a torpedo into the battleship Tirpitz, but that claim has never been substantiated and the Germans denied it. Avmarle (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-sub torpedos

This unsourced quote bothers me:

"The impact-detonated torpedoes of the era were difficult to use against a submarine because they ran a fixed course at a fixed depth and were relatively easy for the small submarines to avoid with three-dimensional maneuvers."

I don't think that's the reason at all. During WWII it would have been very difficult to fire a torpedo at a submerged boat, because you couldn't get an accurate enough bearing and depth to the target. I don't know of any cases where this was tried. The target's ability to maneuver is irrelevant. If the target is on the surface, it's certainly possible to sink it with a torpedo, and was done several times. The reason it wasn't done more often had more to do with the difficulty in locating the target than in the target's ability to maneuver. And it had nothing to do with the target's ability to maneuver in three dimensions, as the target is on the surface.

For now I'm going to make this "citation needed" but if no one objects I'd like to remove it. Rees11 (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable to remove it. Sounds like something cribbed from Clancy. The statement is true (vaguely) about ASW operations following WWII, where submarines operated submerged but torpedo technology hadn't caught up (completely) to the set of options and a sub driver had at his disposal. But I'm not sure how clear or date specific that could get without using non-public information. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks better now, thanks. It would still be nice to see something from a verifiable source. Rees11 (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The only time in history (I think) that a submerged submarine killed another submerged submarine with a torpedo was during WWII (this is mentioned later in the article, also see HMS Venturer (P68). This clearly was not an everyday occurrence during WWII, but as it reads now the "Military Usage" section implies that it just was not possible, which is clearly false. Jminthorne (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for that pointer. I knew US subs never did that but I'm less familiar with Britich subs. Rees11 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It was unusual but by no means unique - a submerged British R class submarine attacked an (also submerged) U-boat off Ireland in the First World War and scored a hit but the torpedo failed to explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.85.235 (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Internal submarine air pressure

This is purely speculative, and probably classified so theres no way to verify it, but if a submarine wanted to operate near/below its standard crush depth (with 1 atm of internal pressure), couldnt the ship simply increase its air internal pressure to 2 atm, thus allowing a deeper crush depth? 142.16.22.18 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1 atm extra of internal pressure would give 10m increase in crush depth. Is that worth the trouble caused to the crew by the internal pressure? David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good timing!and quite correct ... I was just about to change that to 1 -> max human tolerance ATM....once I find out what a normal accepted value is. If these subs run underwater for weeks at a time without resurfacing, theoretically they could elevate their internal pressures quite high as the human body is great at adapting.

Another note, it has been disclosed that subs sometimes run an ATM of less than normal levels of O2 for fire prevention. Could this also be an indication of higher pressurization? 142.16.22.18 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Increasing the internal pressure would be just like scuba diving to the equivalent depth. So if your normal crush depth is 300m, increasing it by 10% would cause all the problems of diving to 30m. You'd have to change the gas mix, and probably decompress on the way out. You wouldn't be able to surface, open the hatches and get out in case of an emergency. Not worth it. Rees11 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words, plausable but not feasable for general use. Perhaps if a battle situation demanded a dive beyond normal limits, anything is worth a try.142.16.22.18 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A submarine must always be able to surface in an emergency such as a fire or flooding. Oxygen levels are not lowered to prevent fires, levels are kept at 19-21%. The basis for these levels is only to sustain human life. Submarines rarely operate at test depth so increasing depth by 10m in not important nor does it make a sub any more superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.65.166 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Increasing internal air pressure is not something I have ever heard of in traditional submarines. Even small pressure transients are very uncomfortable for humans, so I suspect that intentionally inducing a pressure transient is something which is universally avoided. Protonk (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as a damage control measure during the war, "putting a pressure" on a compartment worked to slow (if not stop) leaking until repairs could be made. IDK if it was really common, but it was an understood practise. The space could then be pumped out & depressurized like a dive chamber (or an escape trunk). And "an emergency like flooding"? It has to be pretty serious for surfacing to be the only option. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture

As so often, this section has outgrown its usefulness. It has become a long list of appearances of submarines, and is of no interest to the general reader of an article on submarines. A paragraph on why submaringes are so appealing might be appropriate, but otherwise it is beyond redemption and should be deleted. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Our general guideline on pop culture in a military article is laid out at WP:MILPOP. It's stricter than most other Wikipedia projects. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fleet submarines

I've heard the term "fleet submarine" used a few times, but when I entered the term into the search box, I was redirected to this page, which doesn't say anything about them (the section on Japan states that Japan has them, but nowhere is the term defined).

The article on the HMS M2 uses the term to mean submarines intended to operate as part of a fleet (requiring them to be as fast as the battleships), and says the concept was abandoned when this proved to be unfeasible.

The modern Royal Navy seems to use the term as an alternative (euphemism?) for a hunter-killer submarine: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/

Is anyone able to add a section about these sorts of submarine to the article? Wardog (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fleet submarine" doesn't really have a common definition. In the US during WWII it meant subs of the Gato and Balao class, even though these never operated as part of a fleet. And it is, as you say, and obsolete concept. In fact I don't think subs were ever operated as part of a fleet. US planners intended them to be used this way but when the war started it became obvious this wouldn't work. So the term means different things to different people and would be hard to pin down with references. Rees11 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I would understand a fleet submarine to be an ocean-going vessel, as opposed to a coastal patrol or miniature submarine. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Fleet submarines, originally, were boats designed to operate with the main Battle fleet; for that they needed a surface speed of at least 24 knots, which was beyond the capability of a diesel powered craft. The RN experimented with steam-turbine boats, producing the J- and K- class boats, but they weren't very successful. The meaning has changed since then. Conversely, the M-class boats weren't Fleet submarines; they were too slow. They were designed as submersible monitors or cruisers. I've amended the M2 page accordingly. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems from their website that the RN uses "fleet submarine" to distinguish them from nuclear missile subs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects by role

Beside the Fleet submarine redirect mentioned above, this article is also targeted by:

but there is no section to target that specifically characterizes submarines by role, despite the term "attack submarine" or "fast attack submarine" being used several times in the article. There is the Ballistic missile submarine article for fleet ballistic missile submarines (the most common use of "fleet" with submarines that I am aware of) and the Cruise missile submarine article that the SSBN and SSGN redirects target respectively. Should the various attack submarine redirects target SSN (hull classification symbol) despite the fact that not all attack submarines are nuclear? Has "fast attack" traditionally signified nuclear, and does it still do so with the new generation of non-nuclear air-independent propulsion submarines? -- ToET 08:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • IIRC "fast attack" came into the language with the los angeles class of sumbarines (whose selling point to congress was speed sufficient to catch the november classes) but has come to describe pretty much any nuclear powered attack submarine. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Women

What's up here? I'm trying to clean this up, including adding some much-needed basic historical background (like the fact that women were prohibited from serving on submarines until recently - no, we didn't say that!) and someone is reverting me, adding what amounts to an ad hominem attack on some politicians proposing a change in US Navy rules. What? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone put a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, and if it happens again we can try to get a block. The added material about officials serving on or being qualified in subs is not only unsourced, but adding it here would be a violation of wp:synth, as it implies they are somehow unqualified to make a recommendation (which might be true but needs to be sourced just like anything else). Rees11 (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please try to keep a soft touch here. I don't want to have us 'slap warnings' as necessary requisites to blocks. I would much rather we come to some agreement over the article text. Recall that even though the editor in question doesn't have an account and may not understand the norms we agree upon implicitly, s/he (probably he) is still human. Let's try to communicate first. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And to be fair, the point the IP editor made about nuke/non-nuke is actually in the cited article (and is expressed explicitly). Protonk (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm actually surprised that no reliable source has mentioned that the officers proposing the changes aren't sub guys. As for your changes they seem reasonable but I would offer some caution. The whole "nuclear vs. non-nuclear" bit may seem like a canard but for some time women were not permitted to work in the engineroom of nuclear powered vessels (surface or sub) due to concerns about radiation exposure during pregnancy. This is largely moot in the US, as exposure limits have been clarified (for a while now) but may actually be a determining factor in other countries. I don't know. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As regards women not being on any nation's nuclear submarines, the referenced WaPo article points that out in the final paragraph -- none of those four nations operate nuclear submarines.
AGAIN: I didn't reference (via a specific link) the three official's lack of sub quals, and separate lack of nuclear reactor quals, solely because their Wiki profiles had already been pointed to in the preceding text. Those profiles quite adequately point out that they did not serve on submarines nor were nuclear trained/qualified, but those two facts -- which are now deleted -- are quite relevant to the article.
It bears repeating: This article will not improve if people don't do their homework and/or delete facts.
--70.114.162.236 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the point that they are making is that the JCS and CNO being SWOs is irrelevant to the article until a connection is made by a reliable source. Imagine this. You and I can argue that it is easy for surface ppl and aviators to say "subs should have women" and that we don't have quotes from N08 or some other person in the sub chain of command, but it doesn't automatically follow that the CNO or JCS are unable to pass judgment. They are certainly able to (in terms of statute) make the recommendation. There is also the flip side. Obviously sub people would like to stay segregated by sex, change is hard. So I could say that it takes a SWO to make this recommendation because they work with women already (in comparison to sub guys who do not). Protonk (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Good points! I put the 3RR warning up just to send the signal that edit warring is NOT okay, and to serve as a basis for blocking the IP editor if he didn't stop. I want the IP editor to dig deeper into the Wikipedia method and check out how to cite sources. However, the bit about Admirals Mike Mullen and Gary Roughead somehow not being qualified to determine whether women were able to serve on American nuclear submarines is clearly internecine battling that need not be given voice here. Mullen and Roughead speak for the U.S. Navy, and there is no need to reduce their stature by describing what things they are not qualified in. They aren't women, yet they are deciding what happens to female crewmembers. They aren't sub guys, yet they are deciding what happens to subs. So what? This page is not about conflict internal to the U.S. Navy. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Eh, it kinda is about those conflicts insofar as we cover them. I'm on my way to revert the most recent changes, but I would much prefer that some sourcing be added here. I don't keep up on the 'women in combat' literature, but there has to be some more recent discussion besides the wapo article. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Let the facts speak for themselves. The facts are that none of these officials -- ALL of whom are non-nuclear propulsion surface warfare officers -- have expertise in either submarines or nuclear propulsion. These facts are highly relevant to the article, and make no reference to 'internal conflicts.' --70.114.162.236 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Look its not like you learn anything in CMR about women in submarines that you wouldn't learn in 40 years of naval service. The point that these guys aren't sub drivers is well taken. But that has multiple possible interpretations so it is unwise to just throw the "facts" out and let them speak for themselves. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
People can and should be trusted with the "facts." This should not be withheld. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of trust. Remember that "We report, you decide" is the motto of a different organization. This is a matter than establishing the credentials as an issue, when no reliable source has done so gives the article a slant. Should I go into the article and edit to say "both the CNO and JCS are SWOs, so they have served with women before? Would that be appropriate to leave as a 'fact' for the reader to interpret? It is our job to take existing sources and contextualize them, not to make judgments about subjects and present them to the reader. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Facts matter...plain and simple...so let's let them speak for themselves. The Navy's official bios speak volumes, thus I've edited the article to cite them. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
But you are 'selecting' the facts to give the article a slant. I'll go back to my original question. What part of submarine training gives someone the necessary expertise to decide whether or not women and men should work on submarines together? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going out of my way to avoid throwing wiki-rules at you. Please do me the same courtesy. Again, if you are asserting that their lack of qualification limits their judgment (which is nakedly clear from the article text), then the least you can do is justify how that occurs. Exactly which class in NPS or NPTU would provide the necessary qualification? Which part of the submarine officer or enlisted qual card can be checked off to show that the individual understands that men and women can't mix on submarines? Protonk (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. But, you're reading too much into my additions to the article, and not assuming good faith. I could argue the case for women on submarines at least as strongly as I could argue against that idea. IMHO (emphasis on opinion), it stinks to high heaven that none of these decision makers have any real time on the boats aside from PR visits...but that's just my opinion. Their factual -- and homogenous -- qualifications matter enormously to the article, as we wouldn't even be having this conversation if they hadn't each -- for obviously political reasons, not practical ones -- opened up this can of worms. I would again point to the fact that NO nation has women on nuclear submarines for _months at a time_...but that's just my observation, not my opinion. Perhaps this involves common sense, but that would be my opinion. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble here is that you seem to be under the impression that it is Wikipedia's purpose to argue against women in nuclear subs. That is simply not the case. The qualifications you cite may be relevant to the argument (in your opinion), but we are not having the argument here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoa there, big fella...I've very clearly kept my (much requested) opinion here on the discussion page. It is Wikipedia's purpose to provide HIGHLY RELEVANT facts....which I have. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was born at night, just not last night. I find it hard to believe that the litany of 'facts' in this paragraph reflects some wish for olympian detachment. But lets assume it does. You still need to justify why those facts are relevant. You said above that your opinion about time onboard submarines was that 'real' time mattered to decisionmaking. Ok. But as it stands our article now asserts that NNPTC now matters for decisionmaking. It asserts that the submarine warfare qual now matters. So I want you to justify those two assertions. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You're wayyy too caught up in trying to justify your opinion here, and that really is off-topic to the article. I merely observe the facts, and they seem entirely relevant. So I rest my case on these highly relevant facts, which clearly point toward these officials more-than-a-little-bit homogeneous expertise (or lack thereof, depending entirely on the reader). It's an encyclopedia...not a high school debate. Facts. Facts. Facts. (Rinse. Repeat). --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure you know my opinion here. I'm also not sure it is relevant. Let's pretend we agree and that you are just stating a set of facts. I'm asking for you to justify why those facts might be relevant. I'm sure since their relevance derives from their factual nature and not anyones opinion that it will be easy for you to illustrate this to me without invoking "common sense". Protonk (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On the whole, I believe that a discussion on epistemology might be more fruitful as regards common sense, but let's review the facts: Three senior U.S. Navy officials have declared their opinions that now is a good time to put women on submarines. Their opinions were registered on Wikipedia as being relevant to the article. Now, none of these officials have cited any studies regarding women on nuclear submarines -- just (in two cases) their own personal experience with women on surface ships, even though these ships have unimaginably larger quarters (there are central spaces on submarines -- officer's quarters, for example -- wherein one must press chest-to-chest to pass by another). Once again, none of these officials have any experience on the platform they are proposing this major change to...a change which no other nation on earth has seen fit to do, each for their own reasons. Neither do any of these officers have any direct experience operating nuclear reactors, which are also at the core of the issue. All of this -- to me -- makes their very strangely uniform background (all of them are former surface warfare officers, and all of them have no technical expertise regarding nuclear reactors) quite relevant. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I think the nuclear reactor bit is not relevant, given that we already have exposure limits for pregnant women serving in the engineering department on surface ships. Second, you seem to be reiterating the normal claims against having women on submarines in the form of a factual statement about the officers' qualifications. In other words, you have asserted that their lack of experience might lead them to understate the close quarters on a submarine. Implicitly you are making the argument that close quarters on a submarine is a good reason to restrict them to same-sex crews, you are just stating it in the form of a declaration about given experience. I can also say from personal experience that diesel boats around the world are about as cramped (for modern diesel boats, more cramped for older ones) as LA classes (And far less cramped than boomers), so I'm not sure how having women on diesel boats is some different experience (and deployment length is not a great answer, especially when we consider op tempo for diesel boats vs. nuclear...the differences vanish). But arguments aside these are just the standard complaints. It is imperative that we acknowledge that and present them as such, rather than cloaking them in some factual garb. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Speak to the nuclear side all you want, but you need to (politely) sit down and gain some real knowledge re. sub ops. It's flat-out ridiculous to assert that a diesel's op tempo (whatever that may be, and how would you know?) somehow equates to being at sea for MONTHS AT A TIME inside a very constricted steel tube, a la U.S. nuclear submarines engaged in power projection, not littoral ops (and likely one's own national waters at that). And, in any case, you're simply caught up in justifying women on subs -- something that is actually way off topic regarding the article. Again, if the officials want to thrust their merit badge of experience in the public's face, that deserves some airing out. What is their relevant experience, really, to their claimed wisdom? I've answered that via the last edit. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to let slide for a minute your assumption that I don't know about submarine ops. Please let the possibility that your assumption is wrong sink in. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@Binkersternet: what is your justification for editing the article to remove these facts after I went through the trouble of sourcing the official Navy bios? These men are neither submarine officers nor nuclear-trained. Just the facts, ma'am. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article to include SOURCED official Navy bios and relevant expertise. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I put what college they matriculated from? Is that a relevant fact? It is clear (to me) that you mean to intimate that sub experience and training offers some insight into the wisdom of putting women on submarines. If you make that intimation explicitly or implicitly it is still the same. We shouldn't highlight this particular fact until some reliable source has done so already. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
How someone CHOOSES to interpret the facts is up to them. I've written these facts in as neutral of a POV as I can. If you see something that isn't there, that's all in you...not the article. Of course it's highly relevant that all of these guys are former surface warfare types that are also non-nuclear trained. Again, this is an encyclopedia, and we report FACTS. If you think their college matters, then make a case for that, but I don't think it'd pass the smell test as regards common sense. --

70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that putting in these 'facts' is in itself argumentative. It derives from the false assumption that we are trying to persuade people of the rightness or wrongness of a proposal, rather than report on the fact of the proposal. How would it be if we added "President Obama has never served in the military" after every record of a military decision he makes? That would be bias, even though it is completely true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If it matters so much how come the wapo article doesn't mention it? How come there isn't some reliable source that makes the connection. also you have phrased to in such a fashion that the likely interpretation is to treat these officer as deficient for lacking training rather than free from bias for not having worked in a male only environment. As a matter of fact, I think both the CNO and the JCS were on combatant ships prior to 1993, which means they have served in male only environments. I know for a FACT that they have each been on at least one nuclear submarine at sea prior to assuming command of a surface ship. And I'm pretty sure that both men can read and understand a cost-benefit analysis. The article is protected from editing, for now, in order to stop you from being blocked for edit warring, which would have surely happened had the reverts continued. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Answer the question, justify the changes you made to the page. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The justification is common sensical by way of clearly relevant facts. I honestly don't know how to justify that. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's pretend for a minute that I'm a nuke, and I don't have common sense. Justify it to me. How come reliable sources haven't jumped on this qualification difference? How come both men's service on male only crews and time in the submarine command course doesn't offer relevant experience? How come their experience as commanders of battlegroups and fleets which contained submarines doesn't matter? Protonk (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"Let's pretend for a minute that I'm a nuke, and I don't have common sense." Your words, not mine. I would for my own way of thinking assume that they had a 50-50 chance of having common sense...but that's me. I have no idea what motivates the 'reliable sources' you refer to. I'm merely refering to the officials' public profiles in a highly relevant and factual way. QED. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then if I have a 50/50 chance to have common sense you know I will get it wrong 90% of the time. So I'll repeat. Some reliable source has to make the connection between the expertise of the CNO/JCS (who could have been an Army AF or Marine guy) and their decision. If we as editors take some collection of facts and connect it to a distinct proposition then we do the reader a disservice. If the connection is important and salient, then some source would cover it already. Where is that source? If we can't find one, then we need to give an exceptionally strong reason for taking one set of primary sources (the bios) and using it to cast judgment on a decision (please spare me the speech about how you aren't passing judgment in the edit in question). Protonk (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
We're starting to think alike regarding common sense and probabilities...not a big surprise to me. Here's the problem that you (or anyone else) faces regarding my factual citation of these men's backgrounds: All of them are citing their experience as being relevant to making their (arguably in-bred) decision to put women on submarines. The CNO has stated his "comfort" with doing so, as he has seen it done on surface ships. He did not cite any studies as regards the much different circumstances on submarines...he's just offering up his opinion. The CJCS and SecNav have followed in suit. So here's the thing: how relevant is their experience and expertise? How does the reader of the article know anything about them? This is "really" important (their opinions and experience), as it has so far been the core of their arguments. So...there it is. Their _real_ experience is highly relevant. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is that you have been highly selective in the parts of their experience you cite. In fact you cite only the (negative) part of their experience that happens to support the viewpoint that you support. Here are some facts about these people that you choose to leave out:
  • They are very senior naval comamnders;
  • They have extensive and varied command experience;
  • Golden Anchor Award for excellence in retention and crew support programs.
I could go on at great length. But finally, if the Commander in Chief were to decide that this was a good thing, would you consider his decision invalid on the grounds that he had no service in submarines? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I responded more generally above. But we need to use sources which make the connection, not assert the connection based on our opinion. MAybe this source? this source? This source? All speak to the connection between specialized expertise and understanding. But none of them go so far as to support the assertions made in the article currently. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: these officials have each called upon their own 'experiences' (not studies specific to U.S nuclear submarines and women) and opinions. They're made this an issue in this fashion, not me...and this is all publicly sourced. Thus their relevant, factual, encyclopedic experience is highly relevant. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your saying it again does not make it more true. It is entirely your opinion that this one particular statement about their experience is the important one. I will (as you put it) say it again. You do not have a reference stating that this particular statement of experience is the most important one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, in a way -- it was true the first time I pointed it out, and repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Show me a citation of these fellows referencing any study of women on submarines and I'll gladly include it. Until then, read their statements: it's all opinion and experience (again, the CNO's "comfortable" quote seen so often in the news). --70.114.162.236 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Since I don't want to put a statement about studies of women on submarines in the article, I don't need to supply a reference. Now about your reference...? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are 55 (and growing) references in the press to CNO Roughead's "comfortable" remark regarding putting women on submarines due to his claimed-as-similar experience on surface ships. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Broad links to google searches are useless. Most of those are repeats of the AP article or follow pieces (e.g. the wapo piece). The burden lies on you to source the connection specifically. I linked to three articles above which may support a softer statement about the JCS/CNO not having sub experience. Have you found more? Protonk (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. You specifically you have to provide a reference stating that lack of personal experience on submarines is an important and relevant factor for his statements. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: These officials are claiming opinion and experiences as their reasoning for this change, and you want me to provide MORE examples of that before I can point out how possibly irrelevant (again, this is up to the reader) their experience is? On what basis? One example isn't somehow sufficient? Or 55 quotes of the same thing in the press? It's obviously the only thing that they're relying on for making this call (their background and experience), and it's just as obvious that their actual experience needs to be pointed out. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What we want you to do is give a reliable reference explaining that this particular aspect of their experience is so important that it needs to be singled out and included in the article, rather than any other part of their experience. Again, not your opinion that this is the case, but a reliable third party source. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the time to point out that three of the four people editing this page are in agreement, and the other has already reverted the contested article by my count five times today. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So, let's just vote...and you guys win? And my EDITS have included updates to include FACTUAL citations, thank you. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected

As a note for folks discussing this, I have protected the article under discussion in the Wrong Version TM. Since I have staked a position on the discussion page, it is clear that I'm at my limits vis a vis WP:INVOLVED. So I'll open things to a discussion. If people feel I should unprotect it or bring it to RFPP I will. I personally feel that protecting the article is superior to the inevitable block if it is unprotected and the reversion continues. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and thank you. Differences of opinion make a horse race...and that's why I'm very deliberately sticking to the facts. The bringing up of these men's 'relevant experience' has been initiated by none other than the men themselves. Thus their real (vs. imagined, if not stated) background is extremely relevant. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest unprotecting. I don't think anyone here is in a position to make any more edits without violating the 3RR, and this at least gives an opportunity for an outside editor to come in. If it all starts again tomorrow then we'll fact that when it comes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a semi-protect?

I think our anonymous friend may be unfamiliar with procedures. I have placed a welcome on the user's talk page. It has pointers to dispute resolution, consensus, 3RR, etc. If we can encourage the user to be less confrontational we may be able to make progress. Rees11 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with semiprotecting this article atm. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Under the circumstances a semi-protect would be unfair. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how are you any less anonymous than me, Rees11? At least I have an IP address. You're flying the flag of an unknown Wiki person, with a claimed name. That's not anonymous, or even more-so than an IP address? Really? --70.114.162.236 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those editing as IP addresses are normally referred to a "anonymous" because they don't have a name. They also don't have a reputation. Everyone else here can have their editing record examined to establish how they have acted in the past. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I think it would be appropriate to unprotect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also propose the following text:

Most navies prohibited women from serving on submarines, even after they had been permitted to serve on surface warships. The Royal Norwegian Navy the first navy to allow female crew on its submarines in 1985. The Royal Danish Navy allowed for female submariners in 1988 and the Swedish Navy in 1989. The Royal Australian Navy began to allow female submariners in 1998 and the Canadian Navy in 2002. Germany, Spain and Portugal also allow for female crew on submarines.In 1995, Solveig Krey of the Royal Norwegian Navy became the first female officer to assume command on a military submarine, the HNoMS Kobben.
The British Royal Navy also does not permit women to serve on its submarines because of "medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother" due to the potentially compromised air quality onboard submarines.
Women have served on U.S. Navy surface ships since 1993 but can not serve on submarines. The Navy only allows three exceptions for women being on board military submarines: 1) Female civilian technicians for a few days at most; 2) Women midshipmen on an overnight during summer training for both Navy ROTC and Naval Academy; 3) Family members for one-day dependent cruises.
Both the U.S. and British navies operate nuclear-powered submarines which deploy for periods of six months or longer, whereas other navies which permit women on submarines operate conventionally powered submarines, which deploy for much shorter periods, usually only for one or two months. No nation using nuclear submarines currently permits women to serve onboard them.
Removing the ban in the U.S. Navy has been put to congressional lawmakers by Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, following a review by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead.


You'll notice that this version is somewhat shorter than what we have now, but frankly in an overview of sumbmarines as a whole, far too mucyh space was devoted to this. We should probably have a whole separate article on the crewing of submarines. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections, so done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

WP:FULL suggests that we try to reach consensus before the block expires. As I understand it, the controversial part is at the very end of the section, the last three sentences starting "These senior officials..." I don't want to start another discussion, just tally up everyone's opinion, so please just a few sentences. I'll start.

  • Delete – I say this has to go. Although factual, it is a classic example of wp:synth (please go read that now if you haven't already). Fact A is that the officials want to allow women to serve on subs. Fact B is that the officials are not qualified in subs and have never served in subs. The synthesized conclusion is that the officials are not qualified to make decisions about women serving in subs. I have looked for sources supporting the synthesis but have not found any. There are sources that say the decision is controversial for other reasons, like air quality, and I would not oppose adding that information here. Rees11 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The U.S. Navy officials that have suggested bringing women onto nuclear submarines are the top people in the Navy. They are the voice of the Navy—they speak for the Navy. It doesn't freekin' matter what other qualifications (or disqualifications) they have. They aren't women, yet they are deciding the fate of women sailors. They aren't submariners, yet they are deciding the fate of submarines. So what? They are the Navy's finest, and what they say goes. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm happy w/ unprotecting this if we can agree on some consensus text. If that agreed upon text is the revision before the ip editor came along, ok. If that text includes some of the sources expressing criticism of the decision that is fine too. the best possible solution is one that would leave both sides of the debate happy, but that may not be possible. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not bashful at all about removing the bit about the officials not being nuke sub qualified. As Rees11 says, it's a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Consensus was reached two days ago. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
My proposal is just to delete everything from "These senior officials..." to the end of the section. Rees11 (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't Care – I withdraw my observations of fact. Not my sandbox, nor is this something I'm against (women on subs). As stated earlier, I could argue either side of this argument...and likely a good bit better than people with zero domain expertise. --70.114.162.236 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. And since 70.114.162.236 was the only person wanting these statements in, and has now withdrawn his views, then let's just unprotect and get on with making the article better. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

article too broad

this article is too broad and needs to be broken up into pieces. there are many different types of submarines and each needs its own article, it is very complicated to navigate and very hard to find the info you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's for sure. A good first step would be to combine the History section with the separate History article, then remove most of that content from this article. It just takes time and effort. Rees11 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

see i was think of doing that with the help of some people, but its too much to do alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help, I just can't think of a good way to split it up. Rees11 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do this, please. An attack submarine is for attacking other submarines.. A ballistic missile submarine is for ending the world. These are two different classes of vehicle. 71.13.167.67 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

boats and ships

The article says "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."

But as the development of submarines took place at a time when the technical sense of the differences between vessels was still significant, and any officer worth his salt knew the different designations of vessels. They lived an age when sailing ships still existed and would have known what the ship articles says "In a more technical and now rare sense, the term ship refers to a sailing ship with at least 3 square-rigged masts and a full bowsprit."

So I think that the sentence needs a citation from a first class source to justify the inclusion of such a categoric and exclusive statement why submarine-boats are not submarine-ships. -- PBS (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Royal Navy's case and I suspect many other's too, the early submarines such as HMS Holland 1 were very small vessels of little practical use outside of coastal waters, and as-such were not thought worthy of a proper ship's name, they were therefore numbered in the same manner as the navy's smaller boats, (Holland 1, Holland 2, etc.) and because of this they were naturally referred-to as boats. As submarine sizes and usefulness grew, it was subsequently thought more appropriate to give them names, as they were by then becoming more worthy of the term 'ship', however, by tradition, they are still always referred-to as boats. This small size and lesser usefulness (compared to say, battleships or aircraft carriers) is the same reason why other small craft such as CMBs, MTBs, MGBs, etc., were also unnamed, being given pennant numbers only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.179 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In the US Navy, submarines are technically ships; they get a number like SSN-###, which I think stands for Ship, Submersible, Nuclear or something very similar. "Boats" is slang, and certainly is the common term used by submariners, but in formal documents you'll find that modern military submarines are ships. LRT24 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First ballast tank

There are reliable sources that mention Symons. Here is a quote from a less than reliable one which I have used because it can be cut and pasted for use here on the talk page: "In 1747, an Englishman named Nathaniel Symons, working from an idea suggested decades earlier, developed a vessel that could sink by letting water into leather bags, and then rise again by twisting the water out of the bags. This was the first known use of the concept of a 'ballast tank'."[1] It is probably worth a sentence in the section "Early history of submarines and the first submersibles" --PBS (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in History of submarines but without Symons's name attached. I would prefer to add it there, and cut way back on the history section in this article (see discussion above). Rees11 (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire sub

In Atlantis: The Lost Empire there was a sub featuring domes on top, aswell as a glass dome. Perhaps a image can be shown if such types of submarines can actually be built. Also, the "torpedo turrets" on top puzzle me, I think its fiction but not sure. 81.241.109.50 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did submarine crews in WW2 not shave while at sea?

Ever since I've seen first submarine movie about WW2, I have always wondered, why did submarine crews in WW2 (and possibly also WW1, I don't know) not shave while at sea? In undersea action sailors and captain are bearded, but then when they come to the port, some (those who don't always have beard) shave for the parade look. Was it for water saving? Or some other reason? I tried to wiki for submarine crew, but only got Final-Fantasy-related topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.244.23 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came across a reference for this. Mulligan, Lone Wolf, page 79: "To conserve the limited quantity of water on board, most U-Boat crews did not bother shaving while on patrol." Rees11 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Submariners are allowed to "relax" their uniform while underway. To this day submariners are not required to shave for two reasons; 1) It does save water. 2) It reduces supplies required(razors, shaving cream) to be brought and stored in an already limited personal space. There is no way to say it best but no one cares what you look like after being underway for months at a time. No shave chits and personalizing uniforms such as uniform patches, hats, shoes, shirts, not shaving, and no hair cut standards have now become more of a tradition among submariners rather than having a useful purpose. Upon returning to port all uniform standard are enforced and required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.65.166 (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First (unsuccessful) use of submarine in action

Turtle was the world's first submarine used in battle. It was invented in Connecticut in 1775 by American Patriot David Bushnell as a means of attaching ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.83.126 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

H.L. Hunley Commander

The Confederate States submarine, H.L. Hunley, was the first submarine in history to successfully attack and sink a warship.[2] Given the importance of the submarine and attack shouldn't the person who commanded it be mentioned? The addition of a few words noting who led the historic event isn't going to negatively affect the article.

So, shouldn't Lt. George E. Dixon be mentioned in the section of subs and the American Civil War? Coinmanj (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's why Hunley is linked. Readers can go to that article for more details. This article can't list details such as that for every submarine with some first. This follows WP:Summary Style where higher level articles provide a summary and point to other articles for details. -fnlayson (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

submarine sensors

I was curious about the use of video cameras, combined with LCD screens as a sensor system on submarines. Has it never been done ? or has it not been reported? This (submarine sensors) seems like an appropriate place to place such a report. Rhnmcl (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's how the periscopes work on modern submarines. It doesn't of course, see very far underwater. David Biddulph (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Virginia class submarines use photonic masts which are displayed on LCD screens for view by the crew. The cameras are secured and lowered before the sub dives and are never used underwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.65.166 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience on an Ohio Class that I got to tour, at least I think it was an Ohio ill have to look again. In any case the periscope was equipped with a camera and LCD screens were mounted on the walls... I pointed the scope and camera at the Washington State Capital in Olympia and then zoomed in all the way just to see how far it went. But cameras both film single shot and standard film cameras were used during the second world war to record kills and attack through the periscope. So adding ie attaching a digital camera to the scope and then relaying it should have been doable since the mid to late 1960's if we count the Apollo's as an example. ie the lunar camera's... (CaptianNemo (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

Image

Why, when the second sentence of the article says that a submarine differs from a submersible, is the image in the lead section of a submersible rather than a submarine? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I replaced it w/ an image of a JMSDF conventional submarine. Good color, shows important features, and isn't a Los Angeles class. :) Protonk (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well so much for that. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You deleted another image in making that change without a reason. Wait a bit to to get some agreement from others to change the image at the top. -fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I just assumed that I could be bold and make a change. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why should anyone wait for agreement to change an image that, according to the text of the lead section, doesn't illustrate the article subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Alvin image shows most of the sub while it is underwater. How does that Not illustrate the subject of Submarine? The Oyashio image and many of the others only show the above water part. -fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you read my question that started this discussion? The picture is of a submersible, which the second sentence of this article says is not a submarine. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
And a surface image isn't bad by itself. The benefit you gain from seeing the hull below water is marginal when you take into account the problems with limited lighting. A submarine pulling into port shows the crew, the sail (and usually one set of control surfaces) and the bulk of the hull. We probably have a picture of a submarine in drydock, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it is of an LA or Seawolf class SSN. Besides, I was bold, you reverted, and now we are discussing. So I'm happy to change the lede image to meet some compromise. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The image in particular is above average. You can see ballast tank vents, a small sonar protuberance, the fairwater planes, a periscope, and the rudder. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I read it, but did not get the sub/submersible difference part, sorry. I'll remove the Alvin image and move the Oyashio one back. If a better submarine image is found, then it can be added, maybe discussed if needed. -fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Clearly the submersible image should go, underwater or not. I don't much like File:Japanese Submarine Oyashio SS590.JPEG, I'd prefer to see the entire hull - which could be underwater, if we can find a good quality image, or dry dock. I can understand people get irritated that Los Angeles class subs are used as examples so ubiquitously, but we should use the best image available. (Hohum @) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Depending on the class/flight of submarine, there may not be a whole lot going on under the waterline. A flight i/ii LA class has fairwater planes, so you wont see bow planes on the front. The Collins class has the entirety of the control surfaces on the aft end, visible above the waterline (half of them at least). Other stuff is visible, but most of it is pretty visibly uninteresting (tubes, side sonar arrays, etc). And despite the purpose of submarines, they are watercraft just like cruisers and destroyers, which we don't demand be photographed in drydock. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The thing that you can't see with surface shots is the shape of the hull. (Hohum @) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of a LA class in drydock. This will look like a lot of drydock pictures and gives an idea of the advantages and disadvantages. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there are a couple of drydock images later in the article, I'll support the Oyashio image, it's good quality, and gives a sense of scale from the crew. (Hohum @) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow the fleet

Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect here doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

USN in WWII submarine image

Let's come to a consensus as to the vessel that would best represent the Submarine Fleet of the USN during World War II. Previous images have been of ships sunk by the IJN, and the majority of the section is not about the submarines themselves, but the faults in USN Torpedoes in the early half of the war (at least the years that the US was an official combatant). This alone might make the section a candidate of WP:UNDUE. But that aside, lets begin a discussion as to what boat should be used. From this list the boats with the top five number of enemy ships sunk were:

Of these the Tang has the largest tonnage sunk, and it is referenced in its article to verify the statement. It is already mentioned in the section though. Previously I had changed the image to that of the USS Arch-Fish, but that was done per WP:BOLD, so the change to another boat was understandable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, my biggest beef with "Archer-Fish" is the hyphenated form. (I've never seen it, & Blair & Lenton both use Archerfish.)
That said, IMO the best choices are Tang (mount for O'Kane, #! ace, & her odd fate) & Flasher (most tonnage). Tang gets the #1 for ships/patrol, & Joe Enright, yes, for Shinano, but that was a bit fluky. :D There's arguments for Narwhal/Nautilus (size, 2x6") & Argonaut, but Argonaut fails for the bad pic. (Commons appears not to have a better one. :( ). My original choice, Wahoo, was for "Mush" Morton, the single best-known USN submariner in the period (except, perhaps, Ned Beach... ;p). Or we could go with Gudgeon, 1st USN boat off Japan. Or Harder, for Sam Dealey's sinking 4 cans in a single patrol. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (BTW, it looks like valoratsea, like Blair, relies on JANAC, which has its own accuracy problems...but is probably the best accounting there's going to be.)
Well, the Archer-fish (original commissioning name before hyphen was removed) has the best single patrol tonnage of any boat during the war, per this list, and this news release gives Flasher and Tautog as having the greatest total tonnage during the war. Given the links that I provided I am fine with the Flasher, but the Tautog definitely is a great vessel and appears to have a better record. If others want the Tang, I can see her being a decent compromise. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a particular favorite. Tang probably gets the edge with me, with both O'Kane & her fate (& I'm less familiar with the other 2 :( ). Just to be clear, tho, Flasher tops tonnage, Tautog number of ships sunk (per Blair).
That said, if we're using a typical fleet boat for the U.S., why use the unusual I-400? Or, why not use the unusual for USN, too? (I know, going a bit farther afield.) Not to say I object to the I-400 pic, just thinking there should be some consistency. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Tang would be a decent compromise as I already stated, if you agree, I think we might have reached the consensus, I was hoping to reach.
As for the IJN image, and the typical fleet boat discussion, I personally think that by typical the vessel in question (since most naval vessels are of a particular class) ("boats" in this case) should be one that shares the most common characteristics of vessels from that fleet given the period of time being discussed. That being said I also like a vessel, since we are choosing one vessel to represent an entire period, to be of special note, to have accomplished something above and beyond what is "typical", thus why I went with the Arch-fish due to her, present, record of having sunk the largest single tonnage vessel by any submarine.
Specifically regarding the IJN image, I don't believe that I-400 is the best choice for a "typical IJN submarine" during the Pacific War . If we look at those boats that were not minisubs or manned kamikaze torpedoes, then the B1 type would be the most numerous produced vessels of the war, and thus would be considered "typical". Of these I-19 has the largest combat vessel sunk, but lacks an image. If we are to expand the scope, then the Type B submarine would be considered the most "typical"; I have yet to decide which vessel, with an image would be the best candidate to represent the IJN boats of World War II. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:I400 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:I400 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Need some extra info in the women section

"The British Royal Navy does not yet permit women to serve on its submarines because of "medical concerns for the safety of the fetus and hence its mother" due to the potentially compromised air quality onboard submarines."

So what does that have to do with non-pregnant women? Surely this only forbids pregnant females from serving on submarines, what is the official Royal Navy purpose for forbidding non-pregnant females to serve on subs? 82.32.31.15 (talk)

Unfortunately, that is the official reason for all women not being able to serve. Supposedly you could become pregnant... on a military submarine? The real reason, from what I've been able to gather, is sexism. Shīrudou ōru (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most advanced ?

Not such a big issue, but I don't think sticking a label on the Astute as "the most advanced" or anything of the sort is objective. Sure, works well as a PR slogan, but I don't think there can be reasonable criteria along which any newer submarine (not just this one) can be considered as "most advanced". That's why I'll remove it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The caption says it is among the most advanced. That's not the same as saying it is the most advanced sub ever. And the among wording is supported by the reference that follows the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
To which I'd add, as my edit summary said, this is a Brit nuke boat. If she's not among the best in the world, the Brits have suddenly had a case of the stupids. This isn't Iran. Or, I might say, even PRC. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
...though the reference states that it "is seen as the most advanced submarine yet" so there's a slight contradiction here. And implying that it might be the best in the world only because it's a "Brit nuke boat" is far from a good argument, to say the least. The statement is just POV-ish, it would be such regardless of which sub class is on the picture. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What the source says is "breaks technical barriers", "a technological phenomenon", & "may be one of the most sophisticated submarines ever built [emphasis added]". No mention of "best", in the world or anywhere else. (Would a less POV source be desirable? Maybe.) I don't know what "source" you're reading, 'cause it ain't the one attached as a cite. Neither do I recall saying, nor implying, best only because she's British. I said she'd be among the best, because the Brits have been building for a blue water navy a hell of a long time, & the Brits don't (one might say can't, but less so now) accept less than "top drawer". So what's your beef with this? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You could tone down a bit, hey ? I said that it doesn't really look well to point out any submarine as being "one of the most advanced", "the most advanced", "very advanced" or whatever formulation including "advanced" there might be, since this is a totally subjective definition. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish submarine pioneers

The Ictineo, that used an anaerobic energy source, probably this can't be called "combustion", had a fish-like shape, highly adapted to underwater travel, but not so for surface travel, it had Sodium propelled torpedoes as weapon. The Isaac Peral submarine had an automated depth of immersion controlling system that was one of the main parts of this engineer's discoveries and was deliberately destroyed by him when he lost support; after his death, his wife was given the opportunity of receiving some money for the patents, but she decided to enter again the submarine building business, she made an agreement with two engineers that did nothing but spending her money, leading her to bankrupt, and blocking any further development of this submarine.--Jgrosay (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks

This message was left on my talk page. I've copied it here because this is where it belongs.

Hi Trappist the monk. There are many people who don't know what a noun means and if there is a wikipedia page for the word why should it not have a wikilink to it? If a wikipedia page is published for a certain word then is it not important enough to be linked to and if so why was it published in the first place? Your on views and opinions on what you call common words and don't require linking to may not be shared by the general public who refer to wikipedia for help and information on these very words. Looking forward to your response on this. Thanks --Jonhope123 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Are there not schools? Are there not teachers? Do they not teach elementary grammar? If there are not and they do not, then I despair for our future.

This article is about submarines as watercraft. Given that the sentence in question has been tagged with {{citation needed}} (also applicable to the preceding sentence as well?), I'm thinking that the whole paragraph should be struck. Wikipedia is not a dictionary where the word and its various grammatical functions are defined. For that, see Wiktionary: submarine.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You correctly removed the wikilink to noun, and I have removed the similarly unnecessarily added link to adjective (and referred to WP:OVERLINK in the edit summary). - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Why shouldn't "noun" & "adjective" have links? Because they aren't related subject matter... Not even close. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Submarine/Archive_2&oldid=1140235801"