Talk:Crash dive

Move
Since submariners didn't call emergency or quick dives "crash dives", this is a misleading pagename. I suggest moving to Emergency dive (submarine). TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  13:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to any material where this maneuver is called an Emergency dive rather than a Crash dive ? Tinss (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
I am very doubtful about this claim that "an Ohio-class SBM may take five minutes to reach periscope depth". Modern subs are very high performance compared to old subs, so why would it take literally ten times as long to dive? And what does "may" mean? So it may take 5 minutes...a WWII sub might take 5 minutes too. Neither one means that they couldn't or didn't do it faster, just that it wasn't impossible to take 5 minutes doing this. Is this someone using poor word choice, or someone misunderstanding the actual meaning of the words they posted? A SBM might routinely take 5 minutes to reach periscope depth on training; this does not mean that this is the fastest speed that it CAN dive at, only that this is the fastest speed the feel they NEED to dive at. Remember that a WWII submarine had only the warning that the lookouts on the bridge could give when they saw a plane or mast on the horizon; a modern ballistic sub carries advanced radar and sensors that can detect an enemy hundreds of miles away. Remember that periscope depth for a modern submarine can be 100ft or mor under the water, as opposed to 15-20ft for a WWII sub. And most of all, remember that the entire point of a nuclear SBM is that it doesn't need to emergency dive, since they are designed to cruise for months underwater, in total stealth. What need would it have for being able to dive quickly to escape attack on the surface? If they are ever even LOCATED, let alone found on the SURFACE, they have already massively screwed up somehow. This is like someone criticizing a B-2 bomber for not being as maneuverable as a WWII fighter: even if it's true, it's hardly relevant, and is just added as a stupid factoid to "make a point" about whatever subject/object/whatever the writer has a fetish for. Since it's not even cited, I'm tempted to just delete it as dubious and adding nothing of value.

BTW, I agree with the proposal that the article should be moved. If this is the wrong term for the practice among people who actually know, by all means, lets move it to the right name and start educating people as to the truth. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @AnnaGoFast. Since it is an unsourced claim, you may remove it if you want. However, I can think of a ton of reasons why it would take longer for a modern nuclear submarine to "crash dive" than a WW2 one, but like you said the comparison is irrelevant since crash diving is not a tactic used by nuclear subs (might be wort mentioning that on the article). However, finding data on how long it takes for modern diesel-electric subs to "crash dive" would be highly pertinent in my opinion. I suspect they still have a need for emergency diving as radars can only see so far as the horizon which means if they are targeted by a surface missile, this could only leave them with minutes if not less to go under. Tinss (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)