Talk:Frogman/Archive 1

Canadian frogmen

 * Someone in Canada's armed forces please check anonymous User:207.216.182.234's 2 November 2006 additions to Frogman. (I tidied and NPOV'ed the addition.) Anthony Appleyard 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some reverts on User:CLW's editings
"needs" / "requires" ; "wrong" / "incorrect" :: I see no reason to prefer Latin words.

Deleting `unsourced quote' "It has been said that "sport diving experience is not necessarily ...": The source is that an ex-naval diver-trainer said it to me.

The demonstrative pronoun "this" (meaning "the indicated, the following, this near me") has been in English since Common Germanic times and I see no reason to stop using it now.

"more powerful versions of sport-diving diver-tugs": I saw a statement that combat frogmen found that many of the commonly available sport diver-tug are not fast enough or long enough duration on a batteryful. Anthony Appleyard 07:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "needs"/"requires" - OK, that's a personal preference so if changing it causes offence, I'll leave that be. However, in terms of "wrong"/"incorrect" I do feel that "incorrect" sounds much better in these instances. Would you object to me changing it back? CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer "wrong", which has been in English since Viking times and was in England around 800 years before a scholarly Latinism tried to replace it. Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, changing "this" to "the following" was a matter of personal taste. Although I think my change sounds more elegant, I'll leave it be if you don't like people changing your wording (but please, be assured that changing your wording wasn't intended as any kind of personal attack - this is a wiki, so people should be able to make stylistic tweakings).


 * However, the quote from the ex-naval diver trainer does need to be removed. Relevant quotes from sources such as publications and on-line journals which can be correctly sourced and referenced are suitable for inclusion, but "someone once told me"-type quotes aren't encyclopaedic. CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He was describing a common UK naval opinion. I can treat his statement as authoratitive. At the time I was under him having a commercial diving course. It was not in casual conversation. Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute this. However, quotations need to be referenced as per WP:CITE, and this type of quotation can't be. CLW 11:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re referencing it: It was between 8 and 18 May 1973 at a commercial diving school (now closed) at Eye, Peterborough in England. The ex-naval diver-trainer was known as Ginger Snell; a look through naval records for the surname should find him. The information in the paragraph under dispute is relevant information in connection with training frogmen and other work divers. If the information is to be rejected because he is not available now, what about all the other information in Wikipedia that came from books which are now out of print and old copies of them  cannot be found, or from web sites which have now gone 404? Anthony Appleyard 12:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, please don't take my changes as attacks - it's all just part of the wiki process whereby all users should be able to make reasonable changes. CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * This page has been listed on Third opinion, and as per that request, I have read over this discussion. My opinion is that if the quotation is not published anywhere, and is only by the personal recollection of an editor, it has no place here. If it is possible to convince the diving instructor to post the relevant quotation somewhere (even if it is just a webpage, but much better in a diving 'zine or something like that), then it should be re-added. User:Anthony Appleyard, even there is any way you can get in touch with that guy, and ask him to repeat that quotation somewhere published, we would all be grateful. Pending that, the quotation should be removed, put on the talk page with perhaps some details of the instructor so others might try to contact him. Thanks for your time spent on reading this! MosheZadka 10:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I replaced the following section on frogman training, since it to my opinion is condescending towards recreational diving, and therefore POV:
 * This contrasts with civilian sport scuba diving training which tends to be one evening a week, being 30 to 60 minutes swimming pool time, followed by two hours or so of dry meeting (often in a social-club-type environment with an open bar), until the trainee has reached "open water" standard; and the general environment at dives is liable to encourage a casual tourist-type attitude to being underwater. Kjaergaard 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On 9 Nov 2006 someone put a "cite needed" marker on this statement. But it is common knowledge to countless people who go to sport diving club meetings. I had years of it :: as the evening wore on, most people there got drunker and more talkative. Anthony Appleyard 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gender Neutrality
To be politically correct, the title of this article be changed to “frogperson.” •DanMS 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a joke, I take it. Spoken and Navy etc usage has always been "frogman". Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You took it correctly. After I made the comment, I began to wonder if someone would actually take it seriously. On my occasional forays into RCP, I have noticed that some anonymous contributor is apparently changing every instance of the word policeman in the Wikipedia into police officer. That is the kind of person I had in mind. •DanMS 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicate US frogmen
I removed the section for two reasons --Deon Steyn 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) All groups listed are listed RIGHT BEFORE these deleted bullets and in better details, including the Marines, Ranges and SEALs.
 * 2) The section is also a generalised description of US Special Forces which is complete irrelevant to this "list of nations with military diving groups".


 * I have cleaned up the messy section on the US, by splitting it into the 5 service branches and removing the 'special operations command' which is itself an umbrella command, NOT the parent of any of these units (SEALs belong to the navy, Rangers the Army etc. but they all fall under USSOCOM so it is duplicate and ads no value). I have also included specific external links and removed some of the fluff: create a page for the topic and expand there; it is a LIST not an essay section. --Deon Steyn 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with PADI
I don't think this section belongs in this article.
 * For example, the PADI Open Water Diver (the most basic rank) course takes 5 dives in a swimming pool and 4 dives in open water (i.e. sea, lake, etc.); after the course the qualified diver is allowed to dive to 18 meters = 59 feet depth. The next step (Advanced Open Water Diver) allows him to dive to 30 meters = 98 feet, which is considered safe for civil scuba diving.

If there were some detailed discussion of the equivalent ranks in military units, it would make sense, but as it is, it should be replaced with a link to the main PADI article. -Athaler 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * As 'Military diving' redirects to Frogman, it seems logical that Naval Diving should be included in the Frogman article since the Navy is simply a branch of the military. Please post your feelings on the merger proposal below. - 192.193.220.204 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all naval diving is frogman-type combat diving. Much of it is work diving. Anthony Appleyard 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove reference to civilian diving
Carcharodon carcharias (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "frogman" traditionally and specifically refers to military diving and swimming. Therefore, the second paragraph of the article, apart from being unreferenced, is odd, confusing, and altogether out of place. Military divers are trained very differently than civilian divers, and the nature of their activity is also clearly different.
 * As the header of the article states in italics, "This page describes a type of scuba diver. For other uses of the word frogman, see Frogman (disambiguation)". Therefore, I propose removing any reference to civilian and recreational diving in this article. Christopher140691, you reverted my edit - please explain.
 * There have been many undeniable uses of the word "frogman" to mean civilian divers, e.g. by unknowledgeable news media and nondiving public. This distinction needs to be pointed out. I have restored this paragraph. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

no mention of pre-navy SEALs

 * I think there should be a mention of the combat divers in WWII who performed tasks like mine clearing, as they were referred to as frogmen more often than not. Llama (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "SEAL" seems to show that you mean USA frogmen, rather than British frogman. (I am British.) USA WWII frogmen are described in page Underwater Demolition Team, which is linked to from page USA armed forces divers, which is linked to from Frogman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know Japanese? Inappropriate interwiki link?

 * What is the Japanese for "frogman"? At 06:00, 11 March 2008 User:PipepBot added to Frogman an interwiki link to ja:カエル男 in the Japanese Wikipedia. http://babelfish.altavista.com says that "カエル男" means "frog man". ja:カエル男 is interwiki linked to many European-language Wikipedia pages about frogmen (i.e. combat scuba divers). But http://babelfish.altavista.com translates the text of ja:カエル男 as
 * The frog man (the frog with it is dense, Frogman), the unconfirmed living thing which is witnessed in American ･ Ohio state. Standing, also the frog which you walk is called.
 * 1972 March 3rd, at neighborhood of the Ohio state love land nearby Little Miami river, while patrolling two officers encountered around 1 o'clock in the morning. According to the story two you walked that monster with two these feet, posterior waist length approximately 1 ･ 2 meter, the skin of black gray and the web between the finger, was the figure like the frog which has the projection of the back which lines up from the enormous eye and the head to the waist, it seems, but (, as for the skin there is also testimony) that it was the scale. When the local paper ｢ love land herald ｣ reports the, sight testimony large number got together from the reader. You could bet on the capture of this monster the prize finally, but still it is not yet discovery. Theory and the new species animal theory etc. that are listed it is theory and the mere mighty amphibia, extraterrestrial concerning natural shape.
 * with external links to http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/9567/007.html "Frog man" and http://www1.odn.ne.jp/~cdx98310/UMA%20zukan/flog.html "Unconfirmed living thing UMA.". I.e. it is about a supposed water monster and not a combat diver. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Translating English "frogman" into Japanese using Babelfish yields 潜水工作員, which Babelfish back-translates into English as "Diving operative". The Japanese Wikipedia does not have a page ja:潜水工作員. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * japanese for frogman is simply furogguman. it may be only one g, and maybe a long a, but it is written in simple katakana.  I don't know how to type japanese, but if you can post it here, I'll tell you if it's right.  the letters should be fu, ro, ggu, ma, and n.Llama (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it フロッグマン ? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right, but it could be フログマン. The difference is in the way the g is pronounced.  You should check with a user who knows Japanese better than I; see if the "A" sound should be long, but I think you have it right.  Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So Angry
This page reads as though it were written by a frogman who had just been gravely insulted by a casual diver. It seems very defensive, and just overall comes across as hostile. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this would be, but I feel like it needs a change of tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.37.95 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Frogman Training
This contrasts with civilian sport scuba diving training which tends to be one evening a week, being 30 to 60 minutes swimming pool time, followed by two hours or so of dry meeting (often in a social-club-type environment with an open bar). The general environment at sport dives is liable to encourage what a naval diver-trainer would call "a casual tourist-type attitude to being underwater", rather than a disciplined attitude of obeying orders and not being distracted; some naval diver-trainers prefer, or will only accept, trainees who have no previous scuba diving experience. For example, the PADI Open Water Diver (the most basic rank) course takes 5 dives in a swimming pool and 4 dives in open water (i.e. sea, lake, etc.); after the course the qualified diver is allowed to dive to 18 meters = 59 feet depth. The next step (Advanced Open Water Diver) allows him to dive to 30 meters (100 feet). A further Deep Diver Speciality course allows him to dive to 40 meters (130 feet) maximum, which is considered safe for civil scuba diving. I therefore deleted these sections, but I am not the first person to notice these problems. Future visitors please take note if this material continues to be replaced without improvement.71.61.185.156 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple statement to the effect that military divers undergo more rigorous training than do civilian divers is enough. If you must have more, it should be in the form of simple, neutral statements contrasting military and civilian diver training. Trying to make this point with disparaging remarks and unreferenced quotes is unwarranted and ineffective. Also, a paragraph that simply lists PADI rankings is irrelevant to this article.
 * I have restored this matter:
 * Sentence "This contrasts with civilian sport scuba diving training ...": Nearly everyone who has been in a sport diving club (including me for about 20 years) could attest to this.
 * Sentence "The general environment at sport dives ...": it contains a reference.
 * Phrase ""a casual tourist-type attitude to being underwater": I have put it in italics to show that it is the naval frogman-trainer's opinion and not my opinion.
 * Paragraph "For example, the PADI Open Water Diver ...": OK, perhaps off-topic, but te information is needed to compare with descriptions of military frogman training courses pointed to: I have added a sentence to make this clearer.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As not the first user to notice, I think this section undermines the quality and wealth of information provided elsewhere in the article. If a comparison with the PADI course is going to be systematic and encyclopedic, there should be the corresponding training specifications for frogmen provided. The sentences that merely point to other sections seems more pamphlet-style than encyclopedic; if the specifics of frogmen training is indeed assessed in the relevant articles, then this section is unnecessary. As for forum threads, they are great external link material but not really wikipedia ref material. I'm not disputing the facts or even the opinion, but rather the placement of this section and the consequences for the overall tone. Ranaenc (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mis-titled/Inconsistent

 * "Such personnel are also known by the more formal names of combat diver or combatant diver or combat swimmer". In that case, shouldn't this page be retitled to "Combat Diver" or "Combatant Diver" or "Combat Swimmer" with a Frogman redirect? The first few paragraphs talk about how the use of "Frogman" is improper and used by people who don't know what they're talking about, but then goes on to use the term "Frogman" throughout. There's some inconsistency there. The first few paragraphs need to be redone or the whole page should be fixed.

The terms Combat Swimmer and Combat Diver are NOT interchangeable. Combat Diver is a subcategory of Combat Swimmer. Combat Swimmer implies a greater degree of tactical and technical expertise than Combat Diver. This author above is correct that Frogman is used interchangeably for both. There are very few authorities on the subjects of Combat Diving and Combat Swimming. No true authority has contributed to this article. All references to PADI, NAUI, and other leisure dive organizations should be removed since, 1. they have no relevance here, 2. Combat Dive and Combat Swimmer training standards so greatly exceed the standards required to become a civilian leisure diver. In the US, the only true authorities on Combat Diving are USAF Combat Dive Course, USMC Combat Dive Course, and US Army Combat Dive Course. The ONLY US authority on Combat Swimmer training is Naval Special Warfare Basic Training Command (NAVSPECWARBASICTRACOM). German, French, Italian, and Israeli armed forces possess equivalent units. The article is mistitled in that Combat Swimmer and Combat Diver should either be covered in separate articles cross referencing one another, or be placed into wikipedia in heirarchical structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltadeus (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PADI stuff removed
The article only mentions the sad fact that leisure divers are unwelcome. Any particular organisation's training is irelevant. PADI's training standards - or lack of same - belongs in a seperate PADI-related article.

Kim_Pirat (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PADI stuff re-removed:

The advertising for one particular recreational diving system has no place in an encyclopedia. It is not brought as e.g. 'an example of recreational diver training', but highlighting a particular system.

Furthermore, the factual content is irrelevant. As there is no mention of the actual demands of the frogman trainees, but this is referred to other sections, it simply doesen't fit.

The only need of mentioning recreational divers at all, is to highlight the fact that professional and recreational divers work under a different set of laws and regulations. Perhaps it is better to re-write this section, or to remove it completely.

I strongly suggest to keep this article on-subject, and not stray off into recreational diving. There is a seperate entry for that.

Kim_Pirat (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Frogmen
In the sentence "The Frogmen also made this mistake, using three-cylindered aqualungs, as seen in the movie poster." the link for "the movie poster" is to a DVD cover; the poster is File:The Frogmen 1951 poster.jpg. Peter&#160;James (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

origin of the term Frogman
The word frogman appeared first in the stage name The Fearless Frogman of Paul Boyton, who since 1870th broke records in long distance swimming to demonstrate a new invented rubber immersion suit, which inflated hood had a frog-like shape. As a stunt show hero in that suit he played a military diver (attaching mines to ships etc.) long before such soldiers actually existed. 85.212.88.253 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Open Circuit?
Why does this article assert that Frogmen use only closed circuit breathing apparatus? Several of the pictures on the frogmen page show examples of combat divers using open circuit rigs and it is certainly used by SEALs. It's dependent on mission profile. Klaun (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable reference to cite? If so, you can make a change in a suitable place in the article, or propose one here on this talk page. It is particularly helpful if the reference is accessible by the general public, and if you can specify the page or chapter to save time checking. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the onus is on the editor that adds the material to the article to substantiate it, not on an editor questioning unreferenced statements. As mentioned, the article includes pictures of individuals referred to as frogmen using open-circuit diving equipment, for examaple File:SEAL_Delivery_Team_operations.jpg.  Here is a link (http://www.sealswcc.com/navy-seals-buds-training-stages-overview.html#.ViKD0J1VhBc) to SEAL training.  Stage 4 includes open-circuit combat diving training.  The section "Equipment" in the article which includes the sub-sub-section "Not open-circuit scuba" which makes the assertion that closed-circuit is a defining characteristic of a frogman is completely without references.  There is no support for any of the assertions about Equipment, much less the assertion about open-circuit equipment being unsuitable.  Much of the article smacks of No_original_research. Klaun (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are questioning unreferenced statements then the place to do it is in the article, so we can all know exactly which statements are challenged. Put a template at the end of the dubious sentence. My personal interest is not in military diving, but I will help where I can. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree if the article made only a few unreferenced statements, but the article is *mostly* unreferenced statements. I think perhaps it should be deleted or reduced to a stub since its hasn't been improved despite years of problems.  Going to post in RfC to see what other editors think.  For now, I'm adding  tag. Klaun (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this page be substantial reduced, stubbed, or deleted due to lack of inline references and other problems?
Not sure the appropriate section for this. The Frogman article seems to have a history of problems and hasn't really been improved. It is full of statements that are not referenced. It is very broad in terms of topics covered. It does not seem to conform to the standard style and structure of a wikipedia article. Klaun (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This topic is interesting as a reader, and we would do well to have an article for such an occupation. There is definitely some cleanup and other work that needs to be done, so I would recommend referral to WikiProject Military history for collaboration on bringing the article up to standards.  —   C M B J   05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC) via the feedback request service.


 * Agree that WikiProject Military history could provide good input. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A good start would include tagging each statement where a citation is considered necessary. This helps focus the attention of people who might be able to find such references, and allows uncontroversial removal of those statements if they are not referenced within a reasonable time. It also reduces the risk of wasting time searching for references for things that may be considered uncontroversial and/or common knowledge. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Really the article should start as a generic Frogman article and then be compartmentalised into different sub-sections or sub-pages, i.e. separate sections for military, law enforcement and civilian uses. Sliven2000 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The wiki Frogman article does not reflect the Dictionary definition of what a frogman is. A frogman is usually defined as a trained scuba diver but is NOT restricted to just the military. See the different dictionary definitions listed here:- http://afen.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/afen.cgi?word=frogman&type=word_en
 * Most of the dictionary definitions listed in the link above are references to the same few definitions. Most of them not very good. Several of them give the wrong impression of common usage, which is predominantly about the military, but not necessarily by the military. I would not consider them generally reliable.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the opening line of the article states "in a tactical capacity that includes combat" which is clearly wrong. The premise for the whole article is flawed. This article would be better titled "Combat diver". Sliven2000 (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way do you consider the opening sentence to be "clearly wrong"? Can you provide references? (other than the listed dictionary definitions, which are largely repeats of the same few unreferenced, vague and partially contradictory sources). &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We already have Professional diving which covers the more general topic quite well, so this one is only needed if frogman is a more specific term. Whatever the formal dictionary definition may say, it appears that in general use non-military divers are rarely called frogmen.  Try using a search engine (I used Google) to explore this.  First, search for "scuba diver" and select "images".  You will see photos of divers with tanks swimming. Try "police diver" and "commercial diver". Now search for "frogman -military -navy".  If other types of professional divers were called frogmen you would expect to see them pictured as in the previous searches - but instead there are comic book characters, various products and people with the nickname "Frogman". The same thing happen if you search news or books. Actually "frogmen" was a better search because it avoids some of the extraneous hits. I agree that the article should be called "Combat diver", or, if others want to keep the frogginess, possibly "Frogmen", because "Frogman" appears to have so many uses.  Frogman could redirect to it as primary topic, or to the disambiguation page. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How did the first frogmen / scuba divers fin swim?

 * Like a frog, or like modern scuba divers? I have started a discussion about this query on a scuba diving forum, and it has already had 26 replies:
 * http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/basic-scuba-discussions/382555-how-did-first-scuba-divers-fin-swim.html
 * It would be useful if the reference "Manuale Federale di Immersione - author Duilio Marcante" could contain more information about the manual: when and where printed / published, and by who? Who has a copy of it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I´m very please to reply about this "hot" question.
 * Note that I'm a diver with about 6000 dives especially made in uw caves and in any other field, competition, cinema, tv, commercial, fishing and teaching, I'm a lover of history and tecnology and so I have read many books and manuals. My father was the first equipped diver of the Alghero area, northwest of Sardinia, were I live and he was making one of the first diving course of Italy with the father of diving teaching Duilio Marcante, I have his first edition of the italian diving manual "Scendete sott'acqua con me" than copied and elaborated by all the CMAS federation. I have and read a lot of old books both of helmet diver and scuba diving both in english like David Scott and David Master, and obviously in italian and french language. I'm friend and they dived with me with many of the more old famous divers, uw photographers, journalist, cinema, tv and documentary producer etc. see the 1979 movie Island of the Fishmen or Island of mutation and/or Screamer in US, I was the local diving team operation manager and one of the diving monster. Visit my account and relative articles writed in italian wikipedia Abyssadventurer.


 * To well understand about SCUBA diving evolution obviously need to well know the Italian uw dive History, becouse is from there that the modern diving era was created and also before with the helmet or hard hat diver, in italian language simple Palombaro.
 * Italian divers was very well know and appreciated. Very famous in the world was in 1930 the incredible italian divers team of Alberto Gianni, the inventor of the deco chamber and many other deep diving device, members of the SORIMA salvage company, see the salvage several books of mr David Scott like "The Egypt gold", "Seventy Fathom Deep" and the "Artiglio" ship  realative articles. Before with the roman era very well know were the salvage team of "Urinatores". The SCUBA diving era (this is an american acronym but the correct word before was the italian ARO and after the Cousteu inventions the ARA diving) born from Liguria region and the closest south coast of France. All the first underwater diving equipment factory was established in Liguria region, mostly in Genova and close to, see Mares, Techisub, Cressisub and Scubapro and before the Salvas, the Cirio sub, the GSD and the many other and the only Milanese was the Pirelli becouse it's rubber industry and for that the Pirelli then produced all the diving equipment set and more the inflatables boats becouse the first divers needed it. Afterward in France Cousteau and Gagnan ideated the first one stage (Mistral) and after the two stage (Aquilon) air regulator creating the ARA (auto respiratore ad aria) both produced by Technisub/Aqualung partnership. So we are proud and we breath about the uw diving atmosphere from when we born being part of this great tradition.


 * First argument is very clear: why frog man? in italian uomo rana.
 * Curios answer: for the color of the skin? Anthony Appleyard added this contribute "their appearance in black rubber suits and swimfins" changing my "an underwater swimming style similar to that of frogs". It is note the frogs are green and not black, and the frogs have no swimfins.


 * All the italian old divers licenced by italian fishing federation FIPS (now FIPSAS), founder and part of CMAS, the only organization in Italy until the end of '70 years to use a diving manual ("Scendete sott'acqua con me" edited about 1959, a mix of tech and novels, and the evoluted "Manuale Federale di Immersione" by Duilio Marcante edited by LaCuba in 1979), know exactly that if you do not make the perfect skills of both surface and underwater swimming with frog style, italian nuoto a rana, at that period it was not possible to continue the course, becouse for that proud italian diving teachers the frog style (breast stroke), with the holding breath skills, was foundamental for a perfect diver becouse it is the most efficient underwater swim metod without fins. This was becouse the genoeses Duilio Marcante with Ferraro (Founder of Technisub)(http://www.luigiferraro.it) Gold Medal for military underwater enterprise, and the other first instructors were part of the military diving team of the World War II. So the members of first sport diving organization asked to them to write the first diving manual. Obviously that manual was a mix of military and fishing examples of that new sport with the experience of the WWII and becouse the fishing opportunity was the great motivation of the new modern divers.


 * To know the story:
 * Before there was the hard hat divers, about '20 years then the italian Dario Gonzatti, friend of Marcante, invented the mask using a piece of a tyre rubber gluing it with a piece of glass and start to sperafishing, and the only way to move without the flippers was to swim with the frog style, holding the breath and after adapting and using the ARO from the Siebe and Gorman. The ligurians started to use this system and exploded the "uw fishing fever" with many fans of this new sport in Liguria producing also home made equipment with pieces of wood and or rubber. The italians military palombaroes, headquarterd in LaSpezia, about the '30 years noted that and they start to use that new way obviously walking like the palombaroes was until that moment used to do, but becouse they noted that it was no necessary to stay on the bottom with heavy shoes and than they can "fly" also becouse no more tethered, the only way was to swim like a frog (everybody is free to try). And for this obvious appareance, every body in Italy know, they was nicknamed "Gli uomini rana". In the same period a french guy invented the first pair of rubber fins exactly coping the frog foot with the shape of a frog feet, so very short and impossible to use kicking (to remember there was made also several pair of gloves with the same shape very similar with the Leonardo da Vinci design http://www.museoscienza.org/leonardo/invenzioni/guantopalmato.asp. The military team start to use this kind of flippers, made under secret by Pirelli with the same shape, and started to use them obviously swimming with a frog style like they was trained in swimming pool and using to do when they was autonoming learning, adding also the real apparence when they was using both frog shaped gloves and fins confirming the nickname of frog man. These kinds of fins was not efficent and so after the war Ferraro and Cressi created finally the longest models finally starting to swim kicking becouse obviously was not efficent to swim with such longest fins like frogs see: http://www.luigiferraro.it/en/node/1055 and discovering the more best efficiency in move forward.


 * If somebody want to read about the frog style lessons in the manuale federale di immersione of Marcante is sold now in ebay at Manuale federale di Immersione with another interesting diving book of same author here Questo é lo sport sub sometime it is possible to find also the original manual "Scendete sott'acqua con me".


 * I will copy this discussion also to the realtive Scubaboard.com


 * Second argument - I take this opportunity to explain about the english name frogman with the well know story, maybe part fantasious but probably true: During the world war II after the many ships misteriously sunked in Mediterranean sea the Allied Navy discovered and arrested a team of the new top secret italian divers. They asked to them what was the name of that group and to do not discover the real name of "Gamma team", they answerd "Siamo gli uomini rana della marina militare italiana" en "We are the frogmen of the Italian Navy". So the translated "Frogmen" was used from that moment and obviuosly the Allied copyng the italian navy created the new modern marine corp of Navy divers both the British Navy and the allied US Navy with the several uw corps like the US Underwater Demolition Team. This is history and it possible to read in any official document.


 * A sad note is to see that in Italy the movie The Frogmen of Lloyd Bacon was wrongly translated in italian distribution with "Le rane del mare" who really mean a no sense "The frogs of the sea" instead of the correct "Gli Uomini Rana", this increase the sensation of the presence of the many misunderstanding of different cultures that probably many thing are not really easy to know and to understand about.


 * Hoping to have made enough light about this argument I say hello to every body.--Abyssadventurer (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "the only way to move without the flippers was to swim with the frog style": this means breast stroke swimming; crawl stroke underwater without fins does not work well.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously breast stroke is correct, for us is only "rana" literally "frog", who is possible to swim with 4 different manner see Nuoto a rana. Ciao--Abyssadventurer (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is note the frogs are green" :: Frogs are various colors. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)