Talk:Icebreaker

Video
Here is a video from the USCG which demonstrates icebreaking in action. It's from a USCG member while in the course of his duties so it's PD but it's in AVI format and I have no way to reformat it to the codec we are allowed to use here. It's pretty cool though. Nrbelex (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavy- vs Normal vs Light-Icebreaker definition?
When is a icebreaker a heavy breaker and when is it light? Both Canadian and US icebreakers have been categorized in this way, but no other icebreakers. As far as I could tell this has to do with the Ice Class Dead link). Heavy meaning it can handle Ice Class 1A Super (extremely difficult ice-conditions) or just 1A (difficult ice-conditions) and light meaning it can only handle Ice Class II (very easy ice-conditions). I've been unable to find any good sources to confirm this though, but I think it would be nice to definition the Ice Classes.
 * By merging the above page and this SAFETY OF WINTER NAVIGATION IN THE BALTIC SEA AREA, I've come up with this table. I want to better sources and shrink it down before putting it in though.


 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"

! Ice Class || Extremely difficult ice-conditions || Difficult ice-conditions || Moderately difficult ice-conditions || Easy ice-conditions || Very easy ice-conditions
 * Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules || I�? Super || I�? || IB || IC  || Category II
 * Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Rules 1995) || UL || L1 || L2 || L3 || L4
 * Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Rules 1999) || LU5 || LU4 || LU3 || LU2 || LU1
 * American Bureau of Shipping || I�?�? || I�? || IB || IC || D0
 * Bureau Veritas || IA SUPER || I�? || IВ || IC || ID
 * CASPPR, 1972 || �? || В || С || D || E
 * China Classification Society || Ice Class B1* || Ice Class B1 || Ice Class B2 || Ice Class B3 || Ice Class B
 * Det Norske Veritas || ICE-1�?* || ICE-1�? || ICE-1B || ICE-1С || ICE-C
 * Germanischer Lloyd || Е4 || Е3 || E2 || E1 || E
 * Korean Register of Shipping || ISS || IS1 || IS2 || IS3 || IS4
 * Lloyd’s Register of Shipping || 1�?S || 1A || 1B || 1C || 1D
 * Nippon Kaiji Kyokai || IA Super || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * Registro Italiano Navale || IAS || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * }
 * Approximate correspondence between Ice Classes of the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (Baltic Ice Classes) and the Ice Classes of other Classification Societies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Det Norske Veritas || ICE-1�?* || ICE-1�? || ICE-1B || ICE-1С || ICE-C
 * Germanischer Lloyd || Е4 || Е3 || E2 || E1 || E
 * Korean Register of Shipping || ISS || IS1 || IS2 || IS3 || IS4
 * Lloyd’s Register of Shipping || 1�?S || 1A || 1B || 1C || 1D
 * Nippon Kaiji Kyokai || IA Super || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * Registro Italiano Navale || IAS || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * }
 * Approximate correspondence between Ice Classes of the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (Baltic Ice Classes) and the Ice Classes of other Classification Societies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Nippon Kaiji Kyokai || IA Super || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * Registro Italiano Navale || IAS || IA || IB || IC || ID
 * }
 * Approximate correspondence between Ice Classes of the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (Baltic Ice Classes) and the Ice Classes of other Classification Societies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Approximate correspondence between Ice Classes of the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (Baltic Ice Classes) and the Ice Classes of other Classification Societies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules and their equivalents are mainly meant for merchant ships and thus can not be used to classify icebreakers. Up to ice class 1A the ships are assumed to operate mainly under icebreaker assistance. Some classification societies have separate set of rules for icebreakers, though, but I still wouldn't necessarily use them to classify icebreakers as "heavy" or "light". Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Polarstern Graph
The graph of the polarstern's longitudional vs lateral graph should be removed. It doesnt seem at all significant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misterboston (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Notable Icebreakers section cleanup
The section labelled "Notable Icebreakers" seems less devoted to notable ships and more devoted to simply listing all the ones each country has. I can't see how a ship that doesn't even have its own entry can be terribly notable. If there aren't any strenuous objections, I intend to clean up this section in the next day or two to limit it to truly notable ships, perhaps with a small blurb about each indicating what makes it notable. Kurt 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "If it ain't broke don't fix it". With one possible exception, these are all big significant vessels, each unquestionably worthy of an article.  That they don't have articles now either means no one has made the effort to dig up sources.


 * How many true icebreakers are there, worldwide? Probalby less than a hundred.  If we include vessels like the USCG ice-breaking tugs and ice-capable freighters?  Hundreds.  What is the problem with listing a hundred vessels?


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to list every icebreaker in the world, the section title should be 'Icebreakers', not 'Notable Icebreakers', since you can't have every icebreaker worldwide being 'notable'. --Nucleusboy 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * *shrug* every US President is notable. Icebreakers are nearly as unique. 75.71.37.218 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Split list from article
I'd like to split the list of icebreakers into a separate list article, and add it to Category:Lists of ships. I feel the list of vessels belongs in a list article, the President of the United States article is separate from List of Presidents of the United States for example. If there's no feedback in one week I plan to go ahead with this change. XLerate (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed pic
I don't think having in the article is necessary. There's already link to the double hull article, the term itself is self-explanatory and there's no need to go to the very basics in a specialized article. Tupsumato (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed another picture, this time the one showing the bow of an icebreaker from the bridge. There are simply too many pictures. Tupsumato (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Article issues
The history section begins with a relatively long description of the first ice-strengthened sailing ships, briefly touches the first steam-powered icebreakers and finally jumps to the nuclear-powered ones after mentioning something vague about diesel-powered icebreaking ships and, after I moved some text around in the article, hovercrafts. It is the same as starting with the history of computers from the invention of the transistor, mentioning some 80s computers such as the Commondore 64 and then jumping directly to Intel Xeon processor family — something is definitely missing! The age of steam in icebreaking should be described in detail as important inventions were made during those decades in the late 19th and early 20th century. The introduction of diesel-electric powertrain for icebreaking ships is an equally-important step and each generation of icebreakers adopted new innovative solutions. Somewhere in between the Russians went nuclear, but the section shouldn't go too deep in the technology - there's a separate article for them after all. Finally there is the modern age with azimuth propulsion, multipurpose icebreakers, double acting ships, oblique icebreakers and so on. Something could also be said on the future of icebreaking, for example in the light of global warming.

After the history lesson the article should have a section on the basics, ranging from the icebreaking process to the operation of icebreakers. References to the design and construction of icebreakers could be made, but they should be described in detail in the following section that would introduce the special features of icebreakers, namely specialized hull form and machinery. While some references to the past are okay, these sections should concentrate on modern icebreakers only. It must be noted that not all icebreakers currently in service can be considered modern — for example icebreakers with bow propellers have not been built since the 1970s, and AFAIK such icebreakers are not in use outside the Baltic Sea.

As for the recent advances, I think they should be incorporated to the history section and perhaps the one about design and construction. Also, what is the definition of "recent"? After all, even Azipods are already commonplace instead of something that's still being developed and introduced to the field.

What's your opinion on this subject? Tupsumato (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The current history section was to a large extent written by me. If you could expand it, especially in the areas of diesel-powered icebreakers and modern icebreakers, that's great. Grey Hood   Talk  23:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. I already found some pretty good references. Tupsumato (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Povl Anker
I see that you removed Povl Anker here as well. Povl Anker is an icebreaker. In it's history it proved that it even was faster than the normal Icebreaker between Rønne and Ystad, and therefore overtook the icebreaker on it's way, and arrived sooner in Ystad than the Icebreaker. It is classified class II (ID). Therefore I do not see, why it is necessary to remove An example would be the M/F Povl Anker ferry from the Bornholmstrafikken ferry company, which has an ICE II classification. -- Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is correct. This article is about icebreakers, a distinct type of ships designed for breaking ice, not ferries regardless of their alleged icebreaking capability. While there are mechant ships that can break ice to some degree, e.g. the SA-15 class, MV Arctic and the double acting ships, a car ferry without a officially recognized ice class (ice class II is given to any self-propelled ships with a steel hull) definitely is not one. While the 1A Super class cruiseferries operate year-round in the Gulf of Finland usually without relying on icebreaker assistance during the winter season, even they are not referred to as icebreakers even though they can often maintain a relatively high speed in ice . I would also like to know what kind of icebreaker it "overtook" and in what kind of ice conditions.


 * Also, there were no references. If you can prove that the Povl Anker is an icebreaker and does everything you claim (including the "ice bulb"), you can undo my edits.


 * I moved this under its own heading as it's clearly a separate issue. Tupsumato (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Has breaking ice by mechanical means been tried?
Has anything been tried like a revolving wheel with spikes (heavily reinforces of course) to break the ice? It just seems to me that we could build a gigantic machine that could dig tunnels (through bedrock), surely something of that sort coule be used to break ice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sawing was sometimes used to open a channel for icebound ships before the first icebreakers were built and explosives have been used in the past. However, I have never heard of any "icebreaking machines". I don't think such method would be very efficient. Tupsumato (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been talking to people. Apparently the Soviets have tried almost everything when it comes to breaking ice, but not much information leaked to the outside world about the experiments. However, had such machines worked, we would have seen them in use already. Tupsumato (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Steam vs diesel
In History, should there be a subtitle in the middle of Steam powered, between the fourth and fifth paragraphs? Just a thought.Sammy D III (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, as diesel engines have been by far the most common prime movers in icebreakers since the second world war. Tupsumato (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe a better place? Sort of implies the Winds were first, maybe qualify? Fifth and sixth paras could both use another sentence. Maybe names in 5? Others here write better. Have a fun day. Sammy D III (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Drawings
I'll try to find time to make some nice illustrations for different hull forms and propulsion systems. Later, we can move the photographs to other sections. Tupsumato (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but a quick Google looks like it may be tougher than it appears. Line drawings probably won’t be very clear to the non-mechanical reader, you sort of need a 3/4 view, two would be better. Don’t know how to describe, but they should be 3/4 in two planes, sort of looking up and back (and/or forward). There are some modern Finnish sort of advertising drawings, but I didn’t see much from the past.


 * I followed the Azimuth thruster link, it’s clear but not the strongest article. You are almost always talking about pods, correct? Can you get to Azipod quicker, maybe the first link, then on to z-drive if needed? Azipod is your country’s specialty, sort of, and you personally have been at the article. Side note, pods are mostly possible because of AC, a DC motor would have problems down there, correct?


 * Curiosity, if you have electric w/ mechanical boost on a shaft with controllable pitch prop, when electric only, do you keep the motor running at a constant speed, or can you vary both speed and pitch?


 * Meant as an amateur opinion/input. This article looks pretty strong to me, on a sort of remote subject. That ref flag from 2011 could probably come down. I don’t delete them either, sort of judging your own work, but I’d support you. And congratulations on graduating or completing or earning something, if appropriate (you are now “a former student”). Sammy D III (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that line drawings are not a good idea for people not familiar with them, so I thought about "tracing" photographs with Inkscape or similar, and make kind of old-fashioned textbook illustrations that show the main design characteristics of icebreakers. We don't necessarily have to go that deep in the general article, so perhaps couple of different but still common designs could be enough. Perhaps different "generations" as well. As for reference material of past and current icebreakers, I have some of my own and know where to get more if I need it, so that shouldn't be an issue. However, I'm not sure when I have time to work on this, so for now photographs or whatever we have in the Commons will have to do. Stay tuned...


 * I also agree that the azimuth thruster article needs improving. However, I'd like to talk about azimuthing propulsion units on a general level and not concentrate on podded propulsion units (like Azipod) because Z-drives are used in almost as many icebreakers as pods. Also, Azipod is just one product — it's the same as talking about iPhones when you mean smartphones in general (I know people who do it!). As for AC/DC, I haven't thought about that but you're probably corrent — I don't think an electric podded propulsion unit would be possible with a DC motor. Also, it was the same people who designed the first AC/AC icebreakers that developed the Azipod.


 * I'm not very familiar with using controllable pitch propellers with electric motors. In addition to the Polar class, some cruise ships and e.g. S. A. Agulhas II have CPPs with diesel-electric powertrain. I would assume that in most cases the propeller pitch would be chosen according to the maximum hydrodynamic efficiency because the electric motor is quite flexible when it comes to rpm and torque. However, I'm sure that the pitch can be changed too if necessary, but can't really think of a situation where it would be beneficial to have high rpm and low thrust. Personally, I'd rather not use CPPs in serious icebreaking...


 * I'm still working on the article (e.g. the structures section), so I'll leave all warning templates in place until I think I'm done. Since this article gets quite a lot of views every day (in comparison to most of the articles I write), I might ask for someone else from WP:SHIPS to check it for errors and too technical stuff. After all, I'm not a native speaker and after so many years with this topic it's difficult to realize that some people might not have the slightest idea what I'm trying to say.


 * Oh, and thank you — I finally got my degree in naval architecture. I could have graduated years ago, but then I found out about University Centre in Svalbard and just had to go there... err... three times. Tupsumato (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea of the rules for using your own drawings, but that would clearly be the hot setup. Maybe you could use the originals, or line drawings, as a ref.

Motor inside the hull, of course. An “L” drive sort of implies electric, not many vertical shaft diesel engines, if any, correct? Direct drive would require a “Z”, but do you ever use “Z” for electric? Is there an advantage in a horizontal electric motor which makes up for the extra 90 degrees? Maybe just more room, or weight distribution? Whatever.

View numbers are good (I generally hang out around 5 – 10 a day). I don’t see any real English problems. And it’s a lot of info in one place, not broken up and spread around. Example: “L” and “Z” drive should be in Azimuth thruster, one good article.

I think you are doing good work. Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the rules against using your own drawings, but I can check if it's considered a derivative work if I use an existing photographs and trace them. I don't think it will be an issue.


 * I have never seen a mechanical thruster with "L" arrangement, but now that I think about it, I think our 4.5 hp outboard motor might have a vertical shaft. Of course, it does not mean that such units do not exist in e.g. tugboats, but they are not very common. Anyway, all large thrusters use "Z" arrangement with diesel-electric transmission because the size and weight of electric propulsion motors make installation in horizontal position easier.


 * Tupsumato (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

anchor for "ice-strengthened ship" (or "ice-strengthened hull") desired.
As you can see, the meaning of the term "ice-strengthened ship" is not immediately obvious. (Here's a brief definition, although it's not an ideal ref.)

We ought to be able to link to a description from other articles, and an obvious place to link to would be somewhere in this article. However, I didn't see an obvious place, and creating a section "Ice-strengthened hull" would kind of throw this article a bit out of wack since there are references to ice-strengthened ships throughout the article. Spinning the first part of the History section into a separate article Ice-strengthened ship could be done. I don't know if that's called for. Not sure what to do here. Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The hull structure of an icebreaker is quite different from that of a normal ice-strengthened merchant ship. According to the article, Lyubov Orlova was classified by the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping with ice class "L3" which is roughly equivalent to the Finnish-Swedish ice class 1C which is the lowest "real" Baltic ice class. Thus, I would not recommend linking to this article. Instead, how about linking to ice class as in "...has a hull strengthened for navigation in ice..."? The article is not very good, but I'm trying to get around to make it better one day. Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's exactly what I was looking for, and couldn't find. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ice Breaking
I was wondering if the

Sherman M4A4 (flail) with 75 mm gun - mine clearing tank Worthington Tank Museum at CFB Borden (Ontario, Canada).

Would have any relevance to clearing ice in front and behind an Icebreaker ship.

5.69.249.96 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you know that there is an article on both Base Borden Military Museum (with a picture of your tank) and CFB Borden?


 * You can’t really shoot ice, can you? Would the flail do much, or would it just pack it down harder?


 * Tanks put a lot of weight in a small area, I would think it might break through and fall to the bottom. In the Antarctic rescue going on now they weren’t sure if it was safe to land a helicopter, which is lighter than a tank. Using the tank’s weight to break thick ice wouldn’t seem like much use, the icebreaker uses its own weight to run up on and break the ice, and ships are a lot heavier than tanks.


 * I think your tank is doing the best it can in a museum. It is too old to fight, and tanks are not good at much else. You could melt it down and make Buick parts from the steel, but that would be a waste of good history. Being in a museum, with people in the future looking at the past, is a pretty good job for an old tank, isn’t it?Sammy D III (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The only realistic way to break ice in the scale required for shipping is to use a ship designed for that purpose by utilizing the only weaknesses of ice (low bending strength, density close to that of sea water). Lasers, hammers etc. have been suggested again and again, but there's simply too much ice for such methods. Tupsumato (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/botnica/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Blacklisted link removed. I didn't find anything in the article that would support the section where the inline citation was placed. Tupsumato (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

27 Aug 2015
Hello Tupsumato and friends. I can do simple tables. I just posted, then deleted, a sample. I you like it, we can change them and do a lot. If you don’t like it, that is ok, I won’t feel hurt. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We already have a separate article, list of icebreakers. Personally, I wouldn't want to add any more information into that list than the names and years. Technical details etc. can be described in each icebreaker's own article — there's plenty that still don't have one. Tupsumato (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand. I found a Jane's 93-94 very cheap, but You already have more information than it has. This looks very good, so do the ship articles I looked at. You guys have been working hard.


 * Thank you for answering so fast, and being honest. This stuff does look very good. You have a good time. Sammy D III (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

hovercraft are missing from this article.
Hovercraft have been used to break ice, though they are less good when the ice is more than 1m thick. The research was conducted by the National Research Council of Canada. There are two methods, fast and slow. Yet I don't see any mention of this in this article. Unfortunately, my source is Insight Magazine from the early 1980s, which lacks precise information. If anyone has a better source, please do add a section to this article. Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a link . Roberttherambler (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it the same as this one? Tupsumato (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the article. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)