Talk:Spica-class torpedo boat

Removed section
These warships were widely employed in escort duty, mostly in North Africa convoy and performed an impressive amount of fighting against allied sub and aerial forces, and partially against surface forces. Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the line "and were intended for anti-submarine duties, although they often had to battle aircraft and surface forces as well" in the introduction makes this statement superfluous.--Darius (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Destroyer escorts?
This statement in the lead seems erroneous to me: "Although commonly referred to as torpedo boats, the Spica class were similar in design to destroyer escorts (their design was influenced by the Maestrale-class destroyer then in development) and were intended for anti-submarine duties, although they often had to battle aircraft and surface forces as well."

While having been used extensively as convoy escorts (due to the lack of specialised craft such as the Ciclone-class torpedo boat escort TBs or Gabbiano-class corvette corvettes), Spica torpedo boats were almost the polar opposite of destroyer escorts. These ships were fast, with low endurance and torpedoes as main armament—whereas DEs were comparatively slow, long range ships, and some classes were not even fitted with torpedoes. Cloverleaf II (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The correct comparison, outside of French '600-tonne torpilleurs', would be the British 'Escort destroyer' of the 'Hunt' type; a very differently specified vessel to the US-built DEs. Even then, the French and Italian vessels were far more surface attack vessels than they were ASW escorts. The Spica-class vessels in particular were initially armed with only two DCTs and no DC racks for use against submarines, while they did not feature the retractable sonar dome of later 'TBs' like the 'Ciclone' class (which were over five knots slower as designed.
 * Even the English-language designation 'Torpedo boat' is deeply misleading; these were full-fledged ships, with their own ship's boat complement, and the Italian designation of 'Torpediniere' has no direct English translation; compare with Italian terms 'fuciliere' and 'artigliere'. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D10F:DAB:ADE2:68FA (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sonar and hydrophones
The article's infobox states that the ships of this class were equipped with both active and passive underwater detection systems. Do we have proof that this was actually so, or is this a misinterpretation? The ships completed for service before active sonar had been developed and widely deployed, after all. They were equipped with depth charges from the start and would certainly have had hydrophone equipment, but were they ever fitted with active sonar?

I ask because the article's "ships" section details one class member as having engaged motor torpedo boats which were "detected by sonar". This, to those with an understanding of sonar technology of the day, seems incredible, as the 6-foot draught of the MTBs would have been virtually undetectable by active sonar pings. They would, however, have been much more easily detectable by the ship's hydrophone operator, as the petrol engines were rather noisy for their size and the passive detection would be far more likely than active detection unrelated to target noise.

So, is there an issue with the translation or interpretation of what is "sonar" in respect of active sets (like ASDIC) vs passive arrays of hydrophones being labelled "sonar" in error? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:8811:D3FE:DC25:228B (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)