Talk:Submarine/Archive 3

Sections
The History section is by far the largest in the article. Given that there's already a separate History of submarines article, this section should be cut way back.

The Crew section seems unbalanced. Aren't almost all submarine crew members men? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.Noodleki (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Miltary Medical Ethics, Volume 2, page 440. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 3 April 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.naval-technology.com/projects/category/submarines/
 * 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 13:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Snorting"
Our article on INS Sindhurakshak (S63) refers to a speed and range at "snorting." I'm assuming this is some sort of shallow partial dive where the boat is only partially submerged. I don't see an article on it and I don't see it described here. It might be helpful to have the disambiguation page work with it so that snorting which currently redirects to insufflation also has a link to submarine snorkel. It might also make sense to refer to the practice in this article. 150.148.14.8 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've redirected snorting to snort because that makes more sense. —  Reatlas  (talk)  02:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And I've linked "snorting" in the article on INS Sindhurakshak (S63) to submarine snorkel. Shem (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (this is very late, but may be helpful for searchers or anyone else interested in the archive) "Snorting" and "snorkeling" both refer to the same activity, where a submarine is submerged and operating the diesel engine through an intake mast. The british (and I think the Australians) refer to it as snorting, so it might make sense that the indian navy would as well, while the americans refer to it as snorkeling. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Trim
As a land-lubber, I'd appreciate an explanation of 'trim'. HuPi (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh, I just realized that section has a decent explanation of ballasting but no real explanation of trim. I don't have sources handy, but I can give you a rough overview here. Trim is basically how you keep a submarine level while submerged at different speeds and depths, as well as maintaining a narrow depth band (say if you want to look out a periscope). Because you're not on the surface, you could travel pitched up (the nose of the submarine above the ass end) or down just like an airplane. Normally you'd like to maintain an angle of attack as close to zero (or slightly above it) as possible. There are a number of forces which could cause your angle to increase or decrease, for example changing the weight distribution (if you fire a torpedo or pump a tank overboard). Working at a bigger angle causes a few problems.
 * First, people don't like to work on a 15 degree incline. :) Second, your control surfaces now have a new angle of attack as well. There's no autopilot on a submaine, someone is holding the control surfaces at 3 degrees up. They now have to compensate for that incline in the ship by adjusting their control surface. Third, submarines are built to travel through the water; hulls are teardropped shape, control surfaces look like airfoils, etc. If now you have all that stuff at 15 degrees off instead of dead on, the water exerts much more drag. This doesn't matter so much at high speeds, but if you're going really slow looking out the periscope, adjusting the pitch would force the engineroom to alter power continuously to maintain a constant speed. Finally (it's a long list!), if you're going slow in the first place, you're probably doing so to stay in a narrow depth band. I mentioned above that you might want to look out a periscope. You can't get too shallow or the scope might be visible from long distances--you might accidentally surface as well. You can't sink out because then the scope will go underwater and you'll be blind. So you have to maintain a small angle at various speeds and depths.
 * Whew. Ok. Now we understand why we'd want a trim system, what does it do? It's basically a series of interconnected tanks of water which can be individually filled or depleted either from one tank to another or from one tank overboard. Imagine that we had three tanks, forward, middle and aft. If I pump water from the middle one overboard I'm making the submarine lighter overall. If I pump water from the forward tank overboard I'm making the submarine lighter and changing the weight distribution to make the submarine heavier in the back. If I pump from the aft tank to the forward tank, I can distribute that weight forward without making the submarine heavier or lighter. Let's say I was at the time station and I saw the ship was at a 10 degree up angle (I'm not calling it "bubble", that's dumb), I could correct this by pumping water from the aft end of the ship to the forward end, making the ship heavier in front and causing the angle to fall back down. Some of this weight distribution is seat of the pants (by trained operators) and some is determined using calculations and tables (usually simple once you get the hang of them).
 * In practice, the trim system is designed to be operated infrequently, as the pumps and valves involved make a lot of noise. Finer, moment to moment control is maintained with the control surfaces and the trim system is used to correct weight imbalances that accrue over time or during specific operations. Does that all make sense? Protonk (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Can this useful explanation be made more accessible for the ordinary Wiki-user? HuPi (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably. My limitation is that I don't have sources at hand to substantiate the details. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In practise, the trim system also helps adjust overall buoyancy, depending on how much "soaking" the hull does. (Or so I've gathered from Beach...) IDK, but I suspect, it also bears on changes as, frex, torpedoes are fired & as consumables are used.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah. So compensating for overall changes in buoyancy due to compression of the hull is another function of the trim system, allowing the submarine to maintain a constant depth and speed at 50 feet or 350 feet (by pumping water overboard, in that case). Protonk (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Batteries
it will be intersing to add section about batteries, which they were used at old times, and which are used now. 88.102.84.189 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's even scope for an article on submarine battery. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Even a nuclear-powered submarine is heavily dependent on its very specialized battery system.Ernest Ruger (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"nine 34 kW or two 120 kW cells" - does it really specify maximum output power or does it specify capacity? I guess the latter but then it should be kWh. In all cases the sentence could be more explicit. --Jankratochvil (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are fuel cells, not batteries, so I think the power rating is correct. I can't check, as the source is behind a paywall. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220150129/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.2558 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2558
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080405194626/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org:80/issues/2000/May/Virginia-Class.htm to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/May/Virginia-Class.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512171030/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/faqs.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/faqs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead image
I'm inclined to go back to the Typhoon image for the lead. We've already got two photos of LA-class, and none of Typhoon. And it's the biggest sub ever made. If we do keep the LA, let's get rid of one of the LA photos in the body and put the Typhoon in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That unexplained image change today was reverted, and the Typhoon image is there now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, save this Russian sub as the lead image. I do not want to start a war of edits, but I demand to add one or few American, British or other Western submarine(s) as lead images. Let it be several lead images, i hope there is no objections for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.95.219.2 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I object. There should be one lead image. WP:LEADELEMENTS doesn't say that, but it speaks of "the image used" in the singular. One function of the lead image is to "allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." Multiple images defeats that purpose. I don't see what the nationality of the submarine has to do with anything, can you elaborate? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, as you wish. I just forgot that Americans do not have a sense of national pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.95.219.2 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's totally irrelevant to the issue of Lead image in any article. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tourist subs
The Tourist subs section could use some work. We've got "The first tourist submarine was launched in 1985" which seems well sourced but is contradicted by the caption of the "Mésoscaphe Auguste Piccard" photo. It's also contradicted by "A fleet of 8 tourist submarines have been operated in Disneyland, California since it opened in 1954." There are several problems with the Disney sub sentence. It's unsourced, wrong (they operated 1959-1998), and much as I loved the Disney sub ride, they were not submarines and probably don't belong here. We also need a sentence or two about Piccard to go with the photo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you excluding Disney as submarine? I appreciate that their propulsion was on a fixed track, but I thought that they did submerge and ran on stored air. I've no idea where their power came from, but I'm guessing that on-board batteries have enough advantage as a safety system over track-supplied power to make that viable. In fresh it avoids the main hazard from batteries. IMHO, a Disney vessel with autonomous air supply is a submersible and belongs here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so like a hungry cat I feel I've been betrayed by a mouse. They never submerged. 8-(   This deserves mention and a link here, just to clear up the misunderstanding, but they're not "tourist submarines" if they don't submerge.
 * You'll all have to wait until my evil genius is properly recognised and I open "World Domination Land". That'll have proper submarines. And monorails. I already have the Giant Laser. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a mention and link. Also a sentence about Piccard but it could use a source. The one at Auguste Piccard (PX-8) has gone 404. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The link on that page is now fixed. ZachG (Talk) 16:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately it's not very useful. It doesn't say anything about Piccard being the first tourist sub; and it's obviously wrong about some things, like "Once the largest submarine in the world". Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the reference. "Once the largest submarine in the world": lol, I suggest not adding that to the article... ZachG (Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070704042341/http://www.submarineheritage.com/history.html to http://www.submarineheritage.com/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Single and double hulls
The first sentence of this section is contradicted by the rest of the section. "Modern submarines and submersibles, as well as the oldest ones, usually have a single hull." But then "Large submarines generally have an additional hull or hull sections outside" and "All post–World War II heavy Soviet and Russian submarines are built with a double hull ". Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Era" subsections
Remind me again why we added the Early and Late Modern Era subsections. These seem useless and unnecessarily confusing to me. Can we get rid of them and promote the subsections under them? These were added some time in the last year or so and I don't think there was any discussion at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was probably done without any discussion. Reducing the number of subsections labels is fine with me; they do seem excessive. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We could merge them, but I think these two sections (as one) should then remain, and should remain distinct from the rest.
 * The "modern" era is generally seen as beginning from 1600, which (if followed) would split Drebbel from Bourne, and merge Drebbel with the 18th century. I wouldn't see this as particularly useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just get rid of those two section headers, and promote the subsections below them. All the text would remain as-is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of having an 'Early Modern era' section with only 1 subsection. The layout was changed in late May 2016.  Here's the article before the addition of the 'Early Modern era' and 'Late Modern era' section labels. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

History section again
We have discussed the History section before. It's too long given that we have a separate article on History of submarines. We already decided it should be cut back, and I've started doing that. I have not verified that every word that I remove is in the history article, but that every sub and inventor/builder (at least the important ones) is. I'm going to pause now to let people look at this and raise objections if there are any. If this seems like a good idea I will continue. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've gone as far as I can with this. Up to WWI, this article and the History article both had the same material with a few variations. From WWI on, they are organized differently, and it's not possible to simply cut duplicate material. I do think there is still too much overlap but I think it would require some re-writing and re-organizing to fix the rest of it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128104709/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317120249/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t8/trieste.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t8/trieste.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818031654/http://www.hnsa.org/ships/x1.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/x1.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218000124/http://www.submarinehistory.com/21stCentury.html to http://www.submarinehistory.com/21stCentury.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307035900/https://www.verkehrshaus.ch/en/members-donations/donations/mesoscaph to https://www.verkehrshaus.ch/en/members-donations/donations/mesoscaph

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems in the Etymology section
Currently the section reads "Whereas the principal meaning of "submarine" is an armed, submersible warship, the more general meaning is for any type of submersible craft. The definition as of 1899 was for any type of "submarine boat". By naval tradition, submarines are still usually referred to as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size. In other navies with a history of large submarine fleets they are also "boats"; in German it is an Unterseeboot or U-Boot (under-sea boat) and in Russian it is a подводная лодка (underwater boat). Although referred to informally as "boats", U.S. submarines employ the designation USS (United States Ship) at the beginning of their names, such as USS Alabama."

The bold phrase and word were added by me:
 * "In other navies" other than which navies? This seems to be a case of systemic bias.
 * "Informally" is a judgemental word a better word would be "traditionaly".

There is a problem with the whole of the last sentence. The Royal Navy and Commonwealth navies all designate submarines as ships HMS, HMAS, HMCS, INS, PNS, SAS. As does the Swedish, Dutch navies HSwMS, HNLMS. The French Chinese and do not use prefixes for any or their ships see the article "Ship prefix" which states ""

So the use of a prefix USS is not significant as to whether a submarine is a boat or a ship see for example List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. The first on in the list USS Firebolt is a coastal patrol boat. Firebolt is not a ship even though she/it carries the designation USS.

I suggest that someone who regularly edits this article cleans up the Etymology section and checks the rest of the article for a similar systemic bias. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post here, PBS. In advance of a general cleanup, we can address the paragraph of concern. The "List of..." doesn't use either "ship" or "boat", instead it uses "vessel" and "craft". Perhaps better wording of the paragraph could be:
 * "Whereas the principal meaning of "submarine" is an armed, submersible warship, the more general meaning is for any type of submersible craft. The definition as of 1899 was for any type of "submarine boat". In the US Navy, submarines have long been referred to informally as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size. Some languages used in countries with a history of large submarine fleets also refer to "boat" in their word for submarine; in German it is an Unterseeboot or U-Boot (under-sea boat) and in Russian it is a подводная лодка (underwater boat). Nonetheless, U.S. submarines employ a "ship" designation—USS (United States Ship)—at the beginning of their names, such as USS Alabama, a practice shared in common with British, Swedish, Dutch and Commonwealth navies."


 * Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I still think that using "informally" instead of "traditionally" is presenting a POV, And singling out the USN is giving undue influence to the USN. I looked at the youtube series Discovery Channel: Submarines - Sharks of Steel and retired American officers of flag rank referred to nuclear submarines as ships. However a search of the British site:mod.uk brings up some news pages that use terms like "SSN (Submersible Ship Nuclear)", and in this one it is reported that . On the other hand this news item states " The more formal web pages makes the destinction between the Royal Navy Surface Fleet where there are mention of ships and other vessels, but not submarines. Subs are in the seperate Submarine Service which refers to "submarines", which are divided into two types ballistic submarines and fleet submarines. On the main page of the Submarine Service "boat" is also used: "".


 * At the Trafalgar Night Speach in Washigton on 22 October 2016, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff said:
 * I think that is formal use of boat, by the First Sea Lord who worked his way up in the surface fleet and was not a submariner. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is formal use of boat, by the First Sea Lord who worked his way up in the surface fleet and was not a submariner. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these thoughts, PBS. I tried to search on the word, "boat" in literature about WWII submarines, as a point of reference around when submarines were often spoken of. I could find the term only in Google previews of literature, regarding the US Navy. In literature regarding the British or Australian navies, "boat" referred to small craft described in the narratives. That's why I singled out US vernacular, which I didn't find in the English literature for other naval traditions. Your two citations suggest that I can extend the passage, "In the US Navy, submarines have long been referred to informally as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size." to become "In the US and Royal navies, submarines have long been referred to informally as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size." I used "long been referred to informally" to cover the suggestion of traditionally but to emphasize that official designations spurn the word, "boat", even when US and Royal Navy admirals utter the word. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From the sources I have provided it seems to me that the Royal Navy is the opposite from the United States Navy (informally sometimes "ship" and formally "boat"). For formal usage of "boat" see quote above from the 2016 Trafalgar Night speech by the First Sea Lord. There are many more official documents that can be found quite easily for example the first paragraph in https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/submarines "". Also if ship could mean submarine in the RN then this quote would also have to read "surface ships and submarines" to make sense. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In the Royal Navy, submarines are boats rather than ships. This comes from two definitions: the old, traditional one is that "ships go on the sea, boats go on ships", i.e. that a ship was something large enough to carry its own cutter or launch, etc. The other definition comes from ships having at least two decks above the waterline. Submarines having their waterlines some distance above them, are thus not ships.
 * Also, and probably more importantly, submarine crews see themselves as an elite within a navy and always like to distinguish themselves from 'mere' ships. The saying, "There are two sorts of vessel: submarines and targets." would be just part of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Andy Dingley, I have long sought in vain a formal authority that distinguishes ships from boats. In addition to what you site above, I've heard a US Navy saying that ships lean outwards in a sharp turn, whereas boats lean into a turn. This is consistent with your distinction that ships have at least two decks above the waterline. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification, PBS. Perhaps you could suggest the final wording, of which the following might be an approximation: "In the US Navy, submarines were referred to informally as "boats" rather than as "ships" through the World War II era, whereas in the Royal Navy the formal designation remains 'boat'." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship or boat?
The article states "Submarines are referred to as "boats" rather than "ships" irrespective of their size", but doesn't also point out that British subs are called HMS Such-and-Such, where HMS stands for Her/His Majesty's Ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * see the article section Her Majesty's Ship.
 * "Submarines in Her Majesty's service also use the prefix "HMS", standing for "Her Majesty's Submarine". The Royal Yacht Britannia, which was a commissioned ship in the Royal Navy, was known as HMY Britannia. Otherwise all ships in the Royal Navy are known as HM Ships, though formerly when a distinction was made between three-masted ship-rigged ships and smaller vessels they would be called HM Frigate X, or HM Sloop Y. The prefix "HMS" is also used by shore establishments that are commissioned "stone frigates" in the Royal Navy. Examples include HMS Excellent, a training school located on an island in Portsmouth Harbour"


 * –– PBS (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * USS Charlotte (SSN 766) steams in a close formation at RIMPAC 2014.jpg

All images are of western subs. Need changed.
All the images i could see it of western subs. No other subs except one Japanese sub could be seen. There is no image of Russian, Indian or Chinese submarines. Need a complete overhaul.Missileinfo (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation. The Russians are less open about things, especially internal photos, than the US, but there are still plenty of externals. The article is also lacking photos of boomers.  So how about Soviet subs, a big boxy Delta, a Typhoon, and maybe a Victor and the inevitable magic tail pod. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also could see one Candaian sub there, but completely lack pictures of subs operated by smaller nations. Be it Singapore, Israel or South Africa. Don't understand why they are ignored. Missileinfo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As objects, I'm more interested in who made them than in who operates them. But the small AIP subs (the nukes of small nations) belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, why should they be ignored? FlubbedNebula88 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunley explosion
The sentence, "H. L. Hunley also sank, possibly because it was too close to its own exploding torpedo" should be modified to say "H. L. Hunley also sank because it was too close to its own exploding torpedo." This fact was proven by Rachel Lance and her scientific methodology and conclusions based on analysis of the wreckage and her own experiments are well documented in her book,. Ccsysd05 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Christopher Carter Sanderson
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion, Ccsysd05. I used as the reference Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference 41 needs to be updated
Reference 41 leads to a 404 page. The correct link is now. 178.79.4.62 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but https://ussnautilus.org/history-of-uss-nautilus/ better matches title in reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021
Under the subheading "History", subheading "Mechanically-powered submarines", the first sentence contains a double 'not'. The second 'not' should be replaced with the word 'be'.

"Submarines could not be put into widespread or routine service use by navies until suitable engines were developed." 45.74.100.138 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch. That's been fixed. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Marking as answered;, please remember to set the answered parameter to yes. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
I've re-written the Etymology section, to make the derivation plainer, and to better explain why submarines are referred to as boats. I have also in the process deleted a bunch of references (here, and here); the first lot because we really don't need citations for what a word is in another language (do we?), and the second because I can't see how they support the statement made. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC) PS: Stricken: I've restored the second set of citations, because I found the refs. Apologies! Xyl 54 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021
The section title "Mechanically-powered submarines" should be changed to "Mechanically powered submarines" per MOS:HYPHEN. 173.166.187.68 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

X-stern as subsection of Submersion and trimming
Hi, How is X-stern, a discussion of pitch and yaw control surface configuration, part of Submersion and trimming, a discussion of both static and dynamic vertical stability, and motion in pitch and heave? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Repinging as the typo may have broken the original ping. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Please ping with reply.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022
Unter the etymology section, the German for "submarine boat" should be capitalised, from "unterseeboot" to "Unterseeboot", as all nouns are capitalised in German. This mistake can be found in the second sentence, starting as follows: "The term is a contraction of "submarine boat".[4][5] and occurs as such in several languages, e.g. French (sous-marin), and Spanish (submarino), although others retain the original term, such as Dutch (Onderzeeboot), German (unterseeboot), [...]". 2003:DE:B748:D485:FD8B:56A1:F38B:5980 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

✅ PianoDan (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

World War II History
This section needs clarification, especially the part about U-Boats. I would do it myself but I lack the immediate expertise to do anything but proofread. Can anyone with more intimate knowledge of submarine warfare chime in? I'll do the reading if I must, otherwise. PageNinja (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)