Talk:The Hunt for Red October

Removed movie changes
On a read through of the plot I decided the references to the movie were not marked well enough and since the movie article has it's own synopsis are unnecessary. I have removed them. --Stumpifier 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Harpoon game?
The harpoon game was released in 1989, and the book was released in 1984. So, Tom Clancy could not have based the book on the game. If anyone begs to differ, argue here.

The computer game is based on a wargame created by Larry Bond in 1980.

I have no idea but I know the first Rainbow Six game was made while Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six wasn't released(it came out before the book even). The makers adapted their special-ops games with a new name and some missions to loosely follow the plot (Tom Clancy must of given them a copy of the draft) when they heard about the book, so it could be a similar situation. -MachoFern (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous capitalization removed
I moved the article from "The Hunt For Red October" to "The Hunt for Red October" (lower-case "for"), since that is the correct title as listed even in IMDb. --Wernher 12:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question about sub
I've misplaced my copy of the book, and will check later, but maybe someone else will do it first: I seem to recall that it was only in the film version that the sub carried an MHD drive; the book originally described it just as a hydrojet drive with some sort of sophisticated sound baffling. Can someone doublecheck me on this? -FZ 05:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct- Watsonladd 16:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Right. I added it from Soviet submarine Red October --84.190.43.39 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

not a defector...
Valery Sablin was not defecting to the west! he was a commited communist.

This Is true. Until the end of the Cold War, western intelligence believed the crew was going to defect. However, the aim of the Red October was not to defect to the west, but to provoke a political revolution. “ Why am I doing this? The love of life. I mean not in the sense of the a comfortable bourgeois, but a bright truthful life which inspires a genuine joy in all honest people. I am convinced that in our nation, just as 58 years ago in 1917, a revolutionary consciousness will alight and we will achieve communism in our society.” -Valery Sablin-

this seems to be a summary of the movie
It's been a while since I've read the book, but this seems to be a summary of the movie, not the book... Rast 12:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Based on my memory of the book, I would say that the summary provided adequately describes both the book and the movie. 69.72.78.56 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi thanks i was having questions and myself wanted to research on the topic. thanks for clearing it up for me

Another thing is that the Konovolov was killed in the book by ramming; in the movie, the sub's end makes use of the fact that the K's captain removes the short-interval arming interlocks from his torpedos, and a shot taken at the RO is directed back towards the K by Ramius' superior sub handling. "You killed us, you arrogant ass!!" --Skorekeep 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The real Red October?
The article refers to the "real Red October" being decommissioned in 2005, but the wiki article on Red October says no real ship had that name. The external news link no longer works. -- Coneslayer 22:22, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Was there ever a real Red October, or not? Rast 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

No there wasn't. I don't know where they got that one from. Its possible that they could be referring to the Typhoon-class itself, as the Russians are planning on retiring them all.

the summary provides adequate info only about the book the movie was not made on the bbok not even a single part of it.

Sablin Mutiny revert war
The following text has been added and removed repeatedly as part of a revert war on July 22 and 23.
 * At the end of the Cold War, it was learned the crews intention was not to defect, but to attempt to lead a workers and soldiers revolution against the Soviet bureaucracy.

Please cite sources, and lets work this out here so the reverts can stop in the article. - Chairboy 17:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is controversial, then it's only fair that the other theory for the defection be removed as well. Bee Hive 18:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Bee Hive, the sentence you removed does not suggest that he was defecting, it says that at the time, the west believed he was defecting. According to some accounts, this was because of KGB disinformation, but that doesn't change the fact that the west believed it. - Chairboy 18:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

the sumbarine in question here was the first russian sumbarine ever built it was valued by many of people in the soviet union it was larger than the regular typhoon class and also that there was a sumbarine like this built in reality.


 * Oddly enough, I saw Tom Clancy speak at either Utica College or Hamilton College (I don't recall which) in 1989 or so (he autographed my copy of "Clear and Present Danger") - at the time, when he discussed THfRO, he said he had read a newspaper article about the sinking of a Soviet submarine off the coast of North America as the inspiration for the novel. However, a quick glance through the wikipedia entries for lost Soviet subs near the time of the publication of the novel yields only K-219, which sank in 1986 (after the novel was published).  K-19, of course, encountered its unfortunate circumstances off the coast of Greenland, closer to the "Labrador coast" than Bermuda, to be sure, but in 1961, which also didn't seem right, though at least it was before the publication of the novel.  At any rate, I've not been able to locate transcripts of this speech, nor have I been able to find any other substantiating quotes or comments from Clancy himself on this matter; all of the Internet-available stories have referenced the Sablin Mutiny. blackba 29 September 2006


 * Doubtful Clancy's fudging his storyline, but there is still a momentous amount of files still classified from WW2 on up to present day. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an event like the sinking of a Soviet submarine would be buried forever and not revealed. Shadowrun 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, 2021, there is nothing about the Sablin mutiny in the text. There are two links to related Wikipedia articles, but with no indication about why they are links. At least one of those sites says, without documentation, that the book by Young and a co-author was read by Clancy and served as his inspiration. I hope some-one can clear this all up on all the relevant pages. Kdammers (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Prescient?

 * Some of the technical details were prescient. For example, the Ada programming language is used to implement a computational fluid dynamics model on a Cray-2 supercomputer. Cray Ada Version 1.0 actually became available in 1988

I don't think there's much prescience involved in giving the character the use of a (then) non-existant on the platform computer language. Furthermore, the non-existent language was also the wrong one. No sane researcher at the time (or probably now) would be running a CFD code written in anything other than FORTRAN. FORTRAN, then and now is optimised for numerical computation, ADA is skewed towards correctness, recoverability and robustness. The intersecting set of the design aims of FORTRAN and Ada is vanishingly small...

Book vs. Movie
The plot summary refers to the difference in the description of the Red October's caterpiller drive in the book and movie. I believe that the point about the movie should be taken out. There is a seperate page for the film, and they should not be referenced in a different article except to note that a film was created. Thank You!-Hairchrm 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section
Let's work on integrating the trivia section into the main article. Mikieminnow 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for images
Image:Hunt for Red October.jpg and Image:Tc1thfro.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to |the image description pages Image:Hunt for Red October.jpg & Image:Tc1thfro.jpg and edit them to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:38, & 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SS-N-20
The novel clearly called the SS-N-20 missiles that the Red October carried "Seahawks". However, the real SS-N-20's were called "Sturgeons". Should this be mentioned as a mistake that the author made? Sandy of the CSARs (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time the book came out, the SS-N-20 had no NATO codename, so technically its not a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.174.68 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sleight-of-manipulator"
Could someone verify that the term "sleight-of-manipulator" is correct at the end of the plot summary? That language makes no sense to me. Wdfarmer (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That confused me too (and could probably use some explaining), but it's clunkily correct. The Americans use a minisub to survey the damage, and through use of tricky lighting and a remote waldo (manipulator), make the Russian attaché believe that the wreckage is Red October. It's about pages 379 or so, according to Amazon.com. 205.167.180.131 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatching of book via The Naval Institute
The following snip from an AP article about BookExpo America in 2008 provides some insights into the publishing of the original book:


 * ''The past matters for book people, who regret the decline of independent stores and adore the paper text. (David) Shanks (of Penguin Group complains that the convention is in a "time warp," yet speaks fondly of a simple, low-tech tradition: Walking the floor in search of new books, like when some 20 years ago he spotted a novel being released by The Naval Institute.


 * ''"I didn't even know the Navy published novels, but I thought this had potential. We bought it for $49,000," he says, smiling at the memory of how he acquired Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October."


 * Rauterkus (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Who advised on technical details
I was involved with the US submarine force during the cold war. I became familiar with bridge, fire control, and sonar procedures. Also with tactics and with the general culture, the way of talking, etc, in the submarine force. Many things were secret and many others were tacitly so. It may be hard for people now to remember that time, when everything was so secretive. The Hunt for Red October was published shortly after I left the Navy and I was completely floored by the accuracy with which the author captured all of those procedures, tactics and cultural aspects. I and others I talked to who knew about the submariner's world assumed that he had either a co-author or at least a very involved adviser who was from the submarine force. At the time this person would have been violating vows of secrecy to have divulged so much information. Time has passed and I wonder if Clancy has ever talked about this or if the adviser has ever come out. It would be very interesting for some of us old-timers who took our vows seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clancy didn't have military assistance for the book. He was an unknown. I read an interview a long time ago where he said most of his research was from public information like Popular Mechanics etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you notice who published the book, The United States Naval Institute, you might wonder if this wasn't something that the US Navy had actually approved. Well, it did approve it. The following is a direct quote from Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew, located in the back of the book under Notes: Chapter 11: The Crown Jewels. "One of the most fascinating involved Watkins's decision to allow the U.S. naval Institute ... to publish the first edition of Tom Clancy's submarine novel The Hunt for the Red October in 1984 even though some admirals believe it would enable the Soviets to learn about U.S. submarine capabilities. Watkins told us that about two-thirds of the technical information in Clancy's novel is on target and the rest is wrong, and that it typically overstates U.S abilities.  Rather than blocking publication of the book, or attempting to correct the misperceptions, when Clancy submitted his manuscript to the Navy for clearance, Watkins said he decided to let the book go forward as it was. 'The Hunt for Red October did us a service,' he said. 'The Soviets kind of believed it, and we won the battle, and therefore it was a significant part of the noncostly deterrence of submaines.'" Clancy's book was used as a type of propaganda to make the Soviets believe in our nuclear deterrent capablities. The Watkins refer to is Admiral James D. Watkins. You don't have to worry about any violations. From what I've read about Clancy, he works really closely with the US military and isn't someone to delibretely reveal military secrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.238.178 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiat?
I just stumbled upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_the_Potemkin

A book with the very same storyline from the very same time! So who stole from whom? 93.219.173.174 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the summary on that page, I'd say that there's no plagiary going on. Sure, both stories involve fancy Soviet submarines, but that's about as far as it goes. Calling one a carbon copy of another seems pretty extreme. 68.107.119.27 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Red October (fictional submarine) into The Hunt for Red October. As it stands right now, the submarine article is just a rewritten plot summary of the book and film, plus some additional info on its armaments. The book and film are notable, but the submarine itself doesn't appear to be, which seems to be a classic example of WP:BKD. A merger of the two articles wouldn't even necessarily require any work, unless we really want to list the Red October's information, but it doesn't seem necessary. ~SlyCooperFan1 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: agree with everything mentioned above. The submarine isn't notable and a clear example of WP:BKD.--Lahti213 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: the submarine's article is completely unsourced, which is unsurprising as it's not discussed in any great detail in either book or film. That article is almost entirely original research, and what little verifiable information there is could easily be merged into this article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Object: agree with previous comments and proposal. This article does not add anything noteworthy enough to be its own article. That being stated I believe deletion would be a better option.  Taxin 609  ( Talk To Me ) 01:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you object to blanking and redirecting as an alternative to deletion? Felix QW (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Felix QW That could be a suitable option. Taxin 609  ( Talk To Me ) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?
The link (13) is to a review of the movie. This pot-boiler is not likely to have received 'critical acclaim' as literature. Reagan rates as a literary critic...? 61.69.237.49 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)