Talk:Anti-submarine warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-submarine warfare article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

This article needs attention.GraemeLeggett 14:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 35,000?

No, 3500. Hz., that is. Changed. rasqual 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Report

I deleted "The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships." as redundant. I rewrote "The critical Allied advantage was provided by the breaking of German naval codes" to "An important"; the value of Ultra is often overstated.

I rewrote

"shipping from attacks by U.S. and Allied submarines. The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships. Japanese sub detection gear was not as advanced as that of some other nations. The primary Japanese anti-submarine weapon for most of WWII was the depth charge, and Japanese depth charge attacks by its surface forces initially proved fairly unsuccessful against U.S. fleet submarines. Unless caught in shallow water, a U.S. submarine commander could normally dive to escape destruction, sometimes using temperature gradient to escape pursuit. Additionally, during the first part of the war, the Japanese tended to set their depth charges too shallow, unaware U.S. submarines could dive below 150 feet.

"Unfortunately, the deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics were revealed in a June 1943 press conference held by U.S. Congressman Andrew J. May, a member of the House Military Affairs Committee who had visited the Pacific theater and received many confidential intelligence and operational briefings. At the press conference, May revealed American submarines had a high survivability because Japanese depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth, typically 100 feet (because Japanese forces believed U.S. subs did not normally exceed this depth). Various press associations sent this story over their wires, and many newspapers, including one in Honolulu, thoughtlessly published it. Soon enemy depth charges were rearmed to explode at a more effective depth of 250 feet. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, later estimated that May's revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen"

because it over-emphasises May. Moreover, I'd argue IJN doctrine & training were terrible.

I added "There were rarely sufficient escorts for extensive hunts, and it was certain U-boats would be found in the vicinity of convoys." (I'm far from convinced of the value of HK patrols.)

I added "temperature gradients (thermoclines)."

And I'd suggest "* Larger convoys, which allowed more escorts to be allocated to each convoy. " is mistaken. The number of escorts didn't change, as such; what mattered was, the number of escorts in relation to the perimeter to be covered: escorts for 2 convoys of 40 ships, covering 1 of 80, reduced the size of the sector, without increasing the number of escorts. It's based on work by Blackett's OR team. You can find it in van der Vat, Atlantic Campaign. Trekphiler 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name, rank, & contradiction

The article says, "Fregatten-Leutnant Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft" (a name & date I've seen elsewhere, in Price, I think); Submarine says, "a Serbian pilot named Konjovic" (somebody I never heard of). Who's right? Trekphiler 07:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)