Talk:Fleet submarine
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Tench class
[edit]Just wondering why Tench class subs are not listed in the comparison of WWII submarines?
- Whereabouts?
- I presume (as we've had this argument endlessly in the past, between those who've read Alden and those who haven't) they're not there for the same reason as the Balao isn't. Either "All classes after the Gato were just modifications of the Gato" or else "All of them actually were Gato". Similarly, Alden describes the Porpoise, Shark and Perch classes, but here they're all lumped in as Porpoises (and they're all missing here too, which is even worse).
- This is wrong, and should be fixed. But last time anyone tried, there was an argument over it and someone played the "I was in the Navy" card.
- If that gives us "too many rows in the table" or "too many US rows", then so what? The fleet submarine was a particularly US concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I know they sank Japanese shipping during the war; in fact the Torsk of this class was the last sub to do so. Since they had two additional bow tubes and were designed with a much greater test depth which considerably changed tactics, my vote is it's indeed a completely separate class. These two points should put it on the list IMO. Alvint69 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- CORRECTION: The Gato classes also had six bow tubes. I guess I can live with the designation as a "Gato variant", but but even other wikipedia pages refer to them as separate classes. Alvint69 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I know they sank Japanese shipping during the war; in fact the Torsk of this class was the last sub to do so. Since they had two additional bow tubes and were designed with a much greater test depth which considerably changed tactics, my vote is it's indeed a completely separate class. These two points should put it on the list IMO. Alvint69 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fleet 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/20150924120339/http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_49/KforKatastrophe.html to http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_49/KforKatastrophe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)