Jump to content

Talk:HMAS Onslow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about...

[edit]

How about a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-crossing_ceremony#Controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.84 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First SSG

[edit]

The later versions of the Shaddocks were anti-shipping missiles and were carried by Juliett class submarines and possibly tested on Whiskey class submarines - I'm not quite sure of the timing, but I'd suspect they predate the UGM-86 on the Oberons? In the depths of the Cold War, it might have been good propaganda, and Western sources might not have been aware of the capabilities of Soviet missiles, the Shaddocks were a source of particular confusion to NATO. Le Deluge (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is what the sources tell me. If you can find a source that disputes the claim made in the article, I'd be happy to alter the statement as necessary. -- saberwyn 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably have to go to Russian sources for a definitive answer, as I mentioned NATO got very confused about the Shaddocks (the SS-N-3c predated the SS-N-3a and the Soviets regarded them as completely separate designs), but here's one source which may be regarded as the official US Navy take on the history - that the anti-shipping variant of the Shaddock tested in 1963, and that the Julietts only ever carried it rather than the land attack version. So that would imply the Julietts beat the Onslow by two decades. I think I'd prefer the wording "first Western sub with ASMs", although I guess you could twist it into something like "first diesel hunter-killer with ASMs" or "first diesel to fire ASMs through torpedo tubes". Le Deluge (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More confusion - I've just looked at the main Oberon class article, which says "HMAS Ovens became only the second conventional submarine in the world—and the first Oberon—to fire a sub-surface-launched Harpoon". I leave that to you to sort out. :-)) Le Deluge (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily contradictory: this article says that Onslow was the first to be fitted with missiles and the Oberon article says that Ovens was the second conventional sub to be fitted with missiles and the first sub to fire them. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ovens was the first Oberon to fire, there seems to have been a non-Oberon that fired the first Harpoon from an SSK. See eg the HNSA "In 1986 [Ovens] had the distinction of being the second conventional submarine in the world to fire a Harpoon anti-ship missile. This occurred off the island of Kauai in Hawaii in 1985". And then the HNSA article on Onslow says "During its major refit in 1982-84 and after successful test firings by HMAS Otway on the Pacific missile firing range in Hawaii, Onslow was fitted with sub-Harpoon missiles - becoming the first conventionally powered (non-nuclear) submarine in the world with an anti-ship missile capability." So "Onslow was the first to be fitted" claim seems to mean "first operational patrol with UGM-84" or some such - although as previously mentioned, the SS-N-3c's on the Julietts make this discussion a bit moot in the global sense. Le Deluge (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources for future expansion

[edit]

Cleaning out my userspace...here are some sources that I've identified as potentially being of use for this article's development.

-- saberwyn 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section contains no sources

[edit]

The opening section of this article makes a number of points, none of which are sourced. Even if later in the article the sources are present when mention occurs again, they should be added to this opening section too. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations says that "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". At the time it was originally written, I thought no cites in the lead would be fine, as all the information is repeated and cited in the body, but following this request, I've gone and added cites to all the statements in the middle paragraph of the lead (which probably fall under various levels of 'challengable'). -- saberwyn 08:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saberwyn, thanks for your reply. Thanks for linking the relevant wikipedia guidelines on sources in the lead as well, as I hadn't read that for a while. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aft torpedo tube ammunition

[edit]

Article currently [1] reads in part The aft tubes fired Mark 20 anti-submarine torpedoes and gives a reference, but not an online one so I can't easily check it. But http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/postwar/oberon/ says the aft tubes of the Canadian Oberons fired Northrop Mk.37 Mod 0 torpedoes, which seems far more likely... the Mk37mod0 described in Mark 37 torpedo would have been short enough... just... for the aft tubes, the Mk20, no. Unless it's a different Mk20? Andrewa (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The regional 'variants' of the Oberon class differed in several respects, particularly armament and sensors. The Canadian boats favoured American torpedoes (such as the Mk 37) and sensors, which makes sense since resupply is just over the border. Conversely, the Australian subs remained particularly British-centric until the 1980s half-life refits (when Onslow gained the US Mk 48 and lost the aft tubes, among other alterations). Consequently, the Australian Oberons would not have used the American Mk 37.
I've got the cited source on hand, but all it says is "Mk 20 anti-submarine torpedoes", with no clarification. None of the other sources I have on hand refer to the torpeodes used, but when I plug "mark 20 oberon submarine" into Google Books, snipped views for White's Australian submarines: a history and Stevens' The Royal Australian Navy also make reference to a Mark 20 torpedo used for the aft tubes. Next time I'm in at the ANMM, I'll investigate further. -- saberwyn 08:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good call. My concern is that I can't find any reference to a "Mark 20" that could be fired from a tube only 12' long. References are all very well, but their primary purpose is to make sure that our information is accurate. Most people won't verify them, so if they fail in this primary function they are at best pointless, and perhaps even counterproductive. But of course then we come up against the (correct) prohibition on original research.
Despite living in Sydney I've yet to visit the ANMM... which is a bit ironic as last week I spent several hours at the much smaller Queensland Maritime Museum, particularly HMAS Diamantina. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing but a passing "Mark 20" comment in the current incarnation of the guide training manual for the submarine, but an old version I unearthed described a 13-foot-6-inch (4.11 m) "Mark 20 (Improved) Torpedo" being used aft. -- saberwyn 12:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Chant's Submarine Warfare Today contains the line "Two shortened 21-in (533 mm) stern tubes, designed for Mk 20S anti-escort torpedoes..." when describing the aft tubes of the British Oberons. [1]

References

  1. ^ Chant, Chris (2005). Submarine Warfare Today. Silverdale Books. p. 132. ISBN 1-184509-158-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMAS Onslow. 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:

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) 08:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMAS_Onslow&oldid=1213111665"