Talk:Submarine

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's one instance of a misspelling of stability, you can find it by searching for 'stab'. FormalityInducer (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Page search for "stab" brings nada. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I couldn't find it either, which isn't what edit requests are for. Please be more specific, per.the instructions. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We hava a ton of articles abou various subtypes of military sumarines (ex. Attack submarine, Ballistic missile submarine, Cruise missile submarine, and Nuclear submarine), but no main article. This article (about submarines) covers both military and civilian uses. Interesting oversight. Right now military submarine is just a redirect here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why an additional generic article for military types is needed. What sort of material would be included that is not already here? Did you have in mind something like military aircraft compared with aircraft? - Davidships (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The first modern submarine was invented by the Catalan Narcís Monturiol in 1864, with many successful tests and several published studies. This submarine was the first with a steam boiler and used as fuel a pot of magnesium peroxide, zinc and potassium chlorate (whose chemical reaction provided oxygen both for combustion and for the crew). In addition, it had compartments that could be filled and emptied of water. It is incredible that this article does not say anything about that. It seems that those who say that Wikipedia is not reliable are not wrong.--Beticat (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

See the "1863–1904" subsection under History. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Within the "Technology: Hull: Pressure Hull" section, it is stated that "An Alfa-class submarine may have successfully operated at 1,300 metres (4,300 ft)". The source linked (https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/deep.htm) leads to an article last edited Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:14:29 PM, and has no mention of any Alfa class, or any submarines reaching such depths, despite the source linked within wikipedia stating the information was retrieved 18 April 2010. The page for the Alfa class submarine itself also has no reference to a submarine making it this deep, only that 1300 meters is its crush depth. Is anyone able to find any mention of where this information is from, or if not, delete it? Thanks Starman Torsten (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think perhaps that you are mistook. I found this sentence in the FAS article:

"The Soviet Alfa submarines, constructed of titanium, reportedly had an operating depth of nearly 4,000 feet."

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I had been searching in metric so the 4,000 feet didn't show up. With that said however, 4000 feet is only about 1220 meters, 80 less than the wikipedia page states. Would it still be worth changing the article to be more accurate, or would that be a waste? I don't know much about submarines, but 80 meters still seems like a significant distance, especially given many subs only go down about 2-400 meters (Seawolf, the deepest divers of the US fleet, can only dive 490 meters). Starman Torsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The article say that Swedish policymakers thought it unlikely for woman that qualifies for submarine service to become pregnant. The source provided do not say that.

From the source: ”Det FOA eventuellt kunde se som ett möjligt problem, var att en kvinna som blivit gravid, inte skulle veta om det och samtidigt vara i flygande- eller ubåtstjänst. Man bedömde dock risken att vara ovetande om sin graviditet som låg och fann det ej befogat att därmed utestänga kvinnor från dessa befattningar.”

Lose translation: ”What FOA (Defence Research Institute) could identify as a possible problem, was if a pregnant woman would unaware of it while serving in a airborne position or on a submarine. However, the risk to be pregnant unawares was deemed to be low and therefore not sufficient to bar woman from these roles.”

The article should be modified to reflect this. Thus, rather then it being unlikely for woman complying with these demands to become pregnant it should say that it was considered unlikely for woman complying with these demands to become pregnant unawares.

/signature ~2025-31181-60 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)