Talk:Attack submarine

Attack vs. Hunter-Killer

At present 'attack' and 'hunter-killer' have roughly the same meaning, however, prior to the 1960s they were not the same. I'd like to add a small paragraph to the intro explaining how they were different and why they were merged. I would not change the opening sentence. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as you cite reliable, published sources, there shouldn't be a problem. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, like many of the changes I've been making, the main citation is already in the article, in this case current footnote #12. BTW, the more I look at this article the more I think the change can be rather deft. By putting the main text of the change in with the description of the USS Tullibee not much need be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. While you're at it, if you can make sure each paragraph that is covered by the existing source has a citation, that would be very helpful. BilCat (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my changes are mostly done. I do think that the Origins section is too heavily skewed to the SSK role, and needs an intro that emphasizes the surface attack role. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Added text to the Origins section to emphasize the surface attack role. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Candidate text for deletion

This sentence has text not pertinent to this article:

The first fully streamlined Soviet submarines were the Project 667A "Navaga" class (NATO Yankee class), Project 670 "Skat" class (NATO Charlie I class), and Project 671 "Yorsh" class (NATO Victor I class), all of which first entered service in 1967.

The Yankee and Charlie class subs were missile boats, not attack boats. While this info is interesting it is outside the scope of this article. Should we delete?

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why?

The sentence Since a nuclear submarine could maintain a high speed at a deep depth indefinitely, conventional SSKs would be useless against them except in shallow water was flagged in June 2022 with a 'Why?' flag. After months of thinking over possible revisions I removed the flag, since I concluded no revision was possible that was not redundant. The sentence is quite clear: conventional SSKs were incapable of the indefinite deep high speed operations that were necessary to engage an SSN, and only shallow water mitigated the SSN's advantages.

Indefinite + deep + high speed = great advantage.

Great advantage - deep (i.e., + shallow) = less advantage.

How much more info is needed? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I know of a quote from Friedman's book that would serve as a supportive example. Will get around to it in 2-3 days. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, sooner that I thought I could. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)