Talk:Depth charge

Section Removed, 4-2-07

I have removed one paragraph from the article, due to it being unencyclopedic. It is shown below.

CORRECTION Examination of USP US1368569 in the name of Minkler while based on the the D type depth charge has claims directed to a firing pistol which employs two springs and differs from Taylor's US patentUS 1514743 which has claims restricted to the use of a single spring as in the D type. Fullinwider's US 1372617 was probably in interference with Gwynne's US 1508140 as claim 9 of that specification is of the same scope as Claim one of Fullimwider; The application is clearly not based on the D type depth charge but describes overcoming the same problem of avoiding premature firing in a mine.Neither case supports the filing of these cases being made to avoid paying the British Inventors.

I then altered the preceeding in an attempt to summarize it. If someone more capable can fix it further, by all means do so. --8.8.198.93

==Wikilink==Link removed, the MK2 Mine link goes to a WW2 tank mine, whereas the article is referring to a WW1 sea mine of which there is no wiki page for. Hence why I removed it and will remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.210.228 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I moved your comment to the bottom. If you had given an edit summary the first time, you wouldn't have been reverted and warned. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hull photo

File:U534battledamage1.jpg

Evidence of damage caused by the battle that sank U-534

The German submarine U-534 is said to have been sunk by direct hit of an aerial depth charge. The sectioned submarine is on display, and there is a photo of the hull damage. If it was caused by a depth charge, then the image might be included in the article. Glrx (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest copy to "Underwater explosion"

i suggest copying most if not all material in "Underwater explosions" section in this article and paste to article "Underwater explosion", this detail is sorely missed over there; and do a "Main article:" link David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 05:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Practice depth charges"

According to the articles on USS Randolph (CV-15)#Anti-submarine_warfare and Vasiliy Arkhipov#Involvement_in_Cuban_Missile_Crisis, there is such a thing as practice depth charges, possible the size of a hand grenade. Mang (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ASROC

A depth charge fitted with a nuclear warhead is known as a nuclear depth bomb. These were
designed to be dropped from a patrol plane or deployed by anti-submarine missile from a
surface ship

When I was an officer in the US Navy aboard a destroyer tender (AD), 1969 - 1971, the nuclear depth charges (I never heard the term "bomb" applied to them) were mounted on ASROCs (Anti-Submarine Rockets) in a mount like the one pictured in the Wikipedia page on RUR-5 ASROC. Nuclear depth charges could also be dropped from an unmanned DASH (for Drone Anti-submarine Helicopter) remote controlled mini-helicopter kept in an on-board hangar. Dick Kimball (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Throwers/Projectors

The Delivery mechanisms section here refers throughout to "depth-charge projectors", quoting (in the first instance at least) Tarrant as a source. I don't know if this is a difference between British and American English, or a difference in usage over time, but all the sources I've seen, including Tarrant, refer to "depth-charge throwers". Does anybody know where the term "projectors" comes from in this context? Also, as "depth-charge throwers" would be a redirect to here, from all the pages on ASW vessels (the RN ones from WWI and WWII at least), there should be some mention of the phrase, in any case. So I've done that. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph of delivery mechanisms

Very interesting. This is basically a recitation of a fictional event in Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" right down to the type of charge used. Normally, that would not seem appropriate material for a non-fiction article in an encyclopedia, but factually, it is correct in what would happen in such a situation. However, outside of that fictional story, there is no evidence any such event has ever occurred. I did not delete the paragraph because it is accurate, but it just seems wrong to use an event from a fiction book in this manner. I leave this note so that others, who may be better in tune with what is appropriate, can examine the issue and take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.184.25 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes or no ?

Hello fellow wikipedians,

I hesitated to add one or two lines about the fact that in France, we mostly call them "anti-submarine grenades", instead of "depth charges". But I don't know if anyone cares about it, actually... So pls tell me, if you want to add it or not. --Friday⁸³²⁶⁰ _{(On discute ?)} 19:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Using stupid

I've reinstated the unquoted use of stupid.[1] The source has the Naval command viewing the act as stupid, the source does not put quotes around stupid, and it is stupid to openly publish the weaknesses of an enemy's weapon system. Stupid means lacking common sense. Glrx (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Finnish claim to have invented air-dropped depth charge - prior claim.

- in "Aircraft Versus Submarine in Two world wars" - Dr Alfred Price ISBN 1 84415 091 7 chapter 3, page 48. At the end of a long section describing the adoption of the Navy Mk VII depth charge and its adaption to be dropped from aircraft it states "....in August 1940 Coastal Command obtained seven hundred of these weapons from the Admiralty." - This would predate the Finnish claim by over a year and clearly show that the RAF use was not prompted by the Finnish use.

Unsubstantiated opinion or poor wording: last paragraph of history

The last paragraph of the history section provides an unsubstantiated opinion in such a way as to make it seem like the Mark 4/7 depth charges were ineffective:

"Although the explosions of the standard United States 600 lb (270 kg) Mark 4 and Mark 7 depth charge used in World War II were nerve-wracking to the target, a U-boat's undamaged pressure hull would not rupture unless the charge detonated closer than about 15 ft (4.6 m). Placing the weapon within this range was entirely a matter of chance and quite unlikely as the target maneuvered evasively during the attack."

While the British Mark VII did have a larger charge and faster sink rate, that did not exactly mean the US depth charges were ineffective. Every depth charge had the issue of "could easily miss the target". Taking the numbers on Wikipedia as gospel:

U-427: 50.5m length (pressure hull only), 4.7m beam, 9.6m height. Modeling it as a cylinder of 50.5m length and 4.7m diameter gives a volume of 876 m^3, which is reasonably consistent with its submerged displacement of 871 tonnes (which should be about 871 m^3 of water).

US Mark 4/7: 4.6m hull bursting radius. This increases the effective dimensions to 59.7x13.9m, giving the kill box a volume of 9059 m^3.

UK Mark VII (with Torpex): 7.9m hull bursting radius. This gives effective dimensions of 66.3x20.5m, giving the kill box a volume of 21883 m^3. About a 2x improvement, but that's not exactly going to sink the entire U-boat fleet, especially given that nobody with any sense used just one depth charge.

I'm also a tad skeptical of some of those numbers, seeing as how at least one source lists the American Mark 4/7 as having a pretty hefty 290 kg TNT charge , but it's not a big deal. No depth charge had a particularly enormous kill radius.

What is slightly more substantial is the actual effectiveness. The same website gives an overall 3% British depth charge success rate, ranging from 0.5% in late 1943 to 17.6% in 1945. Said website: about 3% success rate for American attacks . These numbers are quite comparable. Even then, the fraction of submarines killed to attacks conducted is not the complete story; a submarine forced to retreat is still a success from the perspective of protecting a convoy.

In the absence of direct citations from a good source to the effect of "the Mark 4 and Mark 7 were not terribly effective compared to other depth charges", I'm inclined to believe the Wikipedia article should be neutral on whether those depth charges were, as point of fact, less effective than other depth charges.

My suggestion would be to separate out the claims made by that paragraph, first describing American depth charges, then pointing out that depth charges had a low kill probability.

"In comparison, the standard United States 600 lb (270 kg) Mark 4 and Mark 7 depth charge used in World War II had an estimated effectiveness range of 15 ft (4.6m). The teardrop-shaped United States Mark 9 depth charge entered service in the spring of 1943.[11] The charge was 200 lb (91 kg) of Torpex with a sinking speed of 14.4 ft/s (4.4 m/s) and depth settings of up to 600 ft (180 m).[11] Later versions increased depth to 1,000 ft (300 m) and sinking speed to 22.7 ft/s (6.9 m/s) with increased weight and improved streamlining.[11]

While often nerve-wracking, depth charge attacks had a low success rate*. Placing a depth charge close enough to burst a maneuvering submarine's hull involved a substantial degree of luck, and most either outright missed, or merely damaged the submarine. A notable example is U-427, which survived 678 depth charges fired against it in April 1945."

• Possibly insert these references: ? This is my first contribution, and I'm unsure about the general attitudes, rules and norms here.

Unless there's an actual citation to the effect of "the Mark 4 and Mark 7 were particularly ineffective", I feel the current structure gives a misleading impression.

References

Nuclear Depth Charges & Anti-submarine weapons

I will start with quoting A depth charge fitted with a nuclear warhead is also known as a "nuclear depth bomb". These were designed to be dropped from a patrol plane or deployed by an anti-submarine missile from a surface ship, or another submarine, located a safe distance away. By the late 1990s all nuclear anti-submarine weapons had been withdrawn from service by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. They have been replaced by conventional weapons whose accuracy and range had improved greatly as ASW technology improved. I really want to question this statement. And Some vagueness here. Probably yes for the United States, the United Kingdom, France - BUT no one can publicly confirm such based on classified nature. Zero idea about Russia and China. if I went searching there may be some Russian or Chinese Weapons Actually I would not be surprised if all countries still held some nuclear warhead Anti-submarine weapons strictly at storage facilities on land, not normally onboard operational units. Wfoj3 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC).

I agree very little of the quoted paragraph from the lead section is supported by cited information in the article. I suggest at least the two final sentences should be deleted. Thewellman (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)