Template talk:Groundbreaking submarines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Drebbel : which flag?

Drebbel was in England under the patronage of the King, working for the Royal Navy, so perhaps his flag should be split with the appropiate British flag at the time? GraemeLeggett 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If so, the same goes for the Nautilus: French flag (or even British) Oliphaunt 21:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Drebbel was a Dutchman, and he designed and build the submarine alone.Rex 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He had been living in England for over fifteen years when he built his submarine, and his submarine was in large part inspired by the ideas of William Bourne, another Englishman. How long would he have to live in England, under the patronage of the King, working for the Royal Navy, before a British flag would belong there? Or are one's accomplishments permanently tied to one's country of birth? John Philip Holland was born in Ireland and was 32 when he came to the US, but I think it would be ridiculous to call the Holland boats Irish submarines. TomTheHand 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You forget that although living a great deal of his life in England, he was a reknowned Dutch scolar who published in, and visted his home country a lot. He was not an average immigrant.Rex 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the fact that he built the submarine while living in England, with English money and supplies, based on an English design, for the English. TomTheHand 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see how the fact that he used, English money and English wood, surpasses the notion that he was Dutch, was educated in the Netherlands and was a respected scolar there.Rex 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Drebbel was of Dutch birth, but the submarine was English, built with English money, English wood, and an English design, for the English. Drebbel's country of birth doesn't figure into it. TomTheHand 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The mind behind it was Dutch, not English. Have you ever seen his construction drawings? Guess in which language the notes are, hint: not English. The guy was a Dutch writer and scientist, who spend a lot of his time in England but also in the Netherlands. He was not a simple emigrant. No matter where he made the thing, it was the child of a Dutch, not English, mind.Rex 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The child of a Dutch mind, except for the parts that were the child of an English one? TomTheHand 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Parts alone don't make an invention, or are you saying the inventor of glass also invented the microscope?Rex 19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

William Bourne didn't invent parts; he came up with the design (a submersible boat with a wooden frame, enclosed with leather, propelled by oars sticking out through gaskets), but did not build it. I believe that an English concept, turned into reality by a Dutchman living in England, working for the English, makes for an English boat. TomTheHand 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding the English flag in addition to the Dutch flag as a compromise. TomTheHand 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A boat covered in leather was not an English concept, the idea and drawings were around for centuries. I even believe Da Vince made sketches of them. Drebbel lived in the Netherlands from 1572 till 1604, when he left for England and did some inventing there. In 1610 however, he left for Prague and stayed there for 10 years, despite being captured in the thirty years war in 1613 (when he shortly was shipped to England) in 1620 he went back to England to die in 1633. That's the story of a Dutch inventor, and Dutch inventors make Dutch inventions.Rex 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they are in the employ of the English government as inventors and are designing and building things for the Royal Navy. I'm not trying to play down Drebbel's accomplishments, but calling his submarine Dutch is like saying that Genoa discovered the New World, or the first circumnavigation of the globe was a Portuguese accomplishment, or the famous Maxim gun was American. TomTheHand 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This was not a group effort, apart from that sailing west of Spain en discovering land is not the same as making a great invention. Drebels was Dutch, not just of Dutch herritage, he was Dutch.Rex 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But in my opinion, and in the opinion of others such as GraemeLeggett, that does not make it a Dutch invention. I'm surprised that you would reject even a compromise dual listing on this issue. TomTheHand 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The man who pays an inventor does not make the invention. Simple.Rex 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that that is what you believe. However, I am putting an English flag up as well, because when a man moves to England and the English government pays him to develop things for them, there are sufficient grounds for many normal, rational, intelligent people to believe that the invention is English. You can't just say "I'm right" and say that the issue is settled. We're going to list both flags as a compromise. TomTheHand 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Look at the intro of Drebels article:

Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel (Alkmaar, 1572 - London, November 7, 1633) was the Dutch inventor of the first navigable submarine in 1620.

Says it all doesn't it?Rex 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think saying "he's Dutch" over and over again is going to suddenly change things. You believe, probably because you're Dutch, that the only thing that matters is that Drebbel was Dutch. I believe I've come up with some halfway decent counterexamples of situations where inventions are widely considered to be of the country where the inventor lived, and the country which paid him. Where the inventor was originally from doesn't matter. Your counterargument there seems to be that Drebbel is more Dutch, so incredibly Dutch that his Dutchness pervades everything he did, unlike those other guys, who weren't really all that American or Irish. TomTheHand 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you again was the inventor English or Dutch? Dutch. It doesnt matter the English navy hired him, it was a Dutchman and hence a Dutch invention. In the same way that Kees Immink and Toshitada Doi invented the CD, not philips and sony. Rex 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll answer you again: Drebbel was Dutch, his boat was English, and we're listing both flags. TomTheHand 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

and I'll tell you again, Drebbel was Dutch, his invention was Dutch, the B. navy m ight have owned the craft, that makes it an English sub, not an English inventionRex 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i seem to have started this, so I ought to comment. To my mind the correct atribution for Drebbels submarine is Anglo-Dutch since its a product of Drebbel and the English backing, built by a Dutchman (or overseen by a Dutchman? Were his tradesmen English or Dutch?). I note also in passing that Drebbel had been in England about as long as Holland had been in the US. Now if the template broke it down into "builder" and an article on the submarine itself, then the two parts could have a flag each repsenting the origin of each. You appear to absolutely deadlocked on this one - have you considered asking for more input eg on the Wiki Project ships?GraemeLeggett 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not opposed to a builder/submarine division on principle, I think it'd be meaningless for submarines beyond the Holland boats. I'll post about this on WP:SHIPS and get some folks over here to comment. TomTheHand 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe there is a difference here, Holland was an immigrant (went to America never to return), Drebel wasn't.Rex 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The biography of Drebbel, as it stands at the moment, makes no mention of him returning to the Netherlands or any work in the Netherlands after moving to London.

GraemeLeggett 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He moved to Prague after visiting England and gave lectures all around Europe, especially his home country.Rex 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, give me a brake ans reinstall the Dutch flag. This is beyond any reason and I really do not see the point. Cornelius Drebbel was a well known Dutch scientist. Or should King William III be considered English too? Spencer007 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch flag was not removed. None of us consider Drebbel to be an Englishman, so that argument is a straw man. TomTheHand 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch flag is Red White and Blue and not organge. That is an obsolete version. Rex already explained quite well with his CD comparison. The English flag is from a historical and legal point of view incorrect. Besides, it gives the impression Drebbel was English as well, which, as you admit, is not the case. And there goes your straw man. Spencer 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete? No, that is the version that was in use when Drebbel developed his submarine. The red, white, and blue flag is wrong before 1630 or so. TomTheHand 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, could you clarify at what point I made a straw man argument? TomTheHand 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, as I will not discus the Stars and Stripes with you, please do not tell me what the flag of my country is, or which flag is obsolete. As of 1596 the Dutch flag is Red, White and Blue. Spencer 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then quote me a reliable source, and go update our article on the flag of the Netherlands. TomTheHand 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it yourself, dude, you seem to know everything better Spencer 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're done here. TomTheHand 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally. Spencer 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I did my part of the job, and will examine the article thoroughly tomorrow as I found some other minor discrepancies which I will adjust. Just for the record, I am very willing to contribute, as I am an avid reader, but I do not like to be told what to do.

Intellectual property, because that is what we are discussing here belongs to a person (or a company when the rights are stored there). Hence, if Irishman Holland builds a sub, it is no new invention and therefore not his intellectual property. In the case of our friend Drebbel, it is pretty clear what the situation was. He invented the sub, and built it by himself. Therefore he is the owner and sole holder of this intellectual property, so the fruits of his work are considered part of this, making the English flag not applicable.Spencer 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove the English flag, or replace the proper Dutch flag with an anachronistic one, and they're going right back the way they were. I've made my case, which is a reasonable one, and the reasonable thing to do is compromise and list both flags.
I'm sick of dealing with this nationalism. I'm willing to bet that if Drebbel were English, and he moved to the Netherlands, became a patron of the Dutch throne, and built his submarine with Dutch money for the Dutch navy you'd be trying to claim it as a Dutch accomplishment as well. TomTheHand 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a legal issue, which has nothing to do with nationalism. This is all about accuracy. As for your bet, it is just an assumption, and does not contribute to a reasonable conversation. As I previously didn't do so either, let's call it even. I am sorry you feel this way, but I believe my arguments are no less reasonable then yours. Unfortunately, as a newcomer I don't know how to change the flags, and besides, I do not consider it suitable to do so until this topic has been settled. Spencer 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The template uses the flags of the periods in which the subs were created. Hence the Orange, white, blue is in fact correct. This doesn't change the fact which I've been defending all along. Drebbel was a Dutchman who spend his life wandering around europe. He was not English and no matter who financed him they did not controll his mind. This invention is Dutch. The English flag will go, I will not comprise something that doesn't need to be compromised.Rex 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing actually reminds me of an American dispute. The Wright brothers invented the airplane. They were born in Ohio, but went to the coast of North Carolina to build and fly the plane because of good, predictable breezes and soft sand. Both Ohio and North Carolina have the Wright Flyer on their quarters and license plates, each trying to claim the airplane for themselves. TomTheHand 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Rex, FYI: http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Nederlands/symbolen/rood%20wit%20blauw.htm. I'll work on the topic today, as I have other sources too confirming this. Tom, that is very interesting, I was not aware of this dispute. I guess we have to find out whether England played the same role as North Carolina did, i.e. North Carolina seemd to be a necessity, while in this particular case I am not sure whether England had the same importance, as the Dutch in those days were an emerging naval power themselves. So I will try to see what I can find on this one. Anyway, we are getting somewhere now.

I can't read Dutch, so I had to use a translation tool, but the site you posted seems to just talk about when the red-white-blue flag debuted. It does not say when it became the primary flag and does not contradict sites like flags of the world or the Dutch embassy in New Zealand or Dutch permanent mission to the UN. The last two links seem to me to be acknowledgment by the government of the Netherlands that the orange-white-blue flag was the primary one until about 1630. TomTheHand 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. In the meanwhile, the Memoirs of a Geisha page has been vandalized. I do not know how to get rid of the imagesSpencer 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I was wondering if this template might be inherently POV. What is "groundbreaking"? I certainly wouldn't argue about the importance of Cornelius Drebbel's submarine. However, I don't think it's all black and white. For example, what is groundbreaking about the I-400 class submarine? Her size? She was not the first submarine to carry aircraft, and aircraft-carrying submarines never became useful or popular. Similarly, USS Narwhal (SSN-671) had a number of unique features, but many have not been repeated. On the other hand, equally unique submarines are probably left out. TomTheHand 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I used technological advancement as my criteria when first creating the template. Since then, others have added other entries to it that I was less certain about. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to come up with well-defined, NPOV criteria for "groundbreaking." That could help things out a lot. I personally don't think that "unique" is an adequate criterion, but I think that a template that identifies submarines which were highly influential and/or contained features which were important in future submarines could be valuable. For example, I think the Zulu SSB would be an important example (assuming they were the first ballistic missile submarines; my history is hazy on that point) whereas the Alfa class was an expensive failure and, in many ways, a technological dead-end. Similarly, Albacore and Nautilus were very important (teardrop hull, nuclear power), while Narwhal was in many ways a dead end. TomTheHand 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Alfa class might be questionable, but it pioneered an automated control system which was implemented on later subs, reducing crew to less than half. So this is enough... however, others are questionable. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Groundbreaking" is a fundamentally POV assertion. If instead we changed it to "submarine firsts" and listed each sub alongside the achievment which put it in this list, I think it would both be more neutral and more useful to navigate, since readers wouldn't have to go to each page just to find out what the big deal was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with expanding the template, though the name in my opinion would sound better as it is. Probably the best form would be: Year - Navy (flag icon) - Name - Propulsion type (icon) - Achievement. Any objections or suggestions? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resurgam

Doesn't Resurgam deserve a place here? Mark.murphy 10:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated subs

Groundbreaking submarines
The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Really a lot of subs have been added to the template recently. I suggest to review and seriously cut down the template. Let's remember that it is about groundbreaking submarines, which introduced innovations massively implemented later, not just some unique vessels.

Specifically, I'd consider for cleanup:

  • USS Triton
  • USS Halibut
  • USS Albacore or USS Skipjack

* USS Holland

  • 1-3 of Turtle, Nautilus, Alligator, Plongeur
  • Possibly USS Narwhal
  • Possibly H.L.Hunley
  • Possibly I-400

CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Between Albacore and Skipjack I would keep Albacore, since she was the first. The teardrop design is often called the "Albacore hull," after all; I haven't heard it called the "Skipjack hull." I would agree that some of the early experimental submarines, while innovative and unique, probably can't be said to have been influential. Basically, I agree with your entire list, and I would add to it the Alfa class. Though they were very innovative, they were also failures and have not been influential. TomTheHand 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I also considered Alfas, but there's one thing they pioneered: automation. It's implemented on modern Russian subs (Akula class and small diesel-powered boats), and, though not yet worldwide used, is quite in line with modern direction of progress. It's not like I-400, which was just a dead end. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clueless pass by FAB

The first part of this...
was 'operational thinking', not 'engineering tech thinking', so see the sub-section following before reacting! (Maybe one day wikipedia will have a full screen WYSIWIG editor!) Take note of the now bolded text in my original post in the following paragraph.

   Hi guys, that the template needs to be cut down, is an assessment based on an assumption I disagree with since there are loads of much longer templates listed in category:Navigational templates and such. Just look at the Merovingian dynasty one for example in Hugh Capet and successors. In sum, a craft was either a trend setter, or it wasn't. Otherwise, your editorial squirming is introducing POV for unsound reasons. I'm approaching this both historically and operationally.

As a qualified submariner (and former crewman of the Skipjack, Nautilus, Skate and Greenling) with thirty years in the USNR, I added most of the subs being discussed for the following reasons. (Thanks to CP/M for asking I come here.)

  • USS Triton — two reactors and strategic role as radar picket. I'm judging on the climate of the times, never mind that Polaris and such came along shortly afterwards. Money poured into subs as the cold war blossomed, so we see a spate of parallel developments in '59-60.
This was actually quite a dead-end machine. It didn't implement something really new, and was interesting, but this is what I'd definitely not consider groundbreaking. Notable, of course, but not exactly that. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You might find on investigation that she was the first ever location (yes, I'm including those fancy new nuclear power plants of the day) where two reactors were operated together. That would certainly be grounds for an engineering notability of large degree... operationally, I agree with you to some extent. She really wasn't good at her missions, plus was costly to operate. // FrankB 08:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What's so special about two reactors? I might have some misunderstanding, but it requires nothing really specific, and doesn't boost capabilities significally. Well, it's interesting, but I'd rather remove her from the template rather than one of the more notable ships. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • USS Halibut — Regulus cruise missile boat... supplanted only because Polaris worked. If it hadn't, the George Washington and other boomers would following in step. Also antedated the Soviet SSGN classes, or I misrecollect.
    • So I misrecollected. CP/M is obviously more into this facet of history than I. FrankB 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The SSGN-587 was commissioned in January 1960, and the K-45 (first 659) in November 1960. Both were laid late in 1958. While 587 wins the race, they were developed and built simultaneously. Also, Project 659 was produced in series from the very beginning. So, I don't percieve this as a big deal. However, some basis for inclusion exists. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • USS Albacore — I've never heard of it called an 'Albacore hull', btw. <g>Well, maybe in a classroom, but mostly, nobody ever heard of her from my service dates in the early-mid-70's onwards, at least in the east coast navy. We knew about her, stationed on Skipjack, but since she was purely used as an experimental platform, I'd omit her if I needed to. But we covered 'that' above. Her X wing tail section is also notable as an 'interesting failure', but her construction to prove out methods of using HY-80 steel is certainly points in her favor. So I'd weak keep.
The Albacore Hull is really not a common term (BTW, I'll fix it in the main article now), but still it's Albacore and not Skipjack which first implemented it. Albacore quite fits the template - after all, it was a real submarine, not just a series of experiments. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • USS Skipjack: I was totally amazed she wasn't listed. Flabbergasted, in truth. Here you have the still reigning champion for the fastest crossing of the Atlantic underwater in the shortest time. She totally revolutionized ASW warfare needs and was the despair of surface group Admirals for decades. Even the later 637 class had to give her and her sister's a nod, much as we nod at the Alpha's and Akula's for their speed and maneuverability, if not stealthy, no one wants to tangle with such.
       The Los Angeles class could almost match their speed, but never their maneuverability... which you damn well would value if you were dodging a torpedo! One Captain was dismissed because he wanted to try to do a Loop like an aircraft, and probably could have had it been permitted.
       Unblessed by the size of the later subclasses, she held up a sharp stick even with second rate sonar into the early Eighties.
       She was also the testbed for the (now standard US and British equipment, probably all of NATO) noise reduction tiles which extended the life of this relatively noisy but very speedy platform.
       In her, the miracle of the Nuclear power and the efficient hull form were married creating all of today's grandchildren.
       Lastly, the first Boomers, USS George Washington were Skipjack classes cut in half with an added missile compartment. Which seems to be another omission from {{groundbreaking submarines}}.
       I didn't add here as the template seems to include no boomers whatever, leading me to think there is another equivalent for that group of type weapons platforms???
Again the point about major changes - SSBN-598 wasn't a breakthrough. In design, as you've already mentioned, it was just a modified Skipjack. In historical significance, it was the first US boomer, but it was only laid down 3 years after "SSB" Project 611 was commissioned, and also after first specifically ballistic missile Project 621 boats, so it can't be considered groundbreaking for the new type. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • USS Holland --Should be no question, or you shouldn't be contributing here.
Historically, it's very important. But if we abstract from politics, it wasn't the first in anything. Notable, but not groundbreaking. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Beg to disagree. No other sub was a success, or became a class. Hence if engineering watersheds are your guiding light, that all her systems worked together and worked well for years (2 decades, in some cases, iirc), then this is your true start of submarining. I address this some in my long post earlier tonight... way down the end. // FrankB 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm already convinced. You're right, there's too much about this sub, I probably got too trigger-happy. Also, after reviewing the template, it would be just wrong to leave a gap for that era. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 08:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's exactly the reason I listed them. I think just one of them would be enough. I'm not sure which exactly is more important, though, and would appreciate suggestons. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly USS Narwhal,
       Maybe,
         Little information about Narwhal’s career is available. It was not an uneventful career; it included a very heavy deployment rate interrupted only by three overhauls (two involving reactor refueling). Those deployments earned Narwhal a Navy Unit Commendation for a 1972 deployment, and Meritorious Unit Commendations for operations in 1971, 1977 and 1979. She also earned five Battle Efficiency "Es," four Engineering "Es," and awards of the Anti-Submarine Warfare "A," the Communications "C" and the Supply "E." With the capabilities possessed by Narwhal, it is considered likely that she was used for eavesdropping of communications and fleet operations, very close to Soviet shores. Hits exactly her mission—let's say she used to really often carry people from 'No Such Agency' and frequented inland Artic Ocean accessible waters.
Well... But what exactly in design could you call groundbreaking? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My 'Maybe' is up there. I was actually evaluating her more in engineering than in operational terms. Her stealth would qualify (very important, but hard to quantify engineering property!), and her ELINT capabilities were we to find them documented and unclassified. I know her reduction gears and main engines (Big Electric Motors) were considered very special... but apply economies of scale, and they probably resulted in the USS Ohio... at least as a trait inherited by a descendent. Add in the Jet Propulsion system of the 774 class, as derivative—pumps sufficiently quiet probably run off just such motors directly without reduction gearing at all (educated guess, I can ask an active duty ex-shipmate)... another way to save noise generation—no noise from gears. Add in my 'catching on to engineering focus below', and do a coin flip. //FrankB 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly CSS Hunley— Yeah, she sunk a ship and caused a lot of fear via rumor. Include
As notable, if it was about history. Maybe we need a separate category or template. But... again, nothing to do with breakthroughs. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly I-400 — The Sen Toku I-400 class (伊四〇〇型潜水艦) submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy were the largest submarines of WW2, the largest non-nuclear submarines ever constructed, and the largest in the world until the development of nuclear ballistic submarines in the 1960s. Include on size and success. One sunk the USS Indianapolis, iirc.
Considering this, it's probably an example of what is notable, but never groundbreaking. Yes, it was large, but, well, we don't include Typhoon, the largest one ever. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes! But your whole 'definition' fits such characterization. What is notable to me is operations capabilities, not just some kludged together technology that seems 'new', as none of it really is. It's all derivative and evolutionary. So 'groundbreaking' is a term I'm having trouble accepting for it merely signifies a filter about what sort of attributes are to be considered notable.
   Consider the noise reduction measures as a class of traits. They are very sweeping and widely applied technologies that the Soviets never did master, and most people (Save Tom Clancy) never think of beyond acknowledging the west's predominance in the field. Such don't seem visible (one biggie hides in plain sight—covering most of the hull of US subs!) or easily recognizable, yet they create something very different class to class as improvements accumulated. // FrankB 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, significant noise reduction should be considered, but only when it was revolutionary (e.g. natural circulation), not just a better implementation. It's actually about all the term - groundbreaking implies revolutionary changes, either in design, capabilities or usage. But I-400 was just the last attempt in a failed type (submarine aircraft carrier). CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less Clueless pass

Just re-read... Let's remember that it is about groundbreaking submarines, which introduced innovations massively implemented later, not just some unique vessels.

1   If that's truly the consensus of what is meant by the template, then strike everything above the Holland, and change the Banner title of the template to 'Groundbreaking Submarines Introducing<BR>Key Engineering Advances'.
Doesn't groundbreaking term imply that? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not with the different background! <g> // FrankB
2   I'd keep the Skipjack over any experimental hull like the Albacore and it's derivative diesel 580 classes, and the German German Type XXI submarine gets the nod there as the first round hull design iterated into the Albacore. The Zulu class submarine gets a nod, technically, the Gato class could be added as having a Radar set. I-400 could be kept on a stretch by size
3   The first ICBM subs are notably missing.
4   USS Triton, Type 212 submarine, USS Halibut, fail by lack of series production, as does USS Nautilus (SSN-571), which did not have a widely used reactor type.
I am astounded that you don't consider Nautilus notable. So what if it wasn't produced in great numbers? Neither was Hunley, yet both changed the way people thought about submarines. Isn't that what makes them notable? That is why Albacore and Holland should be included, too. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
   Me thimks you took that a bit out of context. In my initial pass, (Just noticed that I thought I'd and certainly meant to acknowledge her place. I'll fix that now! I think I backed past one too many preview screens. Fixed, nonetheless, this following still holds.) I acknowledged the 'USS Neversail' because she was the testbed for nuclear power in an hull essentially inherited from the Gato Class. But in terms of which introduced innovations massively implemented later, not just some unique vessels, she's really just one more unique experimental vessel.
   Even the skate class is different. I don't remember much of any significant differences (and I had extended TDY training cruises on both ships when I was a newbie submariner stationed on a boat in the shipyard... so we got farmed out as trainees), but obviously the Navy recognizes one.
   I'd guess it was the reactor type and such other iterative changes, but don't know. So keeping in mind my additional filter -- significant serial production, I have to strike her off on that criteria... which you all need not apply.
   Otherwise, I do strongly think she deserves her historical place. Consider it an lesson at how arbitrary this matter can be. // FrankB 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
5   You cut the list like that, and you keep about what, five ships?
Five to eight, I think, would be enough. I consider it a "must-read" about the most important, groundbreaking advances. We could create a template, category or article about notable submarines, of course, which would include 20-25 classes. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
6   Ok, add in a couple of lead boomers like Washington and Ohio, and the Los Angeles for the vericle array of cruise missles... a much extended capability over any predecessor. No space trade-offs between warshots (torpedos, and or Hawk's) and her plant uses minimal pumps—only used at high speeds in transit, when a sub is blind and just another target.

   Face the fact that the art advances like most all engineering in interactive iteritive theft. I wouldn't narrow the category that way, and it's obviously flawed by including not one boomer. // FrankB 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems we just have some misunderstanding about the template's meaning. And, maybe, professional difference plays some role too... I have experience with engineering and you with actual application, so we tend to focus on different things.

::'Scuse you! I'm an engineer myself. As I added below (or your talk just after), think you need to build a list of fundamentally important technology, or write the same up as an article. This has too much value ladened judgements about what advance or trait is more significant than another, at least if you want a small list, such gets to be very arbitrary. // FrankB

In my view, the groundbreaking submarines term means that these subs defined the future, placed the first stones in the next generation of submarines. It's the explicit meaning. There is a lot of historically important subs or just very special ones, but they weren't major engineering breakthroughs, and weren't followed by further evolutionary designs. Most of them just don't belong to such template. Please don't take it personally (I might be too harsh), I just express what I think about them and the specific template. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Major Engineering Breakthroughs

re:In my view, the groundbreaking submarines term means that these subs defined the future, placed the first stones in the next generation of submarines. It's the explicit meaning. There is a lot of historically important subs or just very special ones, but they weren't major engineering breakthroughs, and weren't followed by further evolutionary designs. Most of them just don't belong to such template. Please don't take it personally (I might be too harsh), I just express what I think about them and the specific template. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
On Major Engineering Breakthroughs

Repeating your caution... don't take it as an attack'. My point is there is no such beastie as a 'groundbreaking sub' in technological terms, save for a very artificial way of looking at historical developments in a narrow compartmented sort of way. There never has been such great leaps forward in technology, never will be barring alien influence from beyond the asteroid belt, as the world is messy and cannot be so neatly compartmented, no matter how many academics want to treat it so for their own selfish purposes (publish or perish, and tenure and security is always significant therein), or newsmen for theirs (sensational or interesting, drawing more readers and 'buzz' to draw in even more circulation, etc.). Such 'convienent labels' are expostulatory mechanisms, not reality—romanticization attempts by skilled writers trying to engage the reader's imagination and emotions, not realities. 'Major Engineering Breakthroughs' are very, very rare, if any such have truly ever occured. Mainly such that would deserve such grandiosity would be a process development, not something that was an artifice of the process. So Bessemer's process invoking the greater knowledge of material chemistry is a qualifier, and growing pure silicon crystals into huge wafers, but they don't by themselves make ships, just component parts of such complex systems.

May as well try and build a sky-scraper out of smoke as to consider a natural development as fundamental all by itself—there are simply too many interdependencies and iterative steps—high tech is made up by a lot of little things working together, tons of small advances making things possible (Berilium steel contacts in a elecrical connector, the technique for plating such so they won't tarnish) or economic this year, what were not in the last; not by sudden major leaps forward. Many things take years to develop while other things develop independently, then later each gets combined in it's own way. It took a decade to go from the first reliable and manufacturable transistors to the first crude integrated circuits, three decades more to envision an Ipod and deem it something within technological reach. My kids laugh me when I mention my first home computer and how I paid nearly $4k for a large hard drive... a whopping monster of a drive... a whole 20 megabytes. It took five years for such leading edge tech to reach 105 megabytes. 500 only a few years later... and so to today, where standard laptops routinely have 20 gigabytes and desktops yawn at 60. Where was the breakthrough? Such is arbitrary, but the first 5 Meg XT class is likely to be a panel of experts choice. It was at least breakthrough given that all prior PC class machines had no hard drive capacity whatever! That much is clear, and so is the Nautilus's Nuclear reactor. Barring those watershed's, the picture is far muddier.

All engineering arts are iterative and cumulative. So to your way of defining such, having an Iron hull and steel hull are significant, rather than commonsensical applications of newer stronger safer materials and technologies like hammered hot rivet attachment methods that made them producable... the reality was 1860's were merely the first era when ample iron was available for such. Steel was still very scarce and made only in small lots, the Bessemer process was circa 1880's, iirc. Chemistry was very crude, the periodic table essentially unknown, many elements undiscovered, physics herself was barely to first base with electricity and striking out badly on the structure of the atom, the all important to a submariner pump technology was primitive, Internal combustion was in the future, etc. (So you say the Holland wasn't significant, was not a groundbreaker, even though she was the first actual successful weapons platform with a long lived existance. That her design and configuration were common to all classes across all nations afterward is insignificant. That the key nations in the history of submarines all either bought one or more of her type, or studied the hell out of her before designing their own home brewed adaptation. Huh? Wasn't just that sort of inheritability one of your criteria?)

We can go through the whole list of technological availability and historical interconnection, but the application of such was the reflection of availability at the time, not great leaps forward. So you want to take some system of such combinations and artificially pick out the one's that are glamorous and important seeming... whilst ignoring the fact that twenty or thirty related technologies were and are crucial to the design choices that seem 'neat and note-worthy'.

Well, if it were a portrait that would be okay, art needn't reflect reality as it operates on the emotional plane. But such arbitrary value judgments are possessed of just such emotion based judgments. The house of cards will fall if any one of the basement cards or subsequent stories are snatched away. So take a snap shot if you will, but keep that reality in mind too... every class has years of refinement, practice and study behind it when it comes about. Each was planned for close to a decade mostly overall, and certainly after the 637 class.

That sometimes there are technical arguments that need laid to rest, or operational feasibilty ('operations' are what pay the bills in a Navy always starved for bigger budgets. When a ship ceases to have missions, she's gotten rid of very quickly. Ask the toothless Albacore, or the expensive Triton; just think in terms of dollars.) such as an all electric pumpless natural circulation reactor system, and those are married with a mission specialty need (ELINT) resulting in a Narwhal, sometimes a missile capability (Zulu's and Halibut), or because such missiles are now available (688's && Ohio), etc.

In sum, I really don't think there is anything much taken as key that can be so easily separated so as to define the list in the way you seem to want to think. It's too artificial and arbitrary. So perhaps we need to first set aside my operational look-see (revert if you like to the prior form, I'm thick skinned, and apparently misinterpreted your table purpose from the moment I saw it.), and make up a table of key technologies, and when and where they were first applied. That would be more revealing and a truer picture of life, than these snap-shots you want to call groundbreakers.

I hope you know that all had their teething troubles as well, and ships are constantly being upgraded and updated, so that as a rule, the capabilities of a class are better after it has matured as a class. It really wasn't until the 80's-90's that hulls were fitted with mostly matured equipment suites independently established, so as to avoid the costly reworks that most classes needed to have in the US Navy corporate experience, at least. Maybe the Dutch and British were smarter. So the other Seawolf class ships were canceled, and we got the less expensive 774 class alternative, an economic choice.

Most of what I summarized with above still stands as reasonable. But what is really needed as a prerequisite to defining your 'groundbreakers' is a paradigm for selecting what technologies were sufficiently advanced to be adopted later, and something about how that will be applied systematically in analysis so that there is a way to evaluate a class's notability as it were. Hope this helps you refine your quest. Me thinks ye be on yon slippery slope, but I'll cheer you on! Best regards // FrankB 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

Well, I get the point. Maybe I incorrectly called them engineering breaktroughs (well, there is nothing such in the first SSBN or SSGN, for example), it is a concern of both operational and design changes enough to found a new type (e.g. SSBN) or a new generation of designs (e.g. first primarily sub-marine). Just what a general reader would consider milestones.
Having the technology to safely handle, maintain, transport, target, and fire an ICBM each of which could ignite and melt your whole transport vehicle, or similarly, a cruise missle is not a major engineering advance? You have an interesting way of defining such advances. Even keeping one hole through a deep capable pressure hull water tight is an achievement, and the addition of a whole array of such openings is a yawn to you??? Yikes! // FrankB 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There's one thing here - all this was successfully done on SSBs before. Two diesel-electric classes produced in series. And a cruise missile is advance in missile tech, not exactly in submarines. Though, well, it's actually considerable. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to disdain the missile tech, what about the support tech— SINS and NAV-SAT/NAVSAT (Wow! No listings! Add these to high priority article development needs!) that have become today's ubiquitous GPS systems... even available now in cell phones, for reasons that beat me feeble attempts to comprehend. Those were and are revolutionary developments of the first order of importance—as any mariner can tell you—and they were handed down to all classes including service ships because of their development in and perfection in the boomer navy... with an assist from the Airforce, natch. Think on it. // FrankB 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For instance, since SSN-571 a lot of subs were equipped with nuclear reactors and became able to stay submerged for a long time. Since Project 611 subs are also built to attack land targets. Since Type 212, possibly, non-nuclear subs will be built with effective AIP. Each can be described in one sentence, simple and comprehensive.
So we can add SINS for boomers. Your whole 'one line' criteria is the problem me thinks, as complex systems of systems are the true 'breakthroughs'. I suggested two articles to User talk:N328KF#Editorial 'mistook' be considered to replace this templates percieved design use. It is simply too terse to do the job without prose or supporting prose. I can see it as a useful adjunct to such, but it's somewhat misguided to think you can present a list of links and assume the reader will see why you even listed the vessel without supporting prose. Suggest that is a better method overall, as the template can be short and sweet and non-intrusive like: {{commonscat}} (at right)
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

and this template be used solely in those two articles, with a self link to the matching one. // FrankB 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of other subs is notable and contains advances, but just not all are that major, and there's already too many subs in the template around 1950s. I find this template more useful when it is short, and actually, IMHO, the initial version was the best, containing only most relevant submarines. So we need to remove some, and in this case I think something close to the original template is the best way. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Spanish War Ensign 1785-1931

Some deletionist* removed [[Image:Spain1785.gif]], leaving a blank spot in the template. For now, I've linked to [[Image:Flag_of_Spain_1785.svg]] at the Wikimedia Commons, although this isn't the War Ensign. If someone can find a suitable Spanish War Ensign currently at en.Wikipedia.org or the Wikimedia Commons, feel free to re-link to it. —QuicksilverT @ 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
*(User:CambridgeBayWeather 21:36, 12 September 2006, according to the Deletion Log)

I've restored the link to [[Image:Spain1785.gif]], as I've created a new one using information from various sources and re-uploaded it with the GFDL license. It should be OK for now. —QuicksilverT @ 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunley

What about H. L. Hunley (submarine)? AnonMoos 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's a famouse one, but not build according to a revolutionary concept. Much like that French one really.
Rex 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's groundbreaking because of the manner in which it was used. I put Hunley in, when I created the list, and do not agree with the arbitrary decision to remove it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/o/Template_talk%7EGroundbreaking_submarines_05de.html"