Talk:SUBROC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

[edit] Citations

"Subroc was not strictly an anti-submarine weapon ..... etc" Could the author supply some means of verifying this statement that conflicts with the opening statement that Subroc WAS an anti-submarine weapon? From my reading of the Scientific American article and others, it is difficult to reconcile the claim of its intended use as a means to attack a Soviet surface battlefleet. If that were true, then SUBROC would be extremly vulnerable to Soviet countermeasures, especially after warhead separation and a lengthy, slow descent by parachute to splashdown. In that scenario almost any half-decent anti-air weapon would be capable of damaging the warhead beyond any possibility of it detonating. Several more suitable weapons are available in the NATO arsenal to deal with a surface battlefleet scenario. I'd welcome comments and clarification. That is why the relevant parts are highlighted with "citation needed" notices. Brian.Burnell 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)