This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Military history:Aviation /Maritime /Technology /Weaponry /World War I /World War IIC‑class This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated asC-class on the project'squality scale. This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation:criterion not met Coverage and accuracy:criterion met Structure:criterion met Grammar and style:criterion met Supporting materials:criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force World War I task force World War II task force

I've updated the list of weapons but it needs more work. It only had naval mines and torpedoes... which is stupid.— Precedingunsigned comment added by- - - (talk •contribs)20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs attention.GraemeLeggett14:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3500. Hz., that is. Changed.rasqual06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships." as redundant. I rewrote "The critical Allied advantage was provided by the breaking of German naval codes" to "An important"; the value of Ultra is often overstated.

I rewrote

"shipping from attacks by U.S. and Allied submarines. The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships. Japanese sub detection gear was not as advanced as that of some other nations. The primary Japanese anti-submarine weapon for most of WWII was the depth charge, and Japanese depth charge attacks by its surface forces initially proved fairly unsuccessful against U.S. fleet submarines. Unless caught in shallow water, a U.S. submarine commander could normally dive to escape destruction, sometimes using temperature gradient to escape pursuit. Additionally, during the first part of the war, the Japanese tended to set their depth charges too shallow, unaware U.S. submarines could dive below 150 feet.

"Unfortunately, the deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics were revealed in a June 1943 press conference held by U.S. CongressmanAndrew J. May, a member of the House Military Affairs Committee who had visited the Pacific theater and received many confidential intelligence and operational briefings. At the press conference, May revealed American submarines had a high survivability because Japanese depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth, typically 100 feet (because Japanese forces believed U.S. subs did not normally exceed this depth). Various press associations sent this story over their wires, and many newspapers, including one in Honolulu, thoughtlessly published it. Soon enemy depth charges were rearmed to explode at a more effective depth of 250 feet. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, later estimated that May's revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen"

because it over-emphasises May. Moreover, I'd argue IJN doctrine & training were terrible.

I added "There were rarely sufficient escorts for extensive hunts, and it was certain U-boats would be found in the vicinity of convoys." (I'm far from convinced of the value of HK patrols.)

I added "temperaturegradients (thermoclines)."

And I'd suggest"* Larger convoys, which allowed more escorts to be allocated to each convoy. "is mistaken. The number of escorts didn't change, as such; what mattered was, the number of escorts in relation to the perimeter to be covered: escorts for 2 convoys of 40 ships, covering 1 of 80, reduced the size of the sector, without increasing the number of escorts. It's based on work byBlackett'sOR team. You can find it in van der Vat, Atlantic Campaign.Trekphiler03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "Fregatten-Leutnant Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft" (a name & date I've seen elsewhere, in Price, I think);Submarine says, "aSerbian pilot named Konjovic" (somebody I never heard of). Who's right?Trekphiler07:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is recorded in Price (“Aircraft vs Submarines”); the mention atSubmarine is unreferenced. I will check the book next time I can get hold of it for the names. But I've re-written the paragraph anyway; see below.Xyl 54 (talk)11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed this:
"...withFregatten-LeutnantDip. Ing. Walter Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft (in L135, a type T1 Lohner flyingboat of the ImperialAustro-Hungarian naval air arm) on 15 September1916 against the French submarine 'Foucault Q-70'commanded by captainLV Léon Henri Dévin",
As it givesundue weight to a single incident in a general 10 page article. The place for this information would be on theFoucault page (when there is one).Xyl 54 (talk)12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mention of space craft in the leading sentence just vandalism or is somebody just making sure this article stays relevant in 100 years?152.1.22.149 (talk)00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. It's a reference to satelites. However, the only place in the text that discusses satelites is uncited, and says "and it is claimed these might be used". Btw, both this section and the word "space craft" were added by the same user. That user's edits in general seem legitimate, but even a year and a half after they posted this material (and a lot other uncite sections in this article), they are still being warned for not citing their sources. I'ved added{{fact}} tags to the satelite sentence, and removed "space craft" from the Lead as minor and over-reaching. Thanks for catching that! -BillCJ (talk)01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've heard of research in the late 1980's and/or early 1990's into using LIDAR from satellites, although it apparently wasn't very successful. There's mention of atmospheric problems with LIDAR at www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/detection.pdf --Bobbozzo (talk)08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satellites can be used to detect the slight increase in water height around a large submarine, e.g., anSSBN, when moving at periscope depth. It depends on the satellite having sensitive enough radar and accurate enough timing circuits to bounce the signal off the sea surface and detect the minute differences in distance to the sea surface between the normal sea height, and the slightly higher area (caused by the bow wave extending upwards and downwards, as well as to the sides) around the submarine.—Precedingunsigned comment added by213.40.248.28 (talk)14:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Modern Warfare" it states that pulsed blue-green lasers andsubatomic particle beams are used in modern antisubmarine warfare...—Precedingunsigned comment added by212.44.19.206 (talk)11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

superman too so what?— Precedingunsigned comment added by85.246.31.17 (talk)11:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is missing an article on thepatrol plane, a rather important topic not only inantisubmarine warfare, but also in other important forms of naval warfare.

There are two approches to correcting this: A. Information on the large two-engine, and often four-engine patrol planes could be added to this article, and then "patrol plane" could be redirected here. B. An article on "patrol plane"s could be added to the Wikipedia.

Patrol planed do not do only antisubmarine warfare. The also do scounting for enemy surface warships and task forces, and for enemy merchant ships - so that attacks can be called in on them by bombers, friendly submarines, and surface warships.Patrol planes also make a large number of weather reports, especially reports of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons. Patrol planes also do search and rescue missions, looking for both sailors from sunk or damaged ships, and aviators from shot down, crashed, or ditched airplanes. Patrol planes also search for icebergs on oceans where those area problem, especially on the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean, and sometimes around Antarctica.Some patrol planes also carry powerful weapons for attacking enemy surface ships, including aerial bombs, air-to-surface missiles such as the Maverick missile, and the Harpoon missile.

The big patrol planes have been both seaplanes and land planes. Prominent seaplanes that did this patrol duty included theShort Sunderland, thePBY Catalina, theKawanishi H6K "Mavis", theKawanishi H8K "Emily", theMartin Mariner, and theMartin Mars.
Prominent land planes that did/do this patrol duty, and some included in present-day armed forces, include theB-17 Flying Fortress,B-24 Liberator,PB4Y Privateer,Focke-Wulf 200 Condor, theP2V Neptune, theB-29 Superfortress, theP-3 Orion, theB-52 Stratofortress, and theCP-140 Aurora.

In addition, there are modern, long-range, wheeled planes that are flown from aircraft carriers and which perform the missions of both scout planes and patrol planes. There is only one kind of these which is prominent now: one flown from the carriers of the U.S. Navy, and it has been in service for decades. This is theS-3 Viking plane, and it serves the purposes of antisubmarine warfare, scouting for enemy (and allied) ships, search and rescue, and attacking enemy surface ships.

For these purposes, the S-3Viking can carry a wide variety of sensors and weapons:sonobuoys,radar,magnetic anomaly detectors,infrared dectectors,homing torpedoes (theMark 46), bombs/depth charges, andantiship missiles, theHarpoon missile. There are probably others that I don't know about.98.81.13.169 (talk)01:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes no mention ofQ-ships as part of anti-submarine warfare. However, the British employed them in both WWI and WWII with success.Rklawton (talk)14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

I happened across this source while working on theP-3 Orion article. It is rather detailed. While I don't have time to help out over here now (perhaps later), I thought this might be useful for anyone working on this article.Aalox (talk)01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that U boats would have been vulnerable when returning to and leaving a submarine pen. I would have thought it would have been worthwhile for a British submarine to sit on the shallow seabed, listen for the sound of a U boat engine and screw, and then launch an acoustic homing torpedo. Alternatively, if the U boat is leaving the pen, follow it at snorkel depth.DavidJErskine (talk)05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this article's opening paragraph it says:To destroy submarines both the torpedo and mine are used, launched from air, surface and underwater platforms. and I think that the use ofmine is wrong. Yes they did use mines, and there were probably a few submarines that were sunk by them, but the main air-dropped weapon was firstly, in WWII, bombs and, later, the depth charge. The (homing) torpedo is much the main weapon of the last 50 years being used by ships and aircraft.

If no one wants to keep the existing quoted material I will change it about mid-May.Lin (talk)10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it wrong? The statement is that mines and torpedoes were used to destroy submarines. Which is correct, as you confusingly also note. I would keep mines in the statement but expand to cover what else was used to destroy submarines (I think depth charge is the main omission). But given that it is not specifying a period, or saying that it was a main method of destroying them, the statement is not in anyway inaccurate. I'm struggling to understand the objection to be honest.Benea (talk)19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is 2 sentences long, the first sentence doesn't say anything at all that the reader wouldn't already have gleamed by reading the intro. The section also incorrectly mentions midget subs as Italian only but doesn't link to the page on the Decima Flottiglia MAS or any other article about Frogmen operations during the war or their role as both ASW and anti ship.— Precedingunsigned comment added by77.102.121.60 (talk)00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onAnti-submarine warfare. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20060410054823/https://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html tohttp://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)06:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• C-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles

• Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Maritime warfare articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military science, technology, and theory articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Weaponry articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• World War I articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• World War II articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military history articles needing attention only to referencing and citation