|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. --126.96.36.199
==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 188.8.131.52 (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)
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)
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)
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)