As there are already articles on submarines and their history, I suggest that this one should be on submarine use, that is their tactics and missions. Adresia (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) give the dictionary of this war ppl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This article and two others were given hit-and-run tags recently; there was no rationale given and no explanation with the edits; when challenged on this the editor responsible declined to explain, but responded by blanking the two pages and dumping the information here.
I have reverted this boldness and opened a discussion here; I am awaiting an explanation of these actions. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim the IJN sub force was an effective force I find very dubious indeed. Nothing I've seen backs this up. The merchant sinkings were trivial, the habit of shelling targets pretty amateurish, the number of losses to operational casualty evidently high, & the losses to Allied ASW overwhelming (approaching the scale of those against Germany). "Boat for boat better than German"? Really? I know of no IJN skipper who even approached Wanklyn's score, let alone Kretchmer's; the German average has to be considered against the tremendous dilution of crew quality & excruciating losses. How good the Type 93 torpedo was makes no difference, since it was faulty doctrine that governed, & IJN sub force doctrine was about as bad as it got. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- ♠And still more garbage. Shelling L.A. & bombing Oregon were nothing but a nuisance, ever. The frequent end of patrol shellings directly contributed in several cases to I-boats being sunk. They do not demonstrate effectiveness. They demonstrate stupidity.
- ♠As for "planning an attack on the Panama Canal", that doesn't equate with effectiveness, either. They never actually tried it; they waited til 1945, when doing it in 1941 might actually have made sense; & the projected force, a couple of lousy flying boats, would have had a hell of a time actually achieving anything.
- ♠More to the point, IJN sub doctrine, concentrating on men of war, had no more impact on the Pacific War than the U.S. attacks on them did: next to none. If you intend to change that, cite the sources showing they weren't ineffectual, because that's the historiographic consensus. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:04 & 06:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No modern information!
Hello, this article is very short on modern sub hunting (and sub hiding) technologies. I came here to learn about space based visual techniques to identify submarines, or theory of long range sound transmissions through the deep ocean. Nothing but a flash of WW2 history. DouglasHeld (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What makes a submarine valuable in a warfare?
I miss some remarks about tactics or strategics about submarine warfare. There must have been some reason to introduce the submarine as a weapon. Why is a submarine in WWII so different from modern boats? Previous designs before WWI were closer to modern ones than the WWII were. Any reasons for it? What about the line of development of submarines, technical advances, politic warfare in the back? There must have been reasons for going to dive deep. Nothing found in here. Seems, there is something to develop in this article... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Sinking of Lusitania- Important?
I believe the Sinking of the Lusitania is an important addition to this page because it is widely regarded as reason the U.S. entered WWI and an example of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Sadly, I'm new around and don't quite know how to get that done. SuperstarBlake (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)