Talk:Tang-class submarine

Bubble, bubble, toil & trouble

This is what you get when you plagiarize DANFS: a paean to Tang, which says not 1 word about her lousy pancake diesels, which were so bad, Ned Beach risked court-martial by going on an open circuit to complain about them (as he recounts, at ironic third hand, in Cold is the Sea). Trekphiler (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, can mention be found that would still satisfy NPOV? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper naming of article

This article was moved to make way for a disambig page which was fine. However the move did not follow proper nomenclature. Just a heads up that I will move the page again with the proper name. Llammakey (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't have been moved, as a hatnote could have easily been used instead. - BilCat (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, however I did not know how to revert it and didn't want to get into an edit war. Llammakey (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. BilCat, please sort out the categories (they can be done speedily). Cheers, Number 57 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

United States Tang-class submarine → Tang-class submarine – Two-item DAB pages are generally not needed, and the other item, Type 096 submarine, doesn't even include "Tang" in its title. A hatnote can be used instead. Also, the US sub class is clearly the primary topic. BilCat (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Hatnote for Type 096 submarine suffices.--Zoupan 17:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I corrected the last move after it had been done because I didn't know how to revert moves and the way it was done was sloppy as hell. Though now I'm going to have to undo all the redirecting I did to the new page. Llammakey (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll try to help out with the links if it's moved back. (Ping me if necessary when it's moved.) As to reverting the move, once a user edits the original page, such as making it a DAB page, only admins can move it back. You did the right thing moving it to the more correct title. I do wish inexperienced users wouldn't take it upon themselves to make moves such as the original one in the first place, as it was totally unnecessary. Had they asked first, we would have just added a hatnote. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Just as an addendum to the move, the associated categories will also need to be moved to correlate with the page. Llammakey (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Type 096 submarine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious: Succeeding classes

The Infobox listing of Succeeding classes lists the USS Nautilus and USS Seawolf. This is incorrect, from a design viewpoint these two subs had nothing to do with the Tang-class. The Skate-class OTOH IS a succeeding class, since that class was an attempt to build a Tang with nuclear power. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Resolved issue by noting Nautilus and Seawolf as (chronological only) successors. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Relation to Skate class

On 18 April 2021 a new section that described the evolution of the Skate-class from the Tang-class was removed. It has now been restored with additional supporting text and reference. It should be pointed out that the original post was a verbatim quote from the Skate-class article's introduction that dates from the creation of the article in 2004. If there is a good reason to delete this from this Tang-class article then it should also be deleted from the Skate-class article. BTW, from a high-level design perspective these statements are not incorrect.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Tang and Skate were not closely related. The Skate was envisioned as a submarine with similar size and capability to the Tangs and GUPPYs. From the SCB requirements (dated 9 June 1954): "This design is intended to provide a nuclear powered attack submarine of about the size of a GUPPY submarine." Nowhere in the BuShips files on the Skate at the National Archives is there an explicit connection between the Skate and Tang (there is a brief mention that the bow planes were copied from the Darter). Friedman, who uses these same archival documents to write his books, is referring to the fact that the Skate and the Tang had similar characteristics, not that their designs were related (note he uses the word "equivalent" and does not mention any design relation). And it is quite plain looking at plans of both submarines that they are not related, which is not surprising given that nearly a decade separates their designs. The Tang was a double-hull, single-deck submarine with a streamlined conventional (ship-like). The Skate was a single-hull, two-deck submarine with a body-of-revolution hull (modified with a large upper bow and superstructure and bow sonar dome). There is no commonality between the Skate and Tang beyond size, which leads to the similarity in speed, weapons, and sensors (the latter of which were common to nearly all U.S. submarines in this period anyway). If there is a diesel submarine similar to the Skate it is the Darter, but the commonalities in this case are due to both submarines being designed around the same time.Vepr157 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)