Talk:USS Albacore (AGSS-569)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

possible new source[edit]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_31/albacore.html

A surprisingly in-depth feature on the albacore. I may get around to integrating it, but if I don't, I'm sure it will come in handy. Probably not a lot of new information, but will help provide support for the claims made on the page. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

teardrop hull[edit]

this boat was not the first or "pioneer" of the concept, there was several boats made in this configuration in Germany before and during world war 2, including some "Walter boats" like the V80 which had underwater speed of 28 knots. also few of these prototype or pre-production vessels were captured by allies, including USA and brought back as trophies for study. 80.220.213.83 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The current text of the article (from Dec 31 at least) doesn't make that claim. It should, however, because it did pioneer the "modern" hull form. As written, the Lead is a quite-jumbled mess of qualifications designed to reduce the impact that the Albacore and its hull form had on modern submarines by making it seem as if it was a direct offshoot of German technology. The US did in fact copy the Type XXIs, as did the Russians and British. The Albacore was streamlined, but otherwise had a symmetrically-round hull form not seen before. The front of the the V-80 is similar, but not the back half. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The Germany Type XXI U-boats were indeed relatively streamlined, but they were more cigar-shaped. The USS Nautilus used the same basic hull form. It allowed far greater underwater speed than previous surface-optimized hull forms, but not on the same level as the teardrop-shaped "Albacore hull". 24.214.230.66 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Albacore hull form isn't the current preference. It was much more "whale-shaped" & less space-efficient; the current preference is a cylinder, which has comparable wetted area but more internal volume. I think it's also easier to build. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So all of these comments are all fine by me giving German credit. HOWEVER, while both Talk and Article pages note Soviet interest, this Article page needs a See Also section with a link citing the first Soviet hull equivalent. Please add it. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Operating depth[edit]

What was the operating depth for this hull? 137.229.91.203 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Still secret? Variable, seeing she's a submarine? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)