Talk:Naval mine

message: With Dunkirk 1940 it had been said, that a "Halt"-order had prevented the advance of the tanks to the beach. If the landforce would have been delayed, it still generally seemed possible to prevent the evacuation or make it harder, by laying mines in the shore waters. If it would not have stopped some or all vessels, it should have been able to delay evacuation procedures.
: This might better be discussed in conjunction with mine warfare, although the term is now a disambiguation page. This naval mine article is rather large, with appropriate focus on the technical aspects of the mines, rather than the methods of employing them. A separate article might describe, with appropriate examples, situations in which mine warfare has been successful or unsuccessful. In the absence of confined shipping channels, mine warfare requires anticipation of the ship movement to be prevented with enough lead time to plot an appropriate mine distribution pattern and dispatch sufficient numbers of minelayers unobserved by the opposing force in sufficient detail to plot and/or sweep the mined locations. Minelaying may be less productive than aimed weapons in an active combat environment because of the difficulty in producing an effective mine distribution considering probable attrition among minelayers traditionally sacrificing speed and maneuverability to maximize load-carrying capacity. Thewellman (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no use at Dunkirk 1940? 

message: I have never heard of this being used. It seems like it would make the risk far worse for the sweeper with no gain, compared to simply having a single paravane and twice the cabel length to cover the same area. When sweeping you either start on "safe" water and work your way into the minefield without ever exposing the sweeper, or if in a real hurry to clear a path, you sweep a single line through the minefield and then you keep the sweeper in water you know are clear while enlarging it. A double paravane sweep is a lot of extra work and no gain in both cases. It would also make it harder to cut the sweeper free, as the crew would have to remove several extra wires to clear the sweeper in the case of an attack.
-Pehrs
:It was used. I haven't done enough reading to know the tech reasons why; AFAIK, it was to minimize the pressure wave on "clamshell" mine exploders.  Trekphiler 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double paravane sweep? 

message: The first actions of the naval campaign started the day that war was declared. Royal Navy vessels dredged up and cut German transatlantic communication cables, forcing the Germans to communicate to their interests in the Americas by less secure means for the rest of the war.
The U-boat fleet, which was to dominate so much of the battle of the Atlantic, was very small at the beginning of the war and much of the early action by German forces involved mining convoy routes and ports around Britain. Initially, contact mines were employed, which meant that a ship had to physically strike one of the mines in order to detonate it. Contact mines are usually suspended on the end of a cable just below the surface of the water and laid by ship or submarine. By the beginning of World War II most nations had also developed mines that could be dropped from aircraft, making it practicable to lay them in enemy harbours (although they simply floated on the surface). The use of dredging and nets was effective against this type of mine, but nonetheless was time-consuming, and involved the closing of harbors while it was completed.
:"although they simply floated on the surface)" Not necessarily.  Trekphiler 10:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "clamshell" mines were considered usweepable, & the Germans were afraid to lay them for fear the Brits would counter with their own, which the Germans couldn't sweep (N knowing the Brits couldn't sweep them, either). They'd have been exceedingly useful had they been laid when built, instead of going into storage just days before Neptune went ashore...  Trekphiler 10:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mining threat 

message: This article has more details about minesweepers and minehunters than the actual articles about minesweepers and minehunters.  Maybe we should move the information, and have the countermeasures section be shortened. - LtNOWIS 18:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minesweeping

message: This page contains information on a variety of different mines. Perhaps this information should be broken out into individual pages for each significant mine model? Further; a top page listing the various models, including foreign models. I suggest this because the M-08 mine appears in a few pages regarding Operation Praying Mantis and the ships involved, and it seems appropriate to make such a page (I'm about to do this). Mine warfare is an often overlooked aspect of naval warfare, yet it is responsible for casualties to more USN ships than any other weapon type since World War II. It seems appropriate that more effort should be devoted to this area of naval weapons, and thus more breakout of the information into appropriate subpages. --Durin 22:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mine models 

message: :Since World War II, mines have damaged or sunk 14 U.S. Navy ships, while air and missile attacks have damaged only four.
I moved this line just now from the intro paragraph down to the "Mines and the USA" section, where it's more appropriate.  Still, the line begs for more data.  How many of the 14 incidents were accidents?  How many were actually targeted at US Navy ships?  Without that piece of data, the line is bereft of meaning.  Tempshill 18:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the Mine Incidents are ACCIDENTS !! 
Ok - 10 during the Korean War List_of_US_Navy_ships_sunk_or_damaged_in_action_during_the_Korean_conflict, 4 minesweepers & one tug sunk- 5 damaged destroyers. Add USS Princeton (CG-59), USS Tripoli (LPH-10) - in 1990 Gulf War, Samuel B Roberts in 1988. Still have to find the last 2.
Air and missile attacks have damaged only four.- USS Stark FFG-31 in 1987. USS Liberty (AGTR-5) (in 1967) What about USS Missouri (BB-63) Accidentally hit by a few Phalynx Rounds in Desert Storm? 
Wfoj3 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy ships hit 

message: The article said this:
:"=== Distance mines ===
::Influence mines do not need physical contact with the ship to detonate. The earliest ones were moored mines used in the American Civil war and detonated electrically by observers on the shore. These were seen as superior to contact mines because they only deprived the waterway to the enemy. Distance mines use several kinds of instruments to detect if an enemy is nearby, most frequently a combination of acoustic, magnetic and pressure sensors. More exotic solutions also exist, such as optical shadows or electro potential sensors. These are modern mines and frequently cost many times more than contact mines. Still, they are very cheap compared to other anti-ship weapons and can be deployed in large numbers.
:"====Remotely controlled mines ====
::"Frequently used in combination with coastal artillery and hydrophones the remote controlled mines can be in place even in peacetime, which is a huge advantage when it comes to blocking important shipping routes to defend harbours. The mines are usually modified distance mines and can be turned into "normal" mines with a switch (which prevents the enemy from simply capturing the controlling station and deactivating the mines), detonated by hand or be allowed to detonate on their own.
::"These mines usually weighed 200 kg, including 80 kg of explosives (TNT or hexatonal).
:"====Floating distance mines ====
::"The floating distance mine is the backbone of any mine system today. They are deployed everywhere the water is too deep for bottom distance mines. Usually equipped with magnetic or acoustic sensors, a floating distance mine is effective against most kinds of ships. A floating distance mine usually has a lifetime of more than 10 years, some of them almost unlimited. The floating mines are limited by the fact that they have to float, so they cannot carry unlimited amount of explosives. More than 150 kg is simply a waste of money, as the mine gets too large to handle and the extra explosives do not add much to the mine's effectiveness.
::"These mines usually weighed 200 kg, including 80 kg of explosives (hexatonal)
:"====Bottom distance mines ====
::"Bottom distance mines are used when the water is no more than 60 meters deep or when mining for submarines down to around 200 meters. They are much harder to detect and clear, and they can carry a much larger payload than a floating mine. Bottom mines also use pressure sensitive instruments, which are less sensitive to sweeping than any other type.
::"These mines usually weighed 150-1500kg, including 125-1400kg of explosives (hexatonal)
This is a false grouping of command detonated  & influence mines. I'm rewriting. 
It also says this:
:"===Active mine===
::"An active mine is a mine that moves on its own when it is deployed. Usually submarines deploy active mines and they have the form of a torpedo. That way the mine can be deployed deep inside an enemy harbour."
This is the same as the CAPTOR system described as a separate type above in the article. I'm rewriting that, too.  Trekphiler 09:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: It may've been called a mine for security, or perhaps conceal that it was a torpedo from the Bureau of Ordnance, which controlled torpedo production & would have taken the project over... (So perhaps for security there, too...).  Trekphiler 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FIDO

message: I deleted this:
:"(which is the area where the enlisted traditionally sleep and explains why enlisted are far more likely to die in a mine detonation than officers.)"
It isn't always true enlisted sleep forward; enlisted tend to outnumber officers, which would also account for it; & merchant ships, the most common vic of mines, tend not to have enlisted...
I deleted this, too:
:"but also a deeply flawed operation."
It may well have been; keep your opinions to yourself.  Trekphiler 10:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: There's a strong bias toward U.S. weapons, here. No mention of the pioneering work by Frank E. Smith (later Sir Frank), RN, inventing the magnetic mine in 1917, nor the German WW2 "clamshell" acoustic-magnetic (combined-trigger) mine (considered unsweepable at the time), nor (tho U.S.) the "destructor" improvised mines used in 'nam. And the description of mine warfare could use help; something should be said to submarine minelaying against Japan, the WW1 "mine barrage" across the North Sea, & the "destructor" campaign in 'nam. This is a bit bigger than I want to take on, but if somebody else does, I'll throw in my two or three cents' worth to try & keep it clear & honest.  Trekphiler 10:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Hello all.
I would like to ask a more precise definition about underwater explosion effects.
In this article http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-026.htm I found a very interesting explanation about contact underwater explosion. The author Nathan Okun explains how a contact explosion can be really devastating for the ship hull. In this Wikipedia's article I read otherwise that contact mine "just" creates a hole in the ship. Moreover Nathan Okun doesn't mention the resonating effect of a distant explosion neither he describes it as the most shattering effect for the ship structure.
Sorry my english and Thank You
Luca —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgenteOrange (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted alleged "old fact tag" vandalism by User:Binksternet and added the reference to an Australian publication. This should be the starting point for describing contact and nearby explosion effects (also see R.H.Cole, 1948). 212.188.108.167 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about this edit of mine I would not characterize it as vandalism, I'd call it article maintenance. Fact tags indicate areas needing reference, and if reference doesn't show up in a reasonable amount of time, the unsupported statements must go. As a 'vandal', I contributed the entire Aerial mining in WWII section to this article, an addition of about 1900 words. Thanks for bringing in the long-needed reference about underwater effects! Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the irate name-calling, was a bit miffed to see whole sections disappearing. Thanks for the cleanup. 
Swisdak, M. M., 1978, "Explosion effects and properties: PART II - Explosion effect in water," NSWC/WOL/TR 76-116, Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA, (February 1978).
There was also this one lying somewhere at the ORNL site:
Calculating the Effect of Surface or Underwater Explosions on Submerged Equipment and Structures.
C. David Sulfredge, Robert H. Morris, and Robert L. Sanders. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005 (?)
212.188.109.186 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater Explosion Effects 

message: The article seems to have the following sentence repeated several times "These mines usually weigh 200 kg (440 lb), including 80 kg (175 lb) of explosives (hexatonal)". Perhaps this could be put in a single place, and with a reference? Pol098 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: water mine redirects here, but what else can you call a horizontal well? In spain, "water mines" are common, a type of horizontal well which goes into a hillside, tilted up slightly so no pumping is required. I have always heard them called water mines, but that may be a spanglishism from the term "mina de agua". Anyone know? Brinerustle (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to make an article out of Water mine, on the subject of fresh water drilling and supply, go ahead and take that exact redirect away for your purposes. Please include a hatnote mentioning Naval mine. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Mine 

message: *It came to me that the physical design of hulls could be a 'passive' counter-measure. ie double hulls, would tend to reduce damage (a form of spaced armour?.
** See Submarine_hull#Light_hull
*Also the material ie. titanium as apparently used in the USSRs' Typhoon class submarines.
**Apparently NOT. It was the Alpha class submarine according to Magnetic anomaly detector.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about aluminium hulls? Certainly less detectable by magnetic triggered mines. This is not my area of expertise so someone out there may have to investigate this (and above) for inclusion. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wood was routinely used in WW2, since largely replced by Fiberglas.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countermeasures - Passive? Hull Design/Material 

message: In the Naval_mine#Passive_countermeasures section, last paragraph, it states 
"Some ships are built with magnetic inductors, large coils placed along the ship to counter the ship's magnetic field." 
This may not be exactly correct. Any coil of wire is an inductor. Any coil with current through it will produce a magnetic field. Add a ferrous core and it becomes an electro-magnet.  Adding inductor while true, is also irrelevant in this case. Magnetic?, not until a current is run through it. Seems a case of 'puffery', using big words to make it sound more "technical". It does not improve or make it easier to understand.
Without further research for sources to clarify (there are none in this section) it may be safer to simply say "coils". ie. 
*"Some ships are built with large coils placed along the ship to counter the ship's magnetic field." 
Which is exactly true and accurate. If the coils are actually electro-magnets, then this sentence is accurate:
*"Some ships are built with large electro-magnets placed along the ship to counter the ship's magnetic field." 
Any experts out there who can comment on this issue?
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At least some US Warships have onboard degaussers, we never were sure how much good they would do, modern mines are multi-sensored and can be hell to sweep let alone fool with a reduce magnetic signature.Tirronan (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inductors", "Electromagnets" or just "coils" ? 

message: Having just spent the better part of two days adding citations and removing  tags, please don't add uncited content to the page.  It is not common knowledge or common sense, most things military are not well understood by the public and everything on Wikipedia requires citation.
While I consider drive by taggers to be another form of trolling, in the end they are right, if you can't prove it by citation it should not be here.Tirronan (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you write it cite it 

message: I just arrived here today in the course of cross-checking for an article I am doing on submarine mines in U.S. harbor defense. I tacked a bit onto the section here on 19th C. mine development (refs to be added soon), and might want to add a bit more. But the U.S. coast defense mines I am familiar with are certainly not "Navy mines" (they were planted and operated by the U.S. Army, later the Coast Artillery Corps, and had no connection to the Navy at all).
Is "Submarine Mine" a better title for this overall article? Pgrig (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not. More people simply call the device a "mine" and rely on context to relay the fact that an underwater or water surface mine is what is being discussed. When another word is used to give more context, the combination naval+mine is more common than submarine+mine. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. My concern is that if we're trying to build a knowledge base on mines, it's best to use the most general terms possible (that do not clash with the known facts on an issue). It bothers me, for instance, to have submarine mines placed by the Army or the Air Force (or even the Coast Guard) referred to as "Navy mines." I'd be curious to see what others think and/or what folks in other countries might consider appropriate. Pgrig (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: "referred to as 'Navy mines'" Except they're not being called "Navy mines". "Naval" ="sea", as opposed to "land".  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  01:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "Submarine Mine" A Better Title?

message: A paragraph needs to be added for the bouquet mine in the unusual mine section.
174.22.10.227 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bouquet mine  

message: The deletion on: '20:56, 16 February 2010'; for the unusual mine section should be undone. There are certainly reliable citations and examples for the:  Anti sweep mine, Rocket mine, Bouquet mine, Ascending mine.
174.22.10.227 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual Mines 

message: I m a bit confused. When was the first successful use? Was it in 1855 or 1862?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.123.221 (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First successful use 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature105575/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: I don't know where this term comes from, but I cannot find any provenance for it. The only mention in half-a-dozen pages of a google search is  this one, a 2014 book that seems to have been translated into a couple of different languages before it got to English, and may well have been culled from WP articles in the first place. So I've changed it. Mine running doesn't have any provenance either, but at least it makes sense (as in “running downwind”, or “running the gauntlet”); if anyone knows the correct term for this method of dealing with mines, perhaps they could bring it to the discussion. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mine breaking? 

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:Mine (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mine"

message: Are any bodies of water in the world currently mined? -- Beland (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary use 

message: The addition wa properly sourced and should not be reverted. If you have any additional concerns please bring them up on the talk page.Tirronan (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted section wipe 

message: https://www.nap.edu/download/9773 The US Navy's Oceanography and Mine Warfare article is available to download from that link. We need to use it and improve this article. We've collectively allowed it to sit unreferenced for far too long. This is not my primary area of interest but I have made a few steps to expand and correct the article.Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article source 

message: According to the above source, the US Navy is still using 4 different teams of marine mammals. If they performed so poorly I don't think they'd still be around. I going to ask that it the sentence with the maintenance tag either be defended and sourced or I'll remove it.Tirronan (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine Mammals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Naval mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908115540/https://www.seaclimate.com/5/pdf/5_14.pdf to http://www.seaclimate.com/5/pdf/5_14.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313101103/https://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/US-mining-nicaragua-harbors.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/US-mining-nicaragua-harbors.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308200055/https://www.navysbir.com/n07_s/navst07-030.htm to http://www.navysbir.com/n07_s/navst07-030.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified