Talk:Squid (weapon)

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Out of its depth[edit]

Strictly speaking, Squid (being clockwork-fused) isn't a depth charge, which uses a hydrostatic pistol. Anybody think a change is due? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is a depth charge a depth charge because it has a hydrostatic fuse, or is a depth charge a depth charge because it can be set to explode at a certain depth? If it is the latter, Squid certainly qualifies.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War II, most Japanese depth charges did not have hydrostatic fuses, but timed the detonation with what amounted to a water clock.

For our purposes, however, the question is whether the preponderance of reliable sources identify Squid as a depth charge. I don't have Campbell in front of me, but will take a look this evening. --Yaush (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not The Slayer, yet[edit]

In re "potential": I'm using it in the sense of "putative" or "projected", since there was slim chance ships fitted with Squid being assigned to the gun line in any case. I'm also thinking ships fitted with Squid would have been disqualified from fleet action because they were so fitted, & disqualification bears on their suitability for any potential fleet action. I don't think there's any harm in leaving it in, & I think taking it out alters the perception. Maybe I'm trying to hang too much on one word. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time Squid entered service the opposition had little or no surface feet to perform a fleet action against. In any case, one would not be inclined to use an A/S frigate against larger more capable fleet ships.

RN frigates main purpose at the time was to supplement the convoy escorts, and their almost sole purpose was to protect the ships in the convoy and find and sink submarines.

They were therefore not expected to need anything more than a gun or guns suitable for shooting at surfaced submarines. As the Kriegsmarine had no aircraft carriers the frigates didn't even need much in the way of AA armament, excepting ones possibly posted to the Mediterranean, or later, the Pacific.

AFAIK the last gun-based fleet action the RN engaged in was the Battle of Jutland in 1916. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]