Hubbry Logo
Crash diveCrash diveMain
Open search
Crash dive
Community hub
Crash dive
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Crash dive
Crash dive
Crash dive
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Picture of a plane flying over a submarine.

A crash dive is a maneuver by a submarine in which the vessel submerges as quickly as possible to avoid attack. Crash diving from the surface to avoid attack has been largely rendered obsolete with the advent of nuclear-powered submarines, as they normally operate submerged. However, the crash dive is also a standard maneuver to avoid a collision.

A crash dive in a diesel-powered submarine requires careful orchestration of the crew. On German U-boats of World War II, a crash dive began with the Captain or senior lookouts giving the order "Alarm!" which led to a bridge officer activating the alarm bell. All crew members then immediately stopped what they were doing and proceeded to their diving stations. Once the lookouts were below deck and the upper deck hatch was secured, the Captain or Chief Engineer shouted the order, "Fluten" ("flood the tanks"). With the bow planes at a maximum down angle, the crew then flooded the forward ballast tanks. Often, all available crew members moved as far forward in the boat as practical (a "trim party"). This extra weight forward gave the boat a bow-down angle so its momentum helped pull it below the surface. A few seconds later, the crew would flood the rear ballast tanks to prevent the bow-down angle from lifting the boat's stern out of the water.[note 1] The entire crash dive was generally coordinated by the chief engineer.[1]

Before hatches and air induction vents fall below the surface they must be closed. Before that, the diesel engines must be stopped or they will suck the air out of the boat in a matter of seconds. On submarines with direct drive, the crew disengages the diesel engines from the propeller shafts and switches to electric motor propulsion. The motors run at high speed to maintain the forward momentum. Once all hatches and induction vents are closed, the diving planes (like the control surfaces of an airplane) pull the boat below the surface and level it out at the desired depth—typically between 70 and 90 metres (230 and 300 ft).[1] In a World War II-era boat, the whole operation could take as little as 30 seconds with a well-trained crew.[2] In contrast, an Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine may take as long as five minutes to reach periscope depth from the surface. However, it is capable of doing so faster if required; the smaller, more agile attack submarines can dive quite rapidly. The crash diving rate of a missile submarine is also not relevant since it can stay submerged for very long periods of time, and is not expected to ever cruise on the surface when in range of enemy units of any type. A WWII era submarine (technically a submersible since it is only capable of diving for limited periods of time) is by design forced to spend much of its time on the surface, and therefore needs to be able to "escape" by diving when an enemy is spotted.

In extreme emergencies, submarines have had to crash dive so quickly that lookouts were left on-deck. Such was the only survivor of U-68 when the four lookouts were left top-side as she crash dived among exploding aerial bombs.[3] Commander Howard Gilmore earned the Medal of Honor posthumously during World War II by ordering a crash dive ("Take her down!") while wounded and unable to leave the bridge of USS Growler (SS-215).

See also

[edit]
Look up crash dive in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Notes and references

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Crash dive

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A crash dive is an emergency maneuver performed by a submarine to rapidly submerge from the surface to a predetermined depth, typically within 30 to 60 seconds, in order to evade detection or attack by enemy , surface vessels, or other threats. This procedure, essential for the survival of submarines operating in hostile waters, involves coordinated actions such as sounding an alarm, shutting down diesel engines, flooding main ballast tanks, and angling the diving planes steeply downward to create negative and a descent angle of 8–15 degrees. First developed in the early 20th century as submarine technology advanced during , the crash dive became a cornerstone of , particularly for diesel-electric submarines that frequently operated on the surface for battery recharging. The origins of the trace back to the , when the U.S. Navy and other navies tested and refined operations to meet stringent performance standards. For instance, in 1920, during trials of the USS S-5 (SS-110), Captain Charles Cooke ordered a to demonstrate submersion in under one minute, a benchmark for fleet readiness; however, a failure to close the main induction valve led to catastrophic flooding, causing the to sink stern-up at a 60-degree angle while the crew endured 37 hours of peril before rescue. This incident highlighted the high risks involved, including potential flooding from open vents or valves and the buildup of toxic gases like if seawater mixed with batteries. By , crash dives were a daily reality for submarines in combat zones, with German U-boats aiming to submerge in under 45 seconds to escape Allied air patrols, then proceeding to operational depths of 80 meters or more, often using pre-filled negative tanks for faster descent. In practice, the procedure demands precise crew coordination to minimize vulnerabilities. On a typical World War II-era vessel like a German Type VII , the commander's order of "Alarm!" triggers the to activate the dive alarm, switch to electric motors, and set planes to "hard down" while the engineering officer opens vents and reports readiness; the boat then proceeds to the ordered depth under a controlled angle to avoid structural damage. U.S. Navy followed similar protocols, emphasizing rapid engine shutdown and flooding, though some captains occasionally opted to fight on the surface with deck guns rather than risk a dive if enemy aircraft were already closing in. These maneuvers were critical in the and Pacific Theater, where timely crash dives saved countless vessels from depth charges and bombs, but failures contributed to losses like the U-701 in 1942, sunk while attempting to dive after being strafed off . Today, while nuclear-powered submarines rarely surface in combat and thus rely less on crash dives, the tactic remains relevant for diesel-electric boats in modern navies, adapted with advanced sensors and for quicker execution.

Overview

Definition

A is a rapid emergency submergence maneuver performed by a , typically initiated from the surface or depth to quickly reach operational depths and evade threats such as or surface vessels. This action prioritizes speed over precision, aiming to submerge the vessel in the shortest possible time, often under 30 seconds for World War II-era boats. The maneuver involves the immediate flooding of the main ballast tanks through the opening of vents, which allows seawater to replace compressed air and create negative buoyancy for downward momentum. Simultaneously, hatches and valves are secured to maintain hull integrity, diesel engines are shut down, and electric propulsion is engaged to steer and accelerate the descent at a steep angle, usually 8–15 degrees. This contrasts sharply with routine submergences, which are gradual, controlled processes allowing for trim adjustments and slower ballast management to maintain stability. The term "crash dive" originated in the early 20th century, with its first documented use around 1915–1920 in naval contexts, reflecting the urgent and forceful nature of the procedure. In , it became a standard evasive tactic for submarines like German U-boats facing Allied air patrols.

Purpose and evolution

The serves primarily as an emergency maneuver for submarines to evade threats from aerial or surface attackers, avoid imminent collisions with vessels or underwater obstacles, and achieve a rapid transition to submerged stealth operations where detection is minimized. This tactic originated in the era of diesel-electric submarines, which depended on periodic surfacing to recharge batteries and replenish air supplies, exposing them to enemy detection and necessitating quick evasion dives for survival. The introduction of nuclear-powered submarines in the mid-1950s, exemplified by the , revolutionized operations by enabling prolonged submerged endurance at higher speeds without surfacing, rendering routine crash dives largely obsolete for nuclear fleets while preserving their utility in diesel-electric designs still prevalent in many navies. Technological advancements have transformed crash dive execution from labor-intensive manual processes in early 20th-century vessels—where crew manually operated vents and valves to flood tanks—to sophisticated automated systems in modern that integrate hydraulic controls, pre-flooded quick-diving tanks, and computerized management for faster response. These improvements have enhanced tactical responsiveness for diesel-electric .

History

Origins and early use (pre-World War II)

The concept of the crash dive originated in the late 19th century with the pioneering work of Irish-American inventor John Philip Holland, who developed early submersible designs emphasizing controlled submersion through water ballast systems. In the 1890s, Holland's prototypes, such as the Holland VI (later USS Holland, SS-1), incorporated main ballast tanks that could be flooded with seawater to achieve neutral buoyancy, allowing the vessel to submerge using horizontal diving rudders and forward propulsion on electric motors. During tests in 1898 and subsequent U.S. Navy trials in 1900, these rudimentary techniques enabled quick dives by rapidly admitting water to the ballast tanks via valves, though the process was limited by manual operations and took several minutes from a surfaced state; the USS Holland demonstrated submersion to 30 feet in under a minute under ideal conditions, marking the first practical application of ballast flooding for evasive maneuvers in experimental settings. A notable early incident occurred during trials of the USS S-5 (SS-110) in 1920, when Captain Charles Cooke ordered a to demonstrate submersion in under one minute; however, a failure to close the main led to catastrophic flooding, causing the submarine to sink stern-up at a 57-degree angle while the crew endured 37 hours of peril before rescue. This event underscored the risks of the maneuver and prompted refinements in systems and procedures. During , proto-crash dive tactics emerged as essential for submarine survival against surface threats, with both British and German vessels adapting Holland-inspired designs for rapid evasion. The British Royal Navy's Holland-class submarines, commissioned starting in 1902, relied on flooding main ballast tanks to reach an "awash" condition with minimal positive (around 300 pounds reserve), followed by engaging electric motors at 5-6 knots and setting hydroplanes to an 8-10 degree dive angle; this allowed submersion to 28 feet in approximately 8 seconds once speed was attained, enabling escapes from destroyers during patrols in the . German U-boats, including the Type UC I minelayer UC-5 commissioned in June 1915, employed similar rapid venting of air from ballast tanks to flood them quickly, achieving crash dives to periscope depth (about 50 meters maximum operational depth) in 33-36 seconds; UC-5 utilized this technique during operations in the to evade British patrols while laying mines, though full dives from surfaced could extend to 1-2 minutes under adverse conditions, highlighting the limitations of early compressed-air systems. These methods prioritized speed over precision, often resulting in unstable angles of descent, but proved vital in limited wartime engagements. In the of the and , naval powers refined these tactics through design enhancements and exercises, focusing on faster initiation via improved control to counter evolving . The U.S. Navy's S-class submarines, with 51 boats commissioned between 1920 and 1925, incorporated additional bow tanks to mitigate forward "burrowing" during dives, enhancing stability and allowing quicker flooding of main for negative ; early models like S-48 were noted as slow divers, but post-1920 modifications, including safety buoys and refined valve systems, improved performance in trials, driven by fleet exercises simulating pursuits. Similarly, the British H-class submarines, built from 1917 onward with 21 boats entering service by the early , featured dedicated negative tanks (main at frames 47-53) flooded via Kingston valves for rapid submersion to 200 feet, supplemented by auxiliary compensating tanks for trim adjustments during descent; interwar naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean and operations emphasized these systems, laying the groundwork for more standardized procedures in the lead-up to .

World War II applications

During , the maneuver became a cornerstone of tactics, enabling vessels to rapidly submerge and evade detection by enemy and escorts in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. For German U-boats, particularly the ubiquitous Type VII and larger Type IX classes that dominated the Atlantic campaign, the procedure was standardized and drilled relentlessly. Upon visual confirmation of an approaching Allied , the captain or bridge watch would issue the urgent command "Alarm!", prompting the to immediately flood the main ballast tanks via quick-acting valves, secure hatches, and surge forward to the torpedo room to shift weight and angle the bow downward. These efforts were critical in the , a vulnerable transit area where U-boat traffic varied monthly, with examples including 50 transits in June and 120 in May 1943. detectors such as Metox (introduced September ) and Naxos (October 1943) provided early warnings, enabling preemptive dives; for instance, across 281 analyzed transits from late 1943 to early 1944, Allied achieved sightings in about 31% of expected encounters. Sinkings from failed evasions rose sharply—from 0.13 inbound losses in June to 12.75 by July 1943—due to enhanced Allied search patterns covering up to 450 square miles per hour. The tactic's emphasis on rapid submergence influenced Allied convoy escort doctrines, compelling escorts and to adopt persistent, overlapping patrols that forced U-boats to remain dived longer, depleting batteries, slowing transit speeds (extending Bay crossings from 1 day surfaced to 5 days submerged), and curtailing effective wolfpack shadowing of convoys. Allied submarines, notably the U.S. Navy's Gato-class boats patrolling the Pacific, similarly integrated crash dives into operations against Japanese forces. These diesel-electric vessels, with their robust hulls and trained crews, could submerge in around 30–60 seconds by blowing auxiliary ballast and angling planes steeply. During the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, Gato-class submarines like USS Cavalla (SS-244) and USS Ray (SS-271) served as advance pickets, positioning themselves to report enemy fleet movements and contributing to the battle's decisive outcome by relaying critical intelligence.

Post-World War II adaptations

The advent of fundamentally altered submarine operations, diminishing the reliance on crash dives for routine evasion and endurance. The , launched in 1954 as the world's first nuclear-powered , demonstrated the ability to operate indefinitely while submerged, eliminating the battery limitations that necessitated frequent surfacing in conventional vessels and thereby making standard crash dives obsolete for daily tactics. This shift enabled sustained underwater speeds and maneuvers without the urgency of rapid submersion to recharge, transforming from intermittent submerged predators to persistent underwater assets. Despite this evolution, nuclear submarines retained rapid depth-change protocols in emergency scenarios. The "battle stations submerged" procedure, which incorporates swift flooding and adjustments for defensive positioning, persisted as a core element of nuclear fleet training to counter sudden threats, adapting World War II-era urgency to high-speed nuclear contexts. In parallel, conventional diesel-electric submarines maintained crash dives as a vital tactic throughout the and beyond. Post-1950 fleets, such as the Soviet Kilo-class introduced in the 1970s, continued to depend on quick submergence for anti-aircraft evasion during operations, with procedures refined to address emerging threats from forces. These submarines, emphasizing acoustic stealth through diesel-electric propulsion, integrated crash dives into broader survival strategies against aerial and surface patrols. Contemporary non-nuclear navies have further adapted crash dives for specialized roles. India's Kalvari-class submarines, based on the French Scorpène design and commissioned starting in , utilize these maneuvers in littoral defense operations, where rapid submersion complements advanced stealth coatings to evade detection in shallow, contested waters. This integration supports tactics in regional hotspots, preserving the maneuver's relevance amid evolving anti-submarine technologies.

Procedure

World War II-era crash dive

The crash dive procedure on World War II-era diesel-electric submarines, such as German U-boats and U.S. Gato-class vessels, was a rapid, coordinated maneuver designed primarily for evasion of surface or aerial threats. Upon detecting danger, the would issue an urgent command to initiate the dive, prompting the crew to execute a rehearsed sequence to submerge quickly while maintaining control of the vessel's attitude and trajectory. This process relied on manual actions by the crew, leveraging the submarine's ballast system and propulsion to achieve significant depth in under a minute. Initiation began with the captain's order, typically "Dive! Dive!" on U.S. submarines or "Alarm!" on German , sounded via klaxon and voice repetition throughout the boat. Lookouts and bridge personnel immediately rushed below into the , securing the upper hatch as the last man entered; the crew scrambled to battle stations, with forward personnel shifting weight manually if necessary to aid the bow-down attitude. On U.S. boats, the diving officer would confirm readiness via the 1MC announcing system before proceeding, while procedures emphasized the repeating the alarm to ensure all hands responded without delay. Ballast flooding followed swiftly to create negative and a steep descent angle of 15-20 degrees. Main vents atop the forward tanks were opened first—via on U.S. or direct orders like "" and "One" for the forward vent on U-boats—allowing seawater to rush in and displace air, pitching the bow downward. in the forward compartments might manually open or shift vents if hydraulic systems lagged, while negative tanks, if equipped (standard on later U-boats and some U.S. designs), were flooded or vented simultaneously for an initial plunge boost. This step, executed in seconds, ensured the began submerging under its own weight without reliance on alone. Propulsion transitioned concurrently to support the dive: diesel engines were shut down and clutches disengaged to prevent ingestion, with electric motors engaged at full ahead (e.g., "Ahead GF" on U-boats or "All ahead two-thirds" on U.S. boats) to provide downward thrust via the . Stern planes were angled down to 10-20 degrees dive, while bow planes were rigged out and set to , helping maintain the angle and prevent broaching. These actions enabled initial submersion to depth (about 15 meters) in 20-30 seconds for U-boats and 30-45 seconds for U.S. boats under optimal conditions, with deeper operational depths of 50-100 meters achieved in approximately 1-2 minutes. Completion involved stabilizing at depth using hydroplanes (diving planes) for trim adjustments. The diving officer monitored depth gauges and ordered incremental changes, such as "Two degrees up bubble" or "Ease the bubble" on U.S. submarines, while U-boat crews aimed for a 12-15 degree down initially, overshooting if needed before leveling from below 20 meters. Negative tanks were blown partially for , and speed reduced to one-third ahead to hold position silently, marking the end of the phase.

Modern crash dive techniques

In modern nuclear submarines, the crash dive, often termed an "emergency deep," is initiated from periscope depth to evade surface threats by rapidly descending using the vessel's and control surfaces. Upon the command, the announces "Emergency Deep," prompting the to be retracted, engines to full ahead for to mask noise, and diving planes set to full dive deflection on both fairwater and stern planes. The depth control tank is simultaneously flooded to aid negative buoyancy, with the providing sustained high-speed underwater. This procedure, tested on like the USS La Jolla (SSN-701), achieves a descent to 120 feet (approximately 37 meters) in 45 seconds or less, advancing no more than 250 yards, though deeper descents to 100-200 meters typically require 1-2 minutes depending on speed and angle. For diesel-electric submarines, advancements focus on rapid flooding and enhanced post-dive endurance to maintain stealth without frequent surfacing. High-capacity ballast pumps and quick-flood mechanisms improve dive performance over manual systems of earlier eras. The German Type 212A class exemplifies this, incorporating (AIP) via fuel cells that generate 240-360 kW of power silently while submerged, enabling weeks of low-speed operations post-dive without , thus preserving acoustic stealth. Technological aids in contemporary designs, such as the U.S. Navy's Virginia-class, integrate automated sonar-linked ballast and trim controls to streamline the process. The software-controlled ship employs fly-by-wire fiber optics and a interface, reducing crew stations from four to two and automating venting of main tanks alongside plane adjustments for precise management. This minimizes and response delays during threats. As of 2025, ongoing developments like the Type 212CD incorporate advanced hydrogen fuel cell AIP systems for further enhanced submerged endurance.

Risks and incidents

Associated hazards

Crash dives in carry significant mechanical risks, primarily due to the rapid influx of and associated pressure differentials. Incomplete securing of hatches, such as those on the , can result in uncontrolled flooding of critical compartments like during the initial stages of submergence, compromising stability and depth control. Similarly, the swift flooding of main tanks imposes extreme pressure changes on vents and tank structures; in early designs, weak or leaking master vent valves exacerbated this by delaying proper venting and risking structural failures or asymmetrical flooding that leads to severe lists of 15° or more. Human factors introduce additional vulnerabilities during crash dives, where the vessel may attain steep down angles of up to 45° to accelerate descent. These abrupt tilts can cause crew disorientation, particularly in low-light conditions, as personnel struggle to maintain footing and perform tasks amid shifting and sudden accelerations. Furthermore, the urgency of evading threats often leaves limited time for all topside personnel, such as , to enter the hull before submergence, potentially stranding individuals on deck or in open compartments exposed to the sea. Environmental threats compound these dangers, as the high-speed descent—often exceeding 10 knots—reduces effectiveness and increases the likelihood of collision with underwater obstacles like seamounts or wrecks, especially in uncharted or contested waters. Beyond this, the maneuver subjects the pressure hull to intense structural stress, particularly if the submarine inadvertently exceeds its test depth; for World War II-era vessels, such as the U.S. Balao class, crush depths were estimated around 150-200 meters (500-650 feet). These risks underscore the importance of rigorous training to enhance crew coordination and procedural adherence in mitigating potential failures.

Notable historical examples

One of the most celebrated instances of a occurred aboard the U.S. USS Growler (SS-215) on 7 February 1943 in the . During a nighttime surface attack on a Japanese escorting a freighter, , the , was severely wounded by machine-gun fire while on the bridge. Despite his mortal injuries, Gilmore ordered the crew to "Take her down!" and remained topside as the hatch was secured, sacrificing himself to ensure the could submerge quickly and evade the enemy vessel. The Growler successfully crash dived, escaped the , and continued its patrol, sinking two enemy ships later in the deployment; Gilmore was posthumously awarded the for his heroism. In the Atlantic theater, the German Type IXC U-68 experienced a harrowing on 10 April 1944 under combined air and submarine attack northwest of . As U.S. aircraft from the USS Guadalcanal spotted the surfaced and initiated bombing runs, Gerhard Seehausen ordered an emergency dive to evade , but the haste resulted in abandoning the lookout topside, who became the sole survivor after the U-boat was subsequently torpedoed and sunk by USS Flounder with the loss of 56 crewmen. Although the initial dive maneuver highlighted the effectiveness of rapid submersion against aerial threats, the incident exemplified the perilous trade-offs of such urgency, including the risk of leaving personnel behind in the chaos. The capture of German U-boat U-505 on 4 June 1944 off the Cape Verde Islands underscored the vulnerabilities exposed during a botched crash dive. Under depth-charge attack from the U.S. hunter-killer group centered on USS Guadalcanal, commander Oberleutnant zur See Harald Lange ordered an immediate emergency submersion, but a delay in flooding the stern tanks compromised the maneuver, allowing further damage from hedgehog projectiles that jammed the rudder and flooded compartments. The submarine surfaced uncontrollably, leading to its abandonment by the German crew and subsequent boarding by U.S. forces under Lieutenant (jg) Albert L. David, marking the first capture of an enemy warship at sea by the U.S. Navy since 1815; U-505 yielded invaluable Enigma code materials. A post-World War II example of complications arose with the U.S. submarine (SS-342) on 11 February 1969 during an exercise off the coast of . While submerged at 150 feet and making 7-9 knots, the Balao-class vessel suffered a sudden electrical that disabled and control systems, causing an uncontrolled plunge to nearly 730 feet—exceeding its 412-foot test depth—with the assuming a near-vertical attitude. A stuck valve in the emergency ballast system exacerbated the descent, but the crew executed an emergency blow using high-pressure air, achieving a rapid vertical ascent to the surface after approximately two minutes; the submarine sustained severe hull deformation but was recovered without loss of life, leading to its decommissioning later that year.

Training and tactics

Crew preparation and drills

Submarine crews receive initial training through structured programs at specialized naval facilities, such as the U.S. Naval Submarine School in . The Basic Enlisted Submarine School spans eight weeks, providing an introduction to the basic theory, construction, and operation of , including escape training that simulates submerged conditions. This foundational phase equips trainees with theoretical knowledge to understand submarine operations. Officer candidates undergo parallel curricula emphasizing in dive operations, ensuring all personnel grasp the sequence from to execution. Operational drills form the core of practical proficiency, conducted regularly on active submarines to hone team coordination under simulated threats. These exercises involve sounding mock alarms, venting main ballast tanks, and achieving submergence while timing the crew's response to mimic evasion scenarios. Controlled partial flooding and role-specific tasks—such as the helmsman managing dive planes for angle and depth control—reinforce muscle memory and error prevention in high-pressure environments. During , similar drills were vital for countering aerial detection, establishing benchmarks still referenced in modern routines. Skill maintenance includes periodic certifications and refreshers using advanced simulators, including virtual and in modern as of 2025, to practice and damage control scenarios without risking vessels. These sessions emphasize damage control integration, where teams practice isolating floods or restoring mid-dive. High-fidelity trainers at shore bases allow for scenario variations, ensuring roles like damage control personnel can respond to complications like plane jams or trim shifts within seconds. This ongoing regimen sustains readiness across patrols, adapting to class-specific nuances while prioritizing collective efficiency over individual heroics. Contemporary training incorporates and technologies to train submariners on and operational procedures, including those related to submergence.

Strategic and doctrinal role

During , the German integrated crash dives into U-boat wolfpack tactics as a core evasive maneuver to prioritize rapid surface attacks on Allied convoys over prolonged stealth, allowing coordinated groups of submarines to shadow and strike merchant shipping in the North Atlantic while minimizing exposure to detection. This doctrine, championed by Admiral , emphasized surfaced transits for battery recharging and high-speed positioning, with crash dives executed in response to aerial sightings to preserve operational tempo despite the risks of battery drain and reduced patrol endurance. Allied countered this approach through radar-equipped aircraft, such as those fitted with ASV Mark II centimetric from mid-1942, which detected surfaced U-boats at night and forced emergency crash dives, compelling the to shift toward daytime flak defenses and eventual maximum submergence orders in June 1942 and July 1943 to evade patrols in the . In the Cold War era, U.S. and NATO submarine doctrine de-emphasized crash dives for nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), which operated continuously submerged with superior endurance and acoustic stealth, focusing instead on forward-deployed barrier strategies and passive sonar tracking against Soviet threats rather than surface-dependent evasions. This shift was evident in U.S. Navy plans prioritizing SSN roles in antisubmarine warfare (ASW) simulations, such as those conducted by Submarine Development Squadron 12, where crash dive tactics were retained primarily for training diesel-electric scenarios and validating models against quieter Soviet submarines like the Akula class. Soviet doctrine, by contrast, adapted crash dives for its diesel-electric fleets in confined theaters like the Baltic Sea, where classes such as the Tango and Kilo emphasized coastal defense, mine warfare, and chokepoint control through layered ASW tactics integrated with surface corvettes and naval aviation, leveraging shallow waters for rapid submergence to counter NATO incursions. In contemporary U.S. , submarines contribute to sea control and layered defenses in contested waters, though nuclear-powered vessels rely less on surface-dependent maneuvers like crash dives.

References

  1. https://www.uboatarchive.net/Diving/DivingRegulations.htm
  2. https://www.usni.org/naval-history/wreck-of-the-S-5
  3. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/art/exhibits/conflicts-and-operations/wwii/the-silent-service/clear-for-action.html
  4. https://sunkenshipsobx.com/u-701/
  5. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crash-dive
  6. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/l/lookout-manual-1943.html
  7. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/What-it-Takes-to-Win.pdf
  8. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-holland-submarine/
  9. https://www.americanheritage.com/father-modern-submarine
  10. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/1994/the-holland-vi-an-american-pioneer
  11. https://rnsubs.co.uk/index.php?PageID=987
  12. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/93119-uc-5/
  13. https://pigboats.com/index.php?title=S-class
  14. https://pigboats.com/images/f/f4/HENDREN-DISSERTATION-2021-corrected.pdf
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA229582.pdf
  16. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/battle-of-the-atlantic-volume-3-technical-intelligence-from-allied-communications-intelligence.html
  17. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/sub-hunters-over-the-bay-of-biscay/
  18. http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2015/09/decisive-battles-philippine-sea-1944.html
  19. https://ussnautilus.org/history-of-uss-nautilus/
  20. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1954/april/impact-nuclear-power-submarines
  21. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/current-doctrine-submarines.html
  22. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/ussr/kilo-class.php
  23. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/august/russias-kilo-class-submarine-improved-and-more-deadly-ever
  24. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/india-submarine-capabilities/
  25. https://maritime.org/doc/subphrase/index.php
  26. https://maritime.org/doc/pt/doctrine/part4.php
  27. https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/16qmu04/how_long_would_it_take_for_a_midwwii_era/
  28. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/1989/emergency-deep
  29. https://www.seaforces.org/marint/German-Navy/Submarine/Type-212A-class.htm
  30. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/2004/virginias-command-and-control-center-new-concepts-for-a-new-submarine
  31. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type-212cd-specs.htm
  32. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/WDR58/WDR58-17.html
  33. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/1984/steep-angles-and-high-speed
  34. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/october/harrowing-patrol-uss-cod
  35. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/balao-class-submarine.php
  36. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1940/november/human-mechanism-and-submarine
  37. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/depths-courage-howard-gilmore-and-uss-growler
  38. https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/howard-w-gilmore
  39. https://uboat.net/boats/u68.htm
  40. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/u-505-capture.html
  41. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1960/march/404-days-war-patrol-life-german-u-505
  42. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-019/h-019-3.html
  43. https://ussnautilus.org/submarine-school/
  44. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/german-submarines-question-answer.html
  45. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2677576/virtual-trainers-expand-qualityreach-of-navy-anti-sub-qualifications/
  46. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1963/september/radar-and-u-boat
  47. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA421957.pdf
  48. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA248966.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.