Talk:Submarine depth ratings

1km is not 3k feet, I suspect the figure should be 300m in opening section.
Shinkolobwe (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Improvements suggested

It would be good to have mention of various deep-sea bathyscaphes and deep submergence vehicles, which after all have descened to as far as 11 km below sea level, and presumably have crush depths greater than this. Deuar 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a table of example submarines, listing some heavily produced boats and a few extreme examples, and list all the various depth ratings known. I'd include what ever the most numerous U-Boat and US Fleet boat WWII designs were, an LA Class, perhaps a Kilo, and what ever a common Soviet nuke boat, then maybe Trieste and whatever the current record holder is. Don't want a list of all known classes (although that could be a separate "list of" article).--J Clear 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The reports of subs exceeding collapse depth are more or less urban myths, probably based on broken depth gauges. I'd be extremely leery of believing any of them. Trekphiler 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Those reports can be true - after all, the crush depth is just an educated guess or calculation based on the material used, hull thickness, heat treatment, etc. There are so many variables in it, and since any nation has a vested interest in keeping her subs and crewmen alive, these guesses and calculations about the crush depth are rather conservative. The materials used are judged the same way and factored into the equation based on their minimum, guaranteed characteristics, i.e. HY80 steel is guaranteed to endure stress of 80,000 pounds per square inch - but in reality this is just the certified minimum, and to ensure that minimum over the whole production process the steel factory will most likely deliver something like HY85 or better steel in order to safely meet the HY80 requirements. Hence it really comes as no surprise that in many cases, the stated crush depth can be exceeded by some 5 to 15% - that's the way it ought to be. Imagine the opposite - that would be a problem ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a claim that the collapse depth of a Seawolf class submarine would be 2400 ft, but this would be correctly called the design depth given the information in the article. Since all we know is that the collapse death is "slightly deeper" than the design depth, we have no way of knowing what the collapse depth actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmccauley (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason why (especially military) submarines maintain 1 atm inside pressure is not that humans can not withstand high pressured air. Actually they can. Professional and technical divers operate regularly at depths of 200m and dives to 500m are not even sensational depths. It's also incorrect to say that oxygen becomes toxic. Normal air does, not the oxygen itself. That's why deep divers use different gas mixtures. The real reason for submarines to not increase inside pressure is that humans saturate with nitrogen. Approximately 78% of our air consists of nitrogen and as we breath pressured air, our body saturates with it. A submarine with a crew that is saturated with nitrogen can not emerge quickly. It would take many hours (if not days or weeks) to de-saturate the crew from the nitrogen and safely bring them back to the surface. This is viable for scientific short term deep dives. It is totally impractical for military style submarines, which need to resurface quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.198.98 (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity. It is a limitation for divers. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)