text:
British T-class submarine

The Royal Navy's T class (or Triton class) of diesel-electric submarines was designed in the 1930s to replace the O, P, and R classes. Fifty-three members of the class were built just before and during the Second World War, where they played a major role in the Royal Navy's submarine operations. Four boats in service with the Royal Netherlands Navy were known as the Zwaardvisch class.

At the start of the Second World War the T class was together with the British S and U class, Dutch O 21 class and German Type VII class one of the most advanced submarine classes in service at the time.

In the decade following the war, the oldest surviving boats were scrapped and the remainder converted to anti-submarine vessels to counter the growing Soviet submarine threat. The Royal Navy disposed of its last operational boat in 1969, although it retained one permanently moored as a static training submarine until 1974. The last surviving boat, serving in the Israel Sea Corps, was scrapped in 1977.

Development
The design of what was to become the T class began in 1934 in order to create a replacement for the first British postwar submarines, the O, P, and R classes. These similar classes of submarines had proved unsatisfactory, being mechanically unreliable, large, slow, and overcomplicated. Furthermore, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 required that these submarines be retired after 13 years of service. Thus, HMS Oberon (P21) would have to be paid off in August 1940 (in the event, the outbreak of war in 1939 kept her in service).

The 1930 London Naval Treaty restricted the British submarine fleet to a total tonnage of 52,700 tons, a maximum standard surfaced displacement of 2,000 tons for any boat, and maximum gun armament of 5.1 in. The Americans had proposed a limit of 1,200 tons for the 1935 London Disarmament Conference, but this was rejected by the Admiralty since it would exclude the Grampus-class submarine mine-laying submarines. The Admiralty itself proposed retaining the limit of 2,000 tons, hoping that the rival naval powers would build fewer but larger submarines as a matter of national pride, which would be easier to hunt down than numerous smaller submarines. The Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin had also proposed banning the submarine altogether or imposing an individual displacement limit of 250 tons, but the Admiralty correctly predicted that the other nations would not accept such strict limitations and continued with the design of what was then known as the "Repeat P" or "Replace P" class of submarines.

The O, P, and R classes had been designed with the Pacific in mind as a counter to the increasingly powerful Imperial Japanese Navy. In the absence of a battlefleet, the submarines would be the primary offensive weapon against the Japanese. As such, the replacement "Repeat P" class had to have a similar endurance but be easier to maintain, as well as appreciably smaller in expectation of future treaty restrictions. In drawing up the future requirements for the British submarine fleet, 20 of these new submarines were estimated to be required for a total tonnage of 20,000 tons. Rear Admiral (Submarines), Rear Admiral Noel Laurence, one of the most distinguished British submariners of World War I, also pushed for a strong torpedo armament. He was convinced that a British submarine facing a powerful Japanese surface force would have difficulty penetrating the destroyer screen, and only a large torpedo salvo would be able to ensure the required hits at longer ranges, if necessary using only ASDIC data for a firing solution.

On 27 February 1934, the Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Arthur Johns, was asked to investigate designs for a 1,000 ton displacement patrol submarine. Two DNC designs were drafted (DNC 'A' and DNC 'B'), forming the basis of the November 1934 preliminary staff requirement. These designs called for an armament of six internal 21 inch torpedo tubes, two external tubes, and one 3-inch (or 4-inch, if stability permitted) gun, and a patrol capability of 4,000 nmi at 11 kn plus sufficient fuel for a 28-day patrol (corresponding to a range of 5,500 nmi at 11 kns). Submerged endurance was to be 15 hours at 2 kn or eight hours at 5 kn. A maximum submerged speed of 9 kn, surfaced speed of 15 kn, and diving depth of 300 ft were specified. An alternative proposal by Rear Admiral Laurence suggested using a double hull for greater survivability under depth charge attack. However, his proposal was rejected by the DNC in favour of a more conventional single hull with saddle tanks.

Subsequently, in 1935, the "Repeat P" design was modified to reduce the displacement to 1,000 tons in compliance with treaty limitations. In order to do so, Design 'C' had to sacrifice machinery space, reducing the surfaced speed to only 14.5 kn and the surfaced endurance to 8,600 nmi at 8 kn. The design was again modified with Design 'D', eliminating fuel stowage in external tanks (which had proved problematic and prone to leakage on the O, P, and R classes) in favor of stowage within the pressure hull. It proved impossible to reduce the displacement back to 1,000 tons without unacceptable reductions to endurance, and the displacement was allowed to rise to 1,075 tons.

After a slight reduction in the length and the fresh water diving requirement of the design, the final design was agreed upon in May 1935. On 24 June 1935, the designation "Repeat P" was formally dropped by the Admiralty, and it was decided that the submarines would all bear names beginning with the letter T. Finally, on 3 September 1935, the name HMS Triton (N15) was selected for the lead ship of the class. Final approval for the design was given by the Admiralty Board on 13 February 1936. The Vickers, Cammell Laird, and Scotts shipbuilding companies were invited to submit tenders on 5 December 1935, and on 5 March 1936, the contract for Triton was awarded to Vickers Armstrong under the 1935 Programme.

Design
The design of the T-class submarines was dictated by the requirements of an extremely large forward torpedo salvo capability and long patrol endurance for operations in the Pacific against Japanese warships, as well as the need to comply with various treaty restrictions. These extremely challenging requirements led to many compromises in the design. Operational experience before and during the war led to many alterations and modifications to the class, and individual boats often differed noticeably from each other.

Hull and superstructure
To accommodate the external forward torpedo tubes, most of the T class had distinctive bulbous bows. The original bow shape of the Group One boats adversely affected the speed while surfaced and two of the Group One boats had the external bow tubes omitted during refitting (HMS Triumph (N18) and HMS Thunderbolt (N25), formerly Thetis), resulting in a finer bow shape. Group Two boats had the external bow tubes moved further back, allowing for a finer bow shape that ended the speed loss. They also had two of the external torpedo tubes reversed to face aft along with an additional rear torpedo tube, resulting in a characteristic hump. The final Group Three boats had the bows further fined and the casing around the conning tower and rear-facing torpedo tubes flattened, resulting in a smoother profile.

Pre-war T-class submarines were of riveted construction. The riveted hull proved remarkably strong, with many of the T-class boats exceeding the rated diving depth of 300 ft during combat. HMS Tetrarch (N77), survived a dive to 400 ft on 23 April 1940. Welding in the hull construction was officially sanctioned by the Admiralty, after much hesitation, in July 1942 for the pressure hulls of the Group Three boats, later extended to the entire hull. Welded hulls were considerably stronger, allowing a diving depth of 350 ft and for fuel to be carried in external ballast tanks for increased endurance. Partly welded Group Three boats had riveted external ballast tanks; these were welded up before being sent to the Far East to prevent telltale oil leaks betraying the submarine's presence. The estimated crush depth was 626 ft.

The lead ship, Triton, was completed with a very high open bridge, which was very draughty. The following Group One boats had a slightly different bridge shape but these too were exposed, especially during heavy weather. Some of the Group One boats were fitted with cab-type bridges to resolve this problem, which were subsequently standardised in the Group Two boats. Wartime experience would eventually show that the greater visibility from the open bridges was more important in action than the better habitability of the cabs and the final Group Three boats reverted to the open bridge.

T-class boats had eleven main (ballast) tanks, two auxiliary tanks for adjusting trim, five compensating tanks for adjusting to changes in water density and the displacement of the submarine as stores were used up and the bow Q tank used for quick dives or rapid changes in depth. Two of the main tanks were converted into fuel tanks in the Group Three boats to increase endurance for operations in the Far East. Diving time from a 50 per cent buoyancy condition was good by British submarine standards at 30 seconds.

The Group Two and Three boats had the fuel capacity increased on many boats to 230 LT, giving a surfaced range of 11000 nmi at 10 kn.

Propulsion
The T-class boats used a variety of diesel engines depending on where they were built. Vickers-built boats naturally used Vickers engines, while those from the Royal Dockyards used Admiralty diesel engines; Cammell Laird boats used Sulzer engines, while the pre-war Scotts boats had German MAN supercharged diesel engines. These engines drove two shafts, each capable of 1,250 bhp for a top surfaced speed of about 15 kn. The lead boat Triton achieved 16.29 kn on her first-of-class trials; this speed was never equaled by any of the other T-class boats, who usually managed about 14 –.

The Vickers 6-cylinder 4-stroke 1,250 bhp injection diesel engines fitted to the majority of the T class proved to be very reliable engines, even if they were less advanced than the diesels used by the German U-boats. The engine could continue running even if one cylinder failed by disconnecting the cylinder from the crankshaft. The 12 boats completed at the Royal Dockyards fitted with Admiralty diesel engines proved equally reliable, even though the engines were somewhat more complicated than the Vickers ones.

In contrast, the MAN diesels proved to be rather troublesome. In particular, the MAN diesels were built under license, and once the Second World War broke out in 1939, technical support from the German MAN company immediately stopped. By 1943, only two of the T-class boats with MAN engines were left (HMS Tuna (N94) and HMS Tribune (N76)), and they were relegated to training use. Even when the Royal Navy in the Far East was facing a critical submarine shortage in March 1944, Tuna was rejected from being sent there due to her untrustworthy foreign engines. The Cammell Laird Sulzer 2-stroke engines received mixed reviews; some boats like HMS Thrasher (N37) and HMS Thorn (N11) were perfectly satisfactory, while the engines caused problems on others. They were insufficiently engineered for running at full speeds, and tended to crack the cylinder rings and blocks.

Submerged propulsion was provided by a 336-cell battery driving two 1,450 bhp Laurence Scott electric motors. These provided an endurance of 48 hours at 2.5 kn or only one hour at the maximum submerged speed of 9 kn. The battery proved vulnerable to shock damage from depth charge attacks, and this contributed to the loss of HMS Tempest (N86) in 1942. She sustained depth charge damage from the ITALIAN TORPEDO BOAT Circe that ruptured her battery tank and filled the submarine with chlorine gas, forcing her to surface and eventually surrender. This problem was resolved by strengthening the battery compartment and fitting rubber shock absorbers. In contrast with Tempest, the modified HMS Terrapin (P323) survived a prolonged depth charge attack from Japanese escort vessels, which rendered her hull a constructive total loss but inflicted no damage to her battery cells whatsoever.

Torpedoes
It was expected from British work on ASDIC that other nations would develop something similar for submarine detection. In the face of expected enemy anti-submarine measures any attack would probably have to be made at long range without the aid of the periscope, using only ASDIC. To counter the resulting inaccuracy, a large salvo of at least eight torpedoes would be needed. British operational planning at the time also assumed that international treaties would prevent unrestricted submarine warfare, and the main purpose of the submarine would be to attack enemy warships. In such a situation, a commander may have only one chance to attack, so a large salvo was essential. The ten-torpedo salvo of the pre-war T-class boats was the largest ever fitted to any operational submarine.

All T-class submarines had six internal 21 in torpedo tubes in the bow. These were fitted with bow shutters on early Group One boats to reduce underwater drag; the benefits proved to be rather minimal, the shutters were prone to jamming from flotsam and the idea was dropped in favour of reshaping the torpedo tube orifices for minimal drag. After the loss of HMS Thetis (N25) due to the unintentional opening of the rear door of a torpedo tube while its bow cap was open, a special safety clip known as the "Thetis clip" was introduced to prevent the rear torpedo tube door from being opened by more than a fraction if the bow cap was not in place. Each T-class boat carried six reload torpedoes in the torpedo stowage compartment for the internal tubes. The reloading process was manual, although a power loading system was experimented with on Triumph in 1939 based on one developed on HMS Grampus (N56). This system proved underpowered and the pressures of wartime production led to development being curtailed.

The internal torpedo tubes were complemented by four external ("E-type") 21-inch torpedo tubes on Group One T-class boats, all forward-facing. External tubes were used in order to avoid compromising the structural integrity of the pressure hull with too many openings. These tubes could not be reloaded from within the submarine, and it was also not possible to conduct maintenance on or withdraw the torpedo once it was loaded into the external tube. These tubes were angled downwards at a 5° bow angle to ease operations, except on the lead boat Triton. Two of these external tubes were located in the bow, and another two located amidships at the base of the conning tower. Unlike the internal tubes, the bow caps for the external tubes had to be worked manually, requiring a considerable amount of effort. The tubes also proved to be vulnerable to damage. Two of the T-class boats had their bow external tubes omitted during reconstruction: Thunderbolt (ex-Thetis) and Triumph.

Prior to the outbreak of war, there had been much debate over the introduction of stern torpedo tubes on British submarines. The effectiveness of a two-torpedo stern salvo was considered to be doubtful and these tubes would take up valuable space on the submarine. Experience soon led to complaints from British submarine commanders like Commander Anthony Miers (Torbay) about the lack of stern torpedo tubes. Thus, eight of the Group One boats (Taku, Thunderbolt, Tigris, Torbay, Tribune, Trident, Truant, and Tuna) were retrofitted with an eleventh external torpedo tube facing rearwards and this became standard on the Group Two boats onwards. On Group Two boats, the amidships torpedo tubes were also moved aft of the conning tower and reorientated towards the rear. Initially these were angled at 10° off the centerline but this created an area of flat casing that made maintaining depth difficult and for the last two Group Two boats (Traveller and Trooper) and all of the Group Three boats, the angle was reduced to 7°.

The primary torpedo used by the T-class submarines was the 21-inch Mark VIII torpedo, principally the Mark VIII** variant. This torpedo weighed 1,566 kg with a 365 kg Torpex warhead and used a Brotherhood burner-cycle engine for a range of 4,570 m at 45.5 kn or 6,400 m at 41 kn. It had a greater propulsive efficiency than any contemporary torpedo of a similar size but shortages of the Mark VIII early in the war led to some submarines using the older Mark IV. The Mark VIII was primarily fitted with a contact pistol, which detonated the torpedo upon impact. A non-contact magnetic pistol known as the CCR (Compensated Coil Rod) was also developed and used during the war. Like the magnetic pistols developed by many other countries, the CCR gave endless trouble and was eventually withdrawn. Due to development problems with British postwar torpedoes, the Mark VIII would remain the standard torpedo used by the T class (and all Royal Navy submarines) until 1971 with the introduction of the Mark 23 wire-guided torpedo.

Deck guns
All T-class submarines, as built, were fitted with one 4 in deck gun as a weapon of surprise and self-defence. This was either the 4 inch QF Mark XII or XXII (both interchangeable) on an S1 mounting. The mounting was located above the casing and forward of the conning tower, with a characteristic breastwork that rotated with the gun to provide room for the crew to operate the gun. No armour or overhead protection for the 4-inch gun crew was provided as built due to weight restrictions, except on Tabard, Talent, and Teredo. Many other T-class boats received improvised gun shields manufactured by depot ships in the Far East, providing some degree of protection. The gun had a crew of five, and T-class submarines were initially allocated with 100 rounds of ammunition for the 4-inch gun. This proved insufficient and was soon increased; by the end of the war, T boats would often not carry reload torpedoes in favour of taking more gun ammunition.

The standard anti-aircraft armament carried by T-class submarines was three .303-inch machine guns. These were initially Lewis guns, but from 1941 onward replaced with the better Vickers gas-operated (VGO) machine gun. The Vickers was sometimes substituted with the Bren gun if supplies could be spared from the Army. Later, most T-class boats were retrofitted or completed with the ubiquitous 20 mm Oerlikon. This was located aft of the conning tower. Most T-class boats were fitted with only one, but Tantivy carried two 20 mm cannon side by side on pedestal mountings, while Tireless was completed with a twin Oerlikon Mark 12A mounting. The crew of Terrapin was able to acquire a .50 inch Browning air-cooled machine gun on their own initiative, but this weapon was too powerful for the conning tower's brass structure (brass being used instead of steel to prevent any interfering with the magnetic compass), and was eventually dropped.

Prewar
The lead boat of the class, Triton, was commissioned on 9 November 1938. She would be joined by another 14 T-class submarines ordered under the prewar 1936–1938 Programmes. The unfortunate loss of Thetis on 1 June 1939 along with 99 of the men on board during her trials led to modification of the Royal Navy's submarine escape procedures. Triton was the only member of the class to undergo full trials, for the outbreak of war meant that the Royal Navy could not afford this luxury at a time when modern submarines were desperately needed. When war broke out on 1 September 1939, there were only three T-class boats in service: Triton, Triumph and Thistle.

Second World War
As the Royal Navy's standard ocean patrol submarine, the T-class submarines were heavily engaged during World War II, from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and finally the Far East.

The nature of the British submarine campaign against Germany during the early stages of the war was very different from that of the German submarine campaigns in the Atlantic and the later American submarine campaign in the Pacific. Germany did not depend on heavy mercantile traffic the way Britain was dependent on overseas trade, and thus there were no unprotected convoys or mercantile traffic for the British submarines to ravage. Most German mercantile traffic was confined to the North Sea, which was heavily mined. Thus, British submarines were obliged to undertake long, often fruitless patrols in these confined, dangerous waters.

Norway
On 10 September 1939, nine days after the war began, Triton sighted another submarine while on patrol off the coast of Norway. When the submarine failed to respond to challenges, she fired two torpedoes from the external bow tubes, hitting the submarine with one and sinking it. Unfortunately, this submarine turned out to be the Oxley, the first British submarine to be lost during the war, with only two of her crew surviving the attack. The crew of the Triton was exonerated by a subsequent inquiry, but it was an inauspicious start to the war for the T-class submarine fleet. Triumph was unfortunate enough to run into a mine on 26 December 1939 that blew off her bow section, but miraculously survived and was able to return to Rosyth for extensive repairs.

With the start of the Norwegian Campaign in April 1940, increased Kriegsmarine traffic in support of the German invasion led to more action for the T-class submarines based in the North Sea. On 8 April 1940, Triton encountered the German cruisers Blücher and Lützow but missed with a full salvo of ten torpedoes. Two days later, she had more success after reloading, sinking three ships in a German convoy with six torpedoes. Truant also achieved a notable success, hitting and disabling the cruiser Karlsruhe, which had to be finished off by an escorting torpedo boat. Two T-class boats were lost during the Norwegian campaign: Thistle (torpedoed by U-4 on 10 April 1940) and Tarpon (depth-charged by Q-ship Schiff 40/Schürbek on 14 April 1940).

Bay of Biscay
The British began establishing submarine patrols in the strategic Bay of Biscay, known as the 'Iron Ring', in July 1940 after the fall of France and the German occupation of the French Atlantic ports. These became much more important once heavy German warships like the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen arrived there in 1941.

On 15 December 1940, Thunderbolt torpedoed the Italian submarine ITALIAN SUBMARINE Capitano Tarantini, the first of eventually 14 Axis submarines to fall victim to T-class submarines. On 5 July 1941, Tigris accounted for another Italian submarine, the Michele Bianchi.

The Iron Ring patrols were discontinued after the infamous 'Channel Dash' in February 1942.

Mediterranean
T-class submarines began to operate in the Mediterranean from September 1940 onward. This was the theatre in which the T class were most heavily engaged in operations and correspondingly suffered proportionately heavy losses.

Operations in the Mediterranean posed several substantial challenges for British submarines and the T class in particular. Firstly, the Italian Regia Marina, almost uniquely among the Axis navies, had devoted a substantial amount of resources and training to anti-submarine warfare. Equipped with their own version of sonar, the ecogoniometro (ECG), possessing excellent escort vessels, and making extensive use of mines, the Italians were to prove the most successful of the Axis powers at destroying Allied submarines.

The Mediterranean Sea was also characterised by calm, shallow, and unusually clear waters compared to the North Atlantic. Submarines could often be spotted from the air even when submerged, and the shallow waters made deep diving to escape attack difficult or downright impossible. Having been designed for operations in the Far East, the T boats were substantially larger than the standard German Type VII U-boat, and thus they were more vulnerable to detection and mines.

Conversely, the large sizes of the T-class boats gave them substantially greater endurance and range compared to the smaller standard Royal Navy submarines like the S and U classes. This allowed them to operate successfully from the British bases of Alexandria and Gibraltar, which were located at considerable distances from Axis waters.

The British submarine campaign in the Mediterranean was primarily targeted at Axis convoys from Italy to North Africa supplying the Italian army and German Afrika Korps fighting the British Commonwealth forces in North Africa. Axis airpower made it extremely hazardous to use surface warships in this role, and until the Allies were able to establish air superiority over Malta the burden of the anti-shipping campaign would fall on the submarines based in the Mediterranean. British submarines did not operate surfaced during the day in the Mediterranean as it was far too hazardous thanks to Axis airpower, surfacing to recharge only at night. By contrast, Axis submarines tended to operate surfaced in broad daylight, a habit described by British submariners as 'truly reprehensible'. T-class submarines thus proved especially successful against Axis submarines in the theater, accounting for five Italian submarines for no losses to British submarines.

Thirteen T-class submarines were lost during the Mediterranean campaign, including all but two of the Group Two boats. Over half of these (seven) were lost to Axis minefields. In return, they played a crucial role in denying supplies to the Axis forces in North Africa, which ultimately led to Allied victory in that theater. For example, the Turbulent accounted for over 90,000 tons of Axis shipping.

Four Victoria Crosses (VCs) were awarded to T-class submarine crews during the Mediterranean campaign. One, awarded to J. W. Linton, captain of the Turbulent, was unusual in that it was awarded for sustained effort and not for outstanding bravery in a single action. The other two were awarded to two crew members of the Thrasher, T. W. Gould and P. S. W. Roberts, who removed two unexploded anti-submarine bombs stuck in the submarine's gun casing. Thrasher remains the only British submarine in history to have had more than one VC recipient among her crew. The last VC was awarded to A. Miers, captain of the Torbay, for a daring raid penetrating into Corfu harbour.

Far East and Indian Ocean
Despite the class being built with operations against the Japanese in mind not a single T class (or any operational British submarine) was left in the theater at the time of the Japanese attack. Truant and Trusty were ordered to the area with haste but arrived just in time for Singapore to fall. Following the allied retreat they were based in Ceylon with the surviving Dutch submarines. They were sortied to intercept the expected Japanese route for the Indian Ocean Raid, and Truant did sink two IJA transports, but the Kido Butai did not pass that way.

This small flotilla was all that were available until late 1943 when new S and T-class boats started to arrive. These new arrivals had modifications for better performance in the warmer climates and were better suited for offensive operations. Given Japan's need to defend against the American advance, high value targets were limited, though there were some notable successes: Tally Ho sank the Kuma and the German manned UIT-23, Taurus the I-34, Telemachus the I-166 and Trenchant the U-859 and heavy cruiser Ashigara. Tantalous became the only British ship to sight Japanese capital units when she spotted the Ise and Hyūga during Operation Kita, but was unable to attack.

Though targets of opportunity were poor compared to where US submarines were operating the class performed reasonably well, sinking numerous merchant/cargo ships and smaller Japanese warships along with large numbers of coasters and small vessels. They proved better suited for Far Eastern operations than the smaller S class, having greater crew comfort and range.

Postwar
After the war, all surviving Group One and Two boats were scrapped and the remainder fitted with snorts.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, most were streamlined for quiet and higher-speed underwater operation against Soviet submarines, in place of the anti-surface-ship role that they had been designed for. In January 1948, it was formally acknowledged that the main operational function of the British submarine fleet would now be to intercept Soviet submarines slipping out of their bases in Northern Russia to attack British and Allied merchant vessels. The following April, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, Rear-Admiral Geoffrey Oliver, circulated a paper in which he proposed that British submarines take a more offensive role by attacking Soviet submarines off the Northern Russian coast and mining the waters in the area. With the dramatically reduced surface fleet following the end of the Second World War, he commented that this was one of the few methods the Royal Navy had for "getting to the enemy on his home ground."

Much of the work carried out on the submarines was underpinned by results of measurements made using HMS Tradewind, which had been modified in July 1945 – September 1946 to become an acoustic trials submarine, with external tubes and guns removed, the bridge faired, the hull streamlined and some internal torpedo tubes blanked over.

Starting in 1948, eight newer all-welded boats underwent extensive "Super-T" conversion at Chatham Dockyard. The modifications included the removal of deck guns and the replacement of the conning tower with a "fin", a smooth-surfaced and far more symmetrical and streamlined tower. An extra battery was installed, and a new section of hull inserted to accommodate an extra pair of motors and switchgear. This varied between 14 ft in the earlier conversions and 17 ft in the later ones. These changes allowed an underwater speed of 15 kn or more and increased the endurance to around 32 hours at 3 kn. The first boats to undergo this modification were HMS Taciturn (P334) in November 1948 – March 1951, followed by HMS Turpin (P354) in June 1949 – September 1951. The programme was completed with the conversion of HMS Trump (P333) in February 1954 – June 1956.

The conversion was not entirely successful since the metacentric height was reduced, making the boats roll heavily on the surface in rough weather. This was alleviated in 1953 in those conversions which had been completed by increasing the buoyancy by raising the capacity of a main ballast tank by 50 tons. This was done by merging it with an existing emergency oil fuel tank. For the four boats remaining to be converted, increase in buoyancy was achieved by lengthening the extra hull section to be inserted from 14 ft to 17 ft. The effect was to lengthen the control room and strict instructions were issued that this space was not to be used for extra equipment otherwise the improved buoyancy would be affected.

In the meantime, in December 1950, approval was given for the streamlining of five riveted boats. This was a much less extensive process, with the removal of deck guns and external torpedo tubes, the replacement of the conning tower by a "fin" and replacement of the batteries by more modern versions providing a 23 per cent increase in power. The work was much more straightforward than the conversion of the welded boats and was undertaken during normal refit. The first riveted boat to undergo this modification was HMS Tireless (P327) in 1951.

The last operational Royal Navy boat of the class was HMS Tiptoe (P332), which was decommissioned on 29 August 1969. The last T-class boat in service with Royal Navy, albeit non-operationally, was HMS Tabard (P342), which was permanently moored as a static training submarine at the shore establishment HMS Dolphin (shore establishment) from 1969 until 1974, when she was replaced by HMS Alliance (P417).

The last operational boat anywhere was the INS Dolphin, formerly HMS Truncheon (P353), one of three T-class boats (and two S-class ones) sold to the Israeli Navy; it was decommissioned in 1977.

Another submarine sold to Israel, HMS Totem (P352) renamed INS Dakar, was lost in the Mediterranean in 1969 while on passage from Scotland to Haifa. Although the wreck was discovered in 1999, the cause of the accident remains uncertain.

Group One boats
These fifteen pre-war submarines were ordered under the Programmes of 1935 (Triton), 1936 (next four), 1937 (next seven) and 1938 (last three). The boats originally had a bulbous bow covering the two forward external torpedo tubes, which quickly produced complaints that they reduced surface speed in rough weather. These external tubes were therefore removed from Triumph during repairs after she was damaged by a mine and Thetis during the extensive repairs following her sinking and subsequent salvage. Only six survived the war, less than half.
 * Triton sunk in the Adriatic Sea on 18 December 1940
 * Thetis built at Cammell Laird. Sank during trials in 1939 with 99 dead. Thetis was salvaged and recommissioned as Thunderbolt in October 1940. Sunk by the Italian corvette Cicogna off Strait of Messina on 14 March 1942)
 * Tribune, built at Scotts, Greenock, commissioned October 1939, scrapped 1947
 * Trident built at Cammell Laird, commissioned October 1939, scrapped 1946
 * Triumph built by Vickers, Barrow-in-Furness and commissioned May 1939. Lost, probably to Italian mines, on 14 January 1942
 * Taku scrapped 1946
 * Tarpon (probably sunk by German minesweeper M-6 on 14 April 1940)
 * Thistle torpedoed by U-4 on 10 April 1940 off Norway
 * Tigris (probably sunk by German ship UJ-2210 on 27 February 1943)
 * Triad sunk by gunfire from the ITALIAN SUBMARINE Enrico Toti in the Gulf of Taranto on 15 October 1940
 * Truant wrecked 1946 on way to breakers
 * Tuna scrapped 1946
 * Talisman lost in Mediterranean, probably to Italian mines, on 17 September 1942)
 * Tetrarch, commissioned February 1940 the only boat completed with mine laying equipment. Lost in Mediterranean, probably to Italian mines, after 27 October 1941.
 * Torbay built at Chatham, commissioned 1941, scrapped 1947.

Group Two boats
These seven vessels were all ordered under the 1939 War Emergency Programme. The first, Thrasher, was launched on 5 November 1940. The external bow torpedo tubes were moved seven feet aft to help with sea keeping. The two external forward-angled tubes just forward of conning tower were repositioned aft of it and angled backwards to fire astern, and a stern external torpedo tube was also fitted. This gave a total of eight forward-facing tubes and three rear-facing ones. All Group Two boats were sent to the Mediterranean, only Thrasher and Trusty returned.
 * Tempest (sunk by the Italian Spica-class torpedo boat Circe on 13 February 1942)
 * Thorn (sunk by the Italian Orsa-class torpedo boat Pegaso on 6 August 1942)
 * Thrasher
 * Traveller (lost, probably to Italian mines, on 12 December 1942)
 * Trooper (lost, probably to German mines, on 14 October 1943)
 * Trusty
 * Turbulent (possibly sunk by an Italian torpedo boat, or a mine in March 1943 ) During her career, she sank over 90,000 tons of enemy shipping.

Group Three boats
Wartime austerity meant that they lacked many refinements such as jackstaffs and guardrails, and had only one anchor. Much of the internal pipework was steel rather than copper. The first Group Three boat was P311, launched on 10 June 1942. Welding gradually replaced riveting and some boats were completely welded, which gave them an improved rated maximum diving depth of 350 ft (107 m).

Nine submarines were ordered under the 1940 Programme;
 * P311 (lost, probably to Italian mines, before her name Tutankhamen was formally assigned)
 * Trespasser
 * Taurus (to the Royal Netherlands Navy as Dolfijn)
 * Tactician
 * Truculent (sunk in collision on 12 January 1950)
 * Templar
 * Tally-Ho
 * Tantalus
 * Tantivy

Seventeen submarines were ordered under the 1941 Programme;
 * Telemachus
 * Talent (P322) (to the Royal Netherlands Navy as Zwaardvisch)
 * Terrapin
 * Thorough
 * Thule
 * Tudor
 * Tireless
 * Token

 * Tradewind
 * Trenchant
 * Tiptoe
 * Trump
 * Taciturn
 * Tapir (to the Royal Netherlands Navy as Zeehond (2))
 * Tarn (to the Royal Netherlands Navy as Tijgerhaai)
 * Talent (P337)
 * "Teredo"

Fourteen submarines were ordered under the 1942 Programme, but only five were completed;
 * Tabard
 * Totem (lost in accident on passage to Israel as INS Dakar)
 * Truncheon (later the Israeli INS Dolphin)
 * Turpin (later the Israeli INS Leviathan)
 * Thermopylae

The other nine were ordered but cancelled on 29 October 1945 following the end of hostilities:
 * Thor (P349) (laid down at Portsmouth Dockyard on 5 April 1943 and launched on 18 April 1944. However, the war ended before she was completed and she was sold for scrapping to Rees Shipbreaking Co Ltd of Llanelli, Wales in July 1946. She would have been the only ship of the Royal Navy to bear the name Thor, after the mythological Norse god of thunder.
 * Tiara (also launched on 18 April 1944 at Portsmouth but not completed)
 * Theban (P341)
 * Talent (P343)
 * Threat (P344)
 * also four unnamed submarines (P345, P346, P347 and P348).

Transfers to Royal Netherlands Navy
Four submarines were transferred to the Royal Netherlands Navy in the 1940s. Two were later returned in 1953.
 * Tijgerhaai (ex-Tarn): transferred 1944
 * Zwaardvisch (ex-Talent): transferred 1943
 * Zeehond (2) (ex-Tapir): transferred 1948, returned 1953
 * Dolfijn (ex-Taurus): transferred 1948, returned 1953

Transfers to the Israeli Navy
Three submarines were sold to the Israeli Navy in the 1960s. Totem, renamed Dakar, was lost in transit in 1968.
 * INS Dakar (ex-Totem): sold 1965, commissioned 1967; lost January 1968.
 * INS Dolphin (ex-Truncheon): sold 1968
 * INS Leviathan (ex-Turpin): sold 1965, commissioned 1967

title: British T-class submarine


text:
User talk:Banger24

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Chris Theobald
Hi Banger24 and welcome to Wikipedia.

I see you've added an entry on a person named Chris Theobald. As you can see I've put a "votes for deletion" request on this as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion of biographical information. See Criteria for inclusion of biographies and Auto-biography for further information.

Please don't take this personally - this process is to ensure that Wikipedia is not "misused" for promotional purposes.

--Ianb 23:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Banger24


text:
User:SlowRhythm

Hi! I hope you will find my contributions to Wikipedia useful. I am truly fascinated by the possibility of people totally unknown to each other collaborating in good faith on worthwhile topics. Muito cool!

I have studied physics (theoretical physics, to be precise) but am a practising software engineer/architect/development manager. I've worked on systems for wireless voice and data networks, banking, enterprise supply chains, electronics manufacturing and retail.

Kalibro!

title: User:SlowRhythm


text:
Talk:Submarine patent

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasminesu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Latch and lache
Needs explanation of "procedural latch". Leonard G. 22:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a US/UK mismatch, I'm sure the term is Lache. Have explained it. Harris 15:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

European submarine patents
I've discussed this method with many colleages in the know; can anyone spot a hole in it? Harris 15:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you rely a bit too much on the assumption that "the European Patent Office is very unlikely to publish a patent on which the filing [ and search ] fees have not been paid." Art. 93(1) EPC clearly states: "a European patent application shall be published as soon as possible after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or (...)" . Nowhere in the EPC is it stated that the payment of the filing and search fees is a precondition for the publication to occur. The publication is paramount to protect the interest of third parties and the mere fact that the fees are not paid is not enough to prevent it, by my opinion.
 * There is actually another case where the application is published at 18 months even though the filing and search fees have not been paid:
 * you file a EP patent application without paying the filing and search fees under Art. 78(2),
 * you receive a communication under Rule 85a pointing out the failure to observe the time limit, but you do not paid the fees with the surcharge within one month from this communication,
 * you receive a communication under Rule 69(1) noting the loss of right,
 * you consider that the finding of the EPO is inaccurate (you pretend that you did pay these fees) and you request a decision under Rule 69(2),
 * then the EPO starts considering your request under Rule 69(2) and examines whether or not they share your opinion, but in the meantime, 18 months from the priority date arrives, before the communication under Rule 69(2), second sentence, is issued...
 * What happens then? The patent application is published. See "Notice dated 28 August 1990 concerning the publication of European patent applications whose deemed withdrawal has not yet become definitive" (OJ 1990, 455), point 3, second sentence, and also: "In such a case the application must be published, the public being entitled to have European patent applications published as soon as possible after expiry of the 18-month period under Article 93(1) EPC." . I would say the same applies to your scenario, all the more since, in your case, the applicant could be found abusing the procedure (... and do not forget "the parent and divisional applications may not claim the same subject-matter" according to the guidelines . This complicates your scenario...). ... That's just my opinion. --Edcolins 20:51, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a very good point. I hadn't seen that notice of the President, but I'm unsure how the EPO would apply it to divisional applications; they will be only ever pending for a month and I can't see the office taking action in that time. This is part of the reason I'm trying it! I think the claiming the same material point is a bit of a red herring as the parent will be dead, and in any case T587/98  shows that double patenting isn't actually forbidden under the EPC - the decision includes the fantastic statement that the patent was refused under a non-existent ground of refusal, which would therefore be a susbtantial procedural violation. I think a reference to the decision you cite may be in order. Harris 22:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * T587/98 contradicts the Guidelines indeed (see also ). But that's not the most important point here anyway...
 * I thought a little bit more about your scenario: Let's imagine at one point you file a divisional application more than 18 months after the priority date, then it "(...) shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application (...)" (Art. 76(1)) and as a legal fiction 18 months will have lapsed from the filing date, or in other words the divisional application will then be fictionally more than 18 months old! And since "the technical preparations for publication of the European patent application shall be deemed (also a legal fiction) to have been completed at the end of the day that comes seven weeks before expiry of the eighteenth month following the date of filing", withdrawing the divisional application at that time would not prevent its publication. And the submarine emerges! Are you convinced? --Edcolins 20:07, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Harris, your idea is actually very original, but maybe just too ahead of its time ;) and it seems to me it does not qualify for wikipedia yet (cf. No original research policy) unless you can cite other sources, articles or discussions about the possibility of obtaining submarine patent under the EPC. I removed your entry. --Edcolins 21:13, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

LL Generally speaking, you cannot have a true submarine patent in the EPC because the patent term is calculated from the original filing date. Therefore you use rights if you let your application pend too long. Also, all applications do publish before they can issue, so you cannot have an application suddenly appear and be enforced with never a chance to see it. And finally, there is an opposition period after the patent issues.--Thalia42 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How to submarine
Edcollins, I think you missed the point.

There may be published patents as submarines as well.

- patents that nodody was aware of for a long time, and then are rediscovered and enforced - the market does not read patents in its field - patent recherche fails as it is difficult to assess the targeted market, perhaps because of the wording - patents that were pure "defensive" and later enforced (e.g. switch of ownership, patent strategy), e.g the Unisys patents on jpeg --Anon.

 * The expression "submarine patent" originally refers to the practice of misusing the patent system to keep a patent application unpublished as long as possible. Interestingly you extend this definition to encompass all published patents that surprise the industry when they are enforced... I have never heard anyone extending the definition this way, but this is definitely an interesting derivation. Could you cite sources where such a meaning is conferred to the expression? A note in the article explaining this meaning derivation could be added then. Thanks. --Edcolins 09:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is a page that mentions the extended definition (though it is probably not the most reliable source in the world): --C960657 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Indeed, not the most reliable source out there, it seems.. --Edcolins (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1995, US Patents were generally not published until they issued. Therefore any patent that took a long time to issue was capable of becoming a submarine patent, provided it ultimately did issue into a successful field. The requirement of the 1995 amendment was an attempt to eliminate submarine patents through publication of all patent applications. However, a published patent application could still have the same consequence, if it were overlooked or not taken seriously.

European submarine patents II, still original research
David, I removed your remark about possible EPC submarine patents. You have provided interesting food for thought, but unfortunately I believe it to be original research. Does any publication such as the epi Information discuss this issue? Cheers. --Edcolins 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me this time! I was quite surprised to see someone put it in...  Nothing verifiable as yet.  --Harris 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fame then.. --Edcolins 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WW II crypto patents
I removed "Extreme examples of U.S. submarine patents include, filed on July 25, 1933 and granted (and published) 67 years and seven days afterwards on August 1, 2000, and , filed on October 23, 1936 and granted on October 10, 2000." The patents describe the rotor cipher machines that the U.S. used in WW II. These patents were delayed for national security reasons and I can't see where they have any commercial significance. No one would be interested in this technology today. They are not examples of submarine patents.--agr (talk)
 * Thanks. Indeed. I have added a note with a reference explaining this. --Edcolins (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Sentence
In the bottom section of the article: "Many of these patent claims, covering machine vision and bar codes, but 76 claims of his 14 patents were struck down in January 2004 by the federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada:"

If I knew what the author was trying to say, I'd fix it myself...74.92.147.125 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed... thanks for your note. I have tagged the sentence with " " for now. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, unseen submarine patents
I'm surprised by this article's definition of submarine patents. I've always used the definiton used by Bruce Perens: http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html

I.e. patents that are out there, published but not making themselves known, until a profitable company starts using the idea (thinking it was not patented) or until a lot of people are invested in using the idea, and then it surfaces/attacks.

Secondly, the intro focusses disproportionately on the situation in the USA pre-1995. At first reading, I thought it was saying that problem was USA-only and is now solved. The article body gives a very different, more accurate picture. Gronky (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have never seen the phrase used in the way you describe and, as far as I'm concerned, the lead of the article is correct. They are essentially only a problem in the US, and then only to a limited extent now that most applications are published after 18 months. The body of the article, discussing European law, is essentially one big bit of original reasearch (by synthesis) suggesting how EP practice MIGHT result in something approximating a submarine patent. I don't think any of the sources cited against the EP section mention the phrase "submarine patent", but I'd be interested if you can find one.
 * Perhaps the term is taking on a different meanings now that there is nothing current to apply it to, but I cannot see that the Perens article is a reliable source on which improvements to this article can be based. GDallimore (Talk) 17:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * My experience with patents is all post-2000, so I don't know if the usage I mention existed in pre-1995 or not, but I've added four refs for current use of the term as I described: the Perens article, reprinted in a book on the topic, the moneyterms.co.uk definition, and the term being used for the enforcement of a patent which the patent holder hadn't "publicized". Gronky (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've now changed it to say that your meaning *was* the primary or exclusive meaning in the 20th century, and that the broader meaning is a 21st century thing. How's that?  Gronky (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with GDallimore that the Perens article does not seem to be a reliable source. This looks like a self-published piece. The proposed new meaning is not (yet) established in my opinion. --Edcolins (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Perens' article was published in this book: http://www.intertic.org/Books/Software%20Patents.html
 * Gronky (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Some of those sources look like they SHOULD be reliable. However, the statements that the GIF patent is an example of a submarine are frankly ridiculous. I've researched that patent thoroughly and it was extremely well known and was being licensed to hundreds of corporations before Compuserve copied it. The only way it which is was a submarine patent was because Unisys were a hardware manufacturer and were licensing it to hardware corporations. Compuserve were the first person to implement the algorithm in software, an area where Unisys had little interest.
 * Seems to me that "submarine patent" is being abused in a similar way as "patent troll": to refer to any patent/patent holder the writer in question doesn't like without actually studying the facts. Unisys weren't a patent troll, either, by the way. As discussed above, they were always open about the existence of their patent, never lurking under bridges. GDallimore (Talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Found some excellent sources confirming the original meaning of the term:     . The last one in particular suggests an origin for the term and I'll add it to the article at some point.
 * Reading some stuff, I think I know how the other meaning of submarine patent might have come about: it's a very common error to forget that there is a period of time between filing of an application and granting/publication of a patent. ie people forget that the filing date is not the patent date. Because of that, people might not understand that submarine patents in the traditional sense of hiding completely secretly at the patent office are even possible, so authors writing about them try to create an interpretation that makes sense to them.
 * It isn't an interpretation that makes sense to me: there's nothing secret about these new, so-called submarine patents - it's only that the person who finds themselves on the end of the suit claims they were unaware of the patent. There's no "surfacing", just suddenly seeing something that was in plain sight all along. And anyone at the end of an infringement suit has to say they were unaware of the patent or they're facing greater damages. Knowing infringment can make you liable for triple damages in the US, I believe. In the UK, if you were unaware of the patent you may not have to pay damages at all so this new type of submarine patent is hardly a sinister destructive beast, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDallimore (talk • contribs)

 * Right. Made some pretty significant edits. Have removed the entire Europe section since there was nothing in it and was nothing in any of the sources about submarine patents. "Long pendency" (mentioned in some G decisions about divisionals) and "submarine" are definitely not the same thing. I then restored this old simple definition of submarine patent but, based on Gronky's suggestion that a patent ambush was a related term, created a new section highlighting Peren's alternative definition. GDallimore (Talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not "Peren's alternative definition", it's a common modern use of the term. If you want to limit this article to the original meaning (which would be perfectly valid - I don't mean to imply anything negative with the word "limit"), then it can be explained in one line in the intro.  Telling people the scope of the article at the very end isn't good for readabililty, IMO. Gronky (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It is not a "common use". I'd say it's far from common from what I've seen in sources and a minority view. The lead should summarise the main points in an article and this alternative usage of the term is not a main point in the article, but a sideline at the end. The lead now summarises the topic nicely wihtout overcomplicating it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll accept the current version, but FWIW, here's an example of this article's narrow scope leading to confusion:
 * The tech journalist uses this article as a basis to reject worries about "submarine patents", but the worries came from a standards committee worrying that "[o]ften, parties holding a submarine patent wait for a company with very deep pockets (like Apple, or Microsoft, or Google) to infringe on the patent before they sue."  Clearly using the meaning I've noted.
 * Hopefully the mention of "patent ambush" in the intro will make this confusion less likely. Gronky (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There's no confusion caused by the article's narrow scope. The first article you link to correctly defines submarine patents and correctly says their unlikely to be an issue. That article could also potentially be used as a reliable source, I believe. The second link calls something submarine patents that doesn't fit within the normally accepted definition. It also clearly is not a reliable source.
 * Just because some people who don't know better call things by the wrong name doesn't mean Wikipedia articles should start bowing to their mistakes. However, apart from the self-published source which I'll remove, I guess the lead doesn't pay too much heed to this misuse of the term.
 * Does it sound like I'm annoyed? Yes, I am. Half of the disagreements in patent law arise because people cannot agree on definitions and misapply terminology until nobody knows what anyone is talking about. GDallimore (Talk) 00:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The first article's description of "submarine patent" is a summary of this article, it can't then be used as a "source".
 * The confusion is obvious because someone said they were worried about patent ambush (which they attributed to "submarine patents") regarding the Theora format, released in 2000. They're not talking about the worries of an application that's still pending after 10 years, but the author of the osnews.com article took Wikipedia's definition as the only definition, thus misunderstanding the problem, and proceeded to shoot down an argument that no one had made.
 * If you were asked to write some doctrine on patent law, then the prescriptive attitude would be reasonable, but we're writing an encycopedia here, which is meant to be descriptive. People use the term, nowadays, in the way I describe.  Here's another example:, and another, neither of which is self-published.  Wikipedia's job is to document the world, not to be used in a push for terminology standards in a profession. Gronky (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I completely disagree. The less presriptive version doesn't make any sense. There is no "emergence" and the analogy does not remotely hold. Idiotic on the part of whoever started using the term in that sense. The fact that some people have got it wrong needs mentioning, but it's a minority viewpoint not to be given undue weight.
 * If you want sources, do a Google book search. On the first two pages of results I found only one source that uses the broader meaning and another which called "discovered" patents "faux submarine patents". I'll add that source in later. GDallimore (Talk) 08:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wait a minute. I've now looked at those sources you've just mentioned properly and neither of them define submarine patents in the way that you use at the beginning of this thread. They don't define submarine patents at all. GDallimore (Talk) 15:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given four references, none of which are self-published, which use the term "submarine patent" when talking about published patents which remain unseen until someone notices it would be profitable to now enforce them:
 * http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/argument_rosenblum_mayjun05.msp
 * "submarine patents" by rewarding companies that fail to publicize their inventions - note they talk about failing to publicise, which is not your "delaying publication by the patent office" meaning
 * http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
 * The Eolas case is a good illustration of a submarine patent. A purported inventor held a patent on a widely used feature of HTML, the standard that describes the format of web pages. The patent holder did not make his patent known for years, and then sued Microsoft for use of his principle.
 * http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=11746
 * Ogg Theora, it has a chance to be the first to seriously threaten H.264, at which point the submarine patents will either surface, or they won't. - Ogg Theora is technology from before 2000. In 2010, it seems clear to me they're not talking about your delayed publication idea, and they are talking about oportunisticly making people aware of their patents, so that fits my meaning.
 * http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars
 * Same reasoning as the above.
 * I'm not sure what references policy you're saying they violate. Gronky (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

=Origin=

I realize this is OR, but take a look at the Google News Archive search on "submarine patent". I appears to have abruptly emerged in 1994, shorly after Lemelson's patent issued .--Nowa (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a book reference from 1962.--Nowa (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Current use of the term "Submarine Patent"
It seems to me that the term "submarine patent" is currently commonly used in conjunction with standards setting and disputes over to what extent different competing standards (e.g. H.264 vs Ogg Theora for HTML 5) is or is not "patent free". This is especially important in the development of open souce alternatives to proprietary protocols. One of the challenges that open source programers face is the difficulty of knowing whether or not a give code inadvertently infringes an issued patent even though, theoretically, patents are fully public. Here's a Google search. Perhaps some of these references could be used to expand the article. --Nowa (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * We've kinda spent the last three days discussing this, above: . After those interesting discussions, I now think patent ambush is the term that should have been used in the discussions you mention.  But you're right, they do use the term "submarine patent" in that way, so this article should contain some mention of it.  I've settled for having it mentioned in a sentence at the end of the intro.  Is the wording of that insufficiently clear?  Any ideas on how it could be made clearer (while still leaving the proper discussion of this situation for the patent ambush page)?
 * Gronky (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the criticisms of patents in general is that it is hard to know if a product is infringing one of them. In that sense, patents are "hidden" and appear to be "submarines" even though they are published and electronically searchable.  A discussion along those lines would be appropriate if we can find the right references.  --Nowa (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Submarine patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228012920/http://perens.com:80/Articles/PatentFarming.html to http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Submarine patent


text:
User talk:Jonpin

Got something to say to me? This is the place. Jonpin

The proposed merger of smoot with list of strange units of measurement does not make sense. The two pages are not duplicates; i.e. they are not two separate articles on the same topic. The existence of a page that lists strange units of measurement is no reason why there should not be separate articles on those strange units. To regard the smoot as something of interests merely because it is a strange unit of measurement misses the point. It is of interest because it is a part of MIT lore, not because it is a strange unit of measurement. No one looking for MIT lore who is unfamiliar with this unit is going to think of looking at list of strange units of measurement. Michael Hardy 20:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Base hit
According to the scoring rules, reaching on catcher's interference or because of obstruction do not result in the crediting of base hits. Catcher's interference counts as no time at bat and no hit for the batter, and an error on the catcher. Obstruction that allows the batter to reach first base is also no time at bat and no hit, and it's an error against the fielder who obstructs.

You are correct that a hit is credited when a batter reaches first and another runner is hit by the batted ball, putting that runner out for interference.

I'm deleting reference to catcher's inteference and obstruction. CharlieZeb 01:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running
Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later. You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles. If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits
I notice that you marked a substantial edit on William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition as minor. Please do not mark an edit as minor that is not minor, as defined in Minor edit. Thanks! —Lowellian (talk)  09:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Putnam
Greetings! Looking at the Putnam exam article and talk, noticed your query -- yes, I took it. Hm. I think it was evil, except for A1, and several problems I wish I had more time to look at. (That said, I submitted four problems; I'll be happy if I got full credit on one.) Mindspillage 22:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current sports events
The rationale is that the first people editing the page each day tend to use the Day-Month-Year format, and many of the upcoming events (which mostly are outside NA) get entered first in Day-Month format - then later, someone else comes along to make it consistent with the Month-Day-Year format. It just seemed sensible to change it to the format that gets used first each day, as that should give rise to fewer inconsistencies going forward. jguk 10:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mexico in WC '06
Good catch on the Mexico thing. I was so certain that they had already secured a spot that I even went to check. Must have gotten my wires crossed...Thanks. Regards, Redux 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that was it. I probably read that Mexico was "virtually" qualified, but then forgot all about the virtually part.  Thanks again, good to know that I wasn't so completely out of the loop.  Regards, Redux 22:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities
Hello Jonpin, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks!  Googie Man ( Talk), 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

WC Template
Well if we copy current content directly into WC 2006 page and rename the template 'wc qualifying tiebrakers' then it might be ok... Robdurbar 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Full rankings on FIFA world cup
I'm sorry that all the hard work you must have put into this was deleted. Adding league tables for competitions which were not league-based (and where teams played different numbers of games) is inherently misleading, don't you think? --Guinnog 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Analyses sites question
Howdy! I noticed that you added Electoral-vote.com and Election Projection to the Non-partisan analyses section of United States Senate elections, 2006. I made a couple of changes to your additions and put a question on the Talk page about whether to keep them or not. If you could drop by and explain the additions, that'd be great. The only one I have concerns about is Election Projection, but since my knowledge of this site is that it seems to be a partisan site (towards the Republican spectrum) and that it's a blog, my opinion on the matter could be easily swayed towards keeping it. --Bobblehead 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WUSTL Project
--Lmbstl 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NFL draft order
Jonpin--the tiebreakers used to determine which teams make the playoffs are not the same tiebreakers used to determine the draft order. See 2007 NFL Draft. Samer (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, I found a semi-official source (BuffaloBills.com) that says it is divisional/conference tiebreakers after record/SOS. On the flip side, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article claiming the 3-way tie at third has already been broken, but, if it were broken the way they say, the tie last year would not have needed a coin flip. Samer (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madseason.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Madseason.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2011 NFL Draft
I did have a source that was updating as games were going final and it still had Cincinnati picking 3 and Buffalo picking 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerseyDevil26 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bestof7
Template:Bestof7 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Football World Cup 2006 Qualifying tiebreakers
Template:Football World Cup 2006 Qualifying tiebreakers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jonpin


text:
Talk:Black-footed ferret

Extinct in the nature?
The data in the table says the species is extinct in the nature but the text describes how they have lately been reintroduced to the wild. How should this be interpreted? --EnSamulili 17:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the wild population in the US is now 400. According to National Parks Conservation Association, the conservation status is Endangered. Made these updates to the article. Throbblefoot 20:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a bit more research after the recent change made my the anon IP user. According to IUCN conservation status list, the status is "extinct in the wild." I'm tempted to update the article with that information. Comments? Thanks, Throbblefoot 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done so. The red list data is from 1996. Listed it as "Endangered" since September 20, 2005 under the ESA; I exchanged the IUCN data with the ESA one. Dysmorodrepanis 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, someone changed it back. :P So I changed to to endangered again. Mumbles (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone also keeps changing it back to extinct in the wild, when it is clearly endangered, but in the wild. It states in the article that it is indeed an out of date assumption that it is EW status. Changing it to endangered. Clawmaster 01:16, 8 August 2008

I added a personally taken and quite recent photograph of a black-footed ferret in the wild, just to enhance the idea that the "extinct in the wild" label is obsolete. I hope you all enjoy the photo! Clawmaster 20:22, 24 August 2008

Raccoon?
Why is there a picture of a raccoon on the front page? I understand they look alike, but I can see no way that a picture of a raccoon is actually relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.173.248 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The revision as of 01:34, 16 July 2006 did indeed have a photo of a Raccoon (captioned as such) as its only illustration. How bizarre!  Later that month the raccoon photo was replaced by a couple of black-footed ferrets photos. -- ToE 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why was this article moved back to "Black-footed Ferret" from "Black-footed ferret"? The edit summary says "fauna convention for mammals" but I have no idea where this "convention" is. Powers T 01:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know what convention particular to mammals they are talking about, but the word ferret is not a pronoun. I don't think it should be capitalized in this case. VanTucky  (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions (fauna) --Peta 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Mammals Zsero 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Conservation Status
is endangered (EN). Aepryus (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kansas population
Didn't TNC recently introduce a population in Western Kansas? This got a lot of attention because of the antagonism from ranchers and Kansas State officials, who wanted to poison local prairie dog towns. Matthias5 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dimensions in the article are wrong
Ferrets are not that large. Someone with knowledge about ferrets should correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathkill14 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A vandal had changed "inches" to "feet" a couple of days earlier. The previous "18 to 24 inches long, including a 5-6 inches tail" was restored a few days after this comment.  Thanks. -- ToE 15:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian population
According to this article, there is also a population in Saskatchewan, Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/blog/update-black-footed-ferrets 2001:569:7857:4900:B8C8:4F61:6E26:7830 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh NVM, the re-introduction was unsuccessful. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/bringing-black-footed-ferrets-back-from-the-brink-180632225.html 2001:569:7857:4900:B8C8:4F61:6E26:7830 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black-footed ferret. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.prairiewildlife.org/cssandsupportfiles/Morphology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Size
Males measure 500–533 millimetres (19.7–21.0 in) in body length and 114–127 millimetres (4.5–5.0 in) in tail length, thus constituting 22–25% of its body length. Females are typically 10% smaller than males. Can anyone verify this source? The proportions and sizes seem kind of off. The black-footed ferrets I've seen in images and videos always looked smaller than domestic ferrets. TangoFett (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Captive breeding program launch in error.
It is well known that the captive breeding program that saved the species was not launched by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It was launched, and maintained until 1996 by the Wyoming Game & Fish. Please see this page on the Wyoming Game and Fish website under the heading "At the Forefront of Endangered Species Research and Recovery". This omission of mention for the Wyoming Game and Fish is a glaring error, that seems very wrong, and perhaps political.AE7EC (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Black-footed ferret. 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/20100110222545/http://www.npca.org:80/wildlife_protection/wildlife_facts/ferret.html to http://www.npca.org/wildlife_protection/wildlife_facts/ferret.html
 * Added tag to http://www.nrccooperative.org/pdfs/Clark_Ferrets&HumanUse.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Population numbers

The article currently says: "As of 2013, about 1,200 ferrets are thought to live in the wild.[38]" I don't think this population number is correct. Probably more like 400-500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.210.118.222 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

About the conservation efforts, question about determining if the source is reliable
Here's the source in the question: Black-Footed Ferrets: Captive Breeding. It's a video released by a Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The main takeaway from the video for me is that the survival of the species was dependent on a single male named "Scarface", and the attempts to catch him took a very long time. Would that video be allowed as a reliable source? --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that might make life easier - see here, here and here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Status contradictions

 * The text states that the Black-footed ferret was identified in 1851, but that 86 pelts were sold in the 1830s. Were they misidentified?  That seems like a large number of pelts for no-one to realize this was a new species.

 * The ferret was listed as extinct in 1979, proven extant in 1981, extinct in the wild in 1987, and re-introduced via a program begun in 1991? I presume a captive program existed sometime between 1981 and 1987?

 * The dates in the intro are not consistent, and they also are inconsistent with the dates listed in the History section:
 * {| class="wikitable"

 * + Date citation
 * "...first listed as endangered in 1967..."
 * "...relisted on January 4, 1974..."
 * "...It was first listed as 'endangered' in 1982..."
 * "...'endangered' in 2008..."
 * "...1996 assessment, when it was considered extinct in the wild..."
 * "....It was declared extinct in 1979..."
 * "...the animals were considered extinct in the wild in 1987..."
 * "'extinct in the wild' in 1996..."
 * }161.225.96.66 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "...1996 assessment, when it was considered extinct in the wild..."
 * "....It was declared extinct in 1979..."
 * "...the animals were considered extinct in the wild in 1987..."
 * "'extinct in the wild' in 1996..."
 * }161.225.96.66 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "'extinct in the wild' in 1996..."
 * }161.225.96.66 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * }161.225.96.66 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Is there a separate strain of black plague that infects prairie dogs and ferrets? Or can humans get the black plague from them?

 * Black-footed ferrets look more like Steppe ferrets but are closer related to polecats? Is that how I reconcile their description with the phylogenetic trees shown under the Mustelidea listing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.10 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Cloning
Scientists clone the first U.S. endangered species -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Black-footed ferret


text:
User talk:Rupali

Hi. Please don't create articles in your name. Instead use your user page for what you want to say about yourself. Use the sandbox for any tests you'd like to do. - Tεx  τ  urε  22:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rupali


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Game Director's Cut

 * Delte- Hi, i'm the guy who made the article.

If it is against the rules of this site, then delete it.

I have no idea why I made it in the first place, blame boredom.

 * Delete - advert - Tεx  τ  urε  22:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Take away the "text" and you have little more than a link. Vanity, at that.  Give it the old Wiki cut. - Lucky 6.9 23:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this is an ad for a non-notable site. Geogre 01:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is related to Machinima, but decidedly not the same thing. It just needs more substance in the article. Leonard G. 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Aren't there a million such examples on the internet? What makes this one special? -  Tεx  τ  urε  17:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * delete advert --Jiang 10:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * delete; article has no substance and is, frankly, irritating to read Rico 23:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Campaigns of 1800 in the Napoleonic Wars

The Napoleonic Wars continued from 1799 with the French fighting the forces of the Second Coalition. Napoleon Bonaparte had returned from Egypt and taken control of the French government, marking the end of the French Revolution. He prepared a new campaign, sending Moreau to the Rhine frontier and personally going to take command in the Alps, where French forces had been driven almost out of Italy in 1799.

At the start of the campaigning season of 1800, the Austrians had strong armies North and South of the Alps

 * about 120,000 men in the Black Forest under Pál Kray (defending the direct (Rhine–Danube) route from France to Vienna
 * about 100,000 men in northern Italy under Michael von Melas defending the Austrian possessions in northern Italy, and the Po Valley, which Napoleon had used as a backdoor to Vienna in his previous Italian campaigns

The French had

Both the Austrians and the French decided to make their main effort in Italy. (Bonaparte would have preferred the main attack to be on Kray by a flanking move through Northern Switzerland, but the working relationship with Moreau was poor).
 * about 120,000 men under Moreau facing Kray
 * about 40,000 men under André Masséna holding Genoa and preventing invasion of Southern France from Italy
 * about 50,000 men under Berthier forming the Army of the Reserve and centred on Dijon

Italy
Melas attacked first, and by the third week in April had advanced to the Var, with Massena and half his army in Genoa besieged by land by the Austrians and under tight blockade by the Royal Navy. In response Berthier moved – not to the threatened frontier, but to Geneva – and Massena was instructed to hold Genoa until 4 June.

The Army of the Reserve was joined by Napoleon, and in mid-May set out to cross the Alps to attack the Austrian rear. The bulk of the army crossed by the Great St Bernard Pass still covered by snow. Artillery was manhandled over with great effort and ingenuity. On 14 May 1800, the 40,000-strong French army was stopped by 400 Austro-Piedmontese soldiers at Fort Bard in the Aosta Valley. They held the pass for two weeks, completely ruining Napoleon's surprise attack on the Po Valley.

Once over the Alps, Napoleon did not proceed directly to the relief of Genoa. Instead, he advanced on Milan, to improve his lines of communication (via the Simplon and St Gotthard passes) and to threaten Melas's lines of communication with Mantua and Vienna, in the belief that this would cause Melas to raise the siege of Genoa. He entered Milan on 2 June and by crossing to the South bank of the Po completely cut Melas's communications. Taking up a strong defensive position at Stradella, he confidently awaited an attempt by the Austrian Army to fight its way out.

However, Melas had not raised the siege of Genoa, and on 4 June the French Army marched out with all equipment towards France as per the terms of the negotiated evacuation of the city. Napoleon then faced the possibility that, thanks to the British command of the Mediterranean, far from falling back, the Austrians could instead take Genoa as their new base and be supplied by sea. His defensive posture would not prevent this; he had to find and attack the Austrians before they could regroup. He therefore advanced from Stradella towards Alessandria, where Melas was, apparently doing nothing. Convinced that Melas was about to retreat, Napoleon sent strong detachments to block Melas's routes northwards to the Po, and southwards to Genoa. At this point, Melas attacked, and for all the brilliance of the previous campaign, Napoleon found himself at a significant disadvantage in the consequent Battle of Marengo (14 June). Napoleon was effectively defeated in a tough battle in the morning and early afternoon; Melas, thinking he had already won, had turned over delivery of the coup de grace to a subordinate, when the prompt return of a detached French force under Desaix and a vigorous French counter-attack (in the course of which Desaix was killed) converted the battle into an important French victory.

Melas promptly entered into negotiations which led to the Austrians evacuating northern Italy west of the Ticino, and suspending military operations in Italy.

Napoleon returned to Paris after the victory, leaving Brune to consolidate in Italy and begin a march toward Austria.

Germany
Although the First Coalition forces achieved several initial victories at Verdun, Kaiserslautern, Neerwinden, Mainz, Amberg and Würzburg, the efforts of Napoleon Bonaparte in northern Italy pushed Austrian forces back and resulted in the negotiation of the Peace of Leoben (17 April 1797) and the subsequent Treaty of Campo Formio (October 1797). This treaty proved difficult to implement. Austria was slow to give up some of the Venetian territories. A Congress convened at Rastatt for the purposes of deciding which southwestern German states would be mediatised to compensate the dynastic houses for territorial losses, but was unable to make any progress. Supported by French republican forces, Swiss insurgents staged several uprisings, ultimately causing the overthrow of the Swiss Confederation after 18 months of civil war. By early 1799, the French Directory had become impatient with stalling tactics employed by Austria. The uprising in Naples raised further alarms, and recent gains in Switzerland suggested the timing was fortuitous to venture on another campaign in northern Italy and southwestern Germany. At the beginning of 1800, the armies of France and Austria faced each other across the Rhine. Feldzeugmeister Pál Kray led approximately 120,000 troops. In addition to his Austrian regulars, his force included 12,000 men from the Electorate of Bavaria, 6,000 troops from the Duchy of Württemberg, 5,000 soldiers of low quality from the Archbishopric of Mainz, and 7,000 militiamen from the County of Tyrol. Of these, 25,000 men were deployed east of Lake Constance (Bodensee) to protect the Vorarlberg. Kray posted his main body of 95,000 soldiers in the L-shaped angle where the Rhine changes direction from a westward flow along the northern border of Switzerland to a northward flow along the eastern border of France. Unwisely, Kray set up his main magazine at Stockach, near the northwestern end of Lake Constance, only a day's march from French-held Switzerland.

General of Division Jean Victor Marie Moreau commanded a modestly-equipped army of 137,000 French troops. Of these, 108,000 troops were available for field operations while the other 29,000 watched the Swiss border and held the Rhine fortresses. First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte offered a plan of operations based on outflanking the Austrians by a push from Switzerland, but Moreau declined to follow it. Rather, Moreau planned to cross the Rhine near Basel where the river swung to the north. A French column would distract Kray from Moreau's true intentions by crossing the Rhine from the west. Bonaparte wanted Claude Lecourbe's corps to be detached to Italy after the initial battles, but Moreau had other plans. Through a series of complicated maneuvers in which he flanked, double flanked, and reflanked Kray's army, Moreau's army lay on the eastern slope of the Black Forest, while portions of Kray's army was still guarded the passes on the other side. Battles at Engen and Stockach were fought on 3 May 1800 between the army of the French First Republic under Jean Victor Marie Moreau and the army of the Habsburg monarchy led by Pál Kray. The fighting near Engen resulted in a stalemate with heavy losses on both sides. However, while the two main armies were engaged at Engen, Claude Lecourbe captured Stockach from its Austrian defenders under Joseph Louis, Prince of Lorraine-Vaudémont. The loss of this main supply base at Stockach compelled Kray to order a retreat to Meßkirch, where they enjoyed a more favourable defensive position. It also meant, however, that any retreat by Kray into Austria via Switzerland and the Vorarlberg was cut off. On 4 and 5 May, the French launched repeated and fruitless assaults on the Meßkirch. At nearby Krumbach, where the Austrians also had the superiority of position and force, the 1st Demi-Brigade took the village and the heights around it, which gave them a commanding aspect over Meßkirch. Subsequently, Kray withdrew his forces to Sigmaringen, followed closely by the French. Fighting at nearby Biberach an der Ris ensued on 9 May; action principally consisted of the 25,000 man-strong French "Center", commanded by Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr. After being flanked by General Moreau, who approached Ulm from the east and overwhelmed his outposts at Battle of Höchstädt (1800), Kray retreated to Munich. Again, on 10 May, the Austrians withdrew with heavy losses, this time to Ulm.

A several month armistice followed, during which Kray was replaced by the Archduke John, with the Austrian army retiring behind the river Inn. Austrian reluctance to accept negotiated terms caused the French to end the armistice in mid-November, effective in two weeks. When the armistice ended, John advanced over the Inn towards Munich. His army was defeated in small engagements at the battles of Ampfing and Neuburg an der Donau, and decisively in the forests before the city at Hohenlinden on 3 December. Moreau began a march on Vienna, and the Austrians soon signed the Armistice of Steyr, ending the war in Germany.

Egypt
Meanwhile, Kléber remained trapped in Egypt by the British fleet. He negotiated the Convention of El-Arish with Britain and Turkey to allow him to evacuate by sea, but Britain later repudiated the agreement. Kléber won a battle against the Turks at Heliopolis in March, but was assassinated later in June.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Disruption

Disruption was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

This is a strange and somewhat POV page that is pretty much a tutorial on how to revert edits. Unnecessary, as that info is available elsewhere. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 22:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep. Several long-time, and well-respected, admins have added to this page.  Quite a number of our explanation / policy pages have several concepts on a single page that might best be served with individual pages.  This appears to be a step in that direction.  SWAdair | Talk  07:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Could be redirected to a more suitable location in the Wikipedia namespace, but doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. --Michael Snow 23:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)