Talk:SUBROC

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Citations

"Subroc was not strictly an anti-submarine weapon ..... etc" Could the author supply some means of verifying this statement that conflicts with the opening statement that Subroc WAS an anti-submarine weapon? From my reading of the Scientific American article and others, it is difficult to reconcile the claim of its intended use as a means to attack a Soviet surface battlefleet. If that were true, then SUBROC would be extremly vulnerable to Soviet countermeasures, especially after warhead separation and a lengthy, slow descent by parachute to splashdown. In that scenario almost any half-decent anti-air weapon would be capable of damaging the warhead beyond any possibility of it detonating. Several more suitable weapons are available in the NATO arsenal to deal with a surface battlefleet scenario. I'd welcome comments and clarification. That is why the relevant parts are highlighted with "citation needed" notices. Brian.Burnell 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]