Talk:U-boat

Article title

Shouldn't this be under "U-Boat" instead? Or should we move most of the foreign countries, as well as many United States cities (e.g. New Orleans)? --KQ

If anything, it should be "U-boot" as it is short fort the German language "Unterseeboot", not the English language "Underseaboat" or something similar.... 213.236.117.2 12:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

That's where I put it originally, and I'm not keen on the move for that reason. Also, I saw pages in German that referred to nuclear "U-boots", while most usage of "U-boat" is to refer to World War I and II German subs. But I didn't want to get into a Wikipedian swapping war (I change it back, he changes it again, etc.). --Belltower

It's not a swapping war to move something back, it's a swapping war in it gets moved back and forth more than once. It's hard to know when to translate and not to translate (czar no, rex yes, with plenty of gray area), but I think a reasonable standard to go by is what would be more likely to be linked to, and in this case that would be U-boat. Heck, that's the term used within the article itself.

However trivial this may seem, I was taught that U-Boat was short for Unterwasserboot (under water boat) not Unterseeboot (Under Sea Boat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.147.34 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian U-boats

There should be mention of, and links to, the Austro-Hungarian submarine fleet, since they were also known as U-Boots. They operated mainly in the Adriatic, but were a factor in the Mediterranean during World War I; the hero of The Sound of Music was a notably heroic Austrian U-Boot captain. --Technomad

Categories

Why were so many (seeingly appropriate) categories just removed from this page? Just curious...—chris.lawson (talk) 23:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC

Technical Details

Technical details of U-Boats is void. Armament and communications ... how were the torpedos powered. What means were used to communicate with these vessels above and below water??? How was food supply handled???

Someone could add a section about underwater communication and radios.

Also, what kind of Crew

I'm trying to fact check a conservative Canadian newspaper from 1917 's article on the 'surrender' of its crew after 'disposing' of its officers, the news having come from 'an informed source'. I was curious to see the truth in the article and having no direct method thought to look into who crewed the boats and if there were any higher officers. Surely there were though... Still, Wartime Conservative from Canada is a cocktail for lies (propaganda, staunchly British, forbearer of the Globe and Mail (the Mail part, specifically 'The Empire' it is))

Definition

'The distinction between U-boat and submarine is common in English-language usage but unknown in German where the term U-Boot refers to any submarine.'

This baffles me as much as the Germans. What is the distinction? Does 'u-boat' refer to German WWII submarines only? Joffeloff 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In English, "U-boat" invariably means a German submarine, usually of World War II but the term is also used regarding World War I. Post-war German submarines were officially "Unterseeboot n", but I don't believe the term U-boat is generally used in English for them. (That said, post-war German naval vessels rarely appear in normal English-language discourse...) Shimgray | talk | 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: There is often some confusion about whether it is permissible to call a German U-Boat a "submarine". The term "U-boat" is typically used in place of "submarine", particularly in the case of German WWII craft. The term had always been there as a loose transliteration of U-Boot (from Unterseeboot), as mentioned above, but it was reinforced by Allied wartime propaganda. In particular, Sir Winston Churchill is famously quoted as stating:

Enemy submarines are to be called "U-boats." The term "submarine" is to be reserved for Allied underwater vessels. U-boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.

However, I have trawled a few web sites looking for the reference and date of this, but have been unable to find it. However, it remains that "submarine" is generally avoided when referring to German U-boats. 130.246.132.26 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The use that Churchill was advocating was so that in signals unidentified submarines could be distinguished from known enemy ones. If the term 'submarine' was used in a report then the receiver knew that it was either friendly or unidentified. If the term 'U-boat' was used however, the receiver of the signal knew that it was almost certainly enemy, and could launch the appropriate countermeasures. That is why the term encompassed German, Italian, and Japanese submarines - if a 'submarine' was reported it might be a friendly one, if a 'U-boat', then it almost certainly was not. British submarines had to traverse the UK waters when leaving port and going to their 'billets' (patrol areas) so Allied aircraft needed to bear in mind that not every submarine they encountered on the surface was necessarily a German one. The use of different terms made for less risk of confusion, and less chance of 'friendly fire' incidents, it being very difficult to recognise submarines from the air in perhaps bad weather. For this reason, both British and German submarines would invariably dive upon sighting any aircraft, it being better to be safe rather than sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub-net cutting instrument

Could this instrument, seen fielded on many submarines before 1960, be talked about for a bit? :) Henning 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Of the 1,198 lives lost, 128 were American civilians, including a noted theatrical producer and a member of the prestigious Vanderbilt family- Does this refer to one person or two different people?

Validity of Lusitania

Yeah if I seen a black guy walking in the street should I shoot him then strip search him to confirm that he is carying illegal weapon?

The only way the Germans figure it out wheter Lusitania is carying weapons is spies (the British captured some of then inside the Lusitania).....wait

Why Germans unable to prove the Lusitania was carying weapons they argued that the only reason Lusitania was carying weapons was the second explosion -right after they torpedoed Lusitania? It took the world decades to figure it out that Lusitania is carying 20 tons of weapons (thanks to de-classified british documents and expedition to the wreck)

I felt the section in WWI is somewhat biased almost sarcastic.

Damn right its sounds really biased and required a proper re-write Jbrian80 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that the British had ordered all merchant ships to not stop and allow themselves to be boarded by U-Boots when challenged. When they could no longer stop and search other ship U-Boots started attacking without warring. Seano1 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There were also those Q-Ships. At the beginning of the war, it was quite normal to stop the merchant ships, let the people get aboard, maybe asked the crew for the name of the ship, the destination and the cargo and gave them some supplies or whatever and then sunk the merchant with the deck gun. This was as humane as possible and quite effective because a few cannon shells use way less space inside the submarine then a torpedo (ergo there could be sunk more ships) and were also more accurate. As the merchants were orderd not to stop, this order made it almost impossible to look at the cargo for weapons or other war-important freight but the ships could still got sunk by the cannon wich would gave the people time to leave the ship. The problem were either the escorts (which were rather rare in 1. WW) or hidden guns at the merchant... called Q-Ship, who were a trap for submarines. This shows, that war means all or nothing.. victory or defeat. The British knew that these Q-Ships and the "don´t stop" order would force the Germans to shoot without warning which made the warfare at sea much more cruel and inhumane, but they thought it was necessary to win the war. Another thing with the Lusitania is, that it was quite insane imho to ship to england, while a huge part of europe is at war and there´s a seafight ongoing. There were official german ad´s in US newspapers that if you want to travel into a warzone, it´s on your own risk and probably US ships are going to get sunk. It was no secret that the USA were supporting the British with weapons, food and other things for their own profit and as i said... it was a state of total war which should be won at any cost. The phrase "you´re either with us or against us" is still up to date if you look at modern US foreign policies. The incident with the Lusitania was a tragedy, but i hope i could made it a bit comprehensible. An incident like this was just a matter of time and there is no "prove of if it was right or not". There was a war raging, that much ruffian that already civilians in cities have been bombed and it was tried to famishment the opponent. What do you expect if there is someone who tries to interfere?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.52.253 (talk)

Ok here something i found on the net. I removed a poorly written sentence claiming that Lusitania was a legit target based on evidence had been uncovered decades after the war and It doesnt make any logical sense. In addition its so POV.24.83.153.249

I reinserted it with a reference as it is common knowledge and is referred to in any decent history of the First Battle of the Atlantic. --Guinnog 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Though there was a great deal of outrage at the sinking of an "innocent" merchant ship at the time, there is evidence that the Lusitania had munitions aboard..."

Ywan the same crapppy sentence again? It sounds like written by a 13 year old preppies and its so biased. "Innocent" ship at the time what the hell is this? Showbiz talkshow writing? Its not even encyclo[pedia standard its BS!

"LUSITANIA was not carrying a secret, illegal cargo of explosives. She was carrying a legal consignment of rifle cartridges and shrapnel shell cases. In traditional international law this did not affect LUSITANIA's status as a merchant ship, entitled to full warning before attack. But Bailey and Ryan are right in suggesting that in a moral and practical sense LUSITANIA's military cargo does enhance the German argument that U-20 had a right to sink her, although it certainly does not seal the case. A more potent argument for the German case is the secret Admiralty orders, known to the Germans, that directed merchant ships to resist and to ram U-boats and made it highly perilous to surface and give warning. In the new circumstances of this naval war, in which both sides were in violation of traditional law, a coldly objective judgement is that LUSITANIA was a legitimate target--a conclusion reached with reluctance and with which others I am sure will strongly disagree. That being said, her sinking was a brutal act even by the standards of this war, and there is reason to think that there were U-boat commanders who would have shown greater forbearance in the circumstances than did Kapitanleutnant Schwieger; there are few submarine captains, of Germany or any other nation, who can be said with certainty to have deliberately attacked a hospital ship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.153.249 (talk)

Please try to discuss your proposed additions/changes in a collegial way. I have never read any respected modern history about the period which now regards the sinking as anything other than legitimate. What do you propose we do? --Guinnog 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What he said is that the article is no properly written. I have no problem with the accuracy, but the tone of the article it sounds absurb and immature. Jbrian80 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the catch if anyone can find an article that Germans have PRIOR knowlege that Lusitania was carying "weapons of mass destruction" before they torpedoed it will get a prize. The Germans realised that the so called "innocent" ship was carying weapons when they notice a secondary explosion. In my opinion Lusitania was torpedoed based on their unrestricted submarine warefare (they warned the British before) and not on munition contraband as they claimed later.24.83.153.249 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here something that enhanced the valid target issues:

“The German Government placed advertisements in the New York newspapers prior to her sailing at the end of April 1915 stating that this was the case, and that this made the commercial vessel a legitimate target.

"All passengers were warned in the advertisements that the liner was liable to be attacked by the Germans as a legitimate military vessel that they should not sail.

“A total of 1,959 ignored the warnings and of these, 1,195 perished in the see off Cork.”

Since you did not properly explained why Lusitania was a valid target....24.83.153.249 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Try this on. If Lusitania refused to stop & signalled on her W/T there was a hostile sub around, she was violating the "cruiser rules" (or "prize rules") that required her to stop & not signal, thus making her a legitimate military target (a de facto naval auxiliary). Trekphiler 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lusitania was sunk by only one torpedo, as noted in the german Captains Log. See the Lusitania page for details. Aidan

'Peril' of U-boats in WWII

Looking at this sentence, "Although Winston Churchill, the United Kingdom's Prime Minister wrote The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril, evidence later accumulated showed that 98% of convoyed British ships in the first 28 months of the war crossed the Atlantic safely, and at no time was the U-boat force close to a successful blockade of the United Kingdom.", which was just added. I question the reasoning. As I remember my history it was not a question of what percentage of ships were lost in each convoy, it was a matter of what percentage of shipping tonnage available was lost over that period. Ships were being lost much faster than they could be replaced during the early part of the war, and there was a real danger that tonnage available would drop below what was needed to keep Britain supplied. It was the combination of more effective ASW and greatly increased ship building (including Liberty ships) that eventually saved Britain. I don't have references at hand, but I'll try look some up the next time I'm at the library. -- Donald Albury 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the key word: "convoyed". Losses in convoy were always lower; the end-of-war average was 0.7%. Most losses were in ships not in convoy. And you're right, it was losses:replacements & delivered tonnage that mattered. It was damn close, & stupid decisions by British hi command (especially refusing to base VLR Liberators in Newfoundland) made the German job much easier. (BTW, I don't need sources at hand; I've been reading on the subject for years. Have a look at Milner's North Atlantic Run. For contrast, see Parillo, Japanese Merchant Marine.) Trekphiler 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that sentence, too, and have the same objections. It selects only convoyed ships when most were not convoyed at the beginning of the war. It goes by number of ships, not tonnage or cargo lost. And it has a very odd range of months, 28, which would range from Sept 1939 to Jan 1942. January 1942 was when Operation Drumbeat began, the slaughter off the US coast. On these grounds I'm removing that statement. --Schwern 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That the threat of U-Boats in WWII was considerably overestimated is documented in painstaking detail by Clay Blair in his two volumes "Hitler's U-Boat War". (At a greater level of operational detail than any other submarine history I know of.) One of his discoveries is that between Sept. 1942 and May 1945 99.4% of boats in convoys reached their destination intact. Another often-missed fact in assessing U-Boat impact is that the U.S. placed great emphasis on carrying troops safely -- very few were lost compared to British troops in transport -- and less emphasis was placed on protecting ships returning empty or carrying low priority supplies. Among Blair's opinions, which I've discussed with a post-WWII submarine commander, and with which he generally strongly agrees, is that the U-Boats never came close at any time to cutting the lifeline to the British Isles. Simply, Churchill grossly overestimated the U-Boat threat. "The Terrible U-Boat Threat" is good theater for the History Channel, but it's just terrible history that's largely unsubstantiated by facts. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 11:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically addressing the point about ship replacement, Blair "Hitler's U-Boat War" volume 1, p. 697 "In 1942, American, British, and Canadian shipyards produced about 7.1 million gross tons, or about a million more gross tons than were lost to U-Boats." Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 12:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The British didn't need to convoy troop ships as much as the Americans did because when they needed to transport large numbers of troops they used the fastest ocean-going ships there were at the time, RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth.

The often sailed unescorted because very few other ships could keep up with them, as they had been designed with speed in mind, and could steam at 25 Knots+ all day and night. So putting them in convoy would slow them down to the speed of the slowest ships.

The Queen Mary holds the record for the largest number of troops ever carried on one crossing, some 16,082 men from the US to Britain. The Queen Elizabeth carried more than 750,000 troops during her wartime career, sailing some 500,000 miles.

Other British troops ships were often also high-speed liners that had been on the North Atlantic run before the war.

So Clay Blair's claim that the U.S. placed great emphasis on carrying troops safely -- very few were lost compared to British troops in transport doesn't mean much. They had to escort their troop ships, they didn't have any ships that were fast enough to survive on their own. Also, the British had already been fighting the Battle of the Atlantic for two years before the US got officially involved. So they were bound to have early losses that occurred before the anti-submarine techniques were worked out. And a number of their troopships were lost in unique circumstances such as Dunkirk, which did not apply to the later US experience. Blair's book is well researched but written very much from an American/German POV and includes what I assume are his own opinions on the relative merits of the British/American anti-submarine strategy.

As for Admiral King's policy of not using the convoy system until he had to, that's his business, but the point that pissed-the-British-off was that often they had safely escorted ships across three thousand miles of U-boat-infested ocean just to see his navy let them get sunk often within site of the US mainland.

And in discussing the relative merits of the two countries differing strategies it may be as well the point out that once it got going the British strategy worked - and they (the British and Commonwealth) sank more submarines than everyone else in the world put together. As of today, that achievement still stands. Not something that was likely to lighten the heart of the average Soviet submarine commander contemplating getting through the GIUK gap should the Cold War ever have become 'hot'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

U-864

Is this worth a mention? BBC News - Norway tackles toxic war grave - Article relating to mercury cargo of U-864? Also I could not find 864 amongst the List_of_U-boats...Dick G 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A ref to U-864 [1]. Folks at 137 09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lusitania lie

I'm getting really tired of " and was a factor in the United States' entry into the war nearly two years later." The Zimmerman telegram was the important factor, & constant harping on Lusitania is perpetuating a fiction. Trekphiler 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Impulse bubble

In the U-boat infobox under "Technology", howcum no mention of "torpedo", pray tell? And on the aforesaid page, it says a different (Chilean, I think) ship was first ever sunk by SP one, tho Pathfinder is unquestionaly the better known... Trekphiler 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected:

"On 16 January 1877, the Turkish steamer Intibah became the first vessel to be sunk by torpedoes, launched from torpedo boats operating from the tender Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin under the command of Stepan Osipovich Makarov during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78."

I'm changing Pathfinder. Trekphiler 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam link?

I just tried adding the cat: Category:German loanwords . The system wouldn't let me do it, unless I removed a link which has been judged to be spam. Check out the discussion at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#isbn-check.com_.2B_books-by-isbn.com_.2B_isbn-check.de] for more information. I don't know how important the page books-by-isbn" is to you, and don't want to remove it myself. samwaltz 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it after I got blocked twice on a legit edit by spam filters. Let somebody else put it back in a way that won't lock out the rest of us. Trekphiler 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff & nonsense

I deleted this

"World War II torpedoes suffered from many limitations: they could only be launched from periscope depth or while surfaced"

as patent nonsense written by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about; torpedoes were usually aimed by periscope, or eye, or otherwise it was damned hard to hit anything, but could as readily be fired on sonar bearings, from almost any operating depth. I also rewrote

"Ideally, when using the magnetic feature, the sub commander would know the target ship's draft (how low its keel sits in the water) and set the torpedo's depth so that it passed just underneath"

because "the sub commander" would never "know the target ship's draft"; it was, at best, a calculated guess based on the ship's size & information on her suspected identity from intelligence documents the sub possessed. I also rewrote the "straight runner" portion; all torpedoes ran straight only, & homing is a quite new phenomenon. Trekphiler 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is also some rubbish about 50 British cruisers being sunk in the first 10 weeks of the war. Who on earth is writing this nonsense ? ````evenki

Just about every navy in the world had a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships on board every one of its ships, and in addition, most would have had a copy of Lloyd's Register which stated particulars of just about every ocean going ship there was. So finding the draught of a ship was possible, going on identification by silhouette alone.

RE: other torpedo use, see Action of 9 February 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Two sections for U-Boat classes which don't appear to agree

The article currently has two different sections listing U-Boat types. The two lists have zero overlap.

I've removed the first one, and copied both lists here so that we can discuss what should go in the article. --Zippy 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First list: "U-boat classes"

(moved to article under U-boats of World War I)

Second list: "U-boat classes"

(moved to article under U-boats of World War II)

The first list gives German WW I U-boat types, the second one WW II types.88.65.100.238 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It has always bothered me that U-boat classes of World War I were underrepresented compared to WWII classes. I think both lists belong in their respective sections, but first we need to turn some of those red links into blue ones. Antimatter--talk-- 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been here a while, so I’m being bold and putting it back in the text. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Oops, did someone do this already? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Bell Island became the only location in North America to be subject to direct attack by German forces

I think this is wrong, being that it was not the only location subject to firect attack by German forces in North America. When I was at some base in North Carolina, a local museum said that the base was fired upon by deck guns from a U-boat.

You get stories like that all the time. There was a lot of excitement on the US east coast in the early years of US involvement, many ships were sunk on the east coast within sight of the shore, which had a notable negative effect on morale. Although it is plausable that there were other attacks, most likely the majority of sightings and reported 'attacks' were akin to modern-day UFO sightings: exaggerations or imaginings. A U-boat shelling a naval base would be an incredibly stupid move by a U-boat commander, one that would almost guarantee a retaliatory attack, which commanders were instructed to avoid at all costs. Antimatter--talk-- 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the St. Lawrence

This section is geographically misleading. It begins with, "Two events in the St Lawrence...", however, Bell Island is located in Conception Bay, Newfoundland. Conception Bay opens North into the Atlantic Ocean; not South towards the Gulf of St Lawrence. PraysToPan (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Engine

Mak 3 engine

Mak 3 diesel engine, which is apparently an upgraded version of the engine used on U-boats. Not sure if this is useful for the article, but it might be for some related article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty neat. Is that just sitting in the park, rusting away? or is it an actual attraction? It really belongs in a proper museum...Antimatter--talk-- 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably manufactured by Maschinenbau Kiel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

U-boat radio

The Orkney Wireless Museum contains a U-boat radio which I believe is from a captured U-boat, though I don't know which one. Given the U-boat activity in Scapa Flow, I thought it worth adding a link to the museum. I wasn't sure whether a new section should be added regarding preserved U-boats/equipment, but for the time being I've put it in the section with the other internal links. G J Coyne (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WWI Types

My understanding is that a U boat Type represents a standard design for mass production during war time, as seen in WWII, but that prior to WWI the U-boats were built in a series of classes.
So the WWI Types were the Mittel U , U Cruiser and the various UB and UC Types only.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiel

"The first submarine built in Germany was the Brandtaucher, designed in 1850 by the inventor and engineer Wilhelm Bauer and built by Schweffel & Howaldt in Kiel for the German Navy." In 1850 Kiel was a part of lands of the King of Denmark, it was not until 1864 that Kiel became German, So how could a submarine in Kiel in 1850 be german? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.236.194 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point: Bauer was German, but it seems he was working for the government of Schleswig-Holstein when he built the Brandtaucher (see here and here). Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Kiel in Holstein belonged to the HRE (oTGN) until 1806, from 1806 to 1815 to the Kingdom of Denmark, from 1815 to 1866 to the German Federation, from 1866 to 1871 to the North German Federation and then to the German Empire and its successors. So, "In 1850 Kiel was a part of lands of the King of Denmark" because he was in personal union Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, with Schleswig part of his kingdom (until 1864) and Holstein part of "Germany". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.15.218 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scuttling of U-boats - why?

Neither this or the article linked for Operation Deadlight mention why the U-boats had to be scuttled. Surely each U-bot must have been worth several thousands of dollars at the time and the article implies there are sought-after war-spoils ("prized" by other countries), so there must have been some extenuating circumstances worth explaining for the U.S. to simply sink a fleet of 200, no? Anthiety (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The more modern or experimental ones were certainly sought-after - German submarine technology was quite advanced and there were plenty of researchers wanting to see how they were built. They weren't actually taken into use, though; they were just used as research platforms or dismantled for parts.

This means that of the advanced ones, only a few were really needed; the fifth one wouldn't tell you anything the first four hadn't. The rest were literally surplus to requirements, as were the older submarines (which weren't needed for research at all).

So, why not take them into use? The thing is, there was a massive oversupply of military hardware of all types at the time, with Allied production being cut down but still working at a remarkable rate. Any submarines needed could be supplied that way. Taking a German submarine into service would be unexpectedly expensive compared to just buying one off the production lines, partly because many of the later U-boats were surprisingly unsafe - of 118 type XXIs built, only four had been declared suitable for combat duty by the end of the war - and partly due to the amount of retraining, maintenance, etc etc. required.

The remaining question is why scuttle them rather than scrap them? This, I admit, I don't understand - you'd assume they'd have had scrap metal value. Shimgray | talk | 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy almost certainly wanted the surrendered U-boats scuttled (as opposed to scrapped) so that no-one in Germany could deny that the Kriegsmarine had been defeated. After World War I the political far-right in Germany tried to maintain that the KM had not been beaten, and had only surrendered because they had been ordered-to, and that Germany hadn't surrendered, only signed an armistice. This was one of the key points made by the people who would later form the Nazi party and which they later used to foment unrest in their home country, by stating various (real or imagined) grievances against the then-allies, such as the Treaty of Versailles.

The scuttling in Operation Deadlight was intended to make it quite plain to any remaining Nazis who had won, and also to display the contempt that the British felt for the U-boat (as a vessel) and the trouble it had caused them in the two world wars.

BTW, it wasn't the USN doing most of the scuttling - it was the Royal Navy, as most U-boats had surrendered themselves to UK ports. Operation Deadlight was an RN operation - see here; [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.149 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN

I think this article is ready for GAN. Anybody mind taking it there? WikiCopter 20:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is GAN? [Wikipedia jargon is still jargon, even to the vast majority of wikipedia readers.]

2601:1C2:800:FF80:0:0:0:AB35 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC) A Nony Mouse

Uboat Template.

The HMS Britania was sunk 2 days before the Armistice by a UBoat, we should include it in the Table Below.
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/HMS_Britannia_(1904)
200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)}

The French Battleship Gaul was also sunk. Another for the List of capital Ships.
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/French_battleship_Gaulois
http://www.uboat.net/wwi/ships_hit/953.html
http://www.uboat.net/wwi/ships_hit/2386.html
200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

The official name of German WWII submarines was always unhyphenated. Like U 995 not U-995. Someone should change that for all boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.79.241 (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U-boat. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081227004917/http://www.numa.net:80/expeditions/u-21_1.html to http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

torpedo depth keeping problem -improved technology

If the source has more details, I think it's worth adding, e.g. was it an improvement of depth-keeping or a reduction in sensitity or something else? In the UK, "technology" has been devalued and now tends to be a Brexit supporting politician's expression for something that can solve everything he hasn't thought about or doesn't understand! Regards JRPG (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a useless addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"Undersea boat" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Undersea boat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Undersea boat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)