Talk:Type VII submarine

Question

What's a "ton"? Gene Nygaard 23:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on "ton," which might be informative. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's of no help whatsoever in identifying which of the many different "tons" is used in this particular article—and that's my point: they should be identified here. Gene Nygaard 17:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not what you asked. Why do you think that the word "ton" should be defined on, out of the tens of thousands of articles that use the word, the Type VII U-boat page? ➥the Epopt 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be defined. It needs to be 'identified. Are those short tons, long tons, metric tons, whatever? The tons used on most Wikipedia pages are in fact identified (and on many pages, the numbers are converted so that a couple of different tons are identified, or sometimes kilograms, megagrams, teragrams, etc. are used for the metric conversions, or sometimes pounds to avoid the short/long ton problems with English units), though there are still far too many like this one where they are not. Gene Nygaard 21:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As this is a German boat, you can safely assume that the ton mentioned is really a metric ton, or tonne. Which is in fact very close to long ton (being 1016 kilograms), so if accuracy isn't of great importance, they can be used interchangeably. Khathi 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] gives these statistics for U-47, a Type VIIB:

Surfaced (dry) 704 metric tons = 776 short tons = 693 long tons

Surfaced (fuel and water tanks full) 753 metric tons = 830 short tons = 741 long tons

Submerged 857 metric tons = 945 short tons = 843 long tons

Submerged (fully crewed and loaded) 1040 [metric?] tons = 1146 short tons = 1024 long tons

I note that most Wikipedia ship articles suffer from this problem of not identifying what kind of ton is meant. One can guess that long tons are meant in articles from US and British sources, and metric tons in articles from European sources, but it would be better to identify which is meant. Perhaps you could write a paragraph on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships giving some guidance in this area? Gdr 11:58, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

More tons

I deleted "total 915 tons". I've never heard "total tons" in ref a sub. If it's surfaced full load, say so. (I'd question that, too; the typically quoted number is around 750.) Might also clarify if it's standard tons, per London Naval Conference measurements (as often used in American sources), or a typical German figure. Trekphiler 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Miles & miles & kilometers

Somebody needs to check those range figures. They don't equate nautical miles & km, & most navies quote them as "x miles @ x knots" as meaning "nm", not "statute miles".... Also, they don't tally completely with the source I've got--but they do accord close, & my source lists them as nm.... Trekphiler 11:37 & 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On spec

I don't see any mention of the introduction of Metox ("Biscay Cross") radar warning reciever. Also, it occurs to me it might be worth mentioning the TT are 55cm. Trekphiler 11:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On crush depth

I added the crush depth values, which is the depth at which a Type VII would most likely be crushed. This was not an exact value but depended from boat to boat. The data comes from a good source, a former (lady) spy of the French resisitance which I knew very well. Meswiss.

You've got to be kidding. Hearsay from an anonymous source is completely unreliable and unacceptable. It is exactly equivalent to something you made up because you thought it sounds cool. ➥the Epopt 17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft claimed by Flak-Boats

"According to German sources only two aircraft had been shot down by U-flaks in six missions (three by U-441, one each by U-256, U-621, and U-953)." - Can anyone clear this up? --Bryson 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense as long as the sentence inside the paranthesis refers to the numbers of MISSIONS, not the numbers of kills...Andrimner (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox

I moved all the general characteristics to the infobox, but looking at it it kinda skews the whole article layout - maybe it's better to keep a minimalistic infobox instead? Maybe just list the characteristics of the VIIC or something in the infobox? Anywho, if somebody decides the article looks worse now, feel free to revert back to a previous version - or tell me how you want it and I'll change it. Abel29a 14:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be better to have a minimalistic infobox or at least with specs of only the main type. All others may be comapred via a table in the text area. --Denniss 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - I'm gonna revert the infobox back to just containing the VIIC data, seeing as this was the most numerable of them. Good idea about having a comparable table - makes the information much more accesible. Abel29a 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw its already been done :) Good work and it looks much better. Abel29a 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The entry about the Type VII's gun links to the 88mm AA / AT gun. However, the gun used on Type VII was a completely different gun, and the two guns had nothing in common except the diameter. They even used different types of ammunition. Removed the link. Ulsterman 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, good you spotted that. I actually knew it, but linked anyway - my bad.Abel29a 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

VIID clarification

The description of the VIID states that it was

a longer version of the VIIC with three banks of five vertical tubes just aft of the conning tower

. I think that might be confusing. I would rather write that there were

five vertical shafts, with three mines each

. The problem with the word tube, is that it sounds like a torpedo tube. Also, the 3 banks, implies there were 15 tubes total, when I think the original author was trying to explain there were three mines in each shaft.

I'm not an expert on U-boats, so I do not want to edit the original article. Perhaps someone who knows more could check my assertion and put in any corrections as necessary. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.26 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing U-boots

U-977 and U-978 are missing in the discussion of Type VII U-boots. Were they VIIC or VIIC/41, or another version? They were both commissioned in 1943. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dates/phone numbers

All dates are displaying as British phone numbers on my screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.95.87 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tons again

I changed the conversion in the infobox from LT->t to t->LT. German measurements are metric and so are the figures given in most publications. Strangely there are other figures floating around (761 surfaced and 865 submerged respectively) which do not make any sense to me as they do not seem to correspond to long tons or metric tons either, the only two units for warships used to my knowledge. --FJS15 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The source given in the infobox is uboat.net and on the page, (despite the use of comma for decimal point) it says "tons" not "tonnes" (or an ambiguous "t"). At the time displacement was measured in long tons for the various treaties and comprison between navies, so I would say it's less than clear cut. Ask at WP:ships or WP:milhist - somone will have access to a more reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Washington Naval Treaty uses two units, tons (long tons that is) and metric tons (1.016 long tons). The German navy always used metric tons or cubic meters. So, unless otherwise stated the figures taken from German records are in metric rather than long tons. --FJS15 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. Möller/Brack (2004): The Encyclopedia of U-boats. ISBN 1-85367-623-3, uses tonnes. But this is hardly about spelling. --FJS15 (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is important - to make meaning clear, for 1,000 kg you need to write either "metric tons" or "tonnes". The problem is that the source is not clear. I'll ask on the projects, there will be clearer ones than uboat.net. Actually the whole article is over reliant on the one source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy came up with source that does confirm the uboat.net values as tonnes and I've added it to the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

U-995 on Google Earth.

The submarine is easily visible at Google Earth coordinates: 54 24' 45"N 10 13' 44"E . I don't know how to put those coordinates into the main page to make them map-clickable. 58.168.52.243 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

jpg to svg VIIc

Hi, I'm thinking of turning this file Commons:file:SRH009-p58.jpg into a svg one. My problem is that the quality of the file is bad, I have found one that is bigger but it's still very hard to see all the details.
So my questions is;
- Do anyone here know of a better source image?
- If we can't find a better source image, does anyone here have the detail knowledge and can help me correcting my drafts?
Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Misled by inflation

The "inflation adjusted" figures are nonsense. They don't take account that a dollar today buys technical sophistication undreamt of in the '40s, nor do they take account that wage rates have also changed, so much that a month's pay then wouldn't buy as much as a month's now, even in constant dollars. In short, the number is misleading, not just uninformative, & WP standard or no, shouldn't be used. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

one Soviet Sub is missing

In the notes: "post war; U-1057, U 1058, U 1064, U 1305 as respectively TS-14, S-81 – S-84" - four German U-Boat numbers and three Soviet numbers... 2003:A:1409:BB00:1DE3:AC98:D17F:1A0C (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Double acting electric motors

I see two problems with this. One, the note: "in this context 'double-acting' means the same device was capable of acting as a motor, powered by battery and turning the propeller; or as a generator powered by an engine, charging the battery." It's been a while since I had my rotating machines class in engineering school and I no longer have my textbook, but a "double-acting" machine is one that has the shaft extended out both ends, so it can drive (or be driven by) other machines on both ends. In this case that would be the diesel engine on one end, and the shaft and screws on the other end.

Two, why does "double-acting" link to Motor–generator? A motor-generator is a device that has both a motor and a generator on a single shaft, often sharing a single set of field coils. The electric motor on a U-boat is certainly not a motor-generator. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)