From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

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)

Contents 1 More tons 2 Miles & miles & kilometers 3 On spec 4 On crush depth 4.1 Aircraft claimed by Flak-Boats 4.2 The infobox

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)