Talk:Type VII submarine
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1825 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tons again
editI 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)
- 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)
- 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.
editThe 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
editHi, 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
editThe "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
editIn 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
editI 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)
The term "Double acting" is not used in context of electric machines and the link to the motor-generator is even more misleading. But there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have this copy pasted expression in them. The damage has been done. 149.200.78.205 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)