Talk:Dora I

200.000 troops?
housing for two hundred thousand troops? seriously :p

This comment was added by: User:82.134.45.19


 * Please sign your comments by typing four tildes or pressing the signature button on top of the edit box. I don't know if you can read Norwegian, but here is a brief histoy of Dora by NRK: Historien om Dora. It states that Dora could provide shelter for 200.000 soldiers. --Njård 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This claim needs a proper reference. These types of bunkers were commissioned/designed for naval requirements and were not designed with a provision to accommodate large numbers of soldiers. The claim that it could accommodate 200,000 soldiers in a bunker 153 x 105 metres which also had provision for 16 U-boats plus crews and equipment is very unlikely.  eg Catering, latrines, bunks etc. If it was used only for emergency use how long would it take to get 200,000 soldiers assembled and moved inside the bunker in the event of an air attack? Did a WW II army ever assemble 200,000 soldiers in one place except if planning a major invasion or land offensive? This claim needs proper validation or it should be deleted. Thanks Boatman (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

hermetically sealed?
This claim is incorrect. These bunkers could not be made airtight. The large openings required for a U-boat to sail in and out and may have had some form of blast-proof doors/shutters but definitely not airtight. A check needs to be made to see how many of the 16-berths berths actually had blast protection. Thanks Boatman (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Slave labour, the 200, 7 or 16 U-boats, hermetically sealing and civilian boats
I have not changed it, but the term 'slave labour' is rather emotive and highly questionable. My reference, Hitler's U-boat Bases (2002) by Jak P Mallmann Showell has photographs of workers being paid and there is even one of a smiling OT man; hardly images of slave labour.

When I first saw '200.000' I thought two hundred was meant (decimal point and all that). As pointed out above, two hundred thousand seems to be a bit fanciful.

My reference states that Dora 1 could accomodate up to seven U-boats, not 16. It also makes no mention of [being cabable of being] "hermetically sealed". Anyway, what would be the point of an air-tight seal; were the Germans worried about a gas attack?

I have deleted "commercial tugboats" because they are, er, a "civilian boat".

RASAM (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Name of Article
Changed name to Dora I as opposed to Dora 1 to be consistent with German and Norwegian designations - most Norwegian articles cite it as Dora I (e.g., the other bunker is designated Dora II as opposed to some other inconsistent references to Dora 2.)

PS in regards to the other talk comments on the reference to 'slave labor' that is a term used by Norwegians since the Germans did not provide the manpower and large numbers of POWs were used in the construction - so I view it as more "correct" since 'voluntary labor' was not used to construct it.

Thorkall (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hermetically Sealed
I have not found details of how it could have been sealed, but many bunkers and facilities elsewhere (e.g., Atlantic Wall) were designed to be sealed against gas attacks or loss of air (such as could happen in bombings, or even worse in fire bombings, that "sucked" oxygen out of the immediate areas). Certainly the doorway exits for Dora could have been designed with sealable hatchway doors like other bunkers. Skirts in the pens could have been dropped into the water to provide a water seal barrier (but is simply speculation). There was only one Allied bombing raid on Trondheim, but certainly an area deserving of more research and will investigate how other submarine pens were built to see if they had techniques to "seal" them. While I had the opportunity to see Dora I and Dora II, and was briefed on their history by the Royal Norwegian Navy, I did not at the time examine them closer to determine how they would have been configured during WWII (and of course some things were obscured due to later renovations). Thorkall (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dora I. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184248/http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/Dora_Trondheim.html to http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/Dora_Trondheim.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184248/http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/Dora_Trondheim.html to http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/Dora_Trondheim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Cancellation of demolition
I am unable to find any sources at this time, will have to check newspaper archives, but I seem to recall that demolition tests were performed. These only dented the concrete. It was later calculated that the amount of eplosives needed to demolish Dora 1 would cause Trondheim to slide into the sea due to "quick-clay".

This might be anecdotal, but I'll try to find out more about when I have time. Ambraelle (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)