Talk:Finnish submarine Vesikko

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finnish submarine Vesikko. 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/20110519124428/http://picasaweb.google.com/CzechJoker/UBoatVesikko to http://picasaweb.google.com/CzechJoker/UBoatVesikko

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) 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Minelaying?
The infobox claims that Vesikko carried 20 mines. Where?

This whole claims seems implausible, and of course it's unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IIRC, they were carried on the deck, so the Vesikko  could function as a minelayer if need arose.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Vesikko was the only Finnish submarine type without mine shafts. And it never carried any as far as the documentation shows. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Vesikko was fitted with 7-meter torpedo tubes, and like the German Type II submarines could theoretically carry up to nine TMB torpedo-mines. However, Vesikko was never used in this role. (cf. Rössler, 1999) ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vesikko also carried two reload torpedoes (although it's not clear today how they were handled). So do that mean a potential mine capacity of 15, rather than 9?
 * I was onboard last week and was initially surprised how roomy it felt - better than a VII - because of the lack of torpedo storage. I was then surprised to learn that it did indeed carry reloads (although I don't know if they ever bothered to for these very short patrols). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What i have understood technically also the larger Finnish subs could have done that. However i do not recall that Finns would have laid any mines through the torpedo tubes. So those are not included to the data. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Winter War
re this repeated removal:

The text "she saw service in the Winter War and World War II," should remain, stating "Winter War" separately. At the time of the Winter War, the two combatants, Finland and the USSR, were not yet engaged in WWII, even though WWII had clearly begun between other combatants and that both combatants would later become involved in WWII (the Continuation War period). For the purposes of Vesikko, the service is separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Winter War is often seen as being a part of the WW II instead of being a separate conflict which largely moots that argument. And as such from that point of view there is no reason to separate those unless you go describing things like 'serving in Operation Barbarossa and World War II' as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been editing that Winter War part. The text now reads: "Purchased by the Finnish before the war, she saw service in the Winter War and World War II, sinking the Soviet merchant ship Vyborg as her only victory". Would it be ok for you if it reads something along the lines of "Purchased by the Finnish before the war, she saw service in the World War II, participating in the Winter War and sinking the Soviet merchant ship Vyborg as her only victory during the Continuation War"? 86.50.68.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, because that's to present the Winter War as no more than part of WWII.
 * If we wrote this article at some time in the 15 months after the Winter War (late 1940, for instance) we would of course write "she saw service in the Winter War" in the past tense, and without any mention of WWII. That would not suddenly change in June 1941!
 * We could phrase this as "she saw service in the Winter War and the Continuation War, part of WWII" which would present the Continuation War as part of WWII, as a contemporary description of such. But even if we now regard the Winter War as a precursor to WWII or even an early aspect of it (see with hindsight), then it's an anchronism to merge them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not the right person to debate or argue with you in this matter as I've only edited Wikipedia as a "Wikignome". I also don't know if this a correct place or if there have been any previous discussions somewhere else about Winter War being part of WWII. Still, in the Winter War article's infobox it says "Part of World War II". And it's a featured article. Thank you for this, I'm leaving this conversation to more experienced Wikipedians. 86.50.68.196 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I edited the article using the previous IP and now with an account. There weren't any additional comments left for this topic so I edited the Winter War part and added the Continuation War as they're presented as being part of WW2 in their respective articles. C3r0 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Submarine Vesikko toilet.jpg