Talk:German submarine Deutschland

Merge proposal
Since German submarine Deutschland and SM U-155 are about the same craft and, given the length of the two articles, it doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles about the same submarine. Because merchant submarines are a very rare type of vessel, I believe that the sub has higher notability under the name of Deutschland. If there are no objections, I will merge the two articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I would have done it, but I'm uncertain about how to do the infobox to show both careers. Salmanazar (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German submarine Deutschland. 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/20070326184040/http://www.pastfoundation.org/DeepWrecks/Directed%20Readings%20on%20the%20U-Boat%20War.pdf to http://www.pastfoundation.org/DeepWrecks/Directed%20Readings%20on%20the%20U-Boat%20War.pdf

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) 01:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction - shipbuilders
The article text says she was built by Deutsche Ozean-Reederei, the infobox says she was built by Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The constructors were the Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft (the pressure hull) and the Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft (everything else). A reederei is a shipping company; means it was ordered, owned and operated by the Deutsche Ozean-Reederei (till the navy took over). ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference for that section https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/deutschland1.htm agrees with this, saying she was built "to the order of" the Reederei. I've accordingly changed the article text to say she was built for, not by, them, which I believe resolves the contradiction. 193.119.60.168 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Caution using U.S. Baltimore visit length reports
News and U.S. maritime journal reports differ greatly from the length currently given in the article. The difference is not negligible at about 100 ft. The "type" dimension is 213 ft and that is also given in another normally reliable source, the U.S. Navy's German Submarine Activities on the Atlantic Coast of the United States and Canada (pages 10, 15-16). On page 10 the note "June 7, 1918—(9120).—Military characteristics of U-151 from latest Admiralty information as follows: Length 213 feet 3 inches" and that is only slightly modified on page 15 under specific test regarding Deutschland with "The dimensions and some of the characteristics of the Deutschland were as follows: Length, 213 feet 3 inches" with other dimensions matching. Note "latest Admiralty information" and 1918 for U-151 repeated for Deutschland/U-155.

The problem then is not only contemporary news accounts of the Baltimore visit but normally sound technical maritime journals report the submersible as having a length of about 313 ft for a vessel in port and according to at least one of the sources, Story of the Submarine Freighter Deutschland in Motorship, inspected by officials. While that piece and another later regarding engines note there was some secrecy, particularly noting none but official inspectors had seen engines and mudh of the interior, a 100 foot blunder on hull length for a vessel in port would be unusual. We also know only two submersible cargo vessels were built with later copies being built for war use. So, a question does arise on whether the two cargo vessels were longer or did a 100 foot "lengthening" somehow get into multiple news and technical journals of U.S. publications.

I was about to cite some of those with the longer length and began sanity checking. I think there may be a blunder that was repeated in those U.S. reports of the 1916 visit. The tug that brought the sub up from the Chesapeake entrance to Baltimore and was well photographed with the sub at Baltimore appears to be the Thomas F. Timmins of the U.S. register for 1916. That tug is listed at 85.6 ft registry length with home port of Baltimore. Those photos indicate the sub could be more than twice that length, but to my eye (having spent some time on vessels of both length ranges and not "seeing" 300+ feet) could not be three times that tug's length. Therefore caution for length using cites of the articles mentioned should be used. Palmeira (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)