Talk:Submarine pen

That looks good now. I made a similar change to Bremen and Kiel June 1943. Also, how about an explanation of 'WIA' and 'MIA'. I assume meaning wounded and missing in action?Wodawik (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I found this article very interesting. However, to maintain a neutral point of view, shouldn't the use of 'we ' as in 'we claim 85-20-24 Luftwaffe aircraft; we lose 8 and 62 are damaged.' be avoided? How about: 'Bomber Command claimed ...' instead.Wodawik (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shaped charge bombs
Destroy submarine pens and the submarine problem in the Atlantic disappears. The thick concrete roof of a submarine pen during WW2 can be seen as similar to the armor of a tank, but on a much larger scale. A shaped charge bomb weighing 3 or 4 tonnes should punch a hole in the concrete roof, followed by a very fast and very hot stream of gases from the explosive. One bomb per aircraft. Or a kinetic round, 3 or 4 tonnes. Many bombs would be needed, but the military effort would have been worthwhile, even if only one bomb in 10 hits the target. The Tallboy appeared early 1944, and was not shaped charge, but in principle, large shaped charge bombs could have been made much earlier. Were these possibilities considered at the time? -- DavidJErskine (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming, Toulon, numbers, dates and identification
Having spent a considerable amount of time adding new content and copyediting this article, here are a few comments, in no particular order:

Most, if not all of the article is about German U-boat pens, I know of no pens in the world that were not part of the U-boat offensive; the title of the first section is German U-boat pens in World War II which might make a suitable alternative title for any new article.

I deleted 'Toulon' from the 'France' list because a) Toulon is not on the Atlantic coast and b) it appears nowhere in my reference or on Google. Indeed, I can find no mention of U-boat pens in Toulon anywhere on the internet. U-boats yes, U-boat pens no. To quote U-boat.net: "There were no bunkers in Toulon". While I am on the subject, are the entries on Toulon in the table relevant?

"...VIII Bomber Command claimed 85-20-24 Luftwaffe aircraft..." This extract, taken at random, is from the 'Whilemshaven June 11' part of the table. There are many more examples. What do these figures mean? I'm guessing that it has something to do with German casualties. Like the 'KIA', 'WIA' and 'MIA' mentioned above, it could do with an explanation at first mention.

'April 9/10 1944' and 'April 13/14 1944' also appear in the table, the trouble is: these dates are after 1945 entries. So should they be amended to 1945 or moved to 1944?

I know the RAF and USAAF acted in good faith when they bombed "U-boat pens" in places like IJuimden and Pootershaven, which, I believe, are in the Netherlands - the official records say as much, but it has been long known that U-boat pens were only built in Germay, France and Norway. So, should the table reflect this?

RASAM (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OT discussion
I removed all but the first sentence of the first paragraph of the General section, concerning the degree to which the Organisation Todt utilized forced labor. Since this is a controversial topic, as acknowledged in the removed section ("Contrary to popular belief…"), I thought that such discussion belongs in the main article on the Organisation Todt, where it would be most likely to be reviewed, discussed, and possibly revised by those with the most knowledge on the topic.Berylcloud (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WWI German submarine pens in Belgium
During WWI, Germany stationed submarines in bunkers in Bruges (Nijverheidskaai, that dock ended then where it now bends to the south). Bruges was connected to the sea following existing canals to Ostend and Zeebrugge. The triangle Ostend - Bruges - Zeebrugge was very interesting for the German navy because the occupied part of Belgium was the coastline in German control which came closest to England and the Channel (the Netherlands being neutral and the coastline westward form the frontline at Nieuwpoort in allied hands). Ostend and Zeebrugge were the target of allied raids in 1918 (Zeebrugge Raid, First and Second Ostend Raid). Bancki (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Submarine pen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060813023721/http://www.wlhoward.com:80/id540.htm to http://www.wlhoward.com/id540.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Submarine pen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070912155604/http://www.airwarweb.net:80/usaaf/8af_1944.php to http://www.airwarweb.net/usaaf/8af_1944.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080508202509/http://home.att.net:80/~jbaugher/1941_4.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1941_4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Submarine pen. 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/20120531191539/http://www.usaaf.net/chron/43/jan43.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/chron/43/jan43.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414150150/http://www.aeroventure.org.uk/eastkirkby.php to http://www.aeroventure.org.uk/eastkirkby.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916173927/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_2.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404070929/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_2a.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_2a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130012608/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_3a.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1942_3a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001756/http://www.rzygacz.webd.pl/index.php?id=76,86,0,0,1,0 to http://www.rzygacz.webd.pl/index.php?id=76,86,0,0,1,0

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) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)