Talk:U-boat campaign

U-Boat campaign WW1
Why was this article renamed? There was a U-Boat campaign of WW2 in the Atlantic yet no one changed the "Second Battle of the Atlantic" to "U-Boat campaign 1939-1945". This should be changed back because alot of the engagements listed in this article dont have anything to do with sumbarines. Please someone revert the name Back to "First Battle of the Atlantic" or "Battle of the Atlantic (1914-1918), thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It hasn’t been “renamed”; it was written under this title. And what engagements “don’t dont have anything to do with sumbarines"? Also "First Battle of the Atlantic" and "Second Battle of the Atlantic"are misnomers: no-one calls them that except here. There was only one “Battle of the Atlantic”, the campaign against Allied trade in the N Atlantic in WWII. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

my edits
I have taken out Japans participation in the campaign simply because the Japanese fought in the Mediterranean and not the Atlantic Ocean or North Sea. I have taken out the part that says only German U-boats fought in this campaign which is obviously not true, one example would be the Battle of Jutland. Once again I request this article be reverted back to its origional name because not only German U-boats were involved in this theatre of operations. I have also taken out the Mediterranean portion of the article, I think we all know the Atlantic and Mediterranean are two SEPERATE regions. The naval warfare in the West during WW1 should not have been combined into one article as it cleary is. For example, the Battle of the Mediterranean and the Second Battle of the Atlantic (of WW2) have their own seperate article, why does this not apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 12 July 2009


 * Your changes have been reverted; this is about the U-boat campaign of WWI as a whole, not just operations around Britain (in the “Atlantic” ). So it absolutely should include operations in the Mediterranean. And because it’s about the U boat campaign, it shouldn’t include surface actions; they  are covered here. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was this article moved?
This was moved to Battle of the Atlantic 1914-1918 without much justification given. I’ve moved it back to “U boat Campaign (World War I)” where it belongs.

This article was written as U boat Campaign (World War I) to cover the campaign as a whole, not just operations in the “Atlantic”; and as its focus was the U-Boat campaign, the battle of Jutland has nothing to do with it (which wasn’t in the Atlantic either!)

There already was a “First Battle of the Atlantic” article, which was dumped because it was no good (And one reason was the title was wrong); this article was written to replace it. There was already a long discussion about this here.

There is a suggestion there to have an “Atlantic U-boat campaign (WWI) article to focus on events in the German “War Zone”; if you feel you want to write it, submit a draft. But it absolutely should not be entitled “First Battle of the Atlantic” unless you have a reliable source for that title. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are, it would seem, a fair number of sources which refer to a "First Battle of the Atlantic" occurring in the First World War, the main problem with that title being that everyone seems to define it differently, '14-'18, '15-'18, '15-'17 & so on. For example, Andrew Gordon, whom I have nothing but contempt for, actually posits that the "First Battle of the Atlantic" was "won" by Lewis Bayly in 1917! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

my reasons once again
You are right, the Battle of Jutland did not occur in the Atlantic. However, all of the North Sea engagemnts are still considered apart of that campaign. Most likely because the North Sea really is apart of the Atlantic. Unlike the Mediterranean that can only be accessed through straits and a canal, The North Sea is wide open. Yes the North Sea is accessed by straits but they are not like the tiny Dardanelles and Gibraltar. When I changed the name, how come the battle box still said "Battle of the Atlantic," how come the locations in the battle box did not include the Mediterranean? If U-boat campaign WW1 was the articles origional name, how come every time I click on the First Battle of the Atlantic in other articles, it takes me here? HOW IS THE TITLE WRONG? Look at the Battle of the Atlantic 1939-1945, battles in the North Sea are listed in this campaign. How come the Second Battle of the Atlantic has the years 1939-1945 after it, whoever wrote it that way did not want to get that article mixed up with Battle of the Atlantic 1914-1918. As I said before there should be seperate articles for the First Battle of the Atlantic (The most common name for Atlantic and North Sea engagements of the war) and the U-boat campaign of WW1. You must have organization and consistancy to have a good encyclopedia, your way is not organized or consistant with other similar articles. Why is the Battle of Jutland still apart of your U-boat campaign ww1 article, or all the other surface engagements for that matter? You did a poor job of trying to convert the page from Battle of the Atlantic to U-boat operations as a whole. If you change it back I am not that worried because it shows how U-boat campaign (ww1) is NOT the best historic name for the campaign. I have better things to do than argue with a child about proper names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Article naming and scope
I have reverted the article move back to U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I) due to the discussion at Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) that led to this articles creation. The article as it stands is meant to be an overview of U-boat operations and not a specific Battle of the Atlantic article as set up by that discussion and that consensus. If anybody wants to change the scope of this article then you need to open up a discussion here and find a consensus for your proposed course of action. This would be best done with input from WT:MILHIST and from the World War I task force. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: My personal opinion is that this article should remain as is, perhaps expanded and that there should be a separate Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) article as originally discussed at Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918). This would create the most comprehensive coverage of the topics involved as far as I can see. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So does the undersea effort by the Austro-Hungarian navy not warrant a mention in this article. Needless to say, their submarines were "U-Boats" as well. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A point there, perhaps this should be further defined as the German U-boat campaign (World War I) or expanded to become submarine campaigns of the Central Powers?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the latter for the time being - it can always be changed later. There seems to me to be a risk that we're going to have an unwieldy number of topic articles soon - I'm starting to lose track. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simon, if you think it should be added to this article, then please do. Personally I think this should be the overview for all operations including the Austro-Hungarian Navy, using WP:SUMMARY style. We can then have article that go into detail into the particular sphere of operations. Certainly, I think that in some places some of the information in this article needs to be split into a separate article, and in other places it needs to be expanded. Are you offering to expand and Austro-Hungarian section? Regards, Woody (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow morning I'm off to North America for seven weeks and will be travelling light. I do intend to pick up copies of Paul Halpern's two main books on naval history over there, but until then I wouldn't be qualified to make additions.  The only thing I have on A-H subs is technical and wouldn't help me anyway. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking a little bit more, perhaps Submarine campaigns (World War I) for this article? Woody (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the KuK boats, I agree they fit here; they were U-boats, too, after all, so it wouldn’t need a change of title to include them. And some of the German boats operated under the Austrian flag.


 * I had thought this should be sectioned more explicitly by year, with a view across the regions in each; and the KuK boats were the only ones active during 1914 in the Med (well, the Adriatic anyway) against the French fleet there.


 * I also thought this should be an overview of the U-boat campaign (technical stuff, tactics, political ramifications etc) with specific articles on the different areas. There is a Mediterranean article already; one on the Atlantic area (whatever the title) would be useful. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of “Submarine campaigns” (presumably including Allied submarine operations), I’m less convinced. We wouldn’t mix Axis and Allied efforts in WWII in the same article, and I don't think we should here. There are articles on British operations in the Baltic, and the Marmora, already: an article with an overview of Allied operations would be good. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point on mixing sides. The only alternative title I can think of is Central Powers submarine campaigns (World War I) which isn't particularly catchy! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on the inclusion of A-H U-boats into this article since, in the Mediterranean, many German boats were assigned A-H numbers and their operations were often coordinated. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is this up to? is there any objection to stuff being added here now? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the stuff, but I would just go ahead and be bold. Discussion seems to have petered out here and the just about consensus is to expand. Woody (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I've tried to spread stuff chronologically; if there are no objections I'd like to break up the Mediterranean section, and place that chronologically in the article, too.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Article scope (2)
Because of the recent influx of articles having to do with battles in the atlantic ocean, i spit the campaign box into two. A north sea campaign box and a Atlantic campaign box now exist. I might suggest that to aleviate some of the problems here the following be pursued. Have a Uboat campaign mother article and than three subarticles beneath it. One for the mediteranian, one for the atlantic, and a third for the north sea. Each of these areas could easily be made into there own articles, and if they were all combined into one, than this article would be quite massive indeed. XavierGreen (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Split and summarize makes sense; it was in the original discussion (on the FBotA talk page). Atlantic and North Sea might be problematic, though; the "War Zones" covered both areas, so there'd be a lot of overlap. We've got Mediterranean already, another on the "atlantic" area (using the term loosely) would seem to be next on the agenda. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-named the sections a bit, to give a bit of a chronology. I've also broken up the mediterranean section, and distributed it by time. I trust that's OK with everyone. I also propose to use a couple of the sections as a basis for an Atlantic article (draft here) ; I'll move them and leave a summary. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, done (finally!). Article is here. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Losses
I notice some of the losses recorded in the article don't match. The losses for the first 6 months in the "First attacks on merchant ships" section are taken from Tarrant, and read 19 ships of 43,000 GRT; the losses in the summary table total over 400,000. The latter are from Fayle's Seaborne Trade(1924),which is quoted in Blairs Hitler's U-Boat War (Vol I, p 20). Blair states they are figures for "Allied and Neutral Tonnage Sunk by Submarines in WWI", but I'm wondering if they include ships sunk by surface raiders, which were very busy in the first 6 months of the war. Otherwise it's a pretty big discrepancy. The table was one of the things that came from the other article, so there's not much help there. I'll try and pin it down. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Baltic and Black sea
What about the baltic and black sea uboat campaigns —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 October 2009


 * Fair point: There wasn't a lot of activity there, but it needs mentioning. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Farthest reaches of the submarines
Hello, I'm interested in how far away from the North Sea WW1 submarines managed to operate.

Was there any activity in the Carrabean, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, near the Middle East (along the coasts of Egypt, Syria, Turkey etc), Black Sea or even attacks south of the ecuator (in the South Atlantic)?

Also interested in if there were any submarine attacks near the Norwegian territories Bear Island or Svalbard (then known as Spitsbergen) ?

Best regards

Stein S., Oslo, Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.30.97 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Title
You moved this page a year ago because "no need for preemptive disambiguation". But isn't this title ambiguous with the WWII campaign? And I don't see much evidence that the term is a proper noun, as implied. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the hatnote is good enough to get readers to where they're going if they land here but want the other one. And the other one is almost always called the "Battle of the Atlantic", so it is happily at that location. There's no reason to leave the default position here empty (or a redirect). Parsecboy (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, but it could be a dab page. We have one article (Mediterranean U-boat campaign of World War II) with "U-boat campaign" in the title that is not part of this campaign. For now, I have moved this article to lower case. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)