Talk:Uncompleted U-boat projects

Type XXIV
It says the type XXIV has 14 torpedo tubes, but only lists 6 in the bow and 4 aft. How many does it really have? Noha307 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See here, it looks there were four aft tubes per side not directly firing aft. --Denniss (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there needs to be reliable references, are there any books or sources and diagrams with more than just basic info on the Type XXIV? (e.g. more than that it was 1900 tons and had 14 torpedo tubes) Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Type VI
It says the Type VI was dropped due to lack of experiance with steam propulsion, and that steam hadn't been widely used for 30 years. Do we have a source? I can't think of a single navy that DIDN'T use steam as their primary means of propulsion from about 1870 to the 1970s or even later. Steam submarines were troublesome for other reasons (mostly the water in boilers sloshing about and screwing up trim) but several hundred SSNs (which are steam powered, using nuclear fission to boil the water) show it can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.117 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the bit about not knowing how to use steam propulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.117 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. The reference to steam not being much used OBVIOUSLY referred to IN SUBMARINES. In fact, the last steam submarines I can think of that entered service (until nuclear appeared) were the horrible British K-class of 1917. Reference to water sloshing about in the boilers is utter nonsense. A boiler is not a big kettle. It is either firetube or watertube design. The REAL problem was an appallingly long dive time. German U-boats submerge in about 30 seconds. The K class took 5 minutes to submerge. Fires had to be put out, funnels had to be lowered, and way too many large hull openings secured. Residual heat in the boiler rooms after submerging was fierce and they had to be evacuated. Fnj2 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Type XXV
The Type XXV is said to have had a displacement of 160 tons and a crew of 58 men. Why the heck should a coastal sub with only electric motors and two torpedo tubes need a crew larger than the crew of a Type VII 770-ton ocean-going sub with both diesels and electric motors and five tubes? The 254-ton Finnish submarine Vesikko with three tubes had a crew of only 16 and even then it was cramped. It is difficult to see how a crew of 58 could fit in a 160-ton boat, not to mention how quickly they would have depleted the oxygen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death Bredon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Gröner the figure is for Type XXIV, there is none for Type XXV.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Type XXII
The description of the Type XXII mentions the abbreviation CWL without explanation. Could someone who knows what this means please add the expansion of the abbreviation?

G1MFG (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC) G1MFG

Dubious -- Type XI vs conovy escorts
Regarding the passage

The last sentence (highlighted) seems quite dubious. Submarines make very poor heavy-gun platforms indeed, see French submarine Surcouf -- unstable platform, rangefinder and observation platform low to the water, and other things -- altho granted the type XI had only five inch guns, not eight. But then, she might have been outgunned by some escorts -- a destroyer would match her. How it would have done in a battle against convoy escorts I don't know, but I'd like see some refs by people with expertise before implying that the XI would have been effective. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add tags where needed
Hi Wikipedians, all valid points raised in this page however none of them tagged in the text (eg: "citation needed", "clarification needed"). Can please those who raised the issues add the appropriate tags? Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)