Talk:Vorpostenboot

Untitled
I personaly think it's weird to use the singular form "Vorpostenboot', the word is used as a plural in the ntry and so are the translations, I would have changed it, but my German is rusty .. Remko2 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source
A book, "Seas Aflame" by Hart is quoted twice as a source. This book is fiction and therefore an unreliable source. I would therefore suggest that it and the information derived from it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned out the fictionally-sources information but something went wrong with the quotes. Help please?
 * I rolled back and then removed it. Did you actually check whether the pages in the source were part of the novel or a non-fiction section giving background? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have checked, they are part of the novel and fictional. Incidentally they also contradict the other sources provided which are genuine. Please help with eliminating the references to the novel which must rank as the ultimate in unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes
Since there were some disagreements between me and Anonymous Dissident I would like to explain the one remaining issue:

I corrected the sentence, "Technical data and salvaged wreckages indicate that the Vorpostenboot was largely based on pre-war fishing vessels" as it contains misleading and factually wrong information for the following reasons: So please refrain from again reverting to this faulty source of information.--KuK (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be understood as if the (one type of???) Vorpostenboot was a design based on pre-war fishings vessels. That is not correct, VP-boats very often were former fishing vessels.
 * The term "Technical data and salvaged wreckages indicate" implies that technical measurements and the evaluation of wrecks is the source of this information. This is of course wrong. The undisputed fact that most VP-boats were former fishing vessels is not proven by measuring surviving vessels or wrecks but documented in the files and by ten thousends of eye witnesses.
 * You're quite right. I didn't mean to re-install the fallacious wording, but rather I meant to move the concept to the second paragraph. Thanks for getting to that. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like your writing "beautiful" language. I am trying the same in German. Especially military articles sometimes are written awfully. And here all the non-native speakers, like me, fouling the texts. So, thank you for your improvements in style.
 * There is one further change I suggest to undo. That is concerning the use of VP-boats post WWII. You wrote: After their success in the World Wars, the German Navy planned to use Vorpostenboots in the Cold War if it became necessary, but no such use eventuated. That is not really true. First of all it was not the good experience but the simple need for patrol capability in case of conflict. The term "after their success" implies that it was intended to use them in the same manner as during the World Wars. This is rather unlikely given the expected nature of WW III. Also one can not say that no such use eventuated. The German military and also the navy from time to time exercised its reserve and mobilisation organisation including the call-up of civilian materiel. There were two VP-Squadrons planned and prepared for activation until 2005. When they exercised also civilian craft, most of them federal property, were activated for use as a VP-boat. Given the fact that VP-boats really existed after WWII they should also be mentioned together with the WW-boats and not at the end of the article as a non-real eventuality. Best wishes, --KuK (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You make valid points. When I used the phrasing you've critiqued above, I meant only to attempt an alternate phrasing of your wording, "Also after during the Cold War period the German Navy planned the use of Vorpostenboots in case of war." I changed the wording because, to be frank, it wasn't entirely grammatically sound. I never meant to change the meaning. If you think I have accidentally altered the meaning, please go ahead and change the statement. But please don't re-insert "Also after during the Cold War period the German Navy planned the use of Vorpostenboots in case of war." – the grammar here is not good and the readability suffers. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. before I will alter anything I would like to have my new text in proper grammar, but my English skills have their limits. What do you think about the following:
 * During the Cold War period the German Navy had plans for the activation of VP-boats from civilian sources as part of its war time organisation. VP-boats were planned to form the 122. and 124. VP-Squadron.? --KuK (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the following would be better, grammatically speaking:
 * During the Cold War, the German Navy planned to use Vorpostenboots as part of its wartime strategy. These Vorpostenboots were intended to form the 122. and 124. squadron of the Navy. However, they saw little action in the War. <-- last sentence optional, based on what you think should be there.

I've added that. Please feel free to discuss/edit. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

KFK
how are these related to Kriegsfischkutter (KFK)? (see Glossary of German military terms) --Thefrood (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A number of KFK were used as Vorpostenboot, others as minesweepers, subchasers etc. Those in use as patrol boats were called Hafenschutzboot, Vorpostenboot, or Vorpostensicherungsboot. This nomenclature was not consistent. The KFK had no names but a letter-number-combination. "M" was the indicator for Minensuchboot, "UJ" for U-Jagd-Boot (subchaser), "V" for Vorpostenboot, "Vs" for Vorpostensicherungsboot. The units with the designation Hafenschutzboot (harbour protection vessel) had regional indicators such as "NB 53", standing for Norway, Bergen No 53. In short: A part of the KFKs were used as Vorpostenboot others in different functions.


 * Functions and names were subject to change. If you understand some German you will find additional information in the German WP. --KuK (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that despite the best effort of my schoolteachers over a three year period I have zero ability with the German language, perhaps if you have the appropriate references you could add some of what you mentioned above to the article?  -- The frood  (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A thanks for input and request for more
thank you both for your help and suggestions the past few days! This is the first time I'm diving into this area of content so it is very reassuring to have a bit of a hand in the process. I've just finished what I think is a pretty comprehensive history section of this article, which was extremely fun to write. I think the article has further potential, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what that would look like. I erred on the side of throwing more information into the history rather than less, since I figured it would be easier to trim than to have to look additional things up. Beyond cleaning that up, I'm not quite sure what other sections are appropriate for this kind of article. I'd love to hear y'alls input and thoughts on the potential to eventually take this to GA at some point down the road. Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)