Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hrabri-class submarine


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Hrabri-class submarine

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

The Hrabri-class were the first Yugoslav submarines. One was captured by the Italians in April 1941 and subsequently scrapped, and the other escaped to Crete then Egypt, remaining in a training role for the rest of the war, but served on in the Yugoslav Navy until 1954. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, similar comments to the article on one of the boats below: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * are there ISSNs that could be added for the periodicals in the References list? These can usually be found on [www.worldcat.org]
 * accessdates for the websites?
 * "The ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta" --> I think this should possibly be attributed in the text as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to the British naval attache, the ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta..." or maybe "Jarman recounts that the British naval attache was very impressed by the ships and their crews while visiting Malta" (or something similar). Thoughts?
 * "One of her guns was removed at the end of her career" --> do we know why?
 * G'day Rupert, thanks for the review. I've covered all your points except the gun removal (who knows, the source doesn't say), and also Sturm's points on the FAC of the Nebojsha. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added my support above. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think the balance of this article is off. The description section should be the bulk of the article, and should expand on the info given in the individual boat articles. I'd like to see some discussion of the context of these two submarines - why did Yugoslavia buy them? How did they envision using them? I'd assume not coastal defense, given that they're a bit big for coastal boats, and as I recall, Yugoslavia had intentions of exerting its naval power beyond the Adriatic.
 * On a related note, I'd trim down the service history section. I'd leave the first paragraph, and then condense the rest down to one or maybe two more paragraphs
 * Sturm and I have been using tables for construction details in our class articles lately - see for instance his current article at ACR or the article I'm about to nominate. While "our way" isn't the only way, I do think it's useful to have it laid out that way. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed your points, . While I've been unable to find any reference to the intended use of the subs, I have found a British naval attache report from 1933 that states the Yugoslav naval policy was strictly defensive, aimed at protecting its coast. This is consistent with other things I've read, the Yugoslavs couldn't rely on help in the Adriatic from the French or British, and were always concerned about an enemy blockading of the Straits of Otranto (as well as being very wary of the Italians, who considered the Adriatic their domain. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * The background for these boats is lacking. Why these ships and why were they completed so much later than the other L-class boats? Why did Yugoslavia want them?
 * As I've stated above, I have not been able to definitively establish this. The parts were available, and I assume that meant the boats were cheaper, some later L-class boats were completed in the mid-20s, so these weren't that late. No doubt the British defence staff encouraged the Yugoslavs to buy them from the UK, but I don't have a source that confirms that. So far as why they wanted them, coastal defence appears to be the reason, per my explanation to Parsecboy above.


 * Description should be a bit more complete although I suspect that sources are a bit lacking. Propeller diameter and gun/torpedo performance data should be added if available. Friedman's book on Naval Weapons of WWI should suffice for the latter as I'm fairly certain that the boats retained their British 4-inch guns as that's not a caliber in service with the A-H Navy, IIRC.
 * that may be true, but I can't find a source that says what the propeller diameter was, and don't have a source that confirms my assumption that the guns were QF 4-inch/L40 Mk IV guns or what the maximum elevation was. Without such sources, it is not possible to establish the range. I also don't have a source for which of the many versions of the 21-inch torpedo were supplied to Yugoslavia, although I assume they were Mark IIs.


 * Infobox says test depth, text says operational depth, which is correct? And should be linked anyway.
 * The parameter in the infobox only allows for test depth, so I've removed it, as I don't have a definitive source for test depth. While some online sources claim deeper diving depths for L-class subs than the E-class subs, this is the best I've got. I've changed it to diving depth in the text. What should I link it to?


 * Move the link for diesel engines to first use and add link in infobox. Also add links for electric motors to infobox and main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the changes that PM has made, or do you think there is more that is required? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I'm willing to support at this level, but I think that the amount of information on the background and use of these ships is not enough to meet FAC requirements. Not every article can hope to satisfy the FAC requirements even if all available info is incorporated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a couple of minor points though:
 * "...and was used by the Royal Navy as a anti-submarine warfare training vessel..." should be "... and was used by the Royal Navy as an anti-submarine warfare training vessel..."
 * Is the capitalization correct here: "Narodna knjiga" (I mean should "knjiga" start with a capital)? I'm assuming this is a place name but I'm unsure so I thought I'd ask in case it was a typo.
 * Image review - File:Yugoslav submarine Hrabri.jpg - licensing and caption looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ac, that's how it is rendered in Serbo-Croat, it means National Book ie the publisher was called that. Fixed the an. Cheers for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ack - thanks for checking. Anotherclown (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.