Talk:Type UB I submarine

Unsourced text removed from article

I've removed the following text from the article as unsourced. I've been able to find reliable sourcing for some of the information (highlighted in yellow). If you have or can provide the sourcing for the non-highlighted information, please list it below for incorporation into the article. (It's good, interesting stuff, but unsourced it shouldn't be there.)

Design and development

The development of the Type UB I submarine was spurred by the Imperial German Army's capture of the ports of Bruges and Ostend which gave the German forces easier access to the North Sea and the English Channel.

The existing ocean-going U-boats were considered too large to operate efficiently in the confined waters of the English Channel and it was decided that a new, smaller type of submarine was needed which could be built quickly and transported overland bases in Flanders. At the same time, in October of 1914 a small stock of Daimler marine diesel engines was set aside for submarine use. These engines were quickly combined with two 450mm torpedo tubes to form the basis of the UB I design.

The Reichsmarineamt (Imperial Naval Office) established specifications for a coastal submarine design, which was designated Project 34 and which could be built in only four months. The submarine which was developed by Hans Techel at Krupp's Germaniawerft yard was originally conceived as a single-hulled boat of approximately 125 tons displacement. Its design was dictated by the maximum permissible width for rail transportation (3.15 m (10.3 ft)) and a requirement for quick and simple construction which resulted in a functional design without compound curves or complex assemblies.

The contract for the construction of an initial 15 boats was signed on 15 October 1914. SM UB-1 through SM UB-8 from Germaniawerft, Kiel, and SM UB-9 through SM UB-15 from AG Weser, Bremen. On 25 November, two additional boats, UB 16 and UB 17, were ordered from AG Weser after the decision to transfer UB 1 and UB 15 to the Austro-Hungarian Navy for use in the Mediterranean; these boats became U-10 and U-11 respectively, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy also ordered three further examples.

The submarines were constructed remarkably fast, with UB-1 being completed on 22 January 1915, only 75 days after her keel had been laid. All the boats of the type had been constructed by 21 April 1915.

Description

The submarines built by Germaniawerft used the few available Daimler Diesel engines, while those constructed by AG Weser were instead fitted with Körting kerosene engines originally intended for small motor vessels.

Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German Type UB I submarine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Comment

I will be reviewing this article in the next couple of days. Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Review

An overview:

well written =?
accuracy =Y
thorough =Y
NPOV =Y
stable =Y
images =Y

Some section specific comments:

Lead

• Some points in this section needs citations, even if they cited later in the article. An example would be the first 2 sentences of the second paragraph.

Per WP:LEADCITE, I don't think any citations are necessary in the lead section of this article. This article is not complex, current, or controversial.

• "The boats' size was limited in size by railroad size restrictions"

The word size is used three times here. I think you could delete "in size by" completely. Is there another expression that can be used to replace "railroad size restrictions"?

I eliminated this sentence from the lead, per your later suggestion of trimming the lead

• In the second paragraph of this section, the first three sentences also all start with "The boats". The sentences could be reworded to make it less like a list.

Done as part of the trimming of the lead.

• "An additional pair was ordered later to replace two boats sold to Austria-Hungary; that nation ordered a further three in April 1915, to bring the total number of UB I boats built to twenty."

The use of "that nation" is a little awkward. Might i suggest simply "it ordered a further three" or something similar?

Yes it is awkward, but I was trying to avoid ambiguity as to which country ordered a further three. I reworded that sentence.

• "One of the five Austro-Hungarian boats was sunk and another knocked out of action when not repaired after a mine strike."

The phrase "knocked out of" could be replaced with the more formal "removed from" or something similar.

Reworded as part of trimming of the lead

• "127 and 142 tonnes (140 and 157 short tons)"

Is this use of two spellings of tonnes deliberate?

Yes. The tonne is the International English name/spelling for the unit that equals 1,000 kg (also known as the "metric ton" in the U.S.); short tons and long tons are spelled

• "In 1918, four of the surviving boats had their torpedo tubes replaced with mine chutes to become coastal minelayers."

I think "In 1918, four of the surviving boats had their torpedo tubes replaced with mine chutes and made into coastal minelayers" works a little better.

Reworded as part of trimming the lead.

• The lead section is about the maximum allowable length for a wikipedia article. Is there any way to sensbibly reduce its length without losing the key details/sense?

I trimmed one sentence

Design

• "In the earliest stages of World War I, the German Army's rapid advance along the North Sea coast found the German Imperial Navy without submarines suitable to operate in the narrow and shallow environment off Flanders."

I would replace "environment" with "seas" for clarity.

Done.

• "the planning for a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun"

I would make this into "the planning for the construction of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun" or "the planning of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun".

Done. I used the second wording.

• "The rushed planning effort—which had been assigned the name "Project 34""

A citation for the rushing of the project is needed here i think.

Added; it's from the Miller source that covers the whole paragraph.

• "The drivetrain of the boats consisted of a single propeller shaft driven by a single Daimler (Germaniawerft) or Körting (Weser) diesel engine on the surface"

Two uses of the word "single". Might i suggest the substitution of one of them with "sole"?

I just removed the second one completely

Construction

• "The German Imperial Navy ordered the first fifteen UB I boats on 15 October 1914."

I would replace this with "The German Imperial Navy ordered its first fifteen UB I boats on 15 October 1914."

Done

• "UB-9 was laid down first"

I suspect that the expresiion to "lay down" a ship is a technical term. It might be better to explain this in clearer language. I may of course be wrong and it may be a very common expression, in which case ignore this point.

It refers to keel laying; the term is linked as "laid down" in the previous sentence. I can clarify there, or link again if you think it best.

Service

• "According to authors R. H. Gibson and Maurice Prendergast"

I would make this "According to the authors R. H. Gibson and Maurice Prendergast", and perhaps mention who these people are? E.g "According to the naval historians R. H. Gibson and Maurice Prendergast".

I added the name of their book; I don't know enough about the two (or have a source) to make a judgement on their reputations

• "and they lacked the stamina for any extended amount of time underwater"

I would make this "and they lacked the stamina to spend any extended amount of time underwater".

Done

Constantinople Flotilla

• "Initial plans called for them to be shipped by rail to the Stenia Yard in Constantinople, but incompatible rail gauges and tunnels too small for the loaded railcars prevented that."

I would make this "Initial plans called for them to be shipped by rail to the Stenia Yard in Constantinople, but incompatible rail gauges and tunnels too small for the loaded railcars prevented this". Also, do you have a wikilink for Stenia Yard?

I could add a redlink if you want; the Turkish shipbuilding industry is not well represented on the English WP

Austro-Hungarian Navy

• "UB-1 and the still incomplete UB-15 were sold to the Austria-Hungary in February 1915; both were broken down and shipped to Pola in May." It might be a good idea to find another expression other than 'broken down', as this implies that the boats were incapable of operating, when its use here alludes to it being physically dismantled. "both were dismantled and shipped to Pola in May" would be clearer.

Good point. Changed.

• "but not repaired by war's end"

i would make this "but had not been repaired by the end of the war".

Done

Bulgarian Navy

• "She survived the war but was ceded to France after the end of the war."

This sentence is the second in a row to start with "She". Is there an alternative? Also, the two uses of "the war" is a little awkward. Perhaps "...survived the war but was ceded to France at its end."

Done

General Comments

• The use of the pictures looks to be a bit of a grey area, but reading through on the image pages it should be fine.
• All in all a good article- it is mainly a few writing style points i have raised. It would be good if you could checkmark or strike-through points as you address them. Please leave any comments or questions here or on my talkpage. I will put the article on hold while you consider the review comments. MarquisCostello (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've addressed all of your points and interspersed replies above. Thanks you for taking the time to review the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comments

All my replies to your comments are here:

• After having another look, you're right about the lead. Leaving it uncited should be fine.
• There isn't really much that can be trimmed out of the lead, so i think its length is justified.
• I would link the second use of "laid down" in "Construction" as well. Although it is linked in the previous sentence, i completely missed this when i was reading through [it is a phrase that can be easily read over], so far clarity's sake i would link it twice.
• Regarding a link for Stenia Yard, linking it may encourage someone to start a new article page.

I'll leave you to have a look through. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've linked the second laid down. About the Stenia Yard: I've done some looking and Stenia seems to be a (German language?) placename in Turkey, so I'm not sure if "Stenia Yard" is actually a real name or if it just means the shipyard in Stenia. In the meantime, I've linked it, too. (If I find anything different, I can always come back and change it :) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

All in all a good article- well written, stable and thorough. It would be good to get those red links converted into blue ones as the relevant article pages are created. But that's for the future. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How many crew

How many crew did the UB I class require/carry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.113.36 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They typically had a complement of 14—1 officer and 13 enlisted; later in the war several were lost with as many as seventeen men on board. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Department of correctness?

To be clear: I raise these hoping it will be corrected, not merely answered here.

1. 33 sec dive time? Is that typical, minimum, or what? A well-drilled crew could make pretty quick dives.
2. What was her battery capacity? I.e., how many cells?
3. "exhausting their batteries after little over an hour's running" At what speed? Max udw, or "crawl"? And how long was dived endurance? Could they stay down, say, 12h before needing to surface to replenish air?

TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Uboat.net

There was debate during the FAC discussion of the reliance on uboat.net, and its suitability as a high quality reliable source. There were also questions raised about the comprehensiveness of the literature survey. Without wishing to revisit all of that, I thought I would make a comment about reducing the reliance on the web site. I have now swapped out the website in favour of Conway's All the world's fighting ships in all locations where that seemed possible. Looking over the remaining uses of uboat.net, it seems the only purpose that it fulfills that Conway's cannot, is the supply of launching and commissioning dates, numbers of ships sunk, damaged or taken as prizes, and the UB-1's height. Conway's only has date ranges for the launch of UB-1 to UB-14 amd individual launch dates for 15 to 17, and no commissioning dates. Conway's can be used in most if not all cases as the source for the ships' ultimate fate (though it isn't currently explicitly cited in this way at present). Perhaps someone could look at whether those dates and attack info exist in one of the German books (or another source), or write to Gudmundur Helgason and ask where he got the dates. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Model kit(s)

Just found a 1:144 scale model of UB-1 here: http://www.mikro-mir.com/ua/277.html Worth mentioning in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.185.189.42 (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless it's the first time the sub was kitted, or there's something unusual about the kit in ref UB-1, I'd say not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fates outdated

Just want to point out that all the boats listed as "disappeared" have since been found. Too apathetic to revise myself. So tired... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D936:D41B:C0ED:956C (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)