Talk:Type 212A submarine

Untitled

The source from these changes is the Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 2005-2006; Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems compiled by Eric Wertheim. I do believe the changes I made to be accurate, as according to the Type 212A entry for the German Navy in this book. --Laserbeamcrossfire 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems not to be very accurate (or translation errors), see official specs here. 8 knots may be "Schleichfahrt" (silent cruise) or eco cruise. --Denniss 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible. I'll see if I can't find some more information on the Type 212, or find an early copy of the Naval Institute Guide to compare entries. --Laserbeamcrossfire 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

General Characteristics section -- questions and comments

This is an interesting article and it raises some interesting questions:

"Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged, 12 knots surfaced"

Is the submerged speed attained when the boat is snorkeling or running on the battery? The diesel manufacturer's web site specifies that its output is 2150 kw. When surfaced, is the diesel directly coupled to the shaft or is it always coupled only to the generator?

The fuel cells only put out 306 kw -- on first glance, I don't see how you could get more than a few knots (perhaps 3) out of that sort of power, even assuming you turned off every other piece of equipment on board (lights, computers, etc). I'm not the expert, however, and it would be great if someone more knowledgeable could elaborate on the practical capabilities of this boat when operating on fuel cells only.

Does it really specify maximum output power or does it specify capacity? I guess the latter but then it should be kWh. In all cases the sentence could be more explicit. --Jankratochvil (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"In addition, the boat and internal fixtures are constructed mostly of nonmagnetic materials, reducing chances of it being detected by magnetometers or setting off magnetic naval mines. "

The MTU 396 16V engine is listed by the manufacturer as a general purpose diesel. I'm assuming it's made of ferrous materials -- is this true? I would think the boat still has a significant magnetic signature. The German Navy's Type 212 page refers to a non-magentic steel hull -- does anyone have any reliable information on this? Is this a stainless steel hull? (Some stainless steels contain no ferromagnetic materials). Iron is inherently ferromagnetic, but steel-hulled submarines can be degaussed -- is this what they're referring to? It would be great if someone could expand this or turn it into another article. I don't think there's ever been a stainless steel submarine before.

"According to a German tv-report, Type 212's radar signature is simillar to the one of a can of cola."

Is this the radar cross-section snorkeling or surfaced?

"The skewback propeller is designed to run without cavitation and therefore produces almost no noise."

How is this different from other submarine propellers? I thought this was true of all of the modern designs

"The fuel cell system doesn't require continuous running of coolant pumps that a nuclear reactor would."

Modern nuclear submarines often don't require pumps until they have to operate at high speeds; see natural circulation.

"Although hydrogen-oxygen propulsion had been considered for submarines as early as World War I, the concept was not very successful until recently due to fire and explosion concerns. In the Type 212 this has been solved by storing the fuel and oxidiser in tanks outside the crew space, between the pressure hull and outer light hull. The gases are piped through the pressure hull to the fuel cells as needed to generate electricity, but at any give time there is a very small amount of gas present in the crew space."

I'd say the risk of fire has been minimized, not eliminated. An analogous situation is the use of external oxygen tanks; that reduced but did not totally eliminate the risk of fire -- see USS Sargo (SSN-583)

"Even torpedo launching is stealthy with the 212A: It uses a water ram expulsion system, instead of noisy compressed air."

Isn't this what many other submarine classes use? My understanding was that U.S. subs have used this for decades and that it still makes noise. How do they move the water used for ramming?

--A. B. 13:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have all the details on this one right now, but can tell how it is generally done on similar subs.

First, the submerged speed is always measured as the full burstspeed without snorkeling. It includes all batteries, plus fuel cells, plus, if needed, reduced power on all noncritical systems except the engine. Snorkeling speed is separate, and usually lower than both submerged and surfaced speeds due to high drag on snorkel and snorkel strength limitations.

The required power for propulsion falls almost with 3rd power of speed and so required power for 20 knots, given the average drag hull with 1800t is about 4-5 MW. Fuel cells contribute only a little to that and are used for very slow moving or simply for life support. 20 knots are reached only with full batteries power, which is pretty high.

Non-magnetic steel is used for about 40 years by now, specifically most Soviet subs have their light hulls built of non-magnetic steel. Such steels aren't very strong, but have moderate price and are easy to work with, being basically a kind of low alloy steels. Of course, the engine is built of normal materials, it's just the reduced magnetic signature, probably up to a few times. I'll check the details of construction soon, as probably not even the entire hull is of non-magnetic steel.

Words about the RCS are just another piece of baseless advertising, usual for TV reports. A submarine neither really needs nor can achieve small RCS, and with sensible reduction measures the best possible is like a MBT.

Water ram expulsion system is used for over 40-50 years by at least US, Russia, UK and France. Exactly the same with skewed propellers. It is just presenting a typical solution as unique feature.

Generally, this article needs serious cleanup and sourcing. Probably most of unique features and cola-can RCS would be gone, while other characteristics would become more realistic. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the useful information delivered so quickly!

Based on your formula for power, if all fuel cell power went to propulsion (impossible -- people have to breathe, eat, etc.), then the top speed would be about 1 knot. Given the "hotel loads" (non-propulsion power loads) on larger subs, my guess is that all the fuel cell output is for hotel loads which would imply that to get the 3 week underwater time, this boat would need to mostly either hover or sit on the bottom. Since the screw is behind the X-planes, 1 knot would probably insufficient to get much control from those planes.

The "non-magnetic steel" remains an interesting point. The Soviets used non-magnetic titanium for some hulls. That's expensive and I'm not sure anyone besides the Russians have ever sufficiently mastered titanium technology to do this. Ferromagnetism is a fundamental quantum-level trait of iron and nickel, so I see no way to eliminate it. A magnetic signature, however, requires a non-random average alignment of all the individual atomic magnetic fields and that nonrandomness can be reduced, for instance by degaussing.

--A. B. 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not as low as 1 knot; 20-fold decrease would give result (high estimate) of about 3-4 knots, or 1.5-3 knots plus life support. Slow moving requires very little power (however, I'm not sure about 20 knots at 3 MW - it is quite good for 3 MW, and the hull is short with constant diameter). Actually about 200-300 kW engines are considered sufficient backup propulsion for nuclear submarines in case of reactor failure. The low power and capacity of fuel cells and other AIP systems makes them unable to substitute diesel-electric system, only to complement it with ability to stay submerged.

Non-magnetic steel isn't a substitute for titanium neither by magnetic properties nor by strength, but is much easier to work with. Titanium requires massive industry to produce in large quantities, is difficult to weld, and there are only two facilities in the world capable of constructing titanium subs of considerable size. According to evaluations, the cost of reproducing Alfa outside the specific industry and economy would be in range of five to seven billions; no country is planning to build titanium subs in foreseeable future. NMS is merely steel where most qualities are sacrificed to enable effective degaussing so that impact on the magnetic signature is minimized. Most probably the light hull is built of such steel. However, it would be hardly effective to build a sub completely with it; even on surface combat ships NMS is to date used only as the thin outmost layer. For strong hull it is inefficient, and Type 212 can have it built of normal HY steel. I'll check the details soon, but there is little doubt. I'll also clean out some particularly outstanding statements now. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've got the data. The low-magnetic steel is actually used for most of the hull. Speed can reach up to 20 knots at full burst, as they have efficient propulsion system (not pumpjet, good transmission). Noise levels normal for d-e subs. Radar signature when surfaced is reduced. Cells give 3 knots. Crush depth not known, operation depth around 300, design somewhat more, no details. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are mistakes in the datas and equotation above. The Permasym e - motor has an maximum Power Output of 1,7 MW. This leads to following conclusion. The Sub has a speed of 20 knots at a Poweroutput of 1,7 MW. The Fuel Cells are delivering 0,3 MW. When all the Power is transfered to the screw, the sub is able to reach 8 knots. To estimate the speed, this equtation has to be solved: P_drive=c(drag)*v(Speed)^2. The constant(drag+fluid_constansts+ etc.) c(drag) of the Type 212 A in water is 4.25. When the half of the Fuel Cell Power is deliverd to the screw the sub has an crusing speed of 6 knots. At a fourth of the Fuel Cell Output the speed will be 4.3 knots. The operation deep is around 300m. To estimate the crush deep, you have to know that german engineers are using the saftey factor of 2 in the design of submerged vessels. Other countries are using 1.5. The eqotation (opperation_deep*saftey_factor=crush_deep) leads to a crush deep of approximatly 600m (or 1800 feet). Another Topic is the loudness of the vessel. The groundbrake is the permasyn engine designed by siemens. Compared to direct current engines this ac - motor is a torque monster. Now it is possible to use a bigger slow rotating screw with less cavitation, without losses in the transmission gear. The engine is in the condition to rotate really slow with a lot of torque. The Andvantages are: Less sound emisson of cavitation and of the transmission. 138.246.7.10 08:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are, according to your IP address, working for the DFN. Don't you know, that you are not allowed to leak top secrect military informations about german submarines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.252.159 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. I was just wondering how effective this kind of capability was, insofar as once you've expended your three weeks, are you then able to independently (ie, without support tenders) "re-charge" the fuel cells? or do you need to be refuelled with hydrogen/oxygen? or must the sub return to port immediately, or continue to run on diesel/electric as per "normal"? In essence, how "durable" is this feature? Still, it would be still handy to get some (max) 1000 or 1500nm from silent non-battery source of propulsion. Thankyou kindly in advance, 58.7.121.31 (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sub must return to port for the AIP to be refuelled. This is due to operational refuelling procedures caused by location of the tanks on the hull and safety issues in transferring the hydrogen. Of course the commander can choose to continue operations on diesel-electric propulsion alone. The only ports that are currently sufficiently covered by contract agreements for AIP replenishment are located in Germany, which limits the operational area quite severely (and not by accident since these subs were originally envisioned to operate in the Baltics and the North Sea). The navy is in the process of handing out a contract for worldwide support of the boats on-demand. I do not know if this contract has already been finalised but it would enable a private contractor to supply the refuelling equipment to any sufficiently equipped port in the world. 58.171.222.51 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2007 Technical Discussion

138.246.7.10 makes some valid sounding points about the vessel's speed data being inaccurate, I've noticed a couple myself. The diesel engines don't run when it's too deep to snorkel, I'm assuming. If they do then all the points about it being super quiet on battery power are meaningless. (Diesel engines, being internal combustion engines, produce power via explosions in the cylinders which push pistons, that turn crankshafts, etc. which is noisy), there is also the new problem of exhaust. Expelling gas from the sub creates bubbles, which also make noise.

The sub's real power comes from those engines which means in order to hit 20 knots they need to be on. I noticed another editor above mentioned snorkels not being able to withstand that kind of drag, I've heard the same. Even if a sub could travel that fast with a snorkel, it'd be easy to spot by the wake it throws up. I also noticed someone talking about RCS not applying to subs, it most certainly does and has ever since the advent of RADAR sensitive enough to detect periscopes. In this case even if the snorkel/scope had a stealthy RCS, the wake they create doesn't. Water easily reflects RADAR. For example in a night time battleship duel called the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal U.S. Fire Control Radar could detect the splashes of shells that missed to help adjust targeting. The Japanese hadn't believed in the technology as much so they had RADAR for detection but fire control was still visual using flares and spotlights.

I'd also contend that 20 knots is not a good definition of "high speed" for a submarine in the general sense. It might be fast for a diesel sub, but I think any nuclear boat would outrun 20 knots easily. Anynobody 06:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

@Anybody Your thoughts about about the diesl engine needed to reach full spead are wrong. The sole purpures of the diesel engine AND the hydrogen cells is to recharge the battaries! The engine that runs the propeller is an electric one that gets its power form the batteries only. The diesel engine is not directly connect to the propeller and therefor only the status of the batteries is importent for reaching max speed. This is the case for most modern diesel-electic submariens. --Moritz Nadler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.115.131 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this submarine surface through ice in the Arctic ? If yes, how thick ?

This sub is not equipped or envisioned to operate in the Actic. The design was developed to operate in the Baltics and the North Sea even though the general characteristics allow blue-water operations under normal conditions as well. 58.171.222.51 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

@Alexander Mitsos "no exhaust heat" needs to be defined. The entropy of reaction for hydrogen is negative and the fuel cell is surely run with a decent power density resulting in significant irreversibilities. Therefore, there is definitely heat transfer to the sub/environment. I presume that "no exhaust heat" refers to low-temperature heat signal, but I am not familiar with the technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.mitsos (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary reason Diesel is not used when submerged is Diesels are air breating plants. Unless they have Air Independent Propulsion, Diesels are used on the sufrace or snorkel, and used to charge the Batteries. It might be prudent for Wikipedia to remove the image captioned "In dock at HDW/Kiel". If you can count the number of blades on the propeller, it is probably classified. comments by User: retrograde62@yahoo 16:01, 9 April 2013 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.163.161 (talk)

Why does the MTU given in the The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World (p.244) gives a completely different MTU model number? The reference link in the data box doesn't work, but I doubt it would have given the sub type as MTU just don't do that on their website Crock81 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

General description

"The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely silent and virtually undetectable."

Either it's silent or it isn't. It can't be 'extremely silent', anymore than somebody can be 'extremely alive'. I'm changing it. WikiReaderer 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, "silent" means a number of things, two of which in the submarine serivce do not mean "the absolute absence of noise". If a sub is not detectable by the equipment of another ship, sub, etc., then it is effectively "silent". Silence in this context means "It can't be found", which is an all-important trait for a submarine. Also, any submarine can go "silent" which means that all unnecessary sound is ceased. This same use of "silence", which is subject to differing degrees of quality, can be seen in the sentence, "The detective crept forward silently." It's impossible that someone moving actually isn't making any sound (unless they are in outer space). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Always note that at some range active sonar can find any submarine; the above is mostly referring to passive sonar techniques. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

question...

This sub is comparable in size to a typical sub of late world war 2 vintage?

How do they compare in performance to a ww2 uboat?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like comparing an F-35 Lightning II with a Hawker Hurricane. It's also like comparing Surface-to-air (SAM) missile with anti-aircraft flak fire. --109.192.197.21 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ballast to Weight Ratio Classifies this as a Traditional U-boat

A tactical advantage is given to small displacement vessels. A ballast recovery can occur. A water weight change with depth stops an uncontroled descent in this modern U-boat.

Small size allows for a near vertical descent angle. A bow plane is not required to stop the descent, only the water weight change at depth.

It is stealthy and a small vessel to worry about tactically, for the rate of descent appears the reason for small U-boats in general.

--207.69.140.35 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahm no. The operational environment (other than just "water"), the financial restraints, technological proficiency and so on all contribute to define the characteristics of a submarine, one of those being size. The type 212 is rather small because it is supposed to operate in the littorals, especially shallow waters such as in the Baltics. Also I do not see a point in the definition as "traditional U-boat". If you have a short look at the design history of german U-Boats you do not have to go far to find rather drastic differences say between the type VII (classic WW2 boat), the type XXI (first true submarine), the type 206 (extremely compact boats for littoral waters), the type 209 (a versatile SSK for littorals and blue-water operations alike) and eventually the type 212A. The "classic" submarine does not exist. 58.171.222.51 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

U212 in Israeli navy service

[1]--Gilisa (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And the source mixed up the type 212 with Dolphin class submarines. The type 212 is blocked from export into non-NATO members or into critical areas. --Denniss (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dennis, Dolphin is the name given to both Type 800 and U 212 that was sold to Israel, it's not the name of the type. what you just wrote is original research. Israel just recived the submarines and world media is full with reports about it. I'm going to revert your last edit. [2]

[3][4][5][6]

Infact, Jane's, highly credible source, was the one to report on 2006 that Israel orderd 2 u 212 from Germany and then after Germany confirmed the sell.--Gilisa (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read those messages again - not any of them named them type 212 submarines but they use Dolphin class submarine called U212S. Dolphin class called U212s is not a type/class 212 submarine. --Denniss (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I understood your message well. Again, there is a difference between the Dolphin and the German type of the sub. Dolphin is a class, not a type, the Dolphin is whether Type 800 (first three Dolphin class submarines were based on it and named Dolphin I) or U 212 (named Dolphin II), what make it to "Dolphin" is that it's heavilty designed for the Israeli navy [7] according to Israeli navy specifications and that most of its elctronic systems and all warfare systmes are Israeli made. The new Doplhins are featured with AIP [8], basically, this is the most important difference between U 209 and U 212. I suggest that you read more about it before reverting. Besides, sources were approved by WP:RS noticeboard as you may see here [9].

p.s. U 212s is plural for U 212, as can be understood from most sources.--Gilisa (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But a Dolphin is not a 212A. A Dolphin is 2m longer. The Dolphin has four torpedo tubes more as a 212A. The Crew numbers for Dolphin is 35 against 27 for a U212A. etc. etc. --HDP (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles linking Type 212A boats to Israel are lazily written and confuse two kinds of submarine, which are not related directly. Israel never ordered U212As, they ordered another pair of Dolphin SSK in 2005. The Dolphin precedes the Type 212A by years, Israel received the first boats based on a contract settled upon in 1991, when the Type 212A had not even left project definition phase. Those two boats are visually very different and any casual observer, who takes the time to have a look at them, will realise this, note the arrangement of diving and stern rudders. For a comprehensive overview see http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dolphin/ and for comparison in pictures see http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/ . Now for User "Gilisa", please feel free to elaborate on that Janes article claiming that Israel is procuring Type 212As, when a Janes-article from 2009 states very clearly, that Israel is getting more Dolphin/Type 800-boats, as can be seen here: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091001_1_n.shtml . I removed Israel from the list of U212A-recipients. Para-OZ (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to review the idea of incorporating the 3 new Dolphin class into the article somewhere, briefly. The new vessels are slightly larger 212s with AIP. They seem to be the most sophisticated subs ever built by Germany. Happy to discuss. Irondome (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of torpedoes

In this video of a Norwegian newspaper, in which a German captain gives a tour through U33 of the German Navy, it is said that (German) Type 212 submarines have a storage capacity of 13 torpedoes. http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/11/18/nyheter/ubat/undervannsbat/14353353/

Missiles & Torpedoes

Why no word on whether this can carry western antiship missiles like Harpoon or Exocet, both ALREADY in German Navy service? Or ask the Swedes to modify the RBS-15 for sublaunch, since it seems to be the future deutsche marine ASM. Waiting until 2014 for the IDAS seems awfully impractical. Especially since a sailor in the conning tower w/ a Stinger gives a viable air-defence at a fraction of the cost. Clearly, the German language doesn't have a word for "Off-the-shelf", since they always start w/ a fresh, untried design. (Completely opposite from their ww 2 practice of evolving designs to the greatest extent.)

Also, what is with the 'external mine carriage' capability? Have there ever been any images shown of a sub, ANY sub, not just the U 212, carrying external mines? (The X-craft the brits ued in WW 2 don't count since those were purpose-designed conformal weapons.)96.238.134.140 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats your point? This is not a forum, its a discussion page for the article. Neither of the two issues you mention are relevant in that regard. The article does not mention "western AShM", because the Type 212 - so far - is NOT designed to carry any. It matters nothing that the German Navy has Exocet and Harpoon missiles in service. For the record, the Exocets in use are ancient and the Harpoons not much better and in any case, they are the surface-launched version, so they matter nil for submerged operations. A sub-launched version of the RBS-15 does not exist. The whole talk about IDAS seems irrelevant in regard to the article, whatever the purpose of the development itself.

Externally carried mines are in German service for decades now, they were also used on the older Type 206-boats, together with a device called "Minenguertel" (mine belt). Look it up on the German Wiki-page for the U-Boat flotilla. Its rather remarkable that you complain about lack of facts, yet have made no effort to inform yourself on the topic before that complaint. Para-OZ (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotland class submarine

Gotland class submarine was the first with AIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.64.67 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Varotodaro.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Varotodaro.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links

Hi! The links to "Jane's Navy International" and "marine.de" don't work anymore. --Hurgh (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Link no. 17 (http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/presse/art_detail.html&eid=TKBase_1368607004184_270131775) isn't dead but redirected to another page. I guess this would be a good replacement. https://web.archive.org/web/20171009121809/https://www.thyssenkrupp.com/de/newsroom/pressemeldungen/press-release-47511.html KolAflash (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

700 m - test depth or crush depth?

The infobox, as well as the general characteristics, states that test depth is 700 m. I am pretty sure that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere, and that 700 m is more or less crush depth. I believe that test depth it closer to 400 m, which is still impressive. The source allegedly saying that test depth is 700 m, is a TV-interview published in 2007 on the official webpage of the German Navy. That is a credible source, but I can not find the interview. Can anyone else find it?

• http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/technikuniversum-die-modernsten-fuenf-u-boote-der-welt-auf-einen-blick_id_4224726.html

Kindest regards

/EriFr (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Italian submarine collides

Someone with a wikipedia account and better grasp of the english language and the article probably shuld update the article about a Italian submarine that collides with a cargo ship: https://www.rt.com/news/388023-italian-sub-cargo-ship-collision/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.38.217 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Construction Data for U-37 and U-38

Somebody has inserted construction dates for these two submarines suggesting they were laid down in 2009/2010 and completed in 2017/2018. This is completely impossible since the boats were only ordered in late 2017. I suspect the dates in question are vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Type 212CD

Given the recent news of the new German-Norwegian Type 212CD, which is expected to be derived from but yet considerably different to the original Type 212, should it be under the "Variants" tab or have an entirely new page altogether, or both? Td 078 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe a new article would be for the best. We allready have one on NORWIKI: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212CD Znuddel (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I started a new article, feel free to help me expand it: Type 212CD submarine.Znuddel (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Polish submarine deal not about 212

This sentence

"Poland announced in December 2013 they will not buy, but only lease, two U212-A's, on account of not meeting "requirements of tactical and technical equipment developed by the military, including in particular the propulsion system, missile weapons and rescue system".[8]"

is just wrong. The 212 was not offered to the polish MoD. The source article talks about TKMS as "the builder of the 212" which they are but the german polish deal is not about 212 but rather the more generic export 214 or similar. So the sentence can be deleted since it shouldn't be in the 212 wiki article. --178.200.140.211 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Mar

Future submarine class: Successor?

Regarding the Type 212 submarine class: Is the Type 212CD submarine class it's successor, or is it the Type 216 submarine class?--Znuddel (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)