Talk:Type XXI submarine

Commnets

Can somebody explain why the Type XVII was left off the infobox? Trekphiler 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that! What was it? --Guinnog 05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Type XVII was an experimental submarine that used peroxide as a fuel. This fuel did not need air to burn so the engines could be operated underwater without the need for air from the surface. The technical problems with the use of this kind of fuel precluded its practical use, due mainly to the huge quanties needed for a regular patrol, but the new streamled larger hull design of the Type XVII was adapted for use with conventional diesel engines and batteries which resulted in the creation of the Type XXI and the smaller coastal Type XXIII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.130.168 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Verification of dimensions

Can someone with access to accurate sources please verify the dimensions given in the article? Currently it states a beam of 71ft (22m), more than many heavy cruisers, that cannot possibly be correct. uboat-net and german wikipedia state a beam of 8m, I will edit this value until someone can give a better source. Laschatzer (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Was an error during infobox conversion. --Denniss (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Museum ship conning tower

The conning tower of the museum ship does not rake back in the same way as the earlier photo in the infobox or the diagram. Is this sub definitely a type XXI? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Postwar mod, see Wilhelm Bauer (U-2540) --Denniss (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This info is probably worth adding to the article, surely, especially the reason why it was changed? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On production difficulties

Denniss, Adam Tooze is a respected award-winning historian that doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand as "completely wrong". In case you can't get your hands on his book I can also point to this online source http://www.uboataces.com/uboat-type-xxi.shtml that discusses "quality problems" with the Type XXI. Tooze is stating something that is well known, and it's curious that your source (citation needed) apparently omits manufacturing problems as a reason for the delays. An advanced new ship class that's rushed into production using new construction methods and with inexperienced contractors working on critical components will have problems that take time to iron out. Meritused2 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the discussion is about (is a piece of the message thread missing?) but would like to weigh in. If I'm asssuming correctly that it regards Germany not being able to deploy the Type XXIs, then I concur w/ Meritused2...They failed for several other reasons as well: 1) Germany was land-war centric - they never had a fully developed naval program. Naval production was always a second-rate priority. 2) Designing, producing and correcting problems with naval assets is measured in months and years - not weeks and months as with tanks, planes, etc. 3) I don't know his whole biography, but far as I recall, Speer had no naval industrial expertise. And with Germany's authoritarian managment methods (which admittedly had some advantages) that would be damning by itself...Engr105th (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Speer hat no great military expertise at all, his knowledge was about ressource and production management and that was the entire point. This expertise was put to very good use, regardless of naval or land-warfare-oriented production. Please check out the numbers of boats churned out by yards after 1943, when U-boat-production was finally given absolute priority over everything else. Also note that German industrial production until at least 1942 was based on peace-time requirements and demands (you read that right). It was very late (late 1943+) that Germany actually shifted its entire economy to wartime needs and the sheer masses of equipment produced during the last two years of war speak for themselves. So this second priority of the Kriegsmarine as compared to the Army does not really matter that much.

However this is something different than saying Germany never had a fully developed naval program, which is entirely wrong. Check the extensive (and partially covert) preparations for restarting submarine R&D programs long before WW2, check the whole Walther program. Further off this very topic, check their R&D for cruisers, destroyers, carriers even. The shortcomings of building an effective Kriegsmarine can all be traced to various arguments about priority (U-boats vs. large heavy surface vessels vs. innovation in carriers and fleet air arm) and rivalry between the respective schools of thought.

I do not doubt that there were certain manufacturing problems, however note also that the XXI in itself was not a dramatically new development. Certain elements of this boat were quite familiar ground for the respective contractors. What made the difference, was the new combination and of course the sheer scale of mass-manufacturing (as opposed to the Walther-boats). However for the very same reason the XXI-design was aimed towards simplicity (building and joinging of hull sections), so really unexpected and delaying problems, if any, are rather to be found with some technologies (bigger batteries) or simply lack of more exotic ressources. Again I think that the most drastic delays can be attributed to the shifting priorities in german naval warfare and general course of the war, not so much to purely technical aspects, but that is just my humble observation. 123.208.213.185 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Golfo Nuevo Sightings section entirely

Although they are interesting, and perhaps might make a fine article on their own, what does this section have to do with this article? Nothing, as far as I can tell. None of the references claim that it was a Type XXI, the only place that appears is at the bottom of the section, and appears to have been written by someone else. I'm removing it, feel free to cut it into another article if you wish, simply hit "History". Maury (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

202.62.126.222 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) From a former German Navasl Officer I was informed that there were 20 Type XXI boats assembled and put in commission 1945 in Stavanger and left for unknown destinations / tasks. Anybody ever heasrd of this? Michael

Wet work

I deleted

"Conveniences for the crew included a shower and a washbasin – crews on other boats went weeks without bathing or shaving."

because this was more a product of inadequate fresh water distilling than lack of "facilities", & it's not like they didn't exist in contemporary subs. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, American subs were quite luxurious compared to German boats (didn't they even have ice cream makers?), probably even including the Type XXI; not sure I'd want to brave Allied ASW forces in a Gato or Balao, though.172.190.106.134 (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ice cream maker wasn't standard equipment. ;p Some boats installed 'em. (IIRC, Mush had one fitted.) Agree on ASW, tho their sonars were pretty good compared to Germany's. On balance, with the better German torpedoes & stronger hulls... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Udisblizbadjoke seems to think these are unusual, let me point out a few.

1. Wash basins & showers. These were standard equipment even in German boats. The problem wasn't the basins & showers, it was the distilleries' ability to produce water. German (& AFAIK Brit) boats didn't have really adequate capacity. Even the USN fleet boats didn't have a wealth of it...
2. Periscopes. I do know Brit & German periscopes were around 40' long. USN boats seem to have longer ones (keel depth about 60' for periscope depth).
3. Air conditioning. A luxury for most Brit boats (IDK about the Tritons, which were designed for the PTO), & for all German boats before the Type XXIs. It was standard equipment on USN fleet boats since before the war. (Offhand, IDK what class introduced it...)
4. "Firing blind" That is what "firing on sonar bearings" means: no periscope sighting.
5. Firing on sonar bearings. This was standard practise for USN boats in the '30s. How do you suppose they did it...? USN fleet boats had among the best torpedo firecontrol system in the world. And all submarines in service in WW2 had hydrophones & sonar.
6. "detecting at 50m"? From a depth of 250 feet, which is what was at issue, not the range: that is, deeper than the Type XXI.
7. "other submarines could fire torpedoes only at periscope depth" Ridiculous. That barely deserves an answer.

Do us a favor. Quit it. You don't know as much as you think you do. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:20, 10:23 & 10:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (BTW, each of those "fleet boat" links goes to a different place. You might have a look under them.)

Udisblizbadjoke (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)we dont talk here that at 50 meters the sub can detect ships,we talk about capability of XXI to fire torpedoes at 50 meter below water which other submarine could only firing at periscope depth which is about 14-15 meters below water.distance,bearing and speed of the target was calculated with a high degree of accuracy by sonar and underwater listening device and determines the shot records which are calculated in a fire control.You think you know but you know nothing.

♠Buster, I've been reading about submarine capabilities for more than 30yr, & you are so wrong, it doesn't bear examination. If, however, you're so convinced, I invite you to refute me.

♠Have a look in Beach's Dust on the Sea. The showers are mentioned in the the first couple of pages.

♠Sonar capabilities, both detection & ranging, are described in Beach's Dust on the Sea & Run Silent, Run Deep, O'Kane's Clear the Bridge, Grider's War Fish, Bowfin (author I can't recall), & the two standard histories by Holmes & Roscoe. (I believe Antony Ross also mentions it in Talon & Trigger. Don't recall if Bucheim does.) Blair mentions the standard sonar doctrine & the usual firing depth being 250' (IIRC). Active (supersonic, as the Brits call it) sonar became standard equipment in USN boats in the '30s, for which see Blair & Alden. Hydrophones were standard by the end of WW1 (IIRC from the account of E-11 I've read, by Richard Compton-Hall, I believe), & certainly were by WW2. That being so "distance,bearing and speed of the target...by sonar and underwater listening device" is nothing like unusual. (You can't even identify the type of sonar, which does call in question your allegedly superior knowledge.) If, however, you claim the sonar was an array, in the fasion of PUFFS, or a conformal array, as became standard fit in USN nuke boats (offhand, I can't say when), I invite you to cite it from a reliable source.

♠The ability to fire torpedoes below periscope depth may also be found in Roscoe & Holmes, IIRC. (I don't recall if the others mention it; it's been a few years since I've read them. I do seem to recall Run Silent, Run Deep & Clear the Bridge mentionig it.) It's evident you don't know the difference between "aiming" & "firing" & the desire to actually hit something. Firing from periscope depth was routine because the standard passive sonars of the period, all of them, were simple point receivers. Not till PUFFS was it possible to get actually accurate sonar bearings, so the only way to get good firing solutions submerged was by observation. As noted, a claim otherwise will require a reliable source.

♠Periscope depth Beach makes numerous references to & names it as 60'. Ross in Trigger (IIRC) & Bucheim in U-boat (filmed as "Das Boot") also make mention of their periscope depths, naming it as 40' (IIRC).

♠The presence of air conditioning is in Blair, Holmes, Roscoe, & IIRC the history of the development of the fleet boat, Alden.

♠If you'd bothered to look at the link, you'd know what the function of a TDC is. Obviously you think the Germans were the only ones to have the ability to "calculate in a fire control". I have news for you. The U.S. system was better & was in service from 1932. The Brits & Japanese also had machine systems, & the Japanese system had features even the TDC didn't. (I'd call it better, but IDK enough about how it worked, or how well.) Slide rule-type systems had been in service in all major navies since the '20s. For this, you can see Beach's Dust on the Sea, Blair, Holmes, Roscoe, Ross, & Buchheim. (I don't recall if the E-11 account mentions the slide rules; I believe they didn't exist in WW1, & all firing was by eye then.)

♠Note, I have none of these sources in front of me, nor am I really inclined to do a lot of digging to demonstrate your ignorance. I have, however, actually read them all. You might try it.

♠So far, all you've offered is unsubstantiated opinion & ignorance. If you want this junk in, cite it from a reliable source. After you've refuted the actual reliable sources saying there's nothing unusual in any of it. You want it in. The burden is on you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox

Is there any particular reason that the picture of U-3008 is used in the infobox? If not, and most likely even if there is, I would think it better to change it to a picture of an XXI in wartime German configuration (e.g. original, twin-gunned, non-sloped conning tower; one tone paint scheme, no protuberances on foredeck, etc.), seeing as it is for the most part, if not almost entirely, unrepresentative of the class. This has seemed to have already caused confusion once. --Noha307 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

President Truman was not the first president to ride in a submarine

"In November 1946 President Harry S. Truman became the first American President to travel on a submarine when he visited U-2513; the submarine dove to 440 feet (130 m) with the President on board."

On 6 Sep 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt visited and rode on the USS Plunger SS-2 during several dives. The Wikipedia page for the USS Plunger documents this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Plunger_(SS-2)#President_Roosevelt.27s_visit

I recommend this page be changed. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

En clair

Three things need clarification. One, the "sprint"; as written, it suggests earlier boats had to surface to reach firing position, which isn't true. Second, what, exactly, were scientists doing aboard? (Is this a mistranslation of "technicians" ot technical specialists?) And three, why would the complement be variable, which the "up to 57" suggests? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@TREKphiler : I wrote up to 57 because it was not mandatory to have the full complement on board at any time; delete up to if you wish. The book source specifically says scientists. I don't know why; perhaps during the early testing phase they were gathering data.

I did not edit the section about earlier boats; but yes, they did not need to be above water to fire. If it seems to imply that, ′you could easily change a couple of words in that sentence. You would not get any argument on that. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just found another book that is an excellent source and many pages are available for viewing on-line. https://books.google.ca/books?id=azQVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&dq=Type+XXI+u+boat+capacity+57&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixvo-_6oHeAhXo7YMKHUzlA7wQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=Type%20XXI%20u%20boat%20capacity%2057&f=false

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How many were built? This source says

The War at Sea, 1939-1945: The offensive: pt. 1. 1st June 1943-31st ... https://books.google.ca/books?id=_4sGAQAAIAAJ Stephen Wentworth Roskill - 1961 Type XXI Atlantic U-boat of new design. A total of 123 were built by the end of the war. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

♠"not mandatory to have the full complement on board" Yeah, it kinda is, if you're going into action. It may not be required at all times (in harbor, frex), & there may be cases where a man or two was hurt & out of action, but leaving any substantial number ashore would be pretty stupid.

♠"perhaps during the early testing phase they were gathering data" That could be. They could also be yard workers, aboard during acceptance trials. They wouldn't be berthed aboard on a permanent basis, tho. Unless you've got strong objections, I'd say leave it out; if you've got solid sourcing for what they're doing while aboard, I'm fine with it going in (tho if it's temporary, like yard workers, IMO it wouldn't merit it).

♠"did not need to be above water to fire" Yeah, I knew that (see above on this page... :D ); it's reaching position that concerns me: maneuvering submerged to shoot wouldn't be unheard of. It's the confusion between (or conflation of) "pursuit", "approach", & "firing position" that I'm bothered by. Any thoughts on fixing it? I'm just "driving by" at the moment, so I haven't given it any consideration. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

Can we change the name of the article form “Type XXI Submarine” to “XXI U-Boat”? Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Submerged displacement

A user has recently changed the submerged displacement from 1,819 t (1,790 long tons) submerged to 2100, without changing the ref. This seems most unlikely. The difference between surface and submerged displacements is the volume of the upper works visible when surfaced. If you think that looks like 500 m^3 rather than 200 then your 'eye' is completely different to mine.

Here's some support for the 1819 figure

http://www.uboatarchive.net/Design/DesignStudiesTypeXXI.htm

and a comment "The limited reserve buoyancy circumscribes the value of counter flooding, although this is possible when an exterior tank on one side has been damaged. List and trim control also fail to develop the alternatives available on earlier vessels." RB is of course directly related to the difference between submerged and surfaced displacement. Enuff?

Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested change to "Description" section

As the Type XXI never saw combat the claim, "...made the Type XXI much more difficult to pursue and destroy." is only in theory because the design didn't have the chance to prove itself in combat in comparison to the Type VII or Type IX. Suggest editing this segment to remove statements about the Type XXI's combat effectiveness and replace them with theoretical reflection on design improvements from previous U-Boats. 99.106.36.140 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)