Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Canadian military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War I task force

I have problems with the line: Had he survived the war, he likely would have been put on trial by the Allies and very possibly hanged. We should be talking about what happened - not what might have happened. That's really impossible to say.

1 HMS Aerial
2 Article length
3 Mediterranean
4 HS Asturias wasn't sunk in Jan 1915
5 Improvement suggestions
6 I like this article

[edit] HMS Aerial

The article said that "HMS Aerial sank UB-29 in the English Channel" in 1917. I couldn't find any evidence that there was an Aerial in the Royal Navy in 1917, and uboat.net names HMS Landrail as the destroyer responsible for sinking UB-29. So I changed it. Gdr 22:04, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

There was, however, an HMS Ariel (an Acheron-class destroyer, launched 1911), responsible for the sinkings of U-12 and UC-19. So maybe that's how the confusion arose. Gdr 17:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

I enjoyed reading it, but the article is much too long. The part about the Lusitania for example does not belong here, should be in its own article. I might do it myself but alas, no time today. Piet 10:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The breadth of the subject does not justify the amount of space devoted to this one incident, important though it was. The loss of RMS Lusitania is already covered in the page devoted to that ship. Kablammo 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the former Lusitania text here has now been moved to that article, courtesy of Pryaltonian. Both articles have been improved as a result. Kablammo 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediterranean

The Mediterranean should surely not be encompassed in an article regarding the 'First Battle of the Atlantic'. User: Sanf

[edit] HS Asturias wasn't sunk in Jan 1915

"In January 1915, U-20 ...... and two days later sank the hospital ship Asturias, .."

Believe this is factually incorrect. Asturias was severely damaged and grounded in March 1917, but escaped unharmed in this Jan 1915 incident

[edit] Improvement suggestions

"However, Weddigen had simply been lucky. U 9 was a small, obsolescent submarine powered by kerosene engines, not in the same league with the diesel-powered U 19 class vessels, and was of marginal combat utility. The captains of the cruisers had been careless, and it was unlikely U-9 would have caught them if they had been alert."

Luck is mentioned two times before this entry. I am hardly any expert, but can sinking of 4 cruisers in as many weeks be called just being simply lucky? As far as I understand, submarine tactics is very much based on covert attacks on unsuspecting targets, and that is what they managed to do. It was not luck or because British captains were "daydreaming", it was submarines proving themselves to be capable weapons.

The section about Q-ships seems disproportionally long. Were they really that significant?

The "Convoy system" section seems to cover a variety of topics. It introduces depth charges, hydrophones, maritime air patrols, U-boat attack on hospital ship, behaviour of some U-boat captains etc.

All in all, I find the article interesting, but it would benefit from more logical structure. Also, as mentioned in the article, it sites no sources.

80.222.17.246 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like this article

My compliments to whoever wrote it. It does have sourcing problems, unfortunately, but it jives with what I know-- and I like the writing style. Jtrainor (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)