# Talk:German submarine U-47 (1938)

Gunther Prien and his men are very brave to have attempted this raid.
Fighterforfreedom 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 

Please do not feed the trolls. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How did they manage to get past the patrols, and sunken ships in Scapa Flow?  Then get back out?
El benderson 17:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't easy. Xyl 54 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
PS try here for a full account. Xyl 54 12:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states: To date, there is no record of what happened to the U-47 or her 45 crewmen, though a variety of possibilities exist, including mines, a mechanical failure, a victim of her own torpedoes or possibly a later attack that didn't confirm any kills - by the corvette team of HMS Camellia and HMS Arbutus.
This is contradicted by Dan van der Vat's Atlantic Campaign - Page 169 - US Edition ISBN 0060159677 Harper & Row, Publishers, saying clearly that U-47 was sunk near Iceland on May 8, 1947 by HMS Wolverine and HMS Verity Alex Feldstein 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reword the article to be clear there is no official record. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Dan van der Vat's book reflects the commonly held view; however, more recent books, such as Kemp (U-boats Destroyed (1997)) and Neistle (German U-Boat Losses (1998)) suggest that the boat attacked by HMS Wolverine was U-A, not U-47, and that the cause of U-47's loss is unknown. Xyl 54 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the information below with the table, but it still has convoy details for people who might want to write about U-47's operations, so I've moved it below


#### Warships
Confirmed kills by the U-47 included

Arandora Star
HMS Royal Oak


#### Convoy Ships
Balmoralwood - HX48
Conch - HX90
Elmbank - HX72
La Estancia - HX79
Shirak - HX79
Wandby - HX79
Whitford Point - HX79
Bilderdijk - HX79

Image:U47logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section because Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not list full casualty reports for other battles, engagements or conflicts. 
There is a discussion about this (ironically, on the Royal Oak talk page) Xyl 54 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:U-47atScapaFlow.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:U47logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:CrewofU-47.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you detonate a torpedo that is missing its warhead? Rees11 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the 8.8cm gun should be converted as "8.8 cm (3.5 in) deck gun". Nobody would ever call this a "3.46 inch gun", they would call it a "three and a half inch gun". And I wouldn't convert the 2cm gun at all. You might call a 12.5mm a "fifty caliber" but a 2cm is always called a "20mm", not a "79 caliber". Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The conversion should merely serves as an indicator for dimensions for users not familiar with one or the other unit of measurement. Anyone familiar with the metric system, however, knows that 2cm are 20mm, but German gun nomenclature was in centimetres at the time.  Now, 3.5″ may be sufficiently precise for non-metrics, but per definition, mm is a metric unit, so it is no good. We may use cm as given in the sources, or mm, but either should be converted into inches - or rather fractions of inches. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The article contains a number of citations to the www.u47.org web site, which appears to be a fan page and non RS. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: We probably shouldn't let the tag languish forever. What do you propose to do? I looked it over and it's definitely a fan site. It seems well researched and I don't think he has an agenda. But there doesn't seem to be any editorial oversight. There is actually only one section of the article that is based heavily on u47.org, but it's an important one: Sinking of HMS Royal Oak. Re-writing (or re-sourcing) should be possible, but not trivial. What would you think of moving the tag down to that section? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman/Kendall-K1: Couldn't you just use some of the references from HMS Royal Oak (08)#Sinking? That's an FA, so its sources should be good. —howcheng  {chat} 16:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article says "Postwar assessment showed that the boat attacked there was UA, part of the foreign U-Boat corps." but the article German submarine UA (1939) says that U-boat was scuttled in May 1945. I have tagged both articles accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Resolved Lyndaship (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we mention the disappearance in the lead section? Seems a little odd that the sub's fate isn't stated there. 89.243.171.224 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it, revisions welcome. 89.243.171.224 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)