# Talk:Type VII submarine

The submarine is easily visible at Google Earth coordinates: 54 24' 45"N  10 13' 44"E . I don't know how to put those coordinates into the main page to make them map-clickable.
58.168.52.243 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm thinking of turning this file Commons:file:SRH009-p58.jpg into a svg one. My problem is that the quality of the file is bad, I have found one that is bigger but it's still very hard to see all the details.
So my questions is;
- Do anyone here know of a better source image?
- If we can't find a better source image, does anyone here have the detail knowledge and can help me correcting my drafts?
Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The "inflation adjusted" figures are nonsense. They don't take account that a dollar today buys technical sophistication undreamt of in the '40s, nor do they take account that wage rates have also changed, so much that a month's pay then wouldn't buy as much as a month's now, even in constant dollars. In short, the number is misleading, not just uninformative, & WP standard or no, shouldn't be used.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In the notes: "post war; U-1057, U 1058, U 1064, U 1305 as respectively TS-14, S-81 – S-84" - four German U-Boat numbers and three Soviet numbers... 2003:A:1409:BB00:1DE3:AC98:D17F:1A0C (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 

I see two problems with this. One, the note: "in this context 'double-acting' means the same device was capable of acting as a motor, powered by battery and turning the propeller; or as a generator powered by an engine, charging the battery." It's been a while since I had my rotating machines class in engineering school and I no longer have my textbook, but a "double-acting" machine is one that has the shaft extended out both ends, so it can drive (or be driven by) other machines on both ends. In this case that would be the diesel engine on one end, and the shaft and screws on the other end.
Two, why does "double-acting" link to Motor–generator? A motor-generator is a device that has both a motor and a generator on a single shaft, often sharing a single set of field coils. The electric motor on a U-boat is certainly not a motor-generator. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The term "Double acting" is not used in context of electric machines and the link to the motor-generator is even more misleading. But there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have this copy pasted expression in them. The damage has been done. 149.200.78.205 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@StarSword: Regarding this edit summary of yours: "Besides being redundant to the first phrase of the paragraph, it's trivially incorrect to say U-995 is the only Type 7 remaining: there are multiple others, including U-505 in Chicago." First, it's not redundant. The way you have it worded now, there could be many Type VII boats, even if there is only one VIIC/41. Second, I believe it's true that there is only one surviving Type VII. The counter-example you give of U-505 is not valid, because that boat is not a Type VII. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that was my mistake. I've reverted the edit. StarSword (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type VII submarine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Klutserke (talk · contribs) 08:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Images appropriately licensed
Earwig reports 12.3% copyvio unlikely
Link North Atlantic, World War I, decommissioned, attack submarine, bow, stern, depth charge, deck casing
linked. deck casing is linked to deck ( ship), the decommissioning for ships has a redirect to commissioning so i linked that to commissioning directly.
The Type VII came in several variants, apart from four types Type VIIA, Type VIIB, Type VIIC and Type VIIC/41, which were each time improvements of the previous version, there was also a mine laying version Type VIID and a torpedo supply U-boat Type VIIF. Awkward, rephrase
Rephrased, please review
Type VII U-boat building program missing "the" at the beginning of the sentence. Eliminate the excessive use of Type VII, the reader has already been told the subject of the sentence. The rest of the sentence is too long and should probably be split
done, reworded
Better, but were commissioned needs to be replaced by "had been commissioned"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Done
Vetehinen-class Drop the hyphen. It's reserved for compound adjectives like Vetehinen-class submarine where the first word acts as an adjective to the second word which modifies the third word like an adjective.
Done
Conversely, hyphenate single hull submarine as it is a compound adjective and depth charge attacks
Done
Change electric engine to electric motor and add a link
Done, but FYI electrical engine redirects to electric motor, so i linked directly to electric motor
When transferring spare torpedoes from the external canisters to the inner torpedo room, the torpedo hatch had to opened and the U-boat was very vulnerable so this could therefore only be done in low-risk areas. awkward
Rephrased, please review
A TMA moored mine which could be laid in waters with a depth of maximum 270 m (890 ft), had a length of 3.64 m (11 ft 11 in) and each internal torpedo could be substituted by two SMA mines Split this and reword to say that two mines could be substituted for each torpedo.
Done
A more powerful gun was needed but as intermediate solution, only an improved 2 cm gun the C/38 was available. Awkward
Rephrased, please review
Add a conversion for 2 cm and spell out quadruple
Done
, but if not sufficient such mountings were available, rephrase
Rephrased, please review
but if not sufficient twin or quad mountings were available Move the "not" to between "were" and "available"
The 2 cm gun proved to be too weak, a heavier gun was needed but the existing 3.7 cm SK C/30 was not adequate and a naval version of the 3.7 cm Flak 43 was only ready for standard installation by November 1943. too long
Rephrased, please review
There were some experiments with other anti-aircraft configurations, but these were not standardized as with the arrival of the snorkel the solution to avoid aircraft was to remain submerged. rephrase
Rephrased, please review
"The alternative, a naval version of the 3.7 cm Flak 43, was not available until November 1943; it replaced the quadruple 2 cm on the lower platform." See how this reads to you--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Rephrased
Down to Subclasses, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
a beam of 5.85 m (19 ft 2 in) a draft of 4.37 m (14 ft 4 in) put an "and" between "2 in)" and "a draft"
Done
Add fuel capacity to the VIIA description
Done
Change the unit of measurement from liters to metric tons
Done
If the different electric motors in the VIIB and VIIC were essentially identical, there's no need to mention them
Rephrased
I trimmed most of this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
That's fine for me, but i was just wondering: for the diesel engines we mention the manufacturer e.g. MAN, and the name e.g. M6V40/46 , but no such info is now mentioned for the electrical engines Klutserke (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Mainly because there were only the two diesel manufacturers and four plus for the electric motors. My perception is that the electric motors differ a lot less between the builders because they're fundamentally simpler. Some sources don't even mention the builder or the model of the electric motors, just the output.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Link diving depth on first use
Done
Why did the VIIC boats have different torpedo tube configurations?
Miller mentions only shortages. From Rössler i understood it's about copper shortages but he does not make the link with torpedo tubes. Later torpedo tubes were made of steel
You need a couple of paragraphs on the operational history to justify the statement in the lede about forming the backbone of the Kriegsmarine during the Battle of the Atlantic. Some stats on the proportion of Type VIIs on patrol on a given date would be useful as would listing prominent warships/ocean liners sunk by Type VIIs. Be sure to mention that they could operate in the Indian Ocean.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
That operational history will take me more time to complete, but could you give some context about the operations in the Indian Ocean ? In Blair i only found a few patrols in 1942-43 towards South Atlantic, not going further than the Azores / Freetown at most Klutserke (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm thinking of the Type IXs, but I thought I remembered some of the C/41s operating in the Indian Ocean. I'm only concerned about finishing this before the end of the month, so you've got time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
How you doing on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I just added a first part. I intend to add more this week, relying heavily on Blair who usually distinguishes between type IX and VII in his analyses. I'm on holiday this and next week which means I have less time to 'work' but i should be able to finish by end of this week. Thanks for you patience. Klutserke (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Hoi Could you take a look at the new chapter of 'operational history' ? I've included some nbrs about type VII versus type IX, the successes against the five capital ships, and the different operationa theatres. I did not find anything about the Indian Ocean and I've tried as much as possible to focus on type VII and not try to summarize for nth time the battle of the Atlantic. If you want to conclude this month then I'v basicly tomorrow and Saturday left, thereafter I'm on holiday with limited access to internet. Klutserke (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Looks pretty good.
Spot checked cites 9, 12, 19, 23, 44, 60, 64, 81
In cite 35, page 156 is just a page of photos in the American edition, is that true in the one that you consulted?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
you're right the explanation of the c/41 starts on 155, 156 are just pics, the explanation continues on 157. I adapted the cite from 155-156 to 155-157 Klutserke (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)