Talk:E-boat

message: I'm curious, I think it would be a good fact to add to the page if someone knows it.
--Flibble 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How large a crew

message: Spain, buy 6 S38 and construct another 6 under license (and use prototypes in spanish civil war)
the 3 last, was active to 1970
--217.15.37.231 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain use S38

message: The article doesn't shows, the results in combat for this type of boat.Agre22 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article' section on the CRDA 60-ton described the sinking of the 9,000-ton light cruiser HMS Manchester as being "the largest victory" for MTBs in WW2. That is debatable, because the significant loss of US lives and damage caused to the LST convoy on training manoeuvres during 'Exercise Tiger' in 1944 is right up there. What is not in doubt, however, is the significance of the sheer size of Manchester in being the single largest warship by individual tonnage to be sunk by MTBs of any nation in WW2. The article has been edited accordingly. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:CC8D:ECA2:2547:FD1F (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Results in combat

message: I see that there are references for this opinion, but "Eilboot" was never used by the germans. So I severely doupt this explanation. I would remove this from the introduction.--WerWil (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eilboot 

message: Why isn' there any mention of the various classes of pos-WW2 Schnellboote? This article is just another example of the pathetic and paranoid Anglo-Saxon obsession with WW2 and their total ignorance of all later developments. --Reibeisen 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's because the post war S-Boote are not commonly known as E-Boats as the lemma ist. The post war boats simply don't belong here.--WerWil (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-war Schnellboote 

message: "There is just one surviving E-boat identified as S-130, not two as previously stated." Strange to have that kind of a remark in a Wikipedia article. If there was a mistake earlier, which was then removed, there is no reason to maintain a separate correction of that. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange remark 

message: It seems strange to me to use under the lemma E-boat constantly the term S-boat. I could see it if we decide to name the child S-Boot - following the origin - but S-boat? Was this commonly used in english?--WerWil (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Allied or British designation of what was officially called an S-Boot (for Schnellboot) as the "E-boat" is confusing. The reason for this designation, if indeed it's considered the official English term, ought to be more authoritatively explained and documented. Sca (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In around 1940 the only Royal Navy surface 'boats' were the MGB and MTB and so Enemy boats were not unnaturally termed E-boats in the same manner that enemy submarines were termed U-boats.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: S-boat

message: The S-boat was a very fast vessel, able to cruise at 40 or 50 knots (46-58 mph), and its
 <U>wooden hull</U> meant it could cross magnetic minefields unharmed.
but the page for Oheka_II says:
 In November 1929, Lürssen was given a contract to build a boat to the same basic design
 as Oheka II, but <U>all metal</U> with two torpedo tubes on the forecastle...
The entries are in all liklihood correct, but thoroughly confusing. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull Material 

message: I found another possible E-boat survivor from 2003, which for some reason isn't in the main article. Possible evidence can be found here.
Browhatwhyamihere (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot be S-56, which was sunk in Toulon on 24 November 1943 when bombed in an American air raid (her stern was completely blown off and she was broken up there). S-156 is possible. In any case, S-56 was one of the smaller "1939" design boats (of 32.76m length (107ft 6in), built to use the 16-cylinder MB 502 diesel), rather than the 'standard' 34.94m (114ft 8in) type with 20-cylinder diesels, which included the S-156, so there is no chance of confusion. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible survivor used as drug smuggling vessel in 2003

message: There are several date discrepancies in the build data. Notably the units built in 1938 and 1939 have build and comissioning dates in 1940 & 1941 which are later or intermixed with dates for the newer designs built in 1940 & 1941. With only occasional citations to print material, someone with access needs to both check and search for collaborating data. Otherwise the amout of data used from the source exceeds fair use. 174.208.33.153 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancies in Production data