Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: The Mediterranean should surely not be encompassed in an article regarding the 'First Battle of the Atlantic'. User: Sanf
:I would think rather that the title may need to be changed. It is also significantly about U-boat actions in the North Sea. However, I think the theme is about ships carrying cargo to Britain from the rest of the world, which mostly means coming via the Atlantic, thus the title and historical name for the campaign to starve out britain. Much of this shipping came through the mediterranean, thus the relevance of mentioning it. The Germans, quite sensibly picked their targets where they could get them.Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already a couple of pages that deal with the naval war in the Mediterranean; I would have thought information on the submarine campaign there should be on those pages. they all need a bit of work, though. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediterranean 

message: "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 cites no sources.
80.222.17.246 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it needs is more input from these aforementioned different sources to balance out some of the sections. Get some different views on relative importance, etc. Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement suggestions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well it would seem to be based upon a piece by Greg Goebel, which is attributed to the public domain so is not copyright. Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on it? it looks like a direct lift! In which case....(Xyl 54 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this article 

message: Following the discussion in the section above, there is now a new article covering this subject at U-boat Campaign (World War I)  (courtesy of Salmanazar)
So I’ve been bold and
* deleted all the plagiarized material
* checked if anything needs merging (actually, no, it’s all pretty much already there)
* changed this page to a re-direct
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete, Merge, Re-direct