Talk:Type UB III submarine

message: Has anyone Proofread the article because I strongly believe that this article is incomplete. I mean just read the article, it's confusing.
Take this paragraph for example:
  
    "UB III boats carried 10 torpedoes and were usually armed with either an 8.8 cm (3.5 in) or a 10.5 cm (4.1 in) deck gun. They carried a crew of 34 and had a cruising range of 7,120–9,090 nautical miles (13,190–16,830 km; 8,190–10,460 mi). Between 1916 and 1918, 96 were built." 
Now lets compare this paragraph with the class overview:  
  "Built:               1916–1918"
  "In commission:	1917–1935"
  "Building:	        145"
  "Planned:	        201"
  "Completed:      	95"
  "Cancelled:    	56"
  "Lost:        	37"                     
See that? the Class Overview says that there were a total of 95 Type UB III's built, but the paragraph says that there were a total of 96 Type UB III's built. Now thats confusing, you have two different numbers! The paragraph say one thing and the overview says a different thing. Also, I don't think that 95 Type UB-III submarines, were completed, because I counted the List of Type UB III submarines, and I also did the math in my head, and what I ended up with was a number that was greater than 95, 107 to be precise. Someone didn't do the math right or, someone forgot what number that they ended up with. SM UB-155 (Last Type UB-III submarine) SM UB-48 (First Type UB-III submarine) 155-48 = 107.  
    
Speaking of this article, Next paragraph that should be considered to be rewritten is paragraph number 2. So here is paragraph number 2:
    "The UB III type coastal submarine, despite being a submersible torpedo boat was less akin to UB-II type "attack" (i.e. torpedo-launching) boats that preceded it than the highly successful UC-II type minelaying submarine. The UC-IIs had gained their fearsome reputation by sinking more than 1,800 Allied and neutral vessels.[2] German engineers did not miss the chance of expanding the potential of this capable design by incorporating some of its features into a new submersible torpedo boat."
REMEMBER This article is about the Type UB III Submarine NOT the Type UB II submarine.  
I think this one is self-explanatory. Yes the Type UB III's have some of the features of the Type UB II-class submarines. Why does the first sentence say: "...than the highly successful UC-II type minelaying submarine." I don't know. I think that there should be words added to this paragraph, to make it, more better. Like changing "The UB III type coastal submarine, despite being a submersible torpedo boat was less akin to UB-II type "attack" (i.e. torpedo-launching) boats that preceded it than the highly successful UC-II type minelaying submarine." to this "The Type UB III coastal submarine, despite being a submersible torpedo boat was less akin to Type UB-II "attack" (i.e. torpedo-launching) submarine that preceded it than the highly successful Type UC-II minelaying submarine." 
I am just giving suggestions and my thoughts about this article. And also what should be added is more information. You know what? I've had enough of the Type UB-III submarine,now go be someone else's problem.  
 
--FPS James Bond 007 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article incomplete