Talk:Second Happy Time

message: No sources, little wikification, and definate opinionated claims, especially towards the end with things like "Popular alarm at the sinkings was dealt with by a combination of secrecy and misleading propaganda." (And no source). 68.39.174.238 04:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

message: I would most emphatically disagree that this article is "generally accurate," as there are major mistatements of fact, such as "through the summer and the first half of autumn 1942, there were no U-boat sinkings at all." 
Gannon's book records the first sinkings of u-boats by American forces in March of 1942. Subsequent sinkings by USN personnel continued into July (pages 380-383 of the trade paperback version). I am changing that paragraph to reflect the Gannon source.
Further, the assertion that convoys were not implemented during the specified time period is also incorrect, as coastal convoys, by Gannon's book, were implemented in May, 1942. The historical record is damning enough of King and his lopsided thinking without the inaccuracies.
I would also contest the notion that the catastrophe that befell the East Coast of the US in January - August 1942 has been "surpressed" (sic). Gannon is an American historian, and the book was a national bestseller. 
--Wulfe 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, US forces did sink u-boats in early 1942. Two off Newfoundland in March, 1942 (not strictly part of the scope of this article as Second Happy Time refers to the U-boat campaign in US waters) and one off Cape Hatteras on 14 April (the first off the US East Coast in this campaign). I'm checking other details. The thrust of the article, however, is that the US was largely unprepared, ill-equipped, resisted British advice and there were huge avoidable losses in Allied merchant tonnage. This is widely supported. Folks at 137 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where that is contested. However, the article did state that the Kriegsmarine sustained no losses at the hands of US forces during the Second Happy Time, which is incorrect. The article as written also noted implementation of convoys far later than it actually occurred. The data on both German u-boat losses and implementation of convoys comes directly from the Gannon book. --Wulfe 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, no offence intended. I took your statement: "I would most emphatically disagree that this article is "generally accurate,"..." to query an important thread of the article, so I re-stated it. On the other hand, the point about no sinkings needed correction, as you pointed out (I used uboat.net as a source: I don't know the Gannon book): thanks for the prompt to dig for info. "Second Happy Time" (SHT) refers to the u-boat campaign in US waters, I believe. The 2 sinkings in March off Newfoundland, therefore, are not really part of the SHT scope, although they were by US aircraft. Folks at 137 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None taken, my friend. The Newfoundland sinkings should probably be removed. I'll take them out. I used the Gannon book as a source, and then verified through uboat.net. I would be very curious to know what the interaction was between King and Andrews during the height of Paukenschlag. King, distracted by his tunnel vision and anglophobia, did not heed British warnings and advice. I have run across a document on uboatarchive.net that attests to Andrews requesting convoys as early as February 1942 but deciding against it as the available escort vessels were too slow. That may have been a flawed decision, but it runs against the notion that USN strategists disregarded British warnings and advice out of hand. I'd need a little stronger substantiation before dropping it into the article though. --Wulfe 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaguely Correct, Definitely Innacurate

message: I make no judgements as to the accuracy of the article - I have neither the resources, nor really the inclination, to take the time to check. But the article at the very least needs cited references in order to move above Start-class. LordAmeth 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The image :Image:SS Gulfamerica.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:SS Gulfamerica.jpg

message: Inline coord templates should be supplued with the name= parameter to individually name each coord instance on the article. I'd propose a scheme like 
 name=ship sunk by U-number
Any objections? --Dschwen 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing to eliminate the date of sinking, nationality of the sunken ship, and crew losses? Thewellman (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely not. My changes won't remove anything, just add a parameter each to the coord templates. Like so --Dschwen 15:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I concur your suggestion is an improvement. Thewellman (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  coordinates should be ''name''d 

message: U-166: sunk 1 August by USCG J4F Widgeon aircraft in position [show location on an interactive map] 28°31′01″N 90°45′00″W﻿ / ﻿28.517, -90.75 in the Gulf of Mexico,[37] the only U-boat sunk in the Gulf of Mexico during World War II
The U-166 page itself disputes this story, saying that the PC escorting Robert E. Lee was responsible for the sinking.  Which one is correct?  96.247.211.87 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-166 Sinking 

message: I strongly agree with those that advocate re-naming this article to "Operation Drumbeat (Paukenschlag)" - see 'Why was it named this?' above. --TedColes (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: I've changed dates and so on into American-English (month, day, year instead of day, month and year and 'defence' into defense and so on), as I feel that this article needs it - the campaign was fought off the American east coast. 
Before anyone gets too excited, I'm British. If anyone violently objects, please change the edits (but not all of them), back.
RASAM (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: German_submarine_U-507#Summary_of_Raiding_Career
Does anyone know why those sunken ships have been ignored in this article? Thanks! MarcosPassos (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't have been included the Second Happy Time attacks on the Brazilian Coast?