Talk:Type XXIII submarine

message: This page seems very similar to http://uboat.net/types/xxiii.htm ...
:The matching content is from long-time contributor User:The Epopt, and represented by him as original, so odds are that either he contributed to both places, or that uboat.net lifted from WP. Relative timing suggests the former, but you could always just ask him. Stan 17:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Regarding the phrase "None of the six operational Type XXIIIs—U-2321, U-2322, U-2324, U-2326, U-2329 and U-2336—were sunk by the Allies":
Some of the individual articles on boats that were sunk don't seem to support their being 'not operational'—U-2323 and U-2342 had been commissioned weeks/months prior to sinking, and U-2323 was sunk 'on her maiden voyage', while U-2342 was sunk while traveling in convoy. U-2359 and U-2338 don't have wiki articles yet, but were apparently both sunk while out with their training flotillas. Clearly none of these were sunk while under construction. Are there sources that support deeming these boats 'not operational'? Maralia (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By operational it means on patrol i think. Med (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No operational XXIIIs sunk by Allies? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The article states: "but they sank or damaged five ships for a total of 14,601 tons." However, only four are mentioned: Egholm, Gasray, Sneland and Avondale Park. My source (Rössler) suggests there was only the four for a total of 7392 BRT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.178 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many ships sunk? 

message: There seems to be some serious problems with losses section. While the descriptions are somewhat inconsistent and poorly worded in places, I would contest some of the details therein as well. Examples:
U-2351 is claimed to have been paid-off following bomb damage. This cannot be correct, as this boat sailed from Wilhelmshaven to Lisahally in June 1945 and was sunk during Operation Deadlight. Ref: http://uboat.net/fates/deadlight_elektro.htm
U-2367 is claimed to have been rammed by an unidentified U-boat. However, according to Deutsche U-boote 1939-1945, it was scuttled as part of Aktion Regenbogen.
Missing from the list is U-2340, which was sunk in port during a British air-raid. http://www.uboat.net/boats/u2340.htm
I am not an expert, so I cannot say one way or the other, but U-2365 was scuttled in Kattegat. Some sources (e.g. Deutsche U-boote 1939-1945) suggest this action was as a result of severe damage from British aircraft. Other sources (e.g. uboat.net) say that this was not the case.
In any case, I think the losses section is, at the moment, unreliable and needs some serious work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.178 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losses 

message: I've changed the claim here that the Type XXIII U-boat was "faster than all previous designs worldwide", because it is arrant nonsense.</br> 
The Type XXIII was operational in 1944 and had a submerged speed of 12.5knots; even the British R-class submarines of 1918 could do 14kn submerged. In WWII the German Type XXI could do 17kn submerged; the  Japanese Ko-hyoteki of 1940 could do 19kn, while the experimental No.71 could do 23kn, and was designed (with DB engines) for 25kn submerged (even the production type STS in 1944 could do 13kn, still better than the Type XXIII. The British HMS Seraph, which was a conventional S-class submarine re-designated as a high-speed underwater target, could match the Type XXI and XXIII performance after a 3 month re-fit.</br>
The electroboats were impressive, but the technology was nothing out of the ordinary; they were designed for high underwater speed because they needed it to survive, and the designers made trade-offs accordingly. The Type XXIII was the same size as the Type II of 1938, but whereas the Type II had 3 torpedo tubes, and carried 5 torpedoes, the Type XXIII had room only for 2, loaded externally. The Type XXI, which had the same hitting power as the Type IX, had to be nearly twice the size, to accommodate the extra batteries. So lets not make too big a thing of them, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous claim 

message: Looking at the impressive list of submarines, each of these has its own page.  And while the content on each page is perfectly fine and looks well-written, the pages appear mostly identical.  Only a few specific details differ between the pages, with perhaps a few containing a little more detail in the service history.
I see that pretty much all this content is already there over at List of German Type XXIII submarines.  Perhaps we should have separate pages just for those submarines which were especially noteworthy?  Chumpih. (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  63 near-identical pages?