Talk:German submarine U-505

message: As a US Navy Yeoman, I was stationed in Glenview, IL and assigned to Admiral Daniel V. Gallery's staff.  The command, known as Chief of Naval Air Reserve Training Headquarters.  My position was in the Public Information Office.  Our staff was heavily involved in the civilian publicity of moving the captured U-505 to the Museum of Science and Industry. The capture of the U-505 was actually one of the best kept secrets of World War II.  Because the US wanted to keep the capture secret, the crewmen of the U-505 were interred in a POW camp in upstate New York.  They were well treated and allowed to write letters home. However, none of their mail was ever posted.  Since it was in our interests that the German Naval Command believed the submarine to have been sunk, it was important no one in Germany ever heard from any crew member.  Thus, the Germans did not concern themselves with changing the naval codes, which they would have done had they know the U-505 was captured.  Having the codes from the U-505 helped the allies begin to control German submarine operations in the Atlantic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.242.103 (talk • contribs) 18 November 2004 (UTC)
-----
(For his part in saving the ship and her crew from almost certain destruction after their commander had abandoned them, Meyer was merely, "absolved from all blame")</br>
It probably was not a "almost certain death" situation. Unless you define every patrol as near-death-situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trublu (talk • contribs) 17 May 2005 (UTC)
:So it was all just another patrol by just another u-boat? Nothing special happened?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsduhamel (talk • contribs) 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-----
Truly doubt the surviving crewmen were buried in upstate New York. I guess that would keep them quiet, though. The article says they were help in Louisiana. Any reliable sources for the New York bit? Moioci (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *The capture of U 505 was done to capture her codebooks, which provided the Allies with the ability to read recent German codes. However, in this case it was somewhat futile as the British had already captured enough material to read the German codes.
Gallery captured U 505 mainly because he thought he could. It was neither approved nor disapproved by the Navy. It is true that the British could already read the German U boat communications but each day they had to crack the key of the day. Positional information used map coordinates that the British had not yet fully deciphered. After the capture of U 505 reading the German codes was faster and more complete.Rsduhamel 02:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose and benefit of the capture 

message: This is a pretty good article, but it only cites a single source, and yet contains a lot of anecdotes and stuff that may or may not be apocryphal.  Good article, but those interested in the topic, can you maybe find a couple more sources?  Thanks! :) --Jaysweet 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a couple of cryptography history books which cover U-505; I'll try and add a few more citations here and there. — Matt Crypto 12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article seems to be taken almost word for word from http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq91-1.htm which lists a select bibliography. Patrick Berry 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That page has, according to the Internet Archive, been around since 2000; this page was started in 2002. I was concerned about copyright infringement, but the text is probably in the public domain because the above is "an official US navy site". We should acknowledge the base for the text, though, otherwise it's plagiarism. — Matt Crypto 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {unreferenced} tag 

message: This is Gallery's claim:
:"This was the first capture of a foreign man-of-war in battle on the high seas by our Navy since June, 1815, when the American sloop-of-war "Peacock" boarded and seized the British brigantine HMS "Nautilus" in the Straits of Sunda near Singapore.
:"This statement requires explanation to meet the objections which readers familiar with naval history are sure to raise. I say "foreign enemy man-of-war," which eliminates captures by either side in our Civil War--and there were very few. I also say "on the high seas," which eliminates the Spanish ships that we raised from the bottom of Manila Bay or salvaged off the beach near Santiago. I also exclude the many German ships that were turned over to the Allies after the Germans surrendered in World Wars I and II. They were not captured in battle. So far as I have been able to find out from much research, the U-505 is indeed the first foreign enemy man-of-war captured in battle on the high seas by the U. S. Navy since 1815." -- U-505, Daniel V. Gallery, Paperback Library edition, first printing, page 8
Note that the statement in the introductory passage recites "first warship to be captured by U.S. forces on the high seas since the War of 1812."  It doesn't say "foreign", so it would incorrectly exclude the Confederate sloop I found when I added a comment here in "Talk" earlier today (which comment has been removed from some reason). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no.  See the list at the bottom.  U-110 was captured at sea, as was U-570.  Two others were taken but lost. JMOprof (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those were taken by the British Navy, so don't contradict the "first since 1815" claim, though they do seem to contradict the claim that it was "the only German submarine" taken. However, the claim is there and well documented, so at the least, it should remain as a claim, with evidence to the contrary also noted. E.g.,Gallery claimed that [t]his was the first capture of a foreign man-of-war in battle on the high seas by our Navy since June, 1815, and a plaque at the exhibit contains this claim, as well as a statement that U-505 was "the only German submarine to be boarded and captured at sea". The latter claim appears to be untrue, however, as at least two other German submarines (U-110 and U-570) were boarded and captured by the British Navy during World War II. Or something similar that acknowledges the claim while also questioning/refuting it. cmadler (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost fine by me.  While it the British Army, it's the Royal Navy.  I was told why once, but don't remember.  It's also the RAF and RMC.  Other than that, GTG. ☺  JMOprof (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Gallery's claim 

message: "The submarine was towed to Bermuda in secret, and her crew was interned at a US prisoner of war camp where they were denied access to International Red Cross visits."
I don't see a reference for this statement about Red Cross visits.  If this page is for a non-biased and factual account of what the U-505 is then please cite the source or remove it.  It doesn't make sense with the rest of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgo95 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was true and is recounted in Playing with the Enemy. I put the information back in the paragraph referenced by the book. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal viewpoint or actual fact? 

message: I notice a fairly liberal use of German officer ranks in this article, i.e. Kapitänleutnant has been shortened to "Kptlt" and Oberleutnant to "Oblt".
I can find nothing in the MoS on the subject of German ranks, (the nearest I have come is section four which starts off: Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms...). So, are the likes of "Kptlt" and Oblt" inventions? 
I'm sure there is something in the MoS about writing the rank in full on first mention, but I'm blowed if I can find it.
I think the abbreviations look rather clumsy and the full rank should always be used, but maybe thats because German ranks are involved. What do other editors think?
RASAM (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't invented. I've seen them elsewhere, not least uboat.net. (I should say, the exact form varies--Kplt, Kpnlt, or Kptlt, frex--but the actual abbrev, no. IDK what the KM standard was...) I agree, long form on 1st use, but after that, I find it a bit overkill: it's like using Lieutenant Commander every time. Personally, I have no prob with the abbrevs. (Maybe being more used to them?)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  05:20 & 05:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German officer ranks 

message: *Is it possible to identify the types of ships U-505 sank? It's usual in Blair, & I think it would be worth adding, if it's available.
*On an unrelated note, I deleted the T-25 rescue info as off-topic for U-505.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  05:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipping out 

message: Regarding this:
:This order was obeyed so promptly that scuttling was not completed, (although some valves were opened) and the engines were left running.
This makes it sound like the engines would normally be shut down for scuttling, but that's not the case. Scuttling a sub normally calls for engines ahead full, planes full dive, and hatches, vents, and sea strainer open. I would change it but I don't have the reference in front of me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines running 

message: I don't mind having the citation inline in the "cracking up" note. But I had made it a first-class cite because someone had added a "citation needed" where it had been inlined before. I suggest we change this back to the way I had it (plus Trappist's typo fix). Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was taking that as a request for the source, i.e. Blair, rather than a separate cite. IMO, adding Blair is enough.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it already said "Blair" when someone added the "citation needed." But I won't argue, I like it the way it is now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The name, but not the book, which IIRC wasn't mentioned...  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  05:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracking up note 

message: I"m not going to put the whole story here as I don't have enough authoritative information, but what I've heard of the separation of the U-505 and its periscope, and even more so its subsequent reunion, is a remarkable story that should probably be included here.
58.168.69.62 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the topic is covered well enough in the existing paragraph.  I saw the U505 in September, and the periscope is really a minor part of the exhibit.  It's not installed, rather it is encased alongside the hull.  JMOprof (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-505 Periscope. 

message: The article states that Admiral King considered court-martialling Gallery for capturing instead of sinking U-505. I find this more than a bit dubious. The reference is a book that focuses on Bletchley Park, not the U-505 story. Captain Gallery's plans were cleared by his superiors (although they thought he would never pull it off). He did not break any laws nor disobey any orders. What would Admiral King have court-martialled him for? In the end Captain Gallery received a commendation for his actions. Gallery says nothing about any opposition in any or his books on the subject (other than being told he was crazy when he revealed his plans). This one statement seems to go against everything else written about U-505. I'm considering removing it from the article. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Please take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @ , , To reply (belatedly!): In fact Clay Blair says the same in his history of the U-boat War; King was furious that Gallery had jeopardized the Enigma secret, particularly on the eve of D-Day. He was also concerned that Gallery's "overweening thirst for publicity" (p.554) would let the cat out of the bag. I've added some detail and an explanation about this, to make it less dubious. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-martialling considered 

message: The second sentence under 'Third Patrol' contains the following sentence "She sank the American ships Sea Thrush and Thomas McKean and the Colombian Roamar in the Caribbean Sea."  The table under 'Raiding History' pairs the vessel name Urious with the country 'Columbia'.  Which, if either, is correct?  At uboat.net Urious is noted as sunk by U-505; '(ROMAR)' in the same cite seems to be not a ship name, but rather an owner's group name.
--Neonorange (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction - identity of Columbia vessel sunk on 'Third Patrol' 

message: Goebeler in his book "Steel Boats" disputes the claim that U-505 "became the butt of jokes throughout the base." I wouldn't remove the claim, but maybe we should add something? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butt of jokes 

message: What't the difference between these sections? I would have thought "Bibliography" would be for works that are cited in the References, and "Further reading" would be for works that are not cited. But that doesn't seem to be how it's organized. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography vs further reading 

message: We've got this in the text: "They also stopped her engines." This is sourced to history.navy.mil, and that is what the source says. But Savas p. 153 says the engines weren't running, the sub was running on the electric motors. I suspect they mean "engines" as in "electric engines" but this would be an imprecise, misleading, and non-standard usage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines running? 

message: U-505 appears briefly in Ken Follett's (fictional) book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_the_Needle where it attempts to pick up the German spy off the coast of Scotland, but fails due to a storm.
Should this be mentioned under popular culture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.170.179 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on German submarine U-505. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330202644/http://www.ubootwaffe.net:80/ops/boat.cgi?boat=505 to http://ubootwaffe.net/ops/boat.cgi?boat=505
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My research shows some confusion on the ship or ships of the third voyage. Some sources show the ship "SV Urious" as owned by the ROAMAR company, or the SS Roamar, or both. Are we talking two ships, or one ship with some confusion as to its true name? The Wiki page Colombia during World War II shows two ships; which was the diplomats?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.48 (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ROAMAR

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on German submarine U-505. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012351/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014044320/http://hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012351/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014044320/http://hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Be aware that there are some nit-picky bibliographic issues in citing the Hans Goebeler book on the subject of U-505, Steel Boats, Iron Hearts. The book appears to have been released by Wagnerian Press in 1999 with no ISBN which is not unusual for private or self-published books. Later re-issues and publications appear to have a variant title, Steel Boat, Iron Hearts (note the change from plural Boats to singular Boat. This appears to be primarily on the cover of these later books. I made some minor fixes in the Bibliography section to this work, including a link to the OCLC record to the original Wagnerian Press edition as well as a title change; title was also changed as mentioned in the main wikipedia entry. In any case, someone wishing to acquire the original should probably be seeking the authoritative title. There might be a better way to make this clear. Heave to! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographic issues with Goebeler's ''Steel Boats, Iron Hearts'' 

message: This claim is unsourced and completely bogus, the US navy captured several enemy warships between the War of 1812 and World War Two. See for example the Battle of Antón Lizardo.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing this. I noticed that we claimed this twice, with links to two different captures, but I had not got around to investigating. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First capture since War of 1812 nonsense 

message: I’ve consolidated the information on the treatment of prisoners to one section; it didn’t belong in Awards.
I’ve also moved the stuff about prisoners being denied access to the Red Cross from the Introduction. It isn’t salient enough to be at the top of the page, and feels like someone is trying to manufacture a fault. Given the importance of maintaining the secret there’s little else that could have been done; and as the surest way to have kept the secret would have been to shoot them and dump them over the side, the actual treatment of the prisoners wasn’t unreasonable. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of prisoners 

message: Enigma (2001 film) mentions that the capture of U-505 yielded an Enigma machine (no citation given), while Enigma machine states that 2 Enigma machines were captured, now on display in Chicago. Would this be significant enough to add to the article? I am not sure how significant this capture was to the ongoing Enigma decryption work being done by the allies, perhaps others will know?? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enigma machines captured