Talk:Type 212A submarine

message: The source from these changes is the Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 2005-2006; Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems compiled by Eric Wertheim. I do believe the changes I made to be accurate, as according to the Type 212A entry for the German Navy in this book. --Laserbeamcrossfire 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems not to be very accurate (or translation errors), see official specs here. 8 knots may be "Schleichfahrt" (silent cruise) or eco cruise. --Denniss 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possible. I'll see if I can't find some more information on the Type 212, or find an early copy of the Naval Institute Guide to compare entries. --Laserbeamcrossfire 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 138.246.7.10 makes some valid sounding points about the vessel's speed data being inaccurate, I've noticed a couple myself. The diesel engines don't run when it's too deep to snorkel, I'm assuming. If they do then all the points about it being super quiet on battery power are meaningless. (Diesel engines, being internal combustion engines, produce power via explosions in the cylinders which push pistons, that turn crankshafts, etc. which is noisy), there is also the new problem of exhaust. Expelling gas from the sub creates bubbles, which also make noise. 
:
The sub's real power comes from those engines which means in order to hit 20 knots they need to be on. I noticed another editor above mentioned snorkels not being able to withstand that kind of drag, I've heard the same. Even if a sub could travel that fast with a snorkel, it'd be easy to spot by the wake it throws up. I also noticed someone talking about RCS not applying to subs, it most certainly does and has ever since the advent of RADAR sensitive enough to detect periscopes. In this case even if the snorkel/scope had a stealthy RCS, the wake they create doesn't. Water easily reflects RADAR. For example in a night time battleship duel called the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal U.S. Fire Control Radar could detect the splashes of shells that missed to help adjust targeting. The Japanese hadn't believed in the technology as much so they had RADAR for detection but fire control was still visual using flares and spotlights.
:
I'd also contend that 20 knots is not a good definition of "high speed" for a submarine in the general sense. It might be fast for a diesel sub, but I think any nuclear boat would outrun 20 knots easily. Anynobody 06:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Technical Discussion 

message: "The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely silent and virtually undetectable."
Either it's silent or it isn't. It can't be 'extremely silent', anymore than somebody can be 'extremely alive'. I'm changing it. WikiReaderer 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, "silent" means a number of things, two of which in the submarine serivce do not mean "the absolute absence of noise". If a sub is not detectable by the equipment of another ship, sub, etc., then it is effectively "silent". Silence in this context means "It can't be found", which is an all-important trait for a submarine. Also, any submarine can go "silent" which means that all unnecessary sound is ceased. This same use of "silence", which is subject to differing degrees of quality, can be seen in the sentence, "The detective crept forward silently." It's impossible that someone moving actually isn't making any sound (unless they are in outer space).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always note that at some range active sonar can find any submarine; the above is mostly referring to passive sonar techniques. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General description 

message: This sub is comparable in size to a typical sub of late world war 2 vintage?
How do they compare in performance to a ww2 uboat?  
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like comparing an F-35 Lightning II with a Hawker Hurricane. It's also like comparing Surface-to-air (SAM) missile  with anti-aircraft flak fire. --109.192.197.21 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  question... 

message: A tactical advantage is given to small displacement vessels.  A ballast recovery can occur. A water weight change with depth stops an uncontroled descent in this modern U-boat.
Small size allows for a near vertical descent angle.  A bow plane is not required to stop the descent, only the water weight change at depth.
It is stealthy and a small vessel to worry about tactically, for the rate of descent appears the reason for small U-boats in general.
--207.69.140.35 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballast to Weight Ratio Classifies this as a Traditional U-boat

message: Gotland class submarine was the first with AIP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.64.67 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gotland class submarine 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Varotodaro.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi! The links to "Jane's Navy International" and "marine.de" don't work anymore. --Hurgh (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The infobox, as well as the general characteristics, states that test depth is 700 m. I am pretty sure that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere, and that 700 m is more or less crush depth. I believe that test depth it closer to 400 m, which is still impressive. The source allegedly saying that test depth is 700 m, is a TV-interview published in 2007 on the official webpage of the German Navy. That is a credible source, but I can not find the interview. Can anyone else find it? 
* http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/technikuniversum-die-modernsten-fuenf-u-boote-der-welt-auf-einen-blick_id_4224726.html
Kindest regards
/EriFr (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  700 m - test depth or crush depth? 

message: Someone with a wikipedia account and better grasp of the english language and the article probably shuld update the article about a Italian submarine that collides with a cargo ship:
https://www.rt.com/news/388023-italian-sub-cargo-ship-collision/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.38.217 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian submarine collides 

message: Somebody has inserted construction dates for these two submarines suggesting they were laid down in 2009/2010 and completed in 2017/2018.  This is completely impossible since the boats were only ordered in late 2017. I suspect the dates in question are vandalism. Jane's Fighting Ships 2017  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction Data for U-37 and U-38 

message: Given the recent news of the new German-Norwegian Type 212CD, which is expected to be derived from but yet considerably different to the original Type 212, should it be under the "Variants" tab or have an entirely new page altogether, or both? Td 078 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a new article would be for the best. We allready have one on NORWIKI: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212CD Znuddel (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 212CD 

message: This sentence 
"Poland announced in December 2013 they will not buy, but only lease, two U212-A's, on account of not meeting "requirements of tactical and technical equipment developed by the military, including in particular the propulsion system, missile weapons and rescue system".[8]" 
is just wrong. The 212 was not offered to the polish MoD. The source article talks about TKMS as "the builder of the 212" which they are but the german polish deal is not about 212 but rather the more generic export 214 or similar. So the sentence can be deleted since it shouldn't be in the 212 wiki article.
--178.200.140.211 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish submarine deal not about 212 

message: Regarding the Type 212 submarine class: Is the Type 212CD submarine class it's successor, or is it the Type 216 submarine class?--Znuddel (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Future submarine class: Successor?