Talk:Type XXI submarine

message: Can somebody explain why the Type XVII was left off the infobox?  Trekphiler 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of that! What was it? --Guinnog 05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commnets

message: Can someone with access to accurate sources please verify the dimensions given in the article? Currently it states a beam of 71ft (22m), more than many heavy cruisers, that cannot possibly be correct. uboat-net and german wikipedia state a beam of 8m, I will edit this value until someone can give a better source. Laschatzer (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was an error during infobox conversion. --Denniss (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of dimensions 

message: The conning tower of the museum ship does not rake back in the same way as the earlier photo in the infobox or the diagram.  Is this sub definitely a type XXI? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Postwar mod, see Wilhelm Bauer (U-2540) --Denniss (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This info is probably worth adding to the article, surely, especially the reason why it was changed?  Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Museum ship conning tower

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Although they are interesting, and perhaps might make a fine article on their own, what does this section have to do with this article? Nothing, as far as I can tell. None of the references claim that it was a Type XXI, the only place that appears is at the bottom of the section, and appears to have been written by someone else. I'm removing it, feel free to cut it into another article if you wish, simply hit "History". Maury (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Golfo Nuevo Sightings section entirely 

message: 202.62.126.222 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is there any particular reason that the picture of U-3008 is used in the infobox? If not, and most likely even if there is, I would think it better to change it to a picture of an XXI in wartime German configuration (e.g. original, twin-gunned, non-sloped conning tower; one tone paint scheme, no protuberances on foredeck, etc.), seeing as it is for the most part, if not almost entirely, unrepresentative of the class. This has seemed to have already caused confusion once. --Noha307 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in Infobox 

message: "In November 1946 President Harry S. Truman became the first American President to travel on a submarine when he visited U-2513; the submarine dove to 440 feet (130 m) with the President on board."
On 6 Sep 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt visited and rode on the USS Plunger SS-2 during several dives.  The Wikipedia page for the USS Plunger documents this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Plunger_(SS-2)#President_Roosevelt.27s_visit
I recommend this page be changed.  Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: President Truman was not the first president to ride in a submarine 

message: Can we change the name of the article form “Type XXI Submarine” to “XXI U-Boat”? Dawsonthechickendood (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: A user has recently changed the submerged displacement from  submerged to 2100, without changing the ref. This seems most unlikely. The difference between surface and submerged displacements is the volume of the upper works visible when surfaced. If you think that looks like 500 m^3 rather than 200 then your 'eye' is completely different to mine. 
Here's some support for the 1819 figure
http://www.uboatarchive.net/Design/DesignStudiesTypeXXI.htm
and a comment "The limited reserve buoyancy circumscribes the value of counter flooding, although this is possible when an exterior tank on one side has been damaged.  List and trim control also fail to develop the alternatives available on earlier vessels."  RB is of course directly related to the difference between submerged and surfaced displacement. Enuff?
Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submerged displacement 

message: As the Type XXI never saw combat the claim, "...made the Type XXI much more difficult to pursue and destroy." is only in theory because the design didn't have the chance to prove itself in combat in comparison to the Type VII or Type IX. Suggest editing this segment to remove statements about the Type XXI's combat effectiveness and replace them with theoretical reflection on design improvements from previous U-Boats. 99.106.36.140 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change to "Description" section