Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)

First comment

I have problems with the line: Had he survived the war, he likely would have been put on trial by the Allies and very possibly hanged. We should be talking about what happened - not what might have happened. That's really impossible to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.165.53 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 April 2004 UTC

HMS Aerial

The article said that "HMS Aerial sank UB-29 in the English Channel" in 1917. I couldn't find any evidence that there was an Aerial in the Royal Navy in 1917, and uboat.net names HMS Landrail as the destroyer responsible for sinking UB-29. So I changed it. Gdr 22:04, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

There was, however, an HMS Ariel (an Acheron-class destroyer, launched 1911), responsible for the sinkings of U-12 and UC-19. So maybe that's how the confusion arose. Gdr 17:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Article length

I enjoyed reading it, but the article is much too long. The part about the Lusitania for example does not belong here, should be in its own article. I might do it myself but alas, no time today. Piet 10:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The breadth of the subject does not justify the amount of space devoted to this one incident, important though it was. The loss of RMS Lusitania is already covered in the page devoted to that ship. Kablammo 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the former Lusitania text here has now been moved to that article, courtesy of Pryaltonian. Both articles have been improved as a result. Kablammo 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediterranean

The Mediterranean should surely not be encompassed in an article regarding the 'First Battle of the Atlantic'. User: Sanf

I would think rather that the title may need to be changed. It is also significantly about U-boat actions in the North Sea. However, I think the theme is about ships carrying cargo to Britain from the rest of the world, which mostly means coming via the Atlantic, thus the title and historical name for the campaign to starve out britain. Much of this shipping came through the mediterranean, thus the relevance of mentioning it. The Germans, quite sensibly picked their targets where they could get them.Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are already a couple of pages that deal with the naval war in the Mediterranean; I would have thought information on the submarine campaign there should be on those pages. they all need a bit of work, though. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you though that Xyl 54, then why are you adding the Mediterranean campaign to the First Battle of the Atlantic article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

HS Asturias wasn't sunk in Jan 1915

"In January 1915, U-20 ...... and two days later sank the hospital ship Asturias, .."

Believe this is factually incorrect. Asturias was severely damaged and grounded in March 1917, but escaped unharmed in this Jan 1915 incident

Improvement suggestions

"However, Weddigen had simply been lucky. U 9 was a small, obsolescent submarine powered by kerosene engines, not in the same league with the diesel-powered U 19 class vessels, and was of marginal combat utility. The captains of the cruisers had been careless, and it was unlikely U-9 would have caught them if they had been alert."

Luck is mentioned two times before this entry. I am hardly any expert, but can sinking of 4 cruisers in as many weeks be called just being simply lucky? As far as I understand, submarine tactics is very much based on covert attacks on unsuspecting targets, and that is what they managed to do. It was not luck or because British captains were "daydreaming", it was submarines proving themselves to be capable weapons.

The section about Q-ships seems disproportionally long. Were they really that significant?

The "Convoy system" section seems to cover a variety of topics. It introduces depth charges, hydrophones, maritime air patrols, U-boat attack on hospital ship, behaviour of some U-boat captains etc.

All in all, I find the article interesting, but it would benefit from more logical structure. Also, as mentioned in the article, it cites no sources.

80.222.17.246 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What it needs is more input from these aforementioned different sources to balance out some of the sections. Get some different views on relative importance, etc. Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this article

My compliments to whoever wrote it. It does have sourcing problems, unfortunately, but it jives with what I know-- and I like the writing style. Jtrainor (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it would seem to be based upon a piece by Greg Goebel[1], which is attributed to the public domain so is not copyright. Sandpiper (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on it? it looks like a direct lift! In which case....(Xyl 54 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Well,I don't like this article

I think this article is in need of a major re-write; it's:-

• unencyclopaedic: most of it reads like an adventure novel.

• gives undue weight to a couple of incidents (Lusitania, Baralong), which already have main articles, without giving a clear overview of the course of action,

• and to a couple of features (Q-ships) without an overview of submarine warfare of the time,

• and to features that don’t belong under this title (action in the Mediterranean).

• has been tagged already for poor references and peacock terms;

• and, apparently, has been plagiarized from another website.

Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, Xyl 54. My main objection is to the rather poor section on convoy, which is both inaccurate and far too uninformative. If I had the time I would love to write a proper article on this, but I don't.

My summary of the article as it stands is that it reads like a Ladybird Books book, except that the Ladybird book would be error-free. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement as to the article reads like a Ladybird Books book, for I have just realised where this garbage came from. The U-Boats by Douglas Botting, part of a Time-Life series. Well illustrated but often full of rubbish. His is the only book in the world which mentions this alleged quote of Madden's "Wouldn't it have been fine if they had had a mine that when dropped overboard exploded when it reached the depth at which the submarine was lying?"

I've started work on a section on convoy which I will insert when finished. Needless to say it will be comprehensive and well-referenced. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've thought some more, and I'm inclined to suggest the article be deleted, and replaced entirely.

For one thing the title is wrong: "Battle of theAtlantic 1914-1918" is plain wrong; it's anachronistic (I’ve never seen it used to describe the U boat campaign in WWI), and it’s inaccurate (the action took place mainly in British coastal waters and the Mediterranean, not the Atlantic)

For another, the whole article is plagiarized; we could delete the whole text and replace it with a link to the website [2] it came from.

I'd like to give it a go, but don't want to step on any toes. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xyl 54's comments, but instead of renaming the article I suggest creating a new article under the name of U-boat Campaign (World War I), which would form an overview of all WWI's U-boat operations, and which in turn could link to Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) and Mediterranean U-boat Campaign (World War I). -Salmanazar (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So, where should we go from here?
First, the plagiarism:
Pretty much everything from the beginning of “Introduction (On 6 August 1914….) to the end of “The Last Gasp… (and apply those lessons … later) is lifted verbatim from this web page. So, can we just delete it, and replace it with an external link, or does it need to go to AfD?.
Second, a replacement:
I’m having a go at drafting a page on the "U-boat Campaign (World War I)" (as goods a title as any) using Halpern and Tarrant, mainly, which I’ll post on my sandbox; Is that OK with everyone? Or does anyone else have a burning desire to do it? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a needed article. I've made a start Salmanazar - (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't AFD it if the article ought to exist. Any editor can blank the page and replace it with anything they like: what happens next depends on whether others agree with what they do. If something is a copyright violation then the proper course is to delete everything which is a violation. The better course is to rewrite the passage so that content is preserved but the actual text is different. There is the possibility that it was posted on wikipedia by the person responsible for the web page also, so as his own work he would be entitled to post it here. Seems to happen more often than you might imagine. Or, both versions might be from somewhere else which is not copyright? For, example Corbett's WWI history is no longer copyright and I wouldn't be surprised if it is now a bit dated. Is there a previous version of the page before someone helpfully inserted the content of this website? Sandpiper (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone want to work in their own sandboxes rather than actually edit the article itself? Sandpiper (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Xyl 54, like me, can't be bothered hacking through a bloated, heavily compromised article. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm against deleting this article. It should rather be cut down from the broad overview of all U-boat operations it is right now to cover just the First Battle of the Atlantic as per its title. The removed material would be better incorporated in the overview article I proposed above. Salmanazar (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To reply:
Sandpiper, most of the article was lifted; It’s simpler to completely re-write it. I’ve deleted the plagiarized stuff and added a link (and reverted it to the previous version) to illustrate the point, if you care to look.
Salmanazar, yours looks fair enough; is it worth posting it under that title? Are you also saying we need another article to deal with the action around the British Isles, to match the Mediterranean campaign article? I’d agree with that; U boat campaign should summarize the action around Britain, in the Med, off the US coast, cover the political and technical aspects, and Atlantic U boat campaign (WWI) (For want of a better title) could cover the action there in greater detail.
And Simon, yes, it really annoys me. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the U-boat Campaign (World War I) article has been posted; as it contains all stuff from here that's original, can I be bold and change this page to a re-direct? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Does anyone want to do Atlantic U boat campaign (WWI)? I'd like to give it a go, though it might take a few weeks. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, Merge, Re-direct

Following the discussion in the section above, there is now a new article covering this subject at U-boat Campaign (World War I) (courtesy of Salmanazar)
So I’ve been bold and

• deleted all the plagiarized material
• checked if anything needs merging (actually, no, it’s all pretty much already there)
• changed this page to a re-direct

Xyl 54 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)