Talk:Submarine pen

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

That looks good now. I made a similar change to Bremen and Kiel June 1943. Also, how about an explanation of 'WIA' and 'MIA'. I assume meaning wounded and missing in action?Wodawik (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I found this article very interesting. However, to maintain a neutral point of view, shouldn't the use of 'we ' as in 'we claim 85-20-24 Luftwaffe aircraft; we lose 8 and 62 are damaged.' be avoided? How about: 'Bomber Command claimed ...' instead.Wodawik (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaped charge bombs

Destroy submarine pens and the submarine problem in the Atlantic disappears. The thick concrete roof of a submarine pen during WW2 can be seen as similar to the armor of a tank, but on a much larger scale. A shaped charge bomb weighing 3 or 4 tonnes should punch a hole in the concrete roof, followed by a very fast and very hot stream of gases from the explosive. One bomb per aircraft. Or a kinetic round, 3 or 4 tonnes. Many bombs would be needed, but the military effort would have been worthwhile, even if only one bomb in 10 hits the target. The Tallboy appeared early 1944, and was not shaped charge, but in principle, large shaped charge bombs could have been made much earlier. Were these possibilities considered at the time? -- DavidJErskine (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming, Toulon, numbers, dates and identification

Having spent a considerable amount of time adding new content and copyediting this article, here are a few comments, in no particular order:

Most, if not all of the article is about German U-boat pens, I know of no pens in the world that were not part of the U-boat offensive; the title of the first section is German U-boat pens in World War II which might make a suitable alternative title for any new article.

I deleted 'Toulon' from the 'France' list because a) Toulon is not on the Atlantic coast and b) it appears nowhere in my reference or on Google. Indeed, I can find no mention of U-boat pens in Toulon anywhere on the internet. U-boats yes, U-boat pens no. To quote U-boat.net: "There were no bunkers in Toulon". While I am on the subject, are the entries on Toulon in the table relevant?

"...VIII Bomber Command claimed 85-20-24 Luftwaffe aircraft..." This extract, taken at random, is from the 'Whilemshaven June 11' part of the table. There are many more examples. What do these figures mean? I'm guessing that it has something to do with German casualties. Like the 'KIA', 'WIA' and 'MIA' mentioned above, it could do with an explanation at first mention.

'April 9/10 1944' and 'April 13/14 1944' also appear in the table, the trouble is: these dates are after 1945 entries. So should they be amended to 1945 or moved to 1944?

I know the RAF and USAAF acted in good faith when they bombed "U-boat pens" in places like IJuimden and Pootershaven, which, I believe, are in the Netherlands - the official records say as much, but it has been long known that U-boat pens were only built in Germay, France and Norway. So, should the table reflect this?

RASAM (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OT discussion

I removed all but the first sentence of the first paragraph of the General section, concerning the degree to which the Organisation Todt utilized forced labor. Since this is a controversial topic, as acknowledged in the removed section ("Contrary to popular belief…"), I thought that such discussion belongs in the main article on the Organisation Todt, where it would be most likely to be reviewed, discussed, and possibly revised by those with the most knowledge on the topic.Berylcloud (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWI German submarine pens in Belgium

During WWI, Germany stationed submarines in bunkers in Bruges (Nijverheidskaai, that dock ended then where it now bends to the south). Bruges was connected to the sea following existing canals to Ostend and Zeebrugge. The triangle Ostend - Bruges - Zeebrugge was very interesting for the German navy because the occupied part of Belgium was the coastline in German control which came closest to England and the Channel (the Netherlands being neutral and the coastline westward form the frontline at Nieuwpoort in allied hands). Ostend and Zeebrugge were the target of allied raids in 1918 (Zeebrugge Raid, First and Second Ostend Raid). ----Bancki (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Submarine pen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060813023721/http://www.wlhoward.com:80/id540.htm to http://www.wlhoward.com/id540.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Submarine pen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Submarine pen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

loss of U-4708

A different account of its loss is on Uboat.net https://uboat.net/flotillas/bases/kiel_bunkers.htm GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]