This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck
54.6 km/h and 56 km/h in the infobox make a lot of difference in maximum speed.
The figure in the infobox and the "Design and construction" section was the correct one; I updated the figure in the lead to match. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lucky enough to have a copy of the captain's report in the sinking, from the Admiralty documents at The National Archives. Nowhere in his report or the subsequent investigation, is the word scuttling used. I appreciate that the source Feuer may use it, but it's clearly in error - why would a captain knowingly scuttle a boat with scuttling charges underneath armed depth charges at the stern, that would cause the charges to kill his crew in the water? It's nonsensical. Further, the captain's report clearly states that the torpedo holed the vessel and caused it to sink eight minutes later. I'll amend the sections as necessary unless anyone has any objections? Ranger SteveTalk11:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that might be the case! I did have a look through the history to see if I could spot such an insertion, but not that far back. Cheers Dual Freq. Ranger SteveTalk09:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My great great Uncle Thomas David Edwards died on the USS Jacob Jones https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/2174.html
This Jacob Jones is not the one that sank on Dec 6 1917. The one in the news recently was commissioned in 1916 and home based in Ireland. The Jacob Jones that my uncle went down on sank on 28 Feb 1942 off the coast of Maryland. What is the difference in the names. Was the WWII Jacob Jones names after the WWI ship? Wrick56 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]