Talk:E-boat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Comment[edit]

The correct name was s boats, and this page should be renamed! Unless we use foreign mis-names for english language things too... 13:40, 23 April 2006 User:SpookyMulder

agree, the German's used the term Scnellboote, which is what the artical schould be titled with a rederect from "E-boat"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.230.38 (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

S-Boote. But what lemma would one search for?--WerWil 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Schnellboote of the post-war era and today? -- Reibeisen 21:23, 28 March 2007

The modern Schnelleboote is not a small, principally torpedo-armed fast attack vessel; it is a destroyer and hence does not share fundamental physical characteristics with the vessel described in the article. 72.70.254.236 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact the german navy invented even bigger S-Boote on basis of the war types. The last Flottilla of six such vessels is still in service. --WerWil (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How long[edit]

S-26 class: Entered service in 1940. 40-metre (= 131.23 feet) hull.

Specification Length: 34.9 m = 114.5 feet

Quite a difference, in the same article. GrahamBould 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How large a crew[edit]

I'm curious, I think it would be a good fact to add to the page if someone knows it.

--Flibble 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to MoRsE for adding it.

Spain use S38[edit]

Spain, buy 6 S38 and construct another 6 under license (and use prototypes in spanish civil war)

the 3 last, was active to 1970

--217.15.37.231 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Results in combat[edit]

The article doesn't shows, the results in combat for this type of boat.Agre22 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)agre22

Comparison[edit]

The S-boot was much larger than the American PT boat and about a quarter bigger than the earlier versions of the British Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB).

Very strange comparision. The US and GB MTB were of fairly the same size, with around 20 m in length and a displacement of about 40-50 tons. The german S-Boote were 30-35 m long, whith a Displacement of 80-100 t. I can hardly see any quarter here. The german Boats hat about twice the displacement of the allied boats.--WerWil (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The S-boots had a displacement hull and for high speed a long hull-length is necessary for this type of hull. In contrast, the British MTB's and their American PT derivatives employed planing hulls, which partially rise up out of the water at speed, - see image - reducing the hull wetted area, so generating less hull drag than when at rest. So a displacement hull like used in the S-boot needed to be longer than an equivalent MTB to allow the same high speed.
Royal Navy World War II MTB planing at speed on calm water showing its Hard chine hull - note how most of the forepart of the boat is out of the water

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Eilboot[edit]

I see that there are references for this opinion, but "Eilboot" was never used by the germans. So I severely doupt this explanation. I would remove this from the introduction.--WerWil (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-war Schnellboote[edit]

Why isn' there any mention of the various classes of pos-WW2 Schnellboote? This article is just another example of the pathetic and paranoid Anglo-Saxon obsession with WW2 and their total ignorance of all later developments. --Reibeisen 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.41.173 (talk)

Because nobody has yet written about such later-developments? Why not be the one to enlighten us? 81.132.57.143 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Al

I guess it's because the post war S-Boote are not commonly known as E-Boats as the lemma ist. The post war boats simply don't belong here.--WerWil (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange remark[edit]

"There is just one surviving E-boat identified as S-130, not two as previously stated." Strange to have that kind of a remark in a Wikipedia article. If there was a mistake earlier, which was then removed, there is no reason to maintain a separate correction of that. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

S-boat[edit]

It seems strange to me to use under the lemma E-boat constantly the term S-boat. I could see it if we decide to name the child S-Boot - following the origin - but S-boat? Was this commonly used in english?--WerWil (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Allied or British designation of what was officially called an S-Boot (for Schnellboot) as the "E-boat" is confusing. The reason for this designation, if indeed it's considered the official English term, ought to be more authoritatively explained and documented. Sca (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hull Material[edit]

The S-boat was a very fast vessel, able to cruise at 40 or 50 knots (46-58 mph), and its
wooden hull meant it could cross magnetic minefields unharmed.

but the page for Oheka_II says:

In November 1929, Lürssen was given a contract to build a boat to the same basic design
as Oheka II, but all metal with two torpedo tubes on the forecastle...

The entries are in all liklihood correct, but thoroughly confusing. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)