|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-boat article.|
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
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 18.104.22.168 (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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
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
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
Spain, buy 6 S38 and construct another 6 under license (and use prototypes in spanish civil war)
the 3 last, was active to 1970
Results in combat
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.
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)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk)
- 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)
"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. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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...