Talk:E-boat

Comment

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)

This talk of the "even larger" post-war lineage of S-boote is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the article is still inappropriately titled.

There is no doubt, nor any rational argument that can be made counter to the fact, that this article must be re-titled 'Schnellboot'.

Any arguments that this article refers to just the wartime vessels which the British referred to as 'E-boats' totally fails to recognise two essential factors weighing heavily against it:

1) The article is far too large as it is, to be dealing with the pre-war and wartime series of schnellboote, since the vessels were, as openly acknowledged much later on in the article - much later - a series of vessels, of similar characteristics but defined by their manufacturer and operator as different types (or classes) of boat; each with different dimensions, equipment, complement, displacement, powerplant, performance even. This very broad article then concludes with a 'specification' section which gives the charcteristics of one type of s-boot! It doesn't even state the type at the start of the section! What is it - an S-38? An S-100?

I wish we knew.

2) The British were just as likely to identify a German Raumbbot as an 'E-boat' when encountering them in the dark. MTB crerws were not always the most experienced, nor were they always the most reliable witnesses, sad to say. In fact, they were not always fully aware of the tactical situation in which they found themselves. - The term 'E-boat' was fudge, a catch-all term that we should not be using other than to record the fact of it being a historical pseudonym for various craft.

I really don't think I can labour this second point hard enough., but please consider the following:

Should we, as rational English-speaking Wikipedians, re-name the MFP article to 'F-lighter'? Because the Navy crews who faced them didn't have time to tell the difference between an MFP, an AFP or an MZ? Yes, let's do that; let's indulge in historical ignorance - throw away the fact that we have better information and know better - and go back to the ignorant blanket term of 'flak-lighter' because "screw what the Germans & Italians called them, after all we won the bloody war didn't we!" rather comes across as the underlying sentiment behind this misnomer retention as an article title. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:CC8D:ECA2:2547:FD1F (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How long

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)

This article should be re-rated to 'Disgrace-class'.

For it is literally appalling. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:CC8D:ECA2:2547:FD1F (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2022 (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

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

Results in combat

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

The article' section on the CRDA 60-ton described the sinking of the 9,000-ton light cruiser HMS Manchester as being "the largest victory" for MTBs in WW2. That is debatable, because the significant loss of US lives and damage caused to the LST convoy on training manoeuvres during 'Exercise Tiger' in 1944 is right up there. What is not in doubt, however, is the significance of the sheer size of Manchester in being the single largest warship by individual tonnage to be sunk by MTBs of any nation in WW2. The article has been edited accordingly. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:CC8D:ECA2:2547:FD1F (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparison

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 (that sits in the water) 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 (that rise above the water, i.e, "plane"), 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)

Please just refer to displacements if talking about the mass of these craft - quoting lengths and then talking about fullness of hull form is not especially accurate a means of comparison. Deep load displacements of the three nations' major types:

70-ft Vosper: Approx. 43 tons.

80-ft Elco: Approx. 54 tons.

115-ft S-38 type: Approx 115 tons.

So displacement of S-boots was significantly greater than that of Allied types, thanks to the aforementioned displacement-form forward hull, but the length difference was proportionately less; almost half as long again as a typical PT, but over twice the tonnage. If making such comparisons, far better to pick two models and run their stats through a calculator, then give precise percentages, or else it's just very woolly and not especially informative (and therefore of dubious encyclopaedic value in the first place). 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:CC8D:ECA2:2547:FD1F (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Eilboot

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

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

"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

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)

In around 1940 the only Royal Navy surface 'boats' were the MGB and MTB and so Enemy boats were not unnaturally termed E-boats in the same manner that enemy submarines were termed U-boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hull Material

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)

S-boat

I re-edited the entire article to show S-boats instead of E-boats and had it all deleted by epilagic because "his is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia". This is clearly ludicrous as nobody calls them E-boats today. I think there is a consensus of editors here who agree? He/she appears to be the only one of this view. I'm going to change it back and hope for common sense to prevail! Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The article title is E-boat. DO NOT simply change every internal mention of it to something else.

If you have a case to make here, then start a discussion about renaming the whole page and doing it properly. But this inconsistent change is nonsensical. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

♠Furthermore, claiming talk page consensus when nothing like it exists (nor even a majority in favor) is misleading.

♠I agree, it should remain E-boat in the text, both because of the page title and because the subject is usage at the time, not now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why other WW2 German vehicles are named for their specific German nomenclature in their respective articles' titles. "E-boat" was a brevity term, coined as a wartime measure and did not discern between correct and incorrect identifications. The excellent account "At Close Quarters" details numerous nocturnal encounters between Allied and Axis light forces in the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas during 1944 and 1945, when numerous "E-boats" are documented as being destroyed by Allied gunfire.

As we are all very well aware, there were precisely zero schnellboote in that part of the Mediterranean by the end of 1943 - they were all in the Adriatic and Aegean Seas for end of 1943 and the first half of 1944, confined exclusively to the Adriatic for the remainder of the war until the surrender (which occurred at Ancona, on the Adriatic coast).

Far more likely the "E-boats" being destroyed by USN and RN forces in this area during this period were actually things like flugbetriebsboote (flight operations boats) of the Luftwaffe, used for air-sea rescue work and even harbour defence & patrols, or some other small requisitioned motor craft in Kriegsmarine service: We cannot be certain.

The same problem arises with the US accounts of destroyer USS Rhind during her offensive patrols in 1943, when she is reported to have sunk an "E-boat" on a night when the schnellbootwaffe was not conducting operations. Rhind sank something, they called it an "E-boat"; it definitely wasn't a German MTB.

The following discussion of an FlB's wreck: https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/threads/german-torpedo-boat-in-the-stonar-cut-river-stout.51790/ - contains typical confusion regarding this matter. At various points, the boat is referred to as an "E-boat", a "torpedo boat" and even an "R-boat"... despite being absolutely identified as FlB 531 / Robin Hood / Blitz.

The same problem of not knowing what these mysterious German small boats were arose in another discussion where the Robin Hood and sister were described as "E-boats" which the author's Sea Cadet group trained on in their youth. This is a csae of a Naval organisation misidentifying an ASR boat as an MTB.

The matter of differentiation between types by use of the most correct title is a real one, and the counter-argument of clinging to the historical term based on 'historic common usage' (an enormously dubious principle, for wider reasons which ought to be very obvious), in line with 'WP policy' is absolutely getting in the way of this.

Obviously, this article needs a section on such 'phantom' E-boats or erroneous identifications, as this is clearly a historical matter, worthy of the article's title. 2A00:23C7:3108:4D01:3CC8:C030:8B7D:D218 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't this be called S-boat, since that was the owning nation's designation? E-boat, as explained in the article, was a British designation meaning "enemy boat."--Brucelucier (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Since this article is actually about the lineage of S-boot types from the 1930s to mid-1940s, it ought more properly to be titled 'Schnellboot (S1 to S100 types)'.

Although, this article has been appropriately edited to reflect the fact that the title refers to an English-language military brevity code for any small enemy armed motorboat. Thus, this article can be argued to be not actually about the pre-war & wartime lineage of Kriegsmarine Schnellboote at all; rather, this is an article about the English-language term for small armed Axis motorcraft in the European & North African Theatres of World War Two. In essence, therefore this is an article about archaic linguistics and belongs under a broader cultural / language-based categorisation, rather than being a technical article about weapons & warfare.

However, there is clearly an entire article then appended to it, which is all about the design, development and wartime use of a very distinctive series of large, fast MTBs built & operated by Germany and, latterly, Italy. It doesn't really belong in article about the English language. It should be moved to an entirely new article of its own, with the previously suggested title or something similar, other options perhaps including:

A) - Calling the new article 'Schnellboote of the Kriegsmarine', in order to make clear that it is about that specific line of boats and not about any post-war models or derivations. At that point, the Italian variants - the CRDA 60-ton MS boats can just remain under their own, already extant, article, with a link under 'See also' at the bottom of this new article. Or;

B) - Calling the new article 'Schnellboot (fast attack craft)' and then simply creating space for details of the entire post-war lineage of German fast attack craft, up to and including the Gepard class of the Bundesmarine/Deutsche marine. Or;

C) - Creating a new Category Schnellboote of the Kriegsmarine and then setting up new individual articles under this category, one for each of the different types of pre-1945 S-boot, then moving the appropriate parts of this to each one as required (It's really not that big a job). Or;

D) - Renaming this article as per 'B)' and then simply editing / deleting the first paragraph of this article, whilst also creating a disambiguation page / redirect from 'E-boat' to dispose of this archaic misnomer entirely and simply refernce the fact of the British using a catch-all term which these wartime vessels came under; perhaps putting that in the 'Wartime service' section or similar?

As I see it, not one of these options is either difficult to implement or controversial and it strikes me that one of two things has prevented this from happening til now: The obstinacy & intractability of full-time editors who don't really enjoy sharing the power of shaping this space's content with others all that much, or; the plain fact that English-language Wikipedia is too English (and thus unavoidably prone to war mythologising), or too American (in which case possibly not enough folk with the tools who really are very interested in this matter). I don't really buy the last idea at all. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D8C3:8F66:3B45:1F4D (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain which one of your options and the existing title most closely complies with WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Schnellboot (fast attack craft), because that's what we're specifically dealing with in the article. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D8C3:8F66:3B45:1F4D (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not an answer. You need to read COMMONNAME and then produce evidence from WP:RS that shows how your proposal complies with COMMONNAME. You've plastered this page with irrelevancies with no understanding of Wikipedia policy which is why you'll be ignored. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One can just as easily Anglicise that to an abbreviated 'S-boat' and that already exists on WP, but is relegated to a disambiguation page I think? I've got the 19997 reprint of the 1980 publication 'Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 on the table here; the section heading is 'S-BOATS' - and Anglicised form of 'S-boote'. So we can avoid issues of foreign-language usage.

Checked and we're already using 'R-boat' for the raumboot, while the Ju-87 article is thus named, but then opens with " "Stuka" redirects here. For other uses, see Stuka (disambiguation). The Junkers Ju 87 or Stuka (from Sturzkampfflugzeug, "dive bomber") was a German dive bomber and ground-attack aircraft." That's perfect - it's rated as a Good Article and I think it's a great example of how WP does this sort of thing. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D8C3:8F66:3B45:1F4D (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You're still not answering the point. What do English-language reliable sources (as defined by our policy) commonly call the topic of this article: "E-boat" or "Schnellboot (fast attack craft)" or "S-boat"? You need to poduce evidence for your answer. We don't go by individual editor's opinions on "what's best". We only follow English-language reliable sources usage. That's it. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair point and thank you for being more engaging this time. That's appreciated. So, although Conway's is indeed a cornerstone work, itself very frequently cited by WP and with contributors including Friedman, Campbell and Roberts (all of whom are frequently cited for their cornerstone works on WP as being reliable sources) I understand that you'll want me to go away and do some more research re; usage and sources.

That's fair and I will get back to you in due course then. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:9519:A5DB:3E54:A05F (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't go be what I say. It's all set out for you in WP:COMMONNAME. Read that closely. Anything you propose needs to comply with that. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether the article is entitled "E-boat" or "Schnellboot (fast attack craft)" or "S-boat" is less important than ensuring that there are automatic redirects from whichever forms of the name are not used, to wherever the article is actually held. I think that the English-speaking world still usually refers to these as "E-boats" (that usage may be in ignorance, but our responsibility is to cater to the enquiring reader who does not possess specialised knowledge!), so if the decision is made to re-title the article, please PLEASE ensure that the appropriate redirects are included. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible survivor used as drug smuggling vessel in 2003

I found another possible E-boat survivor from 2003, which for some reason isn't in the main article. Possible evidence can be found here.

Browhatwhyamihere (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I found a YouTube video that identifies the boat as S-56 or S-156. It has a list of sources in the description.

Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk5yQzK9vpw Implacable18 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be S-56, which was sunk in Toulon on 24 November 1943 when bombed in an American air raid (her stern was completely blown off and she was broken up there). S-156 is possible. In any case, S-56 was one of the smaller "1939" design boats (of 32.76m length (107ft 6in), built to use the 16-cylinder MB 502 diesel), rather than the 'standard' 34.94m (114ft 8in) type with 20-cylinder diesels, which included the S-156, so there is no chance of confusion. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Date discrepancies in Production data

There are several date discrepancies in the build data. Notably the units built in 1938 and 1939 have build and comissioning dates in 1940 & 1941 which are later or intermixed with dates for the newer designs built in 1940 & 1941. With only occasional citations to print material, someone with access needs to both check and search for collaborating data. Otherwise the amout of data used from the source exceeds fair use. 174.208.33.153 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)