Jump to content

Talk:HMS Sahib

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

AFFONDAMENTO DEL SOMMERGIBILE BRITANNICO SAHIB

Uscì da Algeri il 16 aprile 1943 per operare a nord dello Stretto di Messina. Il giorno 22 il "Sahib" (tenente di vascello John Henry Bromage) attaccò col cannone il rimorchiatore italiano "Valente" (ex francese "Michel Venture") che, con una bettolina a rimorchio, si trovava a 5 miglia a sud di Capo Vaticano. Due giorni più tardi, alle 06.00 del 24 aprile, il sommergibile lanciò i siluri contro un convoglio italiano al largo di Punta Milazzo affondando l’unico piroscafo, il "Galiola", che era scortato dalle torpediniere "Climene" e "Angelo Bassini" e dalle corvette "Gabbiano" e "Euterpe". Il "Bassini" andò subito in soccorso del piroscafo, che colpito da un siluro a dritta affondò in cinque minuti, e ne recuperò i naufraghi. Al momento dell’attacco del "Sahib", la corvetta "Gabbian"o, avendo visto un siluro passargli vicino, risalì la scia dell’arma seguita dall’"Euterpe". Alle 06.27 il "Gabbiano" (tenente di vascello Nilo Foresi) prese un chiaro contatto con l’ecogoniometro e sei minuti più tardi cominciò a lanciare bombe di profondità. In totale ne sganciò ventuno, che procurarono danni al sommergibile. Anche due aerei di scorta tedeschi Ju 88, appartenenti al 2° Gruppo del 1° Stormo Sperimentale (II./L.G.1), attaccarono il "Sahib" sganciando due bombe che scoppiarono alla superficie del mare. Subito dopo, alle 06.37, l’"Euterpe" (capitano di corvetta Antonio March) prendeva contatto e lanciava in cinque salve trenta bombe di profondità. Esse risultarono fatali al sommergibile che, gravemente danneggiato, emergeva fortemente appoppato. Le due corvette, imitate dai due aerei, aprirono il fuoco con i cannoni e le mitragliere, e il "Sahib", dopo un tentativo di difesa subito dissuaso dal tiro intimidatorio delle unità italiane, fu abbandonato. Alle 06.59 affondava rapidamente di poppa in lat. 38°20’N, long. 15°11’E. Le unità italiane recuperarono quarantasei uomini del sommergibile sui quarantasette che componevano l’equipaggio. Si salvarono anche il comandante Bromate e cinque suoi ufficiali. Tuttavia, uno dei superstiti, che era ferito, decedette il 3 maggio.

Francesco MATTESINI

Roma, 5 ottobre 2013

Fonte; "Cronologia delle perdite subite in Mediterraneo dalle Marine delle nazioni Alleate durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale", Parte prima (prosecuzione): "Unità operanti sotto il controllo britannico", SOMMERGIBILI, Bollettino d'Archiviodell'Ufficio Storico della Marina Militarem Roma, dicembre 2001. Revisionato dall'Autore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.224.138 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Sahib (P212). 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) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Sahib/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 14:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Giving a look. —Ed!(talk) 14:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Not Yet
    • There's a relative reliance on Uboat.net which leads to an under-detailing of some parts. Some additional sourced I've found to add:
    [1] adds more detail to war patrols;
    • Only two pages mention Sahib during her war period, one of which is probably and error: on 1 July 1943, Sahib was already sunk and thus could not land commands in Sardinia. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] notes the crew was commended for sinking U-301
    This book has more details on the sinking per above comment: [3]
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Not Yet
    • The infobox data on ship speed is inconsistent with the speed data in the prose.
    • Prose also mentions mines, if they could be added to armament in the infobox.
    • As said in a previous review, the expendable armament such as the number of torpedoes, mines, shells, and machine gun rounds is generally not mentioned in the infobox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her namesake should be mentioned.
    • The "Malta" section needs to be expanded with the aftermath of the sinking of the Scillin and its aftermath, as it's an incident that will likely drive a lot of non-Naval historian traffic to the article. That page has some details for a start, but talk about the inquiry of the captain and the subsequent secrecy of the event.
    • Sounds good, I think you've got what we can get on that part for now. Would be glad to see it expanded some day but the sources have to be there, and I think this is plenty for GA. —Ed!(talk) 00:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Algiers" section: Since Finale, Italy doesn't have a link, is there somewhere close to it that can be linked?
    • Any other commanders than the one listed when the ship was launched?
    • Last patrol: What was the effect of the depth charges? What on the ship was damaged to cause it to be forced to surface?
    • How many of the crew returned home after the war?
    • Where's the wreck? Has it been located?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass No problems there, though per above more diversity of referencing needed.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass Images tagged PD as appropriate.
  7. Other:
    On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so all of the additions are bringing it in line with the GA criteria, I'm thinking. Going to Pass at this point. Thanks for your responsiveness! —Ed!(talk) 00:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

[edit]

As I drove by I noticed that the long footnotes were templated and had "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAkermann2002." etc so changed the inline cites to sfn's. Being at work I couldn't check my book sources to avoid interweb sources or long footnote them to be compatible with sfns and left it as a work in progress. I should have asked here first but I've got used to re-writing derelict articles and didn't bother, for which I owe the other editors an apology. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the sfn template gives the best short footnote result for the reader. I am puzzled that Sturmvogel 66 states that their priority is for readability and yet does not like the sfn template. Perhaps I have misunderstood. All reference methods have their pros and cons, but I find the simple short footnotes particularly irritating as you have to hop about the article to work out which reference is being used (especially if one author has published several of the refs). The "hover to see full ref" capability of the sfn template avoids this problem. It also keeps the page numbers or other location identifiers out of the text, which can be important if several pages need to be listed to cover the content of a short paragraph. The sfn template is more work for the editor if adding new references, but that is not a reader-focussed consideration. (But explains why it is not my first choice method as an editor.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we get attached to a style; I find some of them incomprehensible. Style harvnb seems to me to be elaboration for its own sake but each to his own. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also agree with Retired that sfn's are more work for the editor, which is my primary consideration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are several page numbers in a paragraph I put them in the same sfn at the end of the para; if there are intervening sfns I copy and paste. It doesn't seem like extra work to me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Sahib&oldid=1227697254"