Talk:German submarine U-853
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | German submarine U-853 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Good article nomination
editThe discussion can be found at Talk:German submarine U-853/GA1. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great dive sight
editU-853 is a great dive. I have been there 5 times now. While I have no desire to die underwater (I don't go anywhere near anything, in other words), It's probable, if not likley, that I get out there sometime this summer. I have a brand spanking new snooty underwater camera. What images would most improve this article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blast holes! If you can find them. Also, if you can find the conning tower, the periscope, any identifying marks or the insignia, those might be very interesting. I understand the water is cold, deep and murky. If you can get a good picture, that would be amazing. Jehochman Brrr 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's cold, moderatly deep and nearly always murky. The camera, however, set me back a pretty penny, and it's supposed to dominate, so it deserves a work out outside of pretty fish that I could alredy get good pictures of. I'll see what I can do. Identifing marks and the insignia are almost certainly all gone, and like I said, I'm not a fan of getting close to anything, but I'll see about the rest. I don't typically go to the floor, but if it's a particularly clear day I'll take a shot at the deeper elements, becuase if you go down to look at those for any reasonable amount of time, you spend some quality time decompressing. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An Obvious Question
editThe statement 'U-853 was the second to last U-boat sunk' raises the obvious question what was the last U-boat sunk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesally (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed this in the text; the last U-boat to be sunk was U-320, on 8 May 1945. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Removal of outdated link for citation 13 (as of this Talk edit): Peter Venoutsos. "U-853 Closes a Chapter of World War II". www.nedivenews.com.
editThe citation 'Peter Venoutsos. "U-853 Closes a Chapter of World War II". www.nedivenews.com. Retrieved 30 September 2008." Dated 23:11 30 September 2008.' The domain "www.nedivenews.com" now seems to be hosting some wierd type of soft porn content. Having unsucessfully searched for an alternate source containing another news item with this title, I now plan to remove this citation immediately. It is either a very old but unnoticed piece of vandalism or, and much more more likely, an outdated link, the linked domain probably having changed hands and been repurposed since the original citation was created. Treagle (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German submarine U-853. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710070209/http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-853.htm to http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-853.htm
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) 01:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Depth of wreck is inconsistent
edit121 feet and 130 feet are both listed as the depth of the wreck. This should be corrected with a verified source? Deusexmechanicus (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that the boat has a height of some 31 feet from keel to periscope, the depth of the wreck will depend on what part of the boat is being used for the measurement. It is often also the case that sources that appear to be reliable will disagree on things such as this. - Donald Albury 17:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's 130 feet at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:580:B7E0:101:F8C4:9DA4:89E6 (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
New article
editI don't have time for editing at the moment, but this source contains some extra details that could be added to our article:
The 75th anniversary of the sinking is this week. Additional sources may appear.
State of wreck inconsistent
editArticle states "Holes in the hull permitted access to the interior of the submarine, though they were welded shut by the United States Navy after bones were stolen from the wreck." Citation? Numerous videos online show that is not the case and penetration is widely carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B01F:2561:2859:3732:3CCA:82A9 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought this was odd too. This is a moderately popular dive site and penetration dives are made not infrequently. I see two possibilities:
1. The previous editor was mistaken. There are multiple U-boat wrecks along the east coast, and I'm sure some of them have had their hatches sealed off. While I believe it is true that bones were stolen from U-853 (there's an anecdote about it in Robert Kurson's book Shadow Divers) Perhaps the previous editor confused this wreck with another one.
2. The welding was indeed carried out, but subsequent divers removed the obstructions illegally. This type of behavior was not uncommon, especially in the 1980s and 1990s when the sealing of the hull was likely to take place. Something like this happened at Jacob's Well in Texas, where authorities installed a grate after several deaths in the cave only to find it destroyed soon after, with a taunting note left behind reading "You can't keep us out."
If anyone can find any information on this, please update the page accordingly. If not I suggest we delete this part, as there are no citations given for this potentially incorrect information.
Side note, I believe it is true that bones were stolen from U-853 (there's an anecdote about it in Robert Kurson's book Shadow Divers for anyone curious), but I have yet to find any source mentioning welded hatches or the lack thereof on this particular submarine.