Talk:German Type UC I submarine

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

File:German UC-1 class submarine.jpg appears to be misidentified; it looks much more like a Type UB I than a Type UC I.[edit]

The photo for this article appears to show a Type UB I sub rather than a Type UC I. Despite the fact that the photo and the sub's identification come from the Imperial War Museum, I'm pretty sure they've got it wrong. After comparing this photo with photographs of known Type UC I and Type UB I subs, and reading about details of the two types, it seems clear to me that this is actually a Type UB I.

Commons:Category:SM UC 5 contains a few images of the Type UC I sub UC-5; the best of these for comparison purposes is Commons:File:SM UC 5 afloat.jpg, which is the only one showing the sub intact and afloat. However, some other images can be found at Oskar Myszor's Historical Handbook of World Navies site, on the page for Austro-Hungarian submarines under the section for the "'C I' type". These include:

The subs in these images closely resemble UC-5, especially as seen in the photo with it afloat. All seem rather different from the sub in the Imperial War Museum photo, which looks more like the subs in Type UB I photos. Two obvious differences are the general profile and the width and shape of the forward deck. The Type UC I has a "humpbacked" profile, while the UB I is relatively "straight-backed" in comparison. The forward deck in the Type UC I photos is relatively wide and has a slight downward slope towards the bow and visible loading hatches for the mine chutes. However, the sub in the Imperial War Museum photo has a narrow and level forward deck, with no hatches for mine chutes visible, just as this deck appears in all Type UB I sub photos showing the original non-minelayer version.

For further comparison, the Dreadnought Project has a good page on the Type UB I with several photographs; it also has photos of a nice display model built by Tom Koehl. Myszor's site also has some images, under the section for the "'B I' type ('Okarina')". Here are a few images I've selected to compare against, based on similar viewing angles:

(As an aside, be forewarned that uboat.net's Type UB I page has a plan which seems to be for the late-war minelayer version rather than the type as originally built, and their Type UC I page has a photo which also appears misidentified, since it shows an obviously different type.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how easy this will be to fix, since I'm challenging a normally reliable source without a clearly documented alternative source to offer other than my own judgments (i.e. original research). And several articles link to this image. I'm not claiming to be an expert, by the way; I've just been reading about these U-boat types recently.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that the sub seemed to be misidentified as well, but share your dilemma at how to proceed. I, too, welcome any thoughts. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least there shouldn't be any harm in changing the image used for the article to Commons:File:SM UC 5 afloat.jpg, since that image is certainly a Type UC I and shows a particular identified sub. Also it has better resolution and quality, and it shows the type pretty well. Right now that image is totally unused. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right

I’ve got access to some books with pictures of these types;

Tarrant has ones of UB 5, UC 1, UC 11, and the captured UC 5.

Furbringers autobiography has pictures of UB 16 and UB 2 (the same one as here; I don’t know if that has been re-touched!)

Janes isn’t helpful as it doesn’t have a picture of a UB boat, and the picture of a UC is the same one as here!

The difference I’d picked up on was around the conning tower; the UB I seems to have a two-tier arrangement. Also, the UB I type has more pronounced diving holes in the casing, which is where the "Ocarina" nickname came from I think.

As to what to do, replacing it would be the obvious solution, and putting a note on the image in commons saying the attribution is being queried.

We could presumably query it with the webmaster at IWM; does anyone know how to go about that?

And we should probably tell U boat net their picture is wrong...Xyl 54 (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is actually an error, the fact that Jane's UC picture is the same as the Imperial War Museum's may mean that the mistake goes back to the wartime or postwar period, rather than being a recent error. If so, it might take quite a bit of effort to get the IWM to correct their photo description, since it would require research to verify the proper identification. That's a bit beyond a webmaster's job responsibility. Still, they should be contacted, of course. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]