Talk:German submarine U-853

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 17:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles 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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

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

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

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

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

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good article nomination

The discussion can be found at Talk:German submarine U-853/GA1. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great dive sight

U-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An Obvious Question

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

The 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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello 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)[reply]

Depth of wreck is inconsistent

121 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New article

I don't have time for editing at the moment, but this source contains some extra details that could be added to our article:

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20200430/world-war-ii-was-almost-over-but-off-ri-german-submarine-captain-continued-to-prowl-result-75-years-ago-was-battle-of-point-judith

The 75th anniversary of the sinking is this week. Additional sources may appear.

Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State of wreck inconsistent

Article 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)[reply]

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.

Dibromoindigo (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

German submarine U-853

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited statements, mostly in the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cn tags where relevant, and gone ahead and removed most of the legacy section. It dealt with the post-war history of USS Atherton, which is completely irrelevant to U-853. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not easily verify the remaining statement, and it seemed to be of low importance to the article. If somebody wants to research the question of what happened to the propellers and write it up, they could. On balance, such low importance, unverified information is best removed. Jehochman ^Talk

Here's a source, that perhaps might be sufficient to restore that content about the propellers. [1] What do you all think? Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant NHHC article here covers the propeller point. As a 2020 publication, it might be useful in filling in other gaps in the article as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Although now that I look at it, the wording for U-853's part seems distressingly similar to your writing of twelve years earlier! What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited armament section was added in 2016, by an editor who hasn't edited in many years. It appears to be giving details of a rearmament carried out after completion of construction, but (1) doesn't really fit as a standalone section so should be integrated into the design section, and (2) badly needs sources that can pin this specific upgrade to the submarine in question - while U-853 will have been re-armed (an increased anti-aircraft armament was required for operational use) there appear to have been several different options for this upgunning.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that for at least some of the book sources (i.e. Due to enemy action... and The greatest submarine stories ever told, the publisher claimed for the edition cited does not match that for the ISBN according to Worldcat - this may indicate a need to check sources more closely.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]