Talk:British E-class submarine

I don't see how it can be correct to refer to these vessels as HMS/HMAS_____, as in the links in the article. The E/AE- numbers are pennant/serial numbers. I have just moved the Australian ones to "Australian submarine AE1" and "Australian submarine AE1".Grant65 (Talk) 10:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The naming convention is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and has been discussed on the talk page. "H.M. Submarine" was not an uncommon form, see the citation for Martin Eric Nasmith and the caption for Commons:Image:HMS E11 crew photo.jpg. The Australian War Memorial uses HMAS AE2. The AE1 and AE2 articles must be getting dizzy by now, they've been moved back and forth that many times. Geoff/Gsl 11:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub?

This article might be long, but it's pretty thin. Most of it is just a list of the E-class submarines, while the only real info is in the beginning of the article.

For example, the article mentions that improvements were made to class, but not what was improved, or how.

I'm not certain of the rules for a stub though (and too lazy right now to look them up), so if any of you agree with me that this should be a stub article, feel free to add the correct template.--Wolf of Thor (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Identification issue outside my expertise

The Seawar Museum in Jutland has a conning tower that they identify as belonging to E-50, which they describe as being lost on 31 January 1916 after hitting a mine. E50 had apparently not been launched by then, and this article on the class has no vessel lost on that day. Here is a link to the Danish website (in English), with a picture of the conning tower: http://www.seawarmuseum.dk/en/U-50-forside-historie Acad Ronin (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy between text and model

The image of the model of the E-class submarine appears to show two guns (one forward, one aft), but the text describes only one gun implemented, and only for Groups 2 and 3. I looked at images for all E-class subs and found no aft guns for any. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Performance/History

Considering the final disposition of each of the boats in this class of submarine, I can't say I would call this fleet of British subs "successful". Many were sunk or destroyed or otherwise lost. Ships destroyed or tonnage lost to adversaries is missing in most cases. Compared to the German sub force, IMO this E-class was a failure. I'm not a historian, but I gather this from just reading the WP articles of the history of each boat deployed of this series. I'd rather hear more from others more familiar with this series on the issue of performance versus their adversaries. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)