Talk:Bismarck class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bismarck class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

I made some heavy modifications and tried to get this as wikified as possible. I'm sure it still needs a little work done though. There was a bit of point of view material that I attempted to neutralize, but there may be some of that floating around as well.

The original version of the article also had this note about halfway through the article:

*Note* To simplify the text, the Bismarck Class of battleship (two vessels) will simply be called "Bismarck" henceforth.

To avoid confusion between the class of ship and the actual battleship, I deleted this and reworded the entire article where it said "Bismarck" to say "Bismarck class".--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:12, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

---

There were some obvious mistakes in the text:

– Prince of Wales had no 8 inch guns and did not participate in the final engagement

- Calibers of secondary and AA-Battery were wrong

Nevfennas 19:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not doubting this information, but could you please provide some evidence of this. I've got no clue one way or the other, would just like to verify. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

On the Prince of Wales: Take http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_072200_hmsprinceofw.htm as one example. But nearly every page dealing with the King Geoge V class of 1939 will confirm it's armament as ten 14 inch heavy artillery, sixteen 5,25 inch dual purpose secondarys plus additional flak.

Same on Bismarck http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_012000_bismarck.htm . On all German capital warships the 6 inch gun was used as secondary and the heaviest AA-Gun was the 4 inch (105mm) twin-mount Nevfennas 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Looks good. Thanks. Was just curious.--ScottyBoy900Q 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Was the Tirpitz really involved in 'Operation_Rösselsprung'? That sounds like a infantry/paratroop assault... inland. Deep.... inland. At least from the Baltic. If the Tirpitz had ever made it out of the waters north of Germany, we'd have heard a lot more about it.

Yes, Tirpitz was involved. That 'Operation_Rösselsprung' was the aborted attempt to attack the convoy PQ17, not to be confused with the linked 'Operation_Rösselsprung'. Nevfennas 05:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things may probably be added: link to Bismark, the person and link to what HMS is. Stan 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

One thing struck me when reading the article for assessment... What was the "curious oversight in the design of the Bismarck's AA gun directors"? -- Medains 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article comparing the quality of German ship-design during WWI and WWII. The AA gun directors are mentioned as being an overly complex and overloaded design, which probably was the origin of the problem. No idea however about the specific overlooked detail. --Nevfennas 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It perhaps refers to the old story (I beleive something close to an urban legend) that the Swordfish were too slow to be targeted, that the Bismark's AA directors didn't have a setting low enough for them. I'm pretty sure the story is false, but it is a common one.

I agree. Since torpedoes are launched more or less at the target the closing speed of the a/c is relatively unimportant in the firing solution. If you want a detailed discussion of the faults with the AA system try www.kbismarck.com/AVKS-700.zip Recent discussion on warships1 suggests it is is as simple that the attack occurred around nightfall. The Swordfishes had radar, so they were OK, whereas the AA gun crews would have been blinded by their own flashes and would not have been able to see the a/c. Sounds pretty likely to me. Greglocock 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I serioulsy doubt that Swordfishs were equipped with radar in early 1941. Nevfennas 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, you need to read some serious books. Or visit www.warships1.com and read the discussion on Bis and swordfishes. Greglocock 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stumbled over this [page]. Mark III had Radar, but was only used from 1943 on. And as all swordfishs that attacked Bismarck carried torpedos, this would rule out radar. Nevfennas 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All but one of 825 Squadron's aircraft nine aircraft (Victorious) were "new" ASV equipped Swordfish. Interestingly, the one aircraft that did not find and attack Bismarck was the one non-ASV equipped plane.

Ark Royal was still using much older Swordfish, and had only received a few ASV equipped aircraft for use by the Squadron COs and some of the section leaders. Of the 30 aircraft embarked only about six of those operational had ASV. Since they needed ASV-equipped planes for shadoweres, their were only about three ASV-equipped planes available for s the strike force. But those planes were critically important elements in locating the target of the attack. It was the direct cause of the attack on HMS Sheffield. quote from warships1 Greglocock 11:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much the posters in that forum know, but the sources avaiable to me (including the wiki-article) say that

1. the ASV-variant (the Mark III) of the Swordfish of was not avaiable until 1943
2. both the weight and placement of the radar prohibited the use of torpedoes. The Mark III could still carry lighter bombs or depth-charges, which made it an excellent sub-hunter.

If all Swordfishs on Victorious had radar that would have negated it's striking capability against surface-ships. Again I consider that highly doubtful. But if you want you can raise that point at Fairey Swordfish, there the topic would fit better (we are getting highly off-topic here) and the guys managing that article will certainly know more about it than I do. Greetings, Nevfennas 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. One of the references for the Swordfish page is in agreement with my statement above - not too surprising, it was written by the same bloke!Greglocock 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)