Talk:Battle of the Denmark Strait

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Denmark Strait article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Classification of Scharnhorst & Gneisenau

There are opposing views about whether these two warships should be described as "battleships" or "battle-cruisers" - see discussion: Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser.

Simply speaking, the pro-battleship arguments appear to be 1) that's a correct translation of the German "schlachtschiffe", 2) the German builders have the right to define the classification, 3} Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had all the characteristics of battleships except the main armament. The pro-battlecruiser arguments appear to be 1) English-language articles are not bound by German (in this case) terminology and should use terms familiar to their audience, 2) English-language authorities such as "Jane's" and the Royal Navy use the term "battlecruiser", 3) the lesser armament made the difference, 4}both ships acted as battlecruisers and could not have acted as battleships.

My view? We write for our audience. Use whichever description best helps the reader (in his/ her own language) and explain the dispute. Folks at 137 19:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If "schlact" translated as war, then they'd "warships" and life would be much easier. We have to define them in terms of the definitions in the English wiki articles and the purpose for which they were designed and used. Their armament is too small for a battleship, their armour too heavy for a cruiser - battlecruisers were neither battleships nor cruisers - it'll do.GraemeLeggett 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
They were "light battleships". The only reason they had 11 inch guns was cos the larger ones weren't ready yet. They were designed to be upgunned if needed and in fact Gneisenau was proceding with this. Her turrets were removed before the end of the war. Remember that battleships in WW1 sometimes had 11-inch guns also, yet they were still battleships. The main difference between battlecruisers and battleships was armor vs speed anyway, not gun size. BCs traded armor for speed - they were an evolution of armored cruisers. S/G didn't do this. Their speed was not that much faster than battleships of their time period, and their armor was not thin enough to be considered a BC. Other battleships had lighter armor and higher speed too (Iowa class for eg). "fast battleships" and "light battleships" I think are much more accurate terms than "battlecruiser". Even Hood was barely a battlecruiser when finished. I'd call the Strasbourg class "light battleships" also. I don't see this as a problem. You can't go by what some book says. Books say a lot of things. Janes gets things very wrong sometimes. I'd go by what Conways says perhaps. Or what the German navy (in this case) said.

[edit] Prinz Eugen hitting the Hood

This article asserts that an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen hit the Hood at 06.01, causing the enormous explosion that sank the ship. This cannot be right, as Prinz Eugen had been firing at Prince of Wales for some minutes, as ordered by Lutjens after Bismarck received several hits from the British battleship. It is not disputed that the first hit Hood received was from Prinz Eugen, at about 05.56, which set off a large fire on Hood's deck. However, the majority of opinion accepts that it was a 15" hit from Bismarck that sank the battlecruiser, not a delayed reaction to the first hit she received from Prinz Eugen five minutes earlier.

Of course it's impossible to be certain of this fact, therefore some caution needs to be shown. Still, I don't see that there can be any doubt that it's incorrect to say that a shell from Prinz Eugen hit Hood at 06.01. bigpad 21:15, 10 April 2006.

For more on this topic, see the "Modern theories on the sinking" section of HMS Hood (51), and also the source material cited on the Talk: HMS Hood (51) page. John Moore 309 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Captain Leach report on Hood loss: three near miss, "something hitting onboard" from Bismark at 0600. It's impossibile for an experienced seaman mistake about shell splashes: think only about shell weight, 800 kg for Bismark 15" rounds, only 120 kg for 8" Prinz Eugen. And there is absolutely no chance for a 8" shell to pierce even a two decade old 12" Hood main belt, or the thinner 178 mm secondary belt above: even the tiny 76 mm main Hood main deck armour is more than capable to defeat a 8" shell plunging from above. And you have to take into account that the shell was falling with a 50-60 degree horizontal angle, thus increasing the armour thickness. The only chance is a 15" shell, perhaps hitting aprow secondary ordnance magazine and detonating inside it, propagating fire to the adiacent main gun stern magazine and igniting propelling charges rather than shells. Even the survivors onboard Hood tells about a not-so-strong detonation or large shock wave, which is what you expects form launch explosives, prone to "burn" rather than "explode". Only after charge ignition and flash propagation in the rear part of the ship, including boiler and engine rooms you had a real "explosion" that smashed hull, sides and all produced structural collapse. According to my opinion it's much more important to speculate about the French veteran dreadnought "Bretagne", older and more unarmoured than "Hood", that survived a magazine direct hit from British fleet in Norther Africa. Why she did not exploded, while "Hood" did ?

[edit] Cleanup required

Lots of work needed here. I intend to start work on this article myself, but have a backlog of tasks to clear before I can get started. Apart from adding the cleanup tags, I have made a start by adding the Battle of the Denmark Strait Documentation Resource link. John Moore 309 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is cleaned up and tag has been remove. Expert needed now`

Someone very familiar with the subject matter neede to look over the article. Also, the article needs to be referenced. KarenAnn 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck chase linking

There is patently a dispute over whether or not to link to the Bismarck Chase. Is there a consensus on the matter and the Chase article? GraemeLeggett 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's very important that this article mentions the final days of the Bismarck somehow, either by linking to that article or somewhere else. Currently the 'Aftermath' section reads very strangely as it does not mention the final fate of the ship. Dave w74 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Bismarck Chase is no longer titled that on the page itself. Someone has renamed it "Last battle of the battleship Bismarck." Neither of these titles explains that the ship was sunk. The Sinking of the Bismarck is now a mere subhead in the Bismarck Chase, found halfway down the page without even a table of contents at the top to give the reader a clue that it is buried in the story. Instead, it should be the title of the page, and of the link to it. -- In the Battle of the Denmark Strait article, a new short section called Pursuit and Sinking of the Bismarck should be added before the Aftermath section. It would briefly summarize the chase and sinking, and link to the renamed Sinking of the Bismarck article (at the Bismarck_Chase URL unless a new Sinking_of_the_Bismarck URL is desirable to redirect from that). Then the Aftermath section would wrap up what happened after the sinking. -- If this is acceptable, I would be happy to make these revisions, which should make things flow more sensibly for the reader. Rstevec 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The "someone" to whom Rstevec refers is me. I am sorry that you are not happy with my solution to the problem of the Bismarck Chase article; I can at least assure you that it was not adopted lightly. Before rescoping and renaming the article, I posted my intentions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, as well as to the Talk:Operation Rheinübung and the talk page of the article page itself. I was remiss in not posting here as well. This produced quite a lot of discussion, including a poll of possible titles. As a matter of fact, Sinking of the Bismarck was my own first suggestion for a name; in the end, I opted for a title which - so I thought - was more neutral and more closely described the content of the article (not least because Bismarck was not the only ship sunk as a result of the battle). With regard to Graeme's original question, I suggest that Aftermath should link to Operation Rheinübung, which already contains a brief summary of the Bismarck's loss. Can I suggest, if people are unhappy with the way things are now, that we carry this discussion across the to Talk:Last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Regards, John Moore 309 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing the decisions

Personally, I don´t see a reason to question the decision of Lütjens to not pursue the Prince of Wales. There are a number of good reasons to not do so. I don´t think it´s necessary to judge about it, as this is an encyclopedia and there is too much speculation in it. However, if we do so, we should open a new section, which I did right now and also add counter-arguments, which I did right now in only to a very limited degree. We then also need to discuss the decision of the Hood to attack the way it did, who failed to engage Suffolk and Norfolk in it as well etc. That´s a huge discussion and not really encyclopedical. Therefore, I´m more to open to just delete the new "discussion" section. Mausch 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more important that the fact that Lutjens ordered Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to avoid the Hood and PoW, and that Captain Lindemann disobeyed his order and directed Bismarck to open fire. The article makes it seems like the opposite occurred. Parsecboy 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
However, to avoid these ships has been a strategic decision, while Lindemann order to fire was tactical - and not contradicting a standing order, but just not waiting for Lutjens order to fire. You are right that this should be mentioned. But this is different from a discussion which can rightfully judged on multiple ways. Mausch 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is speculative and (I believe) basically non-encyclopedic in nature. It is very largely non-factual, and the officers' imagined thought processes cannot be verified by any known means. Second guesses, third guesses - what next!? The article does not need this section, and reads as a better article without it. I agree with Mausch that the "Discussion" section should be removed. I see two voices here against including this "Discussion" and one in favor. Any others? Rstevec (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three months since I asked here for comments by anyone in favor of retaining the "Discussing the Decisions" section. And there is now yet more material piled there. This cannot conceivably be considered encyclopedic content. Some of it sounds like it was written by video game fans. This is a disgrace to Wikipedia and I intend to remove it tomorrow. Please comment here if you have an opinion on the matter. Rstevec (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Condensed the Discussion section into one paragraph of a less unseemly nature. If anyone seriously objects to dispensing with the speculative material removed, please first explain why it is at all necessary or desirable in a respectable encyclopedia. This section was merely a vehicle for various pet theories and opinions. Rstevec (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prinz Eugen Striking Hood Part 2

According to Chesnau, Prinz Eugen's Gunnery Officer, and principal Historian, Paul Schmallenbach, has stated that at the time of the initial salvos the Eugen's target was Hood, and may have been responsible for the hit amongst the ready to use ammunition. Citation added. Dapi89 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnett?

The references state Barnett was used in the article but there's no mention of the work in the bibliography. Can someone clarify. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bismark1040.jpg

The image Image:Bismark1040.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)