Talk:Bismarck class battleship

My gun is bigger than yours

First of all you need to find RS that compare the gun with another gun. Then you need to decide if it is a worthwhile comparison. Then you need to include that information in the article written in a neutral fashion. Personally I find any touting of superiority of Bis guns as being better than Hoods', which is at least relevant, rather daft. It would only be notable if the Germans had /failed/ to improve on them. I would have thought a more logical comparison would have been with the guns used in BBs built at around the same time, in the class article.Greglocock (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Okun is a "widely acknowledged expert". In fact on penetration he is the premier authority. Nathan Okun's work was used to build the [1] penetration tables], and it is presented on his resource page at [2] (see the very bottom of the page). Richard Worth has published numerous works on Naval History [3]. Lundgren has also written articles on naval history. I don't really mind removing the comparison comments, but if you want a reputable source with which to compare battleship gun penetration, Worth, Lundgren and Okun's penetration tables are the place to go. Each nation's gun's penetration is calculated against its own and other nation's armour, using the best data and armour penetration formulas available. And heg (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, that type of information (i.e., armor penetration and bursting charges) should be placed in the associated gun articles (namely: 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun and BL 15 inch Mk I naval gun); that level of detail isn't warranted here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gregolock's latest edit, and with Persecboy's comment. Basically comparisons are only asking for trouble, and are usually roots of all POV pushing by fanboys and detractors. They best be avoided - if a reader wants to compare that, he can do it him/herself by comparing the data in the article. Far more interesting for the class article would be IMHO the history behind choosing the main armament for the B class. Its less known for example, that 38cm guns were only added later, initial design studies considered a 33cm gun on a smaller vessel. As usual the design continued to grow, ending where the practical limitations of drydocks and channels meant that 42k tons or 38cm were the max. permissable. Also of note would be the German practice of usign semi-fixed ammunition. Kurfürst (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My battleship is bigger than allowed

So, if there is a clause allowing the Bismarck to be 42,000 instead of 35,000 tons, it should be possible to find it in the treaty mentioned, right? Only problem, it isn't. The "escalator clause" mentions main gun caliber, not tonnage. The Bismarck should have stayed under 35,000 tons. It was a violation of the international commitments undertaken by Germany.

It seems somebody is bent on waging an edit war on this point, based on a quotation from a book that apparently says the treaties said something they don't say.

Read the book. It states quite clearly on the first page The escalator clause of the 1836 London Naval Treaty permitted 406-mm guns and 45,000 ton displacement... If you continue to remove validly sourced information, you will be blocked for disruption. Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The of the treaty doesn't mention a 45,000 ton limit. It does say if any of the parties to the 1922 treaty don't agree to 14 inch then the limit is 16 inch. Germany is not mentioned in the 1936 text at all, except in so far as being another "Power not a part to the present treaty" (Article 25). Under article 25 if any of these other parties build ships bigger than the treaty limits, then the Treaty signatories can start building ships that are not in compliance with the treaty limits - but they a) have to tell the other parties what they are doing, b) start negotiations with the treaty parties to minimize the departure from the limits. After three months from a) the other treaty parties can build outside the limits of the treaty.

Are there other books on the subject we could use to cross check? I've given Brown's book on British ships back to the library ubfortunately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

German Battleships 1939-1945 doesn't address the London Treaty, but it does discuss the Anglo-German Naval agreement on page 21, about which it says [In regards to the treaty], it was agreed, amongst other things, that Germany could build a surface fleet of up to 35 per cent of the size of Great Britain's. This meant a tonnage allowance on 184,000 tonnes available for battleship construction, equating to five ships of some 35,000 tonnes each. This was subsequently increased to 45,000 tonnes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II in Europe has this to say: In 1938, a new protocol allowed the naval powers to build battleships up to a standard displacement of 45,000 tons. Although Germany probably had intended from the start not to respect the 35,000 ton limit, that decision legalized the Bismarck, which displaced more than 40,000 tons. (emphasis mine) Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that reference to 45,000 tons as "a standard displacement limitation of 45.000 t was agreed upon and signed by the United States , Great Britain , and France as a protocol to the Second London Naval Treaty on 30. June, 1938" (which is 2 years since the start of building the Bismarck). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I don't know if its me, but your links to google books come up as unavailable for viewing or limit reached. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, shows up fine for me. There's a way to get around that, but I can't remember what it is right now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a website icanhide.com that would let you get around the page limit, but it seems its no longer active... Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

icanhide and its brilliant companion site which had every episode of Futurama online are no longer around. I now use http://proxify.co.uk/ or http://www.zend2.com/ Neither are perfect, but one has to make do. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Hey all, I'm rewriting this article in a sandbox here, feel free to add content. Though please add material only with reliable sources - I'm working on a 62-article FT, and this will eventually need to go to FAC, so we might as well do it right the first time. Once I get the draft finished I'll transfer it to article space, providing there are no objections from anyone. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been no objections (or even comments) in the past two and a half weeks, so I've gone ahead and moved the new version of the article here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ship numbers?

One point that came up with a quick read of the article - when was the decision made to build two, and why? The early design section implies that two were intended right from the start, but it doesn't say why this was selected - was it simply that there were only two suitably large shipyards? Likewise, there's a brief mention of a request in 1937 to build a third ship, but no mention of why it wasn't taken up. Shimgray | talk | 17:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

May 1944 attacks on Tirpitz

While Breyer may say it was (Brewster) Buccaneer aircraft that were going to be used for "Brawn", there is obviously an element of doubt in other editors minds.

1. The same carriers are using Barracudas a few weeks earlier and a number of weeks later.[4]
2. there was no rotation of squadrons in the period 827 and 829 and 831 on Furious[5] and Victorious[6]
3. the Buccaneer was not a carrier aircraft.
4. The Buccaneer (Bermuda) were not used in significant numbers by the RN. Best I can find so far is that five were evaluated by/for the FAA.[7]

Perhaps we could scout out some alternative sources and see what they have to say.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

None of these four books are viewable, but three of them appear to agree on Barracudas (the fourth just says "bombers"). Based on the fact that the FAA only ever tested 5 Barracudas, it looks like Breyer is mistaken. That being said, I'd prefer to fix it once we can find a RS to replace him (i.e., a book with the page number) rather than fix it and appear to attribute the information to Breyer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose in the meantime we could just remove the type of aircraft and refer to them simply as bombers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Brawn, I would go for something along the lines of "another carrier-launched attack was ... but cancelled due to ..."GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a slightly modified version here - how does that look? When I eventually get around to doing the Tirpitz article I'll get ahold of sources that can verify the number and type of the aircraft (for instance, I should be able to get [8] and [9] quite easily through ILL). Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Armor and technical data

Ther are a lot of primary sources regarding armor protection thicknesses and layout available The data and explanations here partly conflictsignificantly with the original sources

to increase the value of the explanations citations from secondary sources should replaced by primary sources when possible

• AVKS-700 Schlußbericht vom 31.05.1941, AVKS Erprobungen auf Schlachtschiff Bismarck
• Bauvorschrift fuer den Schiffskoerper der Schlachtschiffe "F" und "G" ("Ersatz Hannover" und "Ersatz Schleswig-Holstein") O.K.M Archiv K I Nr. 20 Berlin, den 16.November 1936
• Entwicklungsrichtlinien für Seezielgeschütze A Wa A I B Nr. 21230-41 geh.
• Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft a Textband
• Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft h Eigene Durchschlagsangaben für Schlachtschiffe Bismarck, Tirpitz und Beispiele (G.Kdos 100)

some of the citations are definately wrong "the turret roofs were 130 mm (5.1 in) thick, the sides were 220 mm (8.7 in) thick, and the faces were 360 mm (14 in) thick with 220 mm (8.7 in) thick shields.[2] However, these armour thickness's were less than those of contemporary British (King George V) and French (Richelieu) designs. turretface" this is only correct for the french ship KGV 324 mm Bis 360 mm barbettes KGV 324 mm Bis 340 mm

"The two ships were broadly similar to the World War I-era Bayern class, in that they mounted a similar main battery and were protected by a similar armour arrangement." the primary sources states otherwise

others are questionable and represents opinions "The stern, however, was weakly constructed; this would have significant consequences on Bismarck's only combat mission.[10]" any jam of rudder by torpedodamage had significant impact on maneuverability of a ship especially within heavy seas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoddyx (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Those figures come from Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945, which he wrote based entirely on official documentation at the time (for instance, the first volume, which was German Warships 1815-1936, was published in 1936). He had full access to the Kriegsmarine data, and his figures are correct. Secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources.

I don't have Breyer in front of me, so I can't see exactly what he says about KGV and Richelieu.

How do the primary sources dispute that Bismarck and Bayern were similarly armed and armored? They both carried eight 38 cm guns in an identical arrangement (albeit Bismarck mounted a new type) and the armor arrangement was indeed similar. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)