Talk:German battleship Bismarck

Disingenuousness

The "Discovery" section seems to heavily imply through omission of details that the British ships were incapable of penetrating the Bismarck's armour. I've added the fact that the barbettes of Bruno and Dora, protected by some of the thickest armour carried by Bismarck, were compromised at least once each. There is still the issue of the remaining text which, as it stands, gives the impression that the 14" and 16" shells of the British simply couldn't defeat the Bismarck's main belt - obviously not the case given that they had no problem with thicker armour. Paddyboot (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition for a number of reasons. First, the websites provided are not reliable sources (and you cannot interpret the images yourself, no matter how evident you think the conclusions are). Second, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion about whether British gunfire and torpedoes or German scuttling charges sank the ship - we're not talking about the performance of German heavy armor. The fact remains that there were no penetrations of the main belt, whether that is the result of the shells not hitting the belt (a relatively small target compared to the rest of the ship, especially at such close ranges where it would be difficult to depress the guns low enough to hit the belt) or the inability of the shells to penetrate it. According to Jackson, the 14" shells from KGV bounced off the armor belt. Regardless, implying that the British shells could penetrate the main belt because they did penetrate turret and barbette armor is synthesis, which is strictly prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy vs This Article = WP:OWN and WP:IDL

After editing this article last year, and adding that it was a Catalina reconnaissance aircraft from RAF Castle Archdale on Lough Erne in Northern Ireland that used the Donegal Corridor, a small air-corridor secretly provided by the Éire government, . Over time the point was expanded and some others added that the Bismarck was spotted via her oil slick and then her position to the Admiralty.

Well that material lasted until June this year when the aforementioned editor, the "Lord Protector" of this article decided to remove these clear statements of fact. Where the plane was from, what it was, what it was doing etc....

Now it says:

A squadron of Coastal Command PBY Catalinas based in Northern Ireland were committed to the search, covering areas where Bismarck might be headed in her attempt to reach occupied France. At 10:30 on 26 May, a Catalina piloted by a US Navy aircrew located Bismarck, some 690 nmi (1,280 km; 790 mi) northwest of Brest.

No recognition of the base from which the planes came, or that they used neutral Irish airspace, or that it was an oil slick they followed. NI is 5,345 sq miles. The statements are as dismissive as saying it was "soldier from the United States" who attacked Omaha and Utah beaches.

I hate Wikipedia now because there is too much self-righteous, self-importance masquerading as contributions. The removal of this linked material is a testimony to that!! Again there is no recognition in the Bismark article concerning the heroic pilots from RAF Castle Archdale, flying in atrocious weather conditions, who found the Bismark. Or that this was all made possible by the Irish Government agreement to the The Cranborne Report that allowed them to use the Donegal Corridor.

This article has become the work, by the looks of it, of just one person who seems to have their own agenda. It's not good enough and frankly an insult to the brave men who risked their lives in WWII. But that historical acknowledgement is just rubbed out by some wiki-fapper, 70 years later who gets on their high horse about everything because they read a couple of books on the subject!! 109.150.237.200 (User talk:109.150.237.200)

This article is about the ship not the RAF base or aircrew. Also note that BBC peoples war is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and invective are about the worst way to try and make a point, as they reduce your own credibility. (Hohum ^@) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Nate/Parsecboy is not some chum who's walked in off the street; he's a budding naval scholar in his own right. I also agree with Hohum in that attacks do not make for a good point. However, that doesn't mean he can't be right in part – if the reliable sources say that the Catalinas used the corridor, we should probably include that. I suppose this is where we need to talk to Parsec and see what the sources say! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of every article is to provide a comprehensive summary of the topic, not record every scrap of information that might be tangentially related to the topic. This article is about a German battleship, not a random PBY that located the ship. If the name of the unit is particularly notable (for example, the "Dambusters" that sank Tirpitz), then they should be referenced by name. If they are a generic coastal patrol unit (as is the case here), they aren't really deserving of a mention and any related material should go in the unit's article. Which brings me to my second point: we are not here to honor anybody. Last I checked, we don't break down the infantry units at Utah and Omaha by their state of origin. Lastly, I do have an agenda: to write high-quality articles that fit the goals of the encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree Parsec, but I think that the use of the corridor should be mentioned if you can reference it. It's pretty important if a casual reader wonders how a PBY from NI managed to make it south enough to find Bismarck. It's up to you though, as you are the author. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no returns in Google books; the only return in Google scholar is an article published local historical society by an author who appears to be focused on local history. Nothing turns up in regular Google in the .edu, .mil, or .mod.uk domains. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough there was an article on BBC news his morning here [1]. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubts and Details

I am lumping together a number of small point which can, I hope, be easily settled. If any of them needs a real debate, I suggest someone edits it out of here and uses it to start a separate thread.
1) Battle of Denmark Straight (par 1):- I think horizontal ranges are usually given in yards rather than feet, 26,000 meters are about 28,300 yards. There are other cases later on in the art.
2) idem (par 4):- Kennedy (p.83) gives THREE survivors on the bridge (Leach, Chief Yeoman of Signals + navigating officer who was wounded). Also the shell exploded after exiting.
3) idem (par 5):- Perhaps the point should be made that in refusing to continue the engagement with PoW, Lütjens was following his operational orders. (His predecessor, Marschall, had been dismissed for this very offense - see the wiki art. on M.)
4) The Chase (par 4):- Neither Churchill nor Kemp not Kennedy mentions any near attack on the Norfolk. Churchill states that the Swordfish were homed by radio onto the Norfolk which then passed them a course to find the Bismarck (a similar procedure to that applied for the last torpedo attack when Sheffield vectored Ark Royal`s planes onto the Bismarck). Kennedy (p.111) says that the Swordfish radar picked up the USCG Modoc which was then about 4 miles from the German battleship and broke cloud cover before realizing that she was not their target. There may be a conflict of sources here, but I am inclined to think that the reported near attack on the Norfolk is a garbled version of the above.
5) idem (par 10):- The phrase "a Catalina piloted by a US Navy aircrew" seems to me to imply that the plane was crewed by the US Navy. This may simply be that we don't speak exactly the same form of English on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Kennedy (pp. 141ff; 171 and notes) documents the fact that a number of US pilots who had ferried Catalinas across to the UK and were supposed to familiarize the RAF crews with the plane were unofficially used as copilots by the CO of 209 squadron.
6) idem (par 13):- Is it correct to say the Germans "repaired the starboard rudder"? To me "repair" implies that they got it to work again - if so, by setting it to 12º starboard helm they could have neutralized the effect of the port rudder and regained control of the course at the cost of a braking effect. Did they only manage to disconnect it from the steering motor, so it flapped loose?
7) Sinking (par 5.) The Nelsons only had two torpedo tubes and so the reference should be to the "port tube" (singular)--Jpacobb (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)jpacobb

1) The convert template should have recognized that yd was the appropriate output, but for some reason it didn't.

2) Garzke & Dulin confirm only two survivors on the bridge, and both that and Zetterling & Tamerlander are much more recent publications than Kennedy.

3) That's a fair point and should be added.

4) I'd be ok with removing this, or at least adding a footnote that states there is disagreement over whether the incident took place.

5) The Catalina's pilot was Ensign Leonard B. Smith, USN.

6) They uncoupled the rudder shaft and engaged hand steering, but were apparently unable to overcome the 12 degree turn on the port rudder.

7) Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for a prompt and illuminating response. I will take up points 3 and 4 in the article and 5 across to the article on Smith (which has a note asking for verification in the talk section).--Jpacobb (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)jpacobb

Sounds good to me. I think the detailed information on Smith is better suited to his article rather than this one, but I changed the sentence to include a link there. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The title of this article goes against usual Wikipedia naming conventions. The article should be moved from German battleship Bismarck to Bismarck (battleship).Rreagan007 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The more specific WP:NC-SHIPS prescribes article titles like this. In addition, the policy on article titles allows for parenthetical as well as natural disambiguation (which is what this article demonstrates). Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Largest and heaviest

We have: the largest battleship ever built by Germany, and the heaviest built by any European power. Is this a deliberate distinction? Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though the European bit needs to be removed; the authors who made the claim (Garzke & Dulin) apparently weren't thinking of HMS Vanguard when they wrote that line, which outweighs Bismarck by a couple thousand tons in both categories. An editor raised the point in the FAC, which I haven't had time to get to yet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Largest" except as a synonym for "greatest displacement" is vague - eg Hood was 40ft longer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, "largest" here only refers to German battleships; also, Hood wasn't a battleship ;) In any case, I've fixed the sentence now to reflect the above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I was really musing in general as to how one defines "largest" . GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)