Talk:Design 1047 battlecruiser

Completion

"Worth speculates that had the ships been completed, commissioned and deployed to the East Indies by 1942, they could have "transformed the strategic picture" because the Imperial Japanese Navy's cruisers could not match these ships."

Though referenced, the sentence does not make much sense to me since in 1942 Netherlands was occcupied by Germany, which was in alliance with Japan since 1940. --Georgius (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Dutch government, headed by Queen Wilhelmina, fled the Netherlands during the German invasion and joined the Allies, putting the Royal Netherlands Navy and the sizable Dutch Merchant fleet at their disposal, as well as other resources. Although the Dutch Armed forces in the Netherlands surrendered on May 15th 1940, this did not include those units overseas, nor even the troops in the province of Zeeland, where troops had joined up with Belgian and French units. During the Battle of the Java Sea, in 1942, the combined Allied force was commanded by Dutch Rear Admiral Doorman. The action was unsuccesful in repelling the Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies, but had these battlecruisers been present, perhaps they could have made a difference. Considering the strategic importance of the Dutch East Indies as a major source of oil and other resources, this would have been a huge setback for the Japanese war effort. However, all of this is, of course, speculation and battlecruisers never really did well when confronted with battleships, as the Battle of Jutland and the fate of HMS Hood have illustrated. Nevertheless, they would have been hard-pressed -not- to use these units, due to their large calibre weapons being so valuable, despite the disadvantages.

Btw, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV_Ingenieurskantoor_voor_Scheepsbouw. In addition, the book mentioned there, Teitler, Prof. Dr. G De strijd om de slagkruisers 1938–1940 De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1984, deals exclusively with the political and technical issues surrounding these ships and deserves to be mentioned in this article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting (did not even know that article existed! :). I'll add it into a "See also" section...thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The section that you call "Notes" I usually call "Citations". Is there a MOS guideline for the naming of this section? Flaviusvulso (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope :) I think the relevant page is WP:LAYOUT.

I normally call my explanatory notes "Notes", my citations "References" and my books "Bibliography". —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: User:the_ed17/Rename Notes. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

December of 1939 also saw real doubts start to creep over the project.

From whom? This sentence seems pretty textbook-ish. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an intro sentence to the para; read the second sentence. :) "December of 1939 also saw real doubts start to creep over the project. A new Navy Minister had been put in, and he favored armored cruisers instead of battlecruisers." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking in microdetail. :) Who doubted the project? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

....oh. I get what you are asking now... I'm trying to say that it was not certain that the ships would be built any more with the different Navy Minister. Any idea on how to reword it? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, since I don't know who doubts it. I need facts, hon. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fate section

I think that this section has become over-long. Only the first two paras are directly relevant to the topic of the article, and the other three are a (very good) general history of the invasion of the NEI which would be better placed in the Dutch East Indies campaign article. It seems enough to state that the Dutch were probably wrong about the scale and form of attack and leave it at that. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...good point. I'll merge them into that and the ABDA article. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note - we note that "work was almost halted" (presumably in Sept. 1939) but that contracts were awarded; did anyone actually start construction, and if so, what happened to the hardware? I'm assuming the answer is "nothing had been constructed, no hulls were laid down, and then it got shelved under the occupation", but it'd be nice to say so - it seems to be the obvious question a reader would ask themselves! Shimgray | talk | 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WHOOPS. That is not what I intended the word "work" to mean; I meant work on the design. Thanks! the_ed17 :  Chat  00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i think you are using to much hindsight when you say tyhe concept of these ships was flawed. the dutch were planning under the conventional doctrine of the day, which did not forsee a few key events, which were what led to the japanese invasion and the overwhelming forces assigned to it. first, they assumed that they would, as in ww1, be neutral and not attacked by either side. second, that france would fight more effectively and not fall. and third, that nothing like the pearl harbor attack was forseen, and that the japanese would have to contend with the u.s. pacific fleet and the large fleet(4+ capital ships, a carrier and supporting ships) that the british were planning to send to singapore, before the fall of france. as such, the plan for these battlecruisers was logical and well concieved under the circumstances.

Terminology

In the design section, we have the comment "...the only assistance available was open-source books and Jane's Fighting Ships." I understand what this is trying to say, but "open source" is both a bit awkward and very much an anachronism - the term didn't exist until several decades later!

It definitely needs reworking, but I'm not quite sure what to say. "Public domain" is right-ish, but has the confusing implication that it sounds as though we're talking about copyright... "unclassified"? Shimgray | talk | 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will work on this also; I'm going to eat very soon. the_ed17 :  Chat  00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source used "open source literature"...I can't think of a better way to word it. :/ the_ed17 :  Chat  01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've hacked it around a bit, & noted that Janes was itself "open" information - it was a bit ambiguous on this. Feel free to find a better wording, though! Shimgray | talk | 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that your version is leaps and bounds better than anything I could think up. :-) the_ed17 :  Chat  16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)