Talk:Coastal defence ship

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Title

I see this page was moved from Pantserschip. This is not any less "bizarre" since the first title was Dutch and this one derived from German. Better title would be in English. Armoured ship (direct English translation) or Coastal defence ship (more descriptive name). In my opinion armoured is too generic since almost all naval ships have armour. I also contest the factual accuracy of this article. It omits quite a lot of information and in its current status it's basically just a selective list of ships with everyone adding their "favourite" ones. About a month ago I added the see also to Pocket battleship since those ships share some conceptual similarity. That doesn't mean these ships are battleships. If you do a google search on the Swedish ships you'll find a lot of hits calling them "coastal battleships", but that is a translation error. I find it hard to edit this article without bordering on original research. --Laisak 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whatsoever about the factual content, but the German word "panzer" is pretty widely known in English, whereas the Dutch title is not. But if you want to move it back, that's okay with me. Arre 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laisak's suggestion Coastal defence ship seems quite reasonable. Support move & redirect and such. Scoo 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger & naming confusion

There would seem to be alot of confusion regarding this class (or rather niche) of vessels. This is not helped by a lack of a proper name for these vessels in English. Last year's proposal of naming the article per their role might be better technically, while there is no proper equivalent to the ships denotation in their respective languages (be it de:Küstenpanzerschiff vs. panzerschiff, pantschership, pansarskepp, panssarilaiva etc.). The census seems to be that while sometimes used, Coastal battleship or Coastal defence battleship might mislead English speakers.

My suggestion is to initiate a discussion (and possibly dig up more references regarding the subject) in order to reach census on the issue and ultimately expand this article and direct (possibly with pipered links, á la Ilmarinen was a Finnish [[Coastal defence ship|Panssarilaiva]]) users to this article when looking for pansarskepp and so on. This rather than having stubs on various vessel classes named after their respecive language (such as Pansarskepp). Scoo 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "coastal defence ship" is a good name. I don't think the word "battleship" should be used in the title; it's deceptive. I think a merge from Pansarskepp would be appropriate. TomTheHand 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they basically the battleship equivalents which small navies could afford to build? They aren't the same as the 3 German 1930s armored cruisers, though. I think their purpose was different, correct? They had much slower speed generally, that's the main difference. The German ships were definately intended for ocean operation. It seems to me that the Swedish/Finnish/Dutch/Danish/Norwegian ships of 1880-1935 or so were intended for coastal protection and operations in the Baltic and maybe North Sea, so "coastal battleship" seems accurate, specially as they often had low freeboard. Not all battleships are big, that's all we need to remember. The British/French/Germans (Siegfried class) also built somewhat similar ships but they were sometimes called "second class battleships" rather than coastal. All these "pansarskipp" articles should probably be merged since the ships in each navy were very similar and we could compare them more clearly on the same page. It's not like there were terribly many of them.

"Battleship" isn't a relative term; the largest ship a small navy can afford doesn't become a "battleship." TomTheHand 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Siegfried"-Klasse is not regarded as "Linienschiff" or "Schlachtschiff" in german literature, so I doubt they should be called "battleships" in english (however I admit my mother-tongue is german, not english). Actually, from 1899 onwards, they were re-classified as "Küstenpanzerschiff" (at the same time, the "real" battleships were re-classified as "Linienschiffe"). I think "Siegfried"-Klasse falls under the scope of this lemma. --172.176.84.26 10:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German ship class "Panzerschiff" from the 1920th has no connection with the German ship class "Küstenpanzerschiff" form the 1890th and has also nothing to to with a translation from Swedish but with a french term in the Versailles Treaty used in the German translation. So I corrected that passage in the article. -- Rakell (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Ideas

This is in discussion in the Battleship talk section as well. My take on the situation is that these ships are mostly NOT battleships. There were some "inexpensive" battleships built (the American second class types), however those had a different function. This type of ship was meant for shallow water operation - and was specialized for that. They had no common mission requirements with a Pocket battleship or Panzerschiff and should not be confused with them. My current thought is to insert a "Coast Defense Ship" page, with "Coast Defense Battleship" forwarded to it, and on that page discuss the general commonalities, and then link to each of the specific types, as the various national navies built vessels that had very different design considerations. I think that: Panssarilaiva Pansarskepp Pantserschip Should each have their own page. BTW, Pansarskepp is Swedish - does anyone know the Danish and Norwegian terms? UrbanTerrorist 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian term is Panserskip, I'm assuming the coresponding danish term is either the same or panserskib, but we better ask a Dane to verify that. A quick google seems to indicate the latter, but also in the meaning 'ironclad'...

According to Weyer 1941/42, the official danish term for "Peder Skram" and "Niels Juel" was "Artilleriskib". In 1914 and 1922 , Weyer gives "Kystforsvarskib". --172.176.84.26 10:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a way they are battleships, at least in the function they filled within the navies who had them; they were the capital ship which formed the core of the fleet (that the Norwegian panserskip was not used in the intended way in the run up to WW2 is another matter). Even if Wikipedia may classify them as something else, this factoid ought to be pointed out in the article(s). WegianWarrior 15:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term coastal defence ship is too wide. We might almost as well use armoured ship. Any naval ship not intended to patrol the open seas might be labeled a coastal defence ship. I am leaning more towards the term coastal battleship as this says more about the "intention" behind the ship and the type of ship. It also implies they were smaller than normal battleships. They were in many ways the battleships of the small navies. Inge 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "battleship" is not a relative term. It doesn't mean "the biggest ship in your navy." "Coastal defence ship" is too broad only if you don't know what it means; in the same way, if you don't know what a battleship is, you might think it's a broad term because many ships do battle. These ships are quite small and were not intended to be used in the same way as battleships: standing in a battle line and slugging it out with the enemy's heavy ships. TomTheHand 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Swedish wikipedia page sv:Pansarskepp:, I wrote an short paragraph explaining the reasons why the definition varies between the different countries. I will try to put it here too so you can judge it. MoRsΞ 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to be considered is that they have to be differentiated from Monitors - which also were "Coast Defense" ships in effect. UrbanTerrorist 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's not relative. The reason I called them battleships was that they performed the same function as regular battleships, but in the coastal regions of the baltic states where bigger ships couldn't easily go, and they had the same qualities of those larger ships (heaviest armor, largest guns etc.) of any ship which operated in that same coastal region, just like bigger battleships had in their operational areas. Calling them "coast defence ships" is fine of course, just semantics really. Their function was to defeat anything the enemy could send against them in coastal waters, so in a way what you said is incorrect, TomTheHand. They might not fight larger battleships, nor form a battle line, due to small numbers, but they were intended to fight anything they encountered, be it other similar ships or, say, a light cruiser. That's my understanding, anyway.SpookyMulder 10:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unternehmen Polarfuchs

There was an "Operation Polarfox" (although that name also had previously been used for an operation to conquer Murmansk), which were plans for invading Sweden. I saw the plans yesterday in a book in the lockal university library, when searching for something entirely different. I can go back to the library and check the book data. The only landing sequence would have been about 100 km north of Stockholm (if I remember the map correctly), the rest of the invasion forces would have come from Norway where they would have swept through middle Sweden. MoRsE 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus class

The article Cerberus class battleship claims that they are battleships, while this article claims that they are coastal defence ships. This inconsistency should be solved but since I know very little about this subject I ask for some input. Jeltz talk 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Wasa

The Link goes to the Galleon Wasa from the 17th Century and not to the Armoured Ship built at the turn of the previous century, unfortunantley there is no article for the Ship in the english Wikipedia but there is in the Swedish version. I don't know how to link in this regard, especially since the old Wasa is such a famed ship whule the later remains in historys obscurity. Darkwand (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi panzer.

In the Habsburg empire (KuK fleet), everybody called these vessels "defended by coast battleships" unofficially, in a realistic assessment of their might or lack, thereof. The same was true for tsarist Russian Navy. 82.131.134.66 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]