Talk:Battle of the Barents Sea

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Barents Sea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / German / World War II

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

In or On a ship?

Here in Britain, I have always experienced the term "on" a ship used when referring to where people and equipment are stationed.

So, for example, I would say "Xelous is on HMS Sheffield". Not "Xelous is in HMS Sheffield".

I wonder where does this "in" inflection come from, and do we feel it should be in or on, so that the article can be left or corrected as needed?

- Xelous - 22nd June 2007.

Good point. There were three instances in the text of people being "in" a ship; I have changed this to "on board". There's nothing offensively bad about "in", but "on" seems better. Perhaps the original author was trying to avoid having to say "on Onslow", which is the first instance. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is tht the Royal Navy usage / idiom is in not on. It seems a little quaint - until you consider the pre-steam days of heavy top-hamper: masts, yards, other spars, standing and running rigging, . . Plus the netting, rigged to protect the decks from debris falling in battle but apt to trap potential survivors if the ship sank!

But I haven't changed the article text back. 87.74.169.214 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changed the name of one of the combatants to Germany. "Nazi Germany" isn't a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.27.108 (talk) 10:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Departure

According Arctic convoys of World War II , the departure was from Liverpool. What is the right place?Tushyk 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

There was an in-line reference to Find a Grave that was inappropriate where placed at best. It was placed after information on a subjects retirement. Find a Grave is not considered a reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Campaignbox

Ok, so I replaced the Atlantic Ocean campaignbox with a new Arctic Ocean one, because this battle did not take place in the Atlantic. If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert and discuss. Howicus (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Bramble sinking

I think it's fanciful to say Bramble opened fire first - there seems to be no evidence of this. The official Board of Enquiry says "The whereabouts of HMS BRAMBLE during the battle is not known for certain but she must have been close to the North East, for she reported an enemy cruiser at 1039, and later that forenoon an engagement between a cruiser firing her main armament and a ship firing a single gun of about 4" calibre and pom-pom tracer could be seen. This evidence is considered to be sufficiently conclusive that HMS BRAMBLE, though hopelessly outgunned, went down fighting to the last. By doing so her Captain and ship’s company did their duty in accordance with the highest traditions of the service." Little grape (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful quote! And it bears on another point which puzzles me. Bramble's position, North-East of the convoy, is ahead of it .. how would she come to be ahead of the convoy when searching for the detached Oribi and a merchantman?

Does that same source cast any light on this? - anyone know?

( An earlier contributor was also obviously puzzled - and in fact confused: at present the article describes Bramble's position as "15 nmi (17 mi; 28 km) astern (north-east) of the convoy"! ) 87.74.169.214 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]