Talk:Battles of Narvik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Battles of Narvik was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 5, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Old talk[edit]

I've applied some changes - according to the first line, it is about naval battles, so I excluded non-British allies out of infoboxes. Maybe there should be added also events of April 9 - a combat of Norwegian coastal battleships HNoMS Norge and HNoMS Eidsvold? And maybe it should be split in two articles, on naval and land operations? (as is on Polish wiki). There weren't 5 German destroyers seriously damaged in the first battle, but barely one. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if these battles got one article each. Now it is a bit confusing.Inge 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In Norway, (and probably Germany too) the "Battle of Narvik" usually refer to the land campaign as well. To refer to the battle as a naval operation is to narrow down the subject from a two month battle to a two day event. Epecially the invasion of the city of Narwik the 28th of May by the French Foreign legion and a batallion from the Norwegian 15th Regiment is more famous than the two naval battles. Haraldgroven 14:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Harald. Inge 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some serious work[edit]

First of all as noted above the TWO MONTH land battle is of more importance to several of the countries involved and deserves better covarage. Even better than the two days of naval battles. In Norway the battle Oberiko has forced me to call "The naval battle before the one known as the first naval battle of Narvik" is known as the first naval battle of Narvik. I understand that in the "British world" the only events worth mentioning are the ones were the British played a central role. Of course it is known as the first battle of Narvik in British naval records and history, it was the first one they participated in. I just want to point out that one should use a great deal of sensitivity when dealing whith a countrys war history and that the english language wikipedia is not a wikipedia written spesifically for the British and Americans but is an international encyclopedia written in the english language. So it seems a bit silly to call a battle the first battle when 343 men lost their lives in a different one just the day before. Inge 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This page should probably be split up into three (four?) separate articles and turned into a disambiguation. As it is, it's rather messy. Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes! I agree, but the issue of whether the first or the second battle should have the article title The first naval battle of Narvik should be resolved before a move. Inge 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not just go with Battle of Narvik (9 April 1940) and Battle of Narvik (10 April 1940)? Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good suggestion to me. I just want to avoid an editfight when someone still tries to push the POV that 10 April was before the 9 April. Inge 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new structure[edit]

First of all in order to remove British POV It should be one article called "Battle of Narvik" with overview of the whole campaign. Then links to sub sections called (IMHO):

H@r@ld 08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe these could be subsections in the article itself first. Then moved to separate articles when the content in each of them merits it. Inge 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a nore encompassing article title like "Battle for Narvik" then the first and second Battles can retain their titles without confusion. GraemeLeggett 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I note that "the Norway Campaign" is an encompassing title for the British activities.GraemeLeggett 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Norwegian Campaign is our name for the entire conflict in Norway at the start of WWII though. From the UK's point of view, there are two distinct actions in Narvik. The naval battles where they defeated the ten German destroyers, and the later land campaign in Northern Norway (which is also quite lacking in the parent article). Oberiko 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The worst faults in this article[edit]

What are the points that stick the most out as needing improvement?

  • IMHO:
    • The sections on the land battle.
    • The background and reasons why Narvik became a major battle scene.
    • Reaching agreement over what to call the different naval battles.

Inge 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nominee[edit]

Nice article. Coming along nicely. Two major issues: serious lack of references (maybe only three were used?), no inline references, and Image:Narvik.jpg needs its image tag updated. Some spellcheck and grammar checks wouldn't hurt either. (FYI - The Google toolbar has a spellchecker)--Esprit15d 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs footnotes. Renominate it when you have footnotes. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have attemted to convert the references to footnotes, but it would be apreciated if someone else could look over them and maybe add some. Inge 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination[edit]

Although this article has improved since its last GA nomination, it still has a serious shortage of line citations. Current footnotes are not in standard format and fail to provide site access dates. Some line citations to dead-tree-type references would certainly help. Too many one line paragraphs. Currently a b-class article that could definitely get better, but I suggest two or three months of work before renominating again. Please take this as encouragement: the page reflects a lot of work so far. Durova 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Reports I've seen state that U-64 was bombed and sunk after the destroyers had been dealt with, not before as the article states. I'll make the alteration unless there's evidence to the contrary. dosn't specify the sequence. Folks at 137 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermann Kunne[edit]

There is one mistake: Hermann Kunne is listed twice in a section about landings on 9 April. probably the first mention is correct, while the second should be Thiele or Schmitt, but I don't know which one. Pibwl ←« 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found in a Russian book on German destroyers, that it was Schmitt. Pibwl ←« 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eidsvold class costal defence cruiser photo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Eidsvold class costal defence cruiser photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in section on German Invasion[edit]

The account of the naval battle between German and Norwegian forces seem POV to me. Spcifically I'm referring to the lines "At the same time, the gun crews of both the 21 cm guns and the 15 cm guns aboard Eidsvold kept the German destroyer in their sights, at point-blank range" and "The Germans, afraid that Eidsvold might ram the destroyer, fired two or four torpedoes..." These lines make it seem that the Norwegians provoked an unecessary battle. In Norway a common view is that the German flare was a signal to fire, while the Norwegians were still keeping the truce while waiting for the negotiator to reach his ship.
Both these views are POV hoewever, so my suggestion is that the article simply state the facts of the battle, without ascribing motives to either side. --MaxMad (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Podhalan POWs.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Podhalan POWs.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How Many German Casualties In Second Naval Battle ?[edit]

The info box states German casulaties as: "128 killed, 67 wounded", whereas the main article text states: "The Germans lost over 1,000 men". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Over a year later, this remains unchanged. The two numbers still differ by an order of magnitude. Which is correct ? :| (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Info Boxes[edit]

First naval battle of Narvik - British victory Second naval battle of Narvik - British victory Battle of Narvik - Eventual Allied withdrawal ending in the German recapturing of Narvik Why isn't it called a German victory? It was a German victory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, a German victory following the Allied withdrawal, which the info box now says. Please calm down. Manxruler (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Land battle info-box size[edit]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a massive info-box at the land battle section? Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it too. The infobox picture tag lacked a width argument, so I set it to 300 px. Looks better now. TorW (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep. That was it. Good catch. Manxruler (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

German vessels at Narvik[edit]

I would like to note that "Rewriting because of copy-right violations" [1] is not fully accurate instead were 10 German merchant steamers - there should (as in source) - were 11 German merchant ships - as far as nominated as naval:)) former whaler Jan Wellem also was here. It's also whould be nice to know why Sergey Kovalev (who is it?) more relaible then Naval-History.Net. Also would be great to find a source which explained why german vessels crews were not interned (like for instance Argentina did in October 1939).Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jan Wellem was there to serve as a tanker for the German destroyers. She was not a civilian ore carrier, and because of this deserves special attention. With regards to interning German crews, why should Norway had done that? Norway was neutral, all warring parties were treated the same. Should she had interned the British and French crews as well?
That said, the problem I had with your edits the day before yesterday is that they were a copy-paste job from the source website, WP:COPYVIO. Manxruler (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So name of source which call converted whaler Jan Wellem as a naval tanker? Every ship in sea with relevant fuel can be serve as tanker - as actually happened. Reliable source does not call all german steamers at Narvik as ore carriers. Othervice ot will be WP:OR - which is not allowed here. Per relevant Sea convention which Norway also signed (1907 I guess) crews and vessels should be interned. So questions with this issue remains unclearJo0doe (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, your 9 January edits were still very close to the wording of the source text. We're supposed to write in our own words, changing the source text a couple of places isn't enough. Manxruler (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank - very close to the wording - mean no OR. Jo0doe (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions still not resolved -

Why 10 instead of 11 German merchant ships - as at (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Who is Sergey Kovalev ?Jo0doe (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Why word Murmansk and date 6 April - removed? (I've already heard story with copyright violations:-)Jo0doe (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's try and finish this:
1. There were only 10 German merchant ships at Narvik. The 11th German ship at Narvik was the Jan Wellem - a naval tanker, not a merchant ship. states clearly that she was there to refuel the German destroyers - not as a merchant ship ("German refuelling was far behind schedule. While tanker JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) had arrived on schedule").
2. Not a clue. Why should I know? Why does it matter? What detail of the information from him and Oil of Russia International Quarterly Edition do you disagree with and why?
3. It got lost in the clean-up of the copy-right violations. The stuff from Kovalev already mentions where she came from but I'll go and reintroduce the date of 6 April. You know, there's a huge difference between OR and writing information in your own words. Manxruler (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Per - There were 11 German merchant ships at Narvik ( Jan Wellem listed in that list and WP:RS does not distinct it from 10 other), so the distinction of it seems to as WP:OR. Again Jan Wellem at described as converted whaler - which used as a tanker. For 2nd point Does Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa and Murmansk is the same place? Does Oil of Russia International Quarterly Edition is known as scholar source while Sergey Kovalev (PhD. In history ?) is known for several work on naval topic? As far as I can comprehend if someone nominate converted whaler as a naval tanker – it called OR – please correct me if I’m wrong. While anyway thank for your assistance in better wording – for me it’s not easy to switch from several non-English languages. Jo0doe (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It also should be clarified in article that 11 ships sunk not only as a result of British fire - gives as German-British artillery exchange and British torpedas. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As I clearly stated under point 1. royalnavy-history says that Jan Wellem was there specifically to refuel the destroyers. No OR at all. If it would make you feel better I can easily dig up more sources on why Jan Wellem wasn't an ordinary merchant ship. See here for more on Jan Wellem vs. Basis Nord. Manxruler (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you in "there specifically to refuel the destroyers" - but I not agree to call converted whaler as "naval tanker". Did you agree with term - converted from whaler tanker (as per RS) vs "naval tanker" (OR)? It's indeed nice source for non-scholar - but there no clear statement appears about Jan Wellem as departed from "Basis Nord". While it's really sad to note - how on 11,776 grt vessel can be loaded "5000 tons of fuel oil +5000 tons of diesel fuel + 700 ton of fresh water+ 500 of other supplies". I even not add here 170 cubic metres of lubrication oil:)) - need dencity:) Jan Wellem was not a black hole to consume all that stuff. Moreover it was not sunk as Tobias R. Philbin iii allegely claims - you can see at picture what actually happened . (strange wording of Tobias R. Philbin iii mislead ) It's a lot of more recent and far more reliable sources - like as an first example. I also would be greatifull for your suggestion at Basis Nord intro (I would add it to relevant talk page- [2]). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And again - note - Jan Wellem was already at Narvik (before Germans arrival) - with German crew on it and in undamaged condition - instead of his "compatriot" which sunk April 9. It's important fact. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no problem with the tonnage. I don't understand the logic of that problem. A naval tanker is a tanker operated by the navy of a country, which Jan Wellem in this case was, nothing OR about that. I haven't said anything about the Jan Wellem not being at Narvik before the destroyers, of course she was already there, she was waiting for them. Manxruler (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Really - you suggest that is possible to load on vessels more then it tonnage? Actually you still not able to provide a source which call - Jan Wellem as a naval tanker (tanker specially built for navy proposes) - royalnavy-history says Jan Wellem was a former whaler - which can be easily used as tanker - see WP article and note an existance of oil tanks in it . You add into article list of 10 vessels instead of 11 listed at royalnavy-history list. Thanks
I've noted you've add 2 sources which claims about Jan Wellem place of departure - but Tobias R. Philbin iii does not do that exactly - as same as royalnavy-history indicate Murmansk, while second contradict royalnavy-history - were indicated what destroyers suffered from lack of fuel. While can we elaborate - that one sources gives info like given at royalnavy-history - and other source gives other. It would be great if you advice me on note 261 given as ref at "A world at arms: a global history of World War II" - I was unable to locate name of source. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding page 102 of Philbin. Philbin does not say the same thing as, see page 102. Note 261? What? Manxruler (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to work with such expirienced editor - you just add another [3] high grade source which (same as it royalnavy-history) says Jan Wellem was a former ex-whaler factory ship nor mentioned that it comes from alleged naval base at Murmansk oblast - as expected from Naval Institute. Again we've found that there should be three tankers for Narvik group - and it should be included into article - that only one ex-whaler factory ship reached the distination safety and not interned as his compatriot . So now I'll approach royalnavy-history for permission to use sentence German tanker JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April for Narvik and about eleven (not ten) german merchant ship at Narvik. As regards to your [4] might have made a mistake in writing Murmansk - please contact yourself or we stay with sourced text. As regards 261 - it's a footnote to Weinberg text - I would greatifull if you assist me in finding the source which mentioned under it.

Thanks - again I would be very appreciated if you comment new lead to Basis Nord. Regards Jo0doe (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of naval tanker (btw: Now changed to the synonym replenishment oiler). It doesn't need to have been built specifically for the navy, of course Jan Wellem used to be a whale oil factory ship before she was converted, no-one's denying that. The info on Jan Wellem is well supported by the sources. Third tanker now mentioned, good catch. As for the 10/11 issue, that's been explained to you repeatedly, and should now no longer be an issue. Even notes that Jan Wellem wasn't an ordinary merchantman, hence she gets special mention aside from the 10 German ore ships, and that's that. There's no need whatsoever to "stay with sourced text", the text as it is now is sourced (by several sources), it's just not copied from from the source. Is that it, is your main point that Basis Nord wasn't a German base? Wouldn't that be better discussed at the Basis Nord article? Manxruler (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect you need to provide a RS which identified Jan Wellem replenishment oiler/maintenance ship -instead of "converted whaler" "ex-whale factory ship" as per RS. Also Refuelling with just one tanker was difficult, only two destroyers could be refuelled simultaneously, taking seven or eight hours. Need to be updated with "inadequate pump and improvised arrangement of ex-whale factory ship". Hence I was unable to find [5] at royalnavy-history data for Jan Wellem that had been despatched to Narvik from the secret German naval base Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa in the Soviet Union, where she had been based since 4 February 1940. Please remove. In Regards to current wording regarding 10/11 - current wording mislead - becouse ref clearly state 11 ship - not 10 and 1 appeared from dark zone of space replenishment oiler/maintenance ship:) So I ask about permission for use German tanker JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April for Narvik Did you clarify "Murmansk oblast issue"? And find 261 footnote source? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Refs will be found, I actually found a ref. the refuelling bit yesterday, will add a.s.a.p. Replenishment oiler ref is Weinberg, page 114 and Williamson page 34. I agree, inadequate pump info will be added. Not in those exact words, of course. Haven't looked into the last two questions yet. Patience. By the way, rest in assured that I plan to revamp the entire Battles of Narvik article until fully fixed and cited. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for another great source for converted whaler [6]. While guess why still not at article (how about "ex-whaler factory ship improvisedly used as Replenishment oiler) ? See the royalnavy-history and [7] vessels number and nationality difference at Narvik harbor - may be better to add a las one? How about "German whaler factory ship improvisedly converted into Replenishment oiler departed Murmansk by end of 6 April, some other sources disignate it as fuel tanker from the secret German naval base Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa in the Soviet Union (which itself was never )?ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this - [8] - whale oil factory ship?Jo0doe (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, once again, she was a converted whale factory ship. That is already in the article. We have zero sources that say that she was "improvisedly" (Which is not a word. Do you mean temporarily/in an improvised manner?) converted. We could mention that some sources claim Murmansk as her port of departure, while others claim Basis Nord, although not including "(which itself was never )". I'll get on that later. The numbers of merchant ships at Narvik differ between sources, yes, but 10 German ore ships seems to be the accepted number. Manxruler (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice - but why in article 5,881 ton Planet.[4] The 11,776 ton replenishment oiler/maintenance ship Jan Wellem awaited the arrival ??? We have [9] with "improvised arrangement of ex-whale factory ship". I guess "indicate Murmansk as her port of departure" would be less POV:) Again "German merchant ships" - guess why "ore"? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good, good. Nice to have a source for the improvised arragement. I can work with that. She was there specifically to refuel the destroyers, that is clear in all the sources, hence she was waiting for them to arrive. The German merchant vessels at Narvik were there to retrieve iron ore brought to Narvik from the mines in Sweden - there's a separate source for that in the text. Manxruler (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess - it Waage 1963, p. 56 with 10 German (not eleven as actually was) and 25 ORE? Also 6 sunks instead of eleven - seems outdated, some data not reliable and not WP:V. I think we need to follow the source -and not distinct by own list of German steamers - as far as it not interned as it compatriot Skagerrak April 7 and safety enter Narvik (I guess may be she declared themselves as a whaler). In other hand - if She was there specifically to refuel the destroyers - and comes from Germany (as claimed Tobias R. Philbin iii) - why inadequate pump and improvised arrangement of ex-whale factory ship??? Too strange -is't -replenishment oiler/maintenance ship but not prepared for such duty:( Why not simply to stay with 3 WP:RS?Jo0doe (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you still not able to understand what an ore ship is? It's a cargo ship that's in Narvik to pick up ore. Which Jan Wellem wasn't. Kattegat wasn't interned either, but seeing as she got caught up in Operation Wilfred on 8 April, she didn't get to Narvik in time. When the war broke out between Germany and Norway she was intercepted and dealt with. Turns out (according to mr. Gordon Smith at least, will look for other sources that Skagerrak wasn't intercepted at all, just delayed and later sunk by the British cruiser HMS Suffolk. So no fleet oilers were in fact interned at all. Of course she was there to refuel the destroyers, we have several sources on that (I can easily dig up more sources, but there are many enough). Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that Jan Wellem was at Narvik? We are following the sources, following the sources doesn't mean writing the sources' info in the exact same words as the sources. Manxruler (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I simply ask for source which identified all 10 steamers as ore ship. We've one clear identified whaler - so rest would be ok. I hope you know "October 1939 9 to the OKM, Donitz designated Norwegian port best suited for use as a German naval base, and recommended that a base be secured there" ? And I've heard about Altmark issue... I just follow the source royalnavy-history - which clear indicate. I guess you will not oppose if in Solar System - someone add a list of Planets same as in some of copyrighted sorce:) I guess you note that royalnavy-history does not bear copyright notice. Thanks (Can you help me with source mentioned under note 261?)Jo0doe (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The source for the 10 ships being ore ships is already in the text. I don't understand your Dönitz reference, where is that from? What's Altmark got to do with this? I'll try to figure out the note 261 stuff. For the copyright violation, see my earlier comments. Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I already found 261 - thanks. Not mine - from Dönitz:) See relevant source- "Führer Conferences on Naval Affairs 1939-1945," Naval Annual, 1948,. Altmark was protected from British by Norvegian navy. I expect same story here - per same sourceJo0doe (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Of course Altmark was protected by the Royal Norwegian Navy, to a certain extent at least. She was escorted by Norwegian warships, which were under orders to to fire on the Royal Navy in case of trouble. What does this have to do with this article? Absolutely nothing. Manxruler (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As you can easily she, if you bother reading the article, Jan Wellem was not discovered by the Norwegians before she showed up off Narvik, at which point she was stopped by a Norwegian patrol boat, inspected, and allowed entry into the port of Narvik, as all non-armed vessels were, even if they belonged to a warring party. What on earth are you getting at? Manxruler (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Per offical Royal Norwegian Navy Note to OKM - The S. S. Altmark was actually given the strongest protection ever accorded a German ship by Norway. Mar. 22 1940 accompanied by a German tug under protection of the Norwegian destroyer, had entered Swedish waters at 7:00 a. m. I hope you agreed that whale base ship built for task to refuell whale-boats - but refuelling of small boats and German destroyers it's not the same operation - that why inadequate pump and improvised arrangement. It's really sad to note in that article same almost issue as with Altmark incident ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no connection between Altmark and Jan Wellem, other than them being German government-operated ships in Norwegian waters. I do not know if Jan Wellem, in her time as a whale factory ship, used to refuel whaling boats, I've seen no sources on that, and I don't do speculation. I don't understand your last sentence, but Altmark has no relevance here, this is not the right place to discuss that ship/episode. Please stop doing that. Manxruler (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


My late father was on the edges of the Warburton-Lee attack and he disgustedly told me that the Admiralty had taken their information from the "Daily Sketch", eventually leading to considerable British Casualties.

Since then the Ultra decrypts have been released to the Public Archive and it seems that Ultra informed the Admiralty and in turn Warburton-Lee that there was likely to be considerable German forces in the area of Narvik. Which may mean that the "Daily Sketch" story was probably a simple cover for concealing the existance of Ultra.

The Admiralty file describes Warburton-Lee as "impetuous" and it seems that he launched the raid despite the Ultra warnings. AT Kunene (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like useful inforation. What's the source? Manxruler (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Politicians and Gestapo[edit]

Wasn't a ship carrying the politicians and Gestapo who were to take over the running of Norway following a successful Narvik campaign sunk by a Norwegian shore battery?AT Kunene (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be the German cruiser Blücher. It was part of the Oslo part of the German invasion of Norway, and was sunk by Oscarsborg Fortress. Narvik was only one part of the German invasion, even though its the best known part internationally. Manxruler (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

B-class review: failed[edit]

For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. Also, structure is poor, there are very long sections in need of subsections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The article needs much work. Manxruler (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


In the second paragraph it says "against German and Austrian mountain troops". Being Austrian myself, I have no trouble admitting on which side my countrymen fought, and I do know that the Gebirgsjäger were used in campaigns in polar regions, and most of these probably were of Austrian origin (because that's where the mountains are). But obviously they were integral part of the Wehrmacht, and I would doubt that there wasn't at least one man from the pre '38-borders per unit, just for political reasons. So is this consistent Wikipedia style to speak of Austrian forces in 1940? Instead, you could link to Gebirgsjäger, where the section on WW II needs quite some attention also, by the way. Seattle Jörg (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Someone added the Austrian bit years ago. It should probably be removed. Manxruler (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article still at sea[edit]

Sorry to sound critical, but this article still has me completely at sea.

Who won? And why don't we say so in the introduction? Why don't we have an analysis at the end?

Then there is that huge section of unwieldy detail in the middle that needs to be reduced for clarity.

cheers allBillyshiverstick (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Much of the issues with this article stems from the fact that it should really be split into four/five different articles. Originally, it was written as just an article covering the 10 and 13 April British-German naval battles, from a British perspective. I think it would be good to split the article into: 1. The German attack on Narvik on 9 April. 2. The 10 April British-German battle off Narvik 3. The 13 April British German battle off Narvik 4. The 9 April-10 June land battle around Narvik 5. The 28 May Allied recapture of the town of Narvik.
Could you be more specific about the "huge section of unwieldy detail in the middle"? Manxruler (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of long tons and tonnage[edit]

It is likely that the figures given here for the sizes of merchant steamers are incorrect. The article uses long tons as the size of those steamers, but units of mass such as long tons are not used as the size measure of merchant vessels. (They are used for the displacement of naval vessels, but rarely for civilian ships.) When "tonnage" is found in the sources, tonnage is meant, that is, gross register or net register tons, which have nothing to do with weight, but instead are measures of enclosed volume. (For tankers, deadweight tons may used, but that is not the measure of the overall size of tankers.) Other merchant steamers use grt and nrt, which have nothing to do with displacement. In short, every long ton conversion template for merchant ships should be deleted. Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battles of Narvik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)