Talk:Channel Dash/Archive 1

Operation Donnerschlag claim

Operation Donnerschlag claims that not the escape, but the guard operation was named Cerberus. Can someone elaborate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 11:31, 6 March 2005 The break-out by the ships of the Brest Group had six different code names during various planning stages in an effort to confuse any adversary; the final German admiralty plan and the actual operation was “Operation Cerberus.” “Donnerschlag” may have been one of these code names, but a Naval “Donnerschlag” in connection with “Operation Cerberus” is not identified in the literature. The British effort to prevent the break-out and return of the German ships to their home bases was code-named “Fuller.” Various sub-operations, “Stopper,” “Habo,” “Line SE,” and “Jim Crow” were part of “Fuller.” None were effective. Operation Donnerschlag as a major German Naval enterprise is doubtful.--Gamahler 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Coastal batteries anyone? How come the Dover heavy batteries couldn't shoot those ships to pieces? The brits had good radar, so even with smokescreen the nazi ships could find no effective cover. The Dover guns had a range of 40km or more with the modified 15" ammunition! 195.70.32.136 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) The batteries were not alerted in time. They opened fire only shortly before the ships were out of range and ceased firing when a smokescreen was laid by the german escorts. Nevfennas 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Gneisenau I am suggesting to remove the edit “(and never again saw active service)” for the following reason: Gneisenau successfully completed Operation Cerberus, the subject of this page. Seven days later she entered dry dock at Kiel (after transiting Kiel Canal) to repair mine damage. She was attacked by a total of 178 RAF bombers between 25 and 27 February 1942 which smashed her bows and foredecks. It was due to these air attacks, subsequent transfer and incomplete repairs at Gotenhafen, that she was decommissioned and never again saw active service.--Gamahler 03:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) No reaction, will remove edit "(and never again saw active service)"--Gamahler 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Use of victory in the result. I have changed the result to "German Success" rather than "victory" is this implies some considerable battle took place, it did not. So the op. would have been more a success than a won victory, no?Dapi89 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Channel Dash "Channel Dash" is by far the most common name in English for this operation as a Google search of Books and Scholar reveals (see WP:NC). Further as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide states Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa). So I am moving this article to "Channel Dash". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) outcome strategic defeat???? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.120.61 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Our source is nothing more than a one liner, so I'll remove the defeat part.Qwertzy (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The operation was a strategic defeat for Germany because before the operation the two ships had access to the Atlantic and the Allied merchant shipping routes. After the operation, they did not, or at least not without facing the Royal Navy first. IIRC, after Cerberus neither ship ever ventured into the Atlantic again. Thus although embarrassing for the British the result of the operation actually suited them much better than it did the Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC) I question this. I consider the operation a operational and strategic success for the German navy. The three major ships would have been destroyed in place in Brest had they remained there. Yes, they lost a questionable access to the Atlantic, but gained access to Norwegian waters from with to threaten convoys to the USSR. I'm going to add material from "Defeat at Sea" by C.D. Bekker in support of this thesis. Seki1949 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Operation Fuller Why are the two operation names (one British, one German) not mentioned in the same sentence? Fuller is no more correct or official than the German name. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC) As I understand it, from the Channel Dash Association website among others, Fuller was the code name for the Naval/Fleet Air Arm attack itself. Cerberus appears to be the German code name for the operation to escape the blockade. If neither is correct, they should not be in the article or it should be reworded to indicate that they are "unofficial" names if that is indeed what they are. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I moved the Operation Fuller reference down to the "Britsh response" section, I think that's more accurate. – ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Battleships ???? The main article describes the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as 'battleships'. Tirpitz and Bismark were battleships, but surely the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were classed as 'battlecruisers'? The main article is correct in describing the Prinz Eugen as a heavy cruiser. Bedingfield (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC) The classification of the Scharnhorst class is tricky. They were built to specs violating the treaty of Versailles, but in a way that it would not be obvious that they were. They were too large to be real cruisers, and too small to be "real" battleships. They are go-betweens. But the Germans classified them as Schlachtschiff; the British classified them as battlecruisers during the war, nicknamed "pocket battleships", and reclassified them as battleships after the war. Wikipedia calls them battleships as well. It is not quite correct, but definitely not wrong, and better than a lengthy essay on the class in this article. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) CE, expansion Expanded Background and Prelude, changed headers to dates and times, added citations, pics and maps.Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Delicate question How do I word the header for the British bombing against the ships in Brest harbour and mention Brest while avoiding Brest bombing or a wordy euphemism? Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC) The current heading "British bombing, 1941" looks fine to me. To this British English speaker, the phrase "Brest bombing" has no special meaning, so I can't see the delicate issue. Wire723 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Brest/breast. Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC) DagosNavy Hello Dagos, nice to see you around with newer sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Keith. appreciate your recognition, thank you :)--Darius (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Seki1949 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Operation Donnerschlag

Operation Donnerschlag claims that not the escape, but the guard operation was named Cerberus. Can someone elaborate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yooden (talk • contribs) 11:31, 6 March 2005

The break-out by the ships of the Brest Group had six different code names during various planning stages in an effort to confuse any adversary; the final German admiralty plan and the actual operation was “Operation Cerberus.” “Donnerschlag” may have been one of these code names, but a Naval “Donnerschlag” in connection with “Operation Cerberus” is not identified in the literature.

The British effort to prevent the break-out and return of the German ships to their home bases was code-named “Fuller.” Various sub-operations, “Stopper,” “Habo,” “Line SE,” and “Jim Crow” were part of “Fuller.” None were effective.

Operation Donnerschlag as a major German Naval enterprise is doubtful.--Gamahler 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Coastal batteries anyone?

How come the Dover heavy batteries couldn't shoot those ships to pieces? The brits had good radar, so even with smokescreen the nazi ships could find no effective cover. The Dover guns had a range of 40km or more with the modified 15" ammunition! 195.70.32.136 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The batteries were not alerted in time. They opened fire only shortly before the ships were out of range and ceased firing when a smokescreen was laid by the german escorts. Nevfennas 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gneisenau

I am suggesting to remove the edit “(and never again saw active service)” for the following reason: Gneisenau successfully completed Operation Cerberus, the subject of this page. Seven days later she entered dry dock at Kiel (after transiting Kiel Canal) to repair mine damage. She was attacked by a total of 178 RAF bombers between 25 and 27 February 1942 which smashed her bows and foredecks. It was due to these air attacks, subsequent transfer and incomplete repairs at Gotenhafen, that she was decommissioned and never again saw active service.--Gamahler 03:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No reaction, will remove edit "(and never again saw active service)"--Gamahler 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of victory in the result.

I have changed the result to "German Success" rather than "victory" is this implies some considerable battle took place, it did not. So the op. would have been more a success than a won victory, no?Dapi89 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Channel Dash

"Channel Dash" is by far the most common name in English for this operation as a Google search of Books and Scholar reveals (see WP:NC). Further as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide states

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa).

So I am moving this article to "Channel Dash". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

outcome

strategic defeat???? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.120.61 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Our source is nothing more than a one liner, so I'll remove the defeat part.Qwertzy (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The operation was a strategic defeat for Germany because before the operation the two ships had access to the Atlantic and the Allied merchant shipping routes. After the operation, they did not, or at least not without facing the Royal Navy first. IIRC, after Cerberus neither ship ever ventured into the Atlantic again.

Thus although embarrassing for the British the result of the operation actually suited them much better than it did the Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I question this. I consider the operation a operational and strategic success for the German navy. The three major ships would have been destroyed in place in Brest had they remained there. Yes, they lost a questionable access to the Atlantic, but gained access to Norwegian waters from with to threaten convoys to the USSR. I'm going to add material from "Defeat at Sea" by C.D. Bekker in support of this thesis. Seki1949 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Operation Fuller

Why are the two operation names (one British, one German) not mentioned in the same sentence? Fuller is no more correct or official than the German name. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, from the Channel Dash Association website among others, Fuller was the code name for the Naval/Fleet Air Arm attack itself. Cerberus appears to be the German code name for the operation to escape the blockade. If neither is correct, they should not be in the article or it should be reworded to indicate that they are "unofficial" names if that is indeed what they are. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the Operation Fuller reference down to the "Britsh response" section, I think that's more accurate. – ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Battleships ????

The main article describes the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as 'battleships'. Tirpitz and Bismark were battleships, but surely the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were classed as 'battlecruisers'? The main article is correct in describing the Prinz Eugen as a heavy cruiser. Bedingfield (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The classification of the Scharnhorst class is tricky. They were built to specs violating the treaty of Versailles, but in a way that it would not be obvious that they were. They were too large to be real cruisers, and too small to be "real" battleships. They are go-betweens. But the Germans classified them as Schlachtschiff; the British classified them as battlecruisers during the war, nicknamed "pocket battleships", and reclassified them as battleships after the war. Wikipedia calls them battleships as well. It is not quite correct, but definitely not wrong, and better than a lengthy essay on the class in this article. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

CE, expansion

Expanded Background and Prelude, changed headers to dates and times, added citations, pics and maps.Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Delicate question

How do I word the header for the British bombing against the ships in Brest harbour and mention Brest while avoiding Brest bombing or a wordy euphemism? Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The current heading "British bombing, 1941" looks fine to me. To this British English speaker, the phrase "Brest bombing" has no special meaning, so I can't see the delicate issue. Wire723 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Brest/breast. Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

DagosNavy

Hello Dagos, nice to see you around with newer sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith. appreciate your recognition, thank you :)--Darius (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)