Talk:German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee

Untitled

I question whether the title should be changed. Graf Spee was not a 'battleship'. She was an 'Armored Ship' or 'Panzerschiff', not a 'battleship'.

By most english speaking countries she was referred to as a "pocket-battleship" because of here battleship size guns on a cruiser size hull. Wandavianempire (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a propaganda term, not a ship type. Also, please don't necro threads from 2005. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

War Grave

This is simply a question, please don't take it as hostile in any way.

"Many German veterans do not approve of this restoration attempt, as they consider the wreck to be a war grave"

Is this true? Since Graf Spee was scuttled after the battle presumably it does not hold any bodies? Mucky Duck 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Men were still killed on it during the battle. User:Bonnieblueflag

Thats true, but no men died on it when it sank and thats why it's not a war grave. Anyway, in the article it says that the damage on the graf spee wasn't that bad. The ship took a direct hit in the kitchens and langsdorff was unable to feed his man if he had to make a run for it back to germany. That's severe damage to be honest... And if he had sailed for germany, he had to either lose the three cruisers (Ajax, Achilles and Cumberland) or destroy all three of em. Both options were very unlikely to succeed. DTE 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a War Grave

Here is a site that provided a bit more info on the fate of the crew after the Graf Spee was scuttled:

Feldgrau.com - research on the German armed forces 1918-1945 Panzerschiffe Admiral Graf Spee http://www.feldgrau.com/grafspee.html
Created, maintained and Copyright © 1996-2006, Jason Pipes
User: Unclebucky

Failed GA with invitation to renominate

I've failed this WP:GAC nomination because the article has no line citations. Please review similar good articles and resubmit when ready. In other respects this looks like it would qualify for good article status. Durova 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Cruising.jpg

Image:Admiral Graf Spee Cruising.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) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg

Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.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) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Yes

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: Fair-use with correct rationale and public domain

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Two further suggestions:

• "A ruse by the British encouraged the captain to think that he was out-numbered" - unclear what this ruse was.
• Adding access dates to the website citations would be an improvement.

Done, thank you very much. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Graf spee.JPG

Image:Graf spee.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 ensure 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) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"The fact that he wrapped himself in the Imperial flag before shooting himself may have been"

The statement above in the article that he used the naval salute when others used the NAZI salute, as well as his covering himself with an old flag, supports the explanation that he did not feel that doing damage (without hope of escaping), for the current German administration, was worth the probable sacrifice of most of his crew.

In general, it seems that they fought very hard for a government that inspired so little confidence, but this may be an exception.

Minor error re rangefinder?

The article refers to a recovered "gunnery range-finding telemeter". Is this an accurate description? What I see appears to me to be a range-finder itself, with the wings spanning the "base" of the rangefinder. I don't see what it has to do with telemetry. But maybe that is my ignorance. - N'Awlins Contrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.230.2 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP on one meaning of telemeter: "In military parlance telemeter has the specific meaning of a device for finding the range of a target. It is also used with the meaning "rangefinder"...." Naaman Brown (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Telemeters (tele = distance, meter = measuring instrument) are optical rangefinders, example: US1062166. --Gunnar (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Unclear statement

...possibly in order to prove he had not acted out of fear for his own life. The fact that he wrapped himself in the Imperial flag before shooting himself may have been a mute admission that he had not fought in the tradition and spirit of the proud commander whose name his ship bore.

It is unclear why his use of the imperial flag gives the implication stated. This should be clarified, but it is not within my sphere.

Best wishes,

Leonard G. (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with this point: the article's current interpretation of events would clearly be from the point of view of a loyal Nazi. I think there's much more substance to the remarks made earlier on this page, i.e. "[The fact that] he used the naval salute when others used the NAZI salute, as well as his covering himself with an old flag, supports the explanation that he did not feel that doing damage (without hope of escaping), for the current German administration, was worth the probable sacrifice of most of his crew." SteveStrummer (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Page name

This must have been asked before but I can't find it: why is this article at German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee rather than Admiral Graf Spee (battleship) or something similar? Would seem to fit the naming conventions more. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (ships). All ship articles follow this format. Benea (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But we should look for a better name, the term "pocket battleship" was just a nickname given by the Brits. All others referred to them as armored or heavy cruiser. --Denniss (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Do not make up a ship prefix for a navy that did not use one" - I see now, but if what Denniss says has merit should we change it to battleship? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you post a note at Wikiproject Ships if you are looking for input on this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of those situations where you will get people arguing for different classifications based on different facts and points of view. The Germans actually never called this ship a "heavy cruiser" as the reclassification of the Deutschland class vessels did not occur until after the AGS was scuttled. I like the term "Panzerschiffe" or "armoured ship" and some have pointed out that this ship shares a certain niche with the older class of armoured cruiser. I preferred the term "pocket battleship" because despite it being something of a nickname it did allow this unique class to stand out from all other cruisers, which were armed with 6- or 8-inch guns. The Alaska class, built years later, is the only "cruiser" to have larger guns to my knowledge, and many people including myself feel that the Alaskas were really battlecruisers due to their role as cruiser-killers. the_paccagnellan (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Panzerschiffe were built as substututes for retiring pre-dreadnaught German battleships (check the Ersatz-namen). They were not battleships (eg, their armor was not proof against main guns of their own size). They were designed to out-gun any contemporary heavy cruiser, out-run all but a few ships that were better armed (HMS Hood, Repulse and Reknown), and were designed for long operating range as high seas raiders. They were a unique class of ship, not just cruisers. The term "pocket battleship" was used widely in the press of the 1930s and 1940s thus has historic notability. They are Panzerschiffe, a unique class of warship. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the problem of ship classification in the title could be avoided by simply renaming the page 'German warship Admiral Graf Spee'. The term "warship" is (I believe) a neutral-toned descriptor. Perhaps the first section could briefly delve into the ship's unique classification as discussed above. Also, I believe the parentheses in the first sentence implies that "Panzershiff" translates as "pocket-battleship", which it doesn't.184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The ship was an over-armed cruiser, which the Germans themselves noted when they changed the ships' designation. As to the implication that Panzerschiff translates as pocket-battleship, I have no idea what you're talking about. The sentence reads "originally termed Panzerschiff or armoured ship", which is exactly what Panzerschiff means in English. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a quick fix done by me after the comment here, it's not ideal through. Maybe there's a better wording we could use in the class article and in the individual ship articles, covering Panzerschiff, heavy cruiser and the british nicknaming. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that "cruiser" is ok, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_from_navies_without_ship_prefixes: "Type - Do not be over-specific about the ship type: Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō not Japanese light aircraft carrier Shōhō". First, the type of the Deutschland-class was "Panzerschiff" (armoured ship) and later "Schwerer Kreuzer" (heavy cruiser); that wording issue may also be caused by the Versailles treaty (using the French word cuirassé = amoured ship). Comparing battleships, battlecruisers, and cruisers the Admiral Graf Spree had the function of a cruiser, meaning cruising alone in long range missions and disturbing inferior ships while fleeing from superior gunned ships. --Gunnar (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Crew internment

The following section is unreferenced, so I am moving it to the talk page until references are found:

The majority of the Graf Spee crew were interned in Argentina. Langsdorff feared that the pro-British Uruguayans might hand over his men in breach of neutrality, and upon reporting this to Berlin he was ordered to get the crew out of Uruguay. A ruse was attempted in which the men were set adrift in the international waters of the River Plate and picked up by three Argentine flag vessels under local German ownership. The German naval attaché then argued that since the thousand or so men were "mariners from the wreck of the 'Admiral Graf Spee'" they should not be interned but returned by neutral steamer to Germany as "survivors". Argentina was not satisfied that they fitted into this category and interned them. Between April 1940 and the end of 1941, all but six of the officers, and about 200 technical NCOs, absconded from internment and were back in Germany where the majority served in the U-boat Arm. These flights were organized and directed by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, who had been stationed in South America during World War I. Argentine naval connivance was suspected but never proved.

The Germans' behaviour during their stay in Montevideo, especially Langsdorff's action when faced with possible defeat at British hands, was held in high regard in Uruguay. Many locals feared that their city could become directly endangered during any hostilities. After the Uruguayan Government turned down the German request for the ship to be allowed two weeks in harbour for repairs, the German diplomats present suggested to Langsdorff that the ship's guns be used to demolish the port installations, the battleship then being sunk across the harbour exit. This would be in retaliation for Uruguayan "favouritism" towards the British which was not entirely without foundation (the Uruguayan Government refused to concede more than 72 hours 'under any circumstances' whereas they had given a British warship fourteen days to repair in the First World War, a clear breach of their own neutrality.) Langsdorff was opposed to the idea of demolishing the port and his decision to seek international waters to scuttle his ship was seen as partly motivated by a desire not to cause such harm.

After the war the British and US Governments insisted that all Admiral Graf Spee crewmen, irrespective of whether they had been recently married to local girls or not, should be repatriated to Germany, and the refrigerator ship Highland Monarch arrived at Buenos Aires and Montevideo on 16 February 1946 to ship them out. There now ensued a total fiasco, again possibly engineered by the Argentine Navy in collusion with the German secret service. By then the total of Admiral Graf Spee crewmen who had not escaped was 811 men at Buenos Aires and 90 or so at Montevideo. Amongst much lamentation and distress from the women and children ashore, the men plus six wives were paraded at the gangplank five hours before sailing time. At the last moment Argentine Army officers arrived carrying a large bag containing over 900 identity books. It was thus impossible to check the identity of each man against his document as he went aboard, and the British naval attaché watching the pantomime reported his fear that "some substitutions might have occurred".

Since all the men of U-530 and U-977, the two submarines which surrendered to Argentina in 1945, had been given into United States custody and flown out for interrogation before 31 August 1945, there were officially no U-boat men in captivity anywhere in Argentina, Chile or Uruguay. During the voyage of the Highland Monarch northwards it was discovered that 86 U-boat men had been smuggled aboard amidst the Admiral Graf Spee crewmen. Neither the British, US nor Argentine Governments were able to explain subsequently how the 86 U-boat men had got to Argentina in order to be repatriated from there. The most likely explanation is that they arrived aboard U-boats which unloaded on Argentine beaches postwar. The evidence may be found in Professor Ronald Newton's book The Nazi Menace in Argentina 1931–1947 (publ. Board of Trustees, Leland Stanford Junior University, 1992: translation El Cuarto Lado del Triángulo, Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1995, citing US Embassy box 16 "Cables from Buenos Aires Oct–Nov 1946). (Between 1980 and 1990 Professor Newton was appointed by the Argentine Government to report on that country's wartime files.)

By 1948 all former Admiral Graf Spee men who wanted to emigrate to Argentina to rejoin family there had been allowed to do so. Most of their descendants are to be found in the town of Villa General Belgrano in Córdoba province.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pocket Battleship

Since 'German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee' redirects here, and "pocket battleship" was (and is) commonly used, (Per WP:BOLD) I added: "(... sometimes referred to as pocket battleship)..." (Even National Geographic uses that term). Objections? Comments? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, note that this article uses as reference (emphasis mine):

• Williamson, Gordon (2003). German Pocket Battleships 1939–1945. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-501-5.
• Pope, Dudley (2005). The Battle of the River Plate: The Hunt for the German Pocket Battleship Graf Spee. Ithaca, NY: McBooks Press. ISBN 1-59013-096-0.
  

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See also:

Shouldn't there be a See also: section for related items? For example, there's a National Geographic Special' on the Graf Spee: (on Hulu) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be 'External links' instead? Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Year

I added year to first instance of date per section. Otherwise, reader must hunt for the year; often readers start from a section heading, without reading preceding sections, etc., and there should be a year associated with the first instance of a date. Although this seems reasonable (to me, at least), I don't know if this is in accordance with WP's style guidelines. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Steaming....

There are several references though out the document of the Graf Spee 'steaming' from one point to another. The Graf Spee, unlike the three HMS ships against her was a Diesel, as such she didn't steam anywhere. I feel those words should be removed or perhaps an alternate word should be used to prevent confusion. Thoughts? Rjhawkin (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I usually write about earlier warships, and was in the habit of referring to their movement as "steaming". I've removed all of those references in the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct term would have been motoring but I suspect that 'steaming' may have been used by the British side when referring to the Graf Spee's transits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

scuttling photo

If you can use it, there's a great public domain (PD-Canada after 1949) photo here: http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/2118 - 216.58.86.215 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Canadian copyright law, but when did it enter the public domain in Canada? Also, there's nothing that I can see on the image description page (the short or long form) that indicates that the photo is PD in Canada. Maybe there's a general disclaimer I couldn't find? Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's from the Toronto Telegraph, and all Canadian photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain. - 216.58.86.215 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's another question. Was it PD in 1996? The URAA came into effect in 1996, and if the photo was already PD in Canada, it will be PD in the US as well (which matters because the Wikipedia servers are in the US). If not, the copyright would have been automatically extended in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

All Canadian photographs created before 1949 were subject to copyright for only 50 years after creation, so it became public domain in 1989. When Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Copyright Act came into effect on January 1, 1999, photographs whose copyright already had expired remained in the public domain. - 216.58.86.215 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me then. I've uploaded the image and placed it in the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Kitchens?

The article talks of the ships “kitchens”, surely these should be called "galleys"? 194.176.105.141 (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what the source says. Well, you can't expect anything else of a landlubber, can you? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

4 tonne Bronze Eagle with swastika

there's an interesting story on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-30471063 that a massive bronze eagle ontop a swastika has been recovered and the debate about what should be done with it. Seems like the section on salvage is a bit out of date is anyone is still watching this article. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article does indeed mention the eagle crest (the last sentence in the article). Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

armour

The A.G.Spee was improved, as M.J.Whitley stated in his book (1989). As we can see even in dislacement increase, the belt was made of 100 mm steel. Some part of the decks were up to 70 mm, the barbettes were 125 mm since A.Scheer. The 105 mm guns were since beginning there, and with the proper 105 mm mounts (the Deutchland started with 3x88 mm, the Scheer had 6x105 mm but with 88 mm mounts adapted to the new task). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.245.89 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits - why keep incorrect data in the infoxbox?

Parsecboy, I just painstakingly corrected the article so that the infobox information and the text data agrees, and I cited high quality sources for all my changes. Reverting all this is rather mystifying to me as the data in the infobox regarding speed, range and armour is obviously wrong. Whitely, German capital ships of WW2, quotes actual trials data for speed and range and his data on armour matches Groner's. I will revert it back, ASAP, unless you have a very good explanation.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The article and text already does match. Gröner was writing at the time from official sources, he is correct. It is also inappropriate to change the reference format from the established style. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please give a source for 29.5 knots for Graf Spee and tell me where that is mentioned in the text? Where is 150mm turret armour mentioned in the text? The data from Whitely quotes the actual ship's trials and gives exact speeds and SHP recorded. He gives the same type of data for Graf Spee's fuel consumption and the resulting ranges. Graf Spee's diesel engines were very efficient and a range of 8900nm at 20 knots is completely incorrect. Last Graf Spee's standard displacement exceeded the treaty limitations so why does the lead read as it does?Damwiki1 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) OK, I see where it states 29.5 knots in the text but this is incorrect. Again, Whitely quotes directly from Kriegsmarine trial documents and Graf Spee made 28.50 knots with 53,650hp at 240rpm.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

1: The source for 29.5 knots is in the article.

2: As for where it is mentioned in the text, I direct your attention to this line: "The ship's top speed was 29.5 knots (54.6 km/h; 33.9 mph), at 54,000 shaft horsepower (40,000 kW)."

3:That was changed some time ago by another editor, incorrectly.

4:Those are the figures Gröner reports. Again, he was writing at the time, and was using official records.

5:The line in the introduction reads as it does because the Germans stated that the ship was within the limits. That's what "nominal" means. Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Whitely's data is directly sourced from ship's trials and cited in his references. 29.5 knots is simply incorrect as it would require far more than 54000hp. Bidlingmaier also states that Graf Spee made 28.5 knots on trials and he gives his sources as German Navy archival documents. He also agrees with Whitely's figures for armour thickness. He gives a range of 20,000nm at 18 knots, but Whitely's figures give the exact consumption and calculated range.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I just checked Koop and Schmolke's excellent book on the ships (see here), which gives detailed trials figures and it does agree with Whitley - they give estimates of 16,300 nmi at 18.69 knots and 7,900 nmi at 26 knots. It seems Gröner is mistaken. I have updated the article to match. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Just found out that "graf" means "count". I am reading the article "Maximilian von Spee" and there is little mention of him having been royalty in his lifetime. It states that he was "Vice Admiral" and "Reichsgraf" which also translates as "count" or "count of the reich" -of the empire- so I'm not sure if he was posthumously awarded the rank of full Admiral and Count. At any rate, why is the "Reich" part omitted in the name of the ship? I mean why not "Vice Admiral Reichgraf Von Spee"? Perhaps a reader who speaks German Could clarify this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Spee was born a count, the "Reich" part indicates that the family had been elevated by the Holy Roman Emperor. After 18067 there was no diffference to other counts. The "von/v.", which indicates nobility, is usually omitted when there is a noble title before it (Otto von Bismarck/Fürst Bismarck). Any admiral is addressed as "Herr Admiral", the other bits ("Konter-" or "Vize-") are omitted. So "Admiral Graf Spee" is the correct (short) name. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Great clarification thank you for your promptness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Call sign

The Battle of the River Plate article mentions the call sign DTGS, would these have been Graf Spee's Code Letters? Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was Graf Spee's international call-sign, the initial 'D' signifying a German ship ('Deutschland'). British ships' initial letter was a 'G'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Gun caliber

My recent edit to improve the accuracy of this article was reverted because "German guns are given in cm, not mm, see basically any relevant publication". Verifiability is laudable but in the truth v verification debate even JW has commented (Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52 UTC 1 September 2011) that editors shouldn't publish untruths, even if there are many independent citations to support the assertion. If more precise values are available, should we continue to display the imprecise ones simply to ensure consistency with one person's perception of third party published material? Astronomy Explained (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit was completely unsourced - you provided no source to show that the 28 cm SK C/28 had a calibre of 283 mm rather than 280 mm or that the 15 cm SK C/28 had a calibre of 149 mm rather than 150 mm. In addition referring to a gun as an 88 mm is no more accurate than 8.8 cm.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's no so much accuracy as those are the guns' proper names, irrespective of their actual bore diameter. The gun is a "15 cm SK C/28", not a "149 mm SK C/28". The nominal diameters of most small arm calibers are slightly (or significantly) different from their bore diameters, but that doesn't make an M1911 chambered in .451 ACP any more than Graf Spee was armed with six 283 mm SK C/28s. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, please don't necro old threads. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The article 28 cm SK C/28 naval gun gives the calibre as 283mm. I was informed a long time ago that we don't source internal material if the page is hyperlinked. The point regarding the names of the weapons is acknowledged, but I can't see why the actual calibres should be obscured. Astronomy Explained (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Because we use the proper name. As does just about every publication on these ships. That level of detail is useful in infoboxes in articles on the guns themselves, but it is irrelevant in other articles. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Buried dead" Where?

"Scuttling" Section

"After arriving in port, the wounded crewmen were taken to local hospitals and the dead were buried with full military honours."

It's a ship at sea taking refuge in a foreign port. One assumes the dead were buried on land, but possibly not. It would be an interesting addition if this detail could be added, at least to the extent that it rules-out burial at sea (if that did not happen).Tym Whittier (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Burial at sea is only done in deep water - otherwise bodies would wash ashore. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The point is to get the Article to say this.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it something that really needs to be said though? A ship can't very well bury its dead at sea if it doesn't go to sea. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't needed.. The statement is perfectly clear as it is. The ship was in port,,and the dead were buried.. Meters (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

List of prizes, ships captured and sunk.

The article would benefit from a consolidated list of the ships captured and/or sunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Incidental introduction

In the introduction, the following sentence is completely incidental to the main subject, it ambiguous as to who reclassified it and requires a citation. It should therefore be removed, (or, perhaps moved to the Deutschland-class page, if a citation is available.)

The two sister-ships of her class, Deutschland and Admiral Scheer, were reclassified as heavy cruisers in 1940.

83.100.188.53 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Page Contradiction with Battle of the River Plate

While reading this article and that of the Battle of the River Plate, I've noticed the two contradict each other. The Battle of the River Plate claims that 9 groups were formed by the Royal and French Navy to hunt down the Admiral Graf Spee, whereas this page claims that 8 were formed.

I am unaware of which is more accurate, so thought i should bring it to the attention of people who might now better.

Apologies if I've done something wrong, please bring it to my attention if i have.

SomePersons (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That page does not appear to have a citation; this one is covered by Rohwer, who is a well-regarded naval historian. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)