Talk:German cruiser Admiral Scheer
|German cruiser Admiral Scheer has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|German cruiser Admiral Scheer is part of the Heavy cruisers of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
There seems to be some dispute over the armament. The source I have in front of me ("The Illustrated Directory of Warships from 1860 to the Present Day", David Miller, Salamander Books Ltd, London 2004, ISBN 0-86288-677-5) states that the Scheer had the following: 6 x 280mm, 8 x 150mm, 6 x 88mm, 8 x 37mm AA, 8 x 533mm TT
I suggest the two of you cite your sources and we can work out which is correct. Wiki-Ed 10:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've corrected the armament information, the 88mm AA were replaced with 105mm AA before the war. Source: German-Navy.de Admiral Scheer. I assume it started with someone accidently mistyping the 105 as 150 and then people started believing this to be correct -- Nevfennas 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Changing the masculine pronouns to feminine
Though it may very well be the case that the sailors on board considered the Admiral Scheer to be male, I suggest that the masculine pronouns in this article be changed to feminine to follow standard English language usage relating to ships. As it is now, the masculine pronouns serve mainly to confuse and distract readers used to seeing ships referred to as "she," thereby detracting from the article. Furthermore, precedent on the English Wikipedia when dealing with ships that are male in their native tongue (e.g. those of the Russian navy) is to use female pronouns. There is no reason the Admiral Scheer should be treated any differently. Jrt989 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since there's been no dissent in the nearly three months since I posted, I have changed the pronouns to feminine. Jrt989 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A better solution would be to follow the original common use. When the ship was called "he", it was only "the Scheer" without the "Admiral"-prefix.
saving text during rewrite
Just to note, I'm overhauling this article (and will do Deutscland/Lutzow, Admiral Graf Spee, and the class article as well). I've got Williamson's book on the way, so it'll be a few days before I can finish the rewrite. If anyone wants to help out, please do, and please cite reliable sources when adding material. I'm saving some text here during the rewrite for possible reuse. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Towards the end of its Spanish deployments, Admiral Scheer served in April 1938 as a polling booth for the extraterritorial vote of German and Austrian clerics, studying at the German college of Santa Maria dell'Anima, on the question of the German annexation of Austria (Anschluss). For this purpose, she anchored in the harbour of Gaeta. Contrary to the overall German result, these clerical votes rejected the Anschluss with over 90%, an incident which was coined as "Shame of Gaeta" (Vergogna di Gaeta, Schande von Gaeta) at the time.
Reichsmarine & Kriegsmarine and more
Please note that the Reichsmarine was renamed to Kriegsmarine in 1935. Also noteworthy is that Ernst Lindemann was first gunnery officer durig the Spaish Civil War. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the first part and grabbed the citation from Lindemann's bio. Thanks for pointing those out. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Suspect that this in fact is Elsaß Lothringen (the German name for Alsace-Lorraine)
- Nope, "Ersatz" means replacement - SMS Elsass and SMS Lothringen were two different ships. Admiral Scheer was ordered as a replacement for Lothringen, while Elsass was replaced by Scharnhorst. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In regard to some of the photos on the main page: Unless I am ignorant of alterations to SCHEER, three of the photos appear to be of the GRAF SPEE, not the SCHEER.
- Yes, you are mistaken. These are all photos of Admiral Scheer, which received the same mast as Admiral Graf Spee - it was Deutschland that had the smaller pole mast. One easy way to check is to look at the bow ornaments - it's somewhat hard with these low-res photos, but see for instance this one of Admiral Scheer and this one of Admiral Graf Spee (and for reference, here's this one of Deutschland). Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello gents, POV I prefer the metric ton (t) as the base unit with long and short in parentheses if we feel the need to clarify. I personally don't, despite the historical perspective. See List of obsolete units of measurement for more options. Please consider changes to: "The ship had a design displacement of 13,660 t (13,440 long tons; 15,060 short tons) and a full load displacement of 15,180 long tons (15,420 t), though the ship was officially stated to be within the 10,000 long tons (10,000 t) limit of the Treaty of Versailles." Leaving aside POV, this "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" is inconsistent with the preceding. I see you're still around and thanks for the great work Parsecboy. Cheers. Doug (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Generally for ships of the post-WNT era, long tons are the default unit of measure, and units should always be converted - we are an international encyclopedia, after all.
- I used the figures as provided by Gröner, in the units he presented them. The Germans generally used metric tons, and Germany had not been admitted to the treaty system when the ships were designed, which is probably why Gröner, who was working with original documents, used metric tons for the designed displacement figure. I have no problem flipping the numbers, however. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)