Talk:L 20e α-class battleship

Comments

As per the request for feedback in the assessment request, I have the following suggestions for the article:

• What's 'broadside underwater armor', and why was it important?
• Why would developing a new turret design have clashed with U-boat construction? (presumably due to the diversion of money and resources?)
• More detail on the apparent abandonment of the design in early 1918 would be interesting
• If the number of ships to be built is 'unknown', is it correct to repeatedly talk about 'ships'?
• Did any elements of the design reflect Germany's wartime experiances?
• Did the design influence the German BBs which were developed in the 1930s? Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions for further improvement. I'll look into searching for these details as soon as I'm able to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd also like metric/English conversions given for all units. The infobox has metric, but the text has English measurements. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:L 20 α class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This is awkward: Above the torpedo bulkhead, a splinter bulkhead, designed to protect against shell fragments and was 30 mm (1.2 in) thick, ran to the upper deck Link to Krupp and fuel oil. And links can be built into the conversion template with|This is awkward: Above the torpedo bulkhead, a splinter bulkhead, designed to protect against shell fragments and was 30 mm (1.2 in) thick, ran to the upper deck Link to Krupp and fuel oil. And links can be built into the conversion template with |lk=on.

   I think I've got everything here. Does the sentence read better now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   Better, but I think that it would be further improved by moving the thickness in front of the word "splinter" so that it's now a compound adjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   Will do. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Still exactly not sure what broadside underwater armor was. The underwater portion of the waterline belt? Torpedo bulkheads?

   Is it clearer now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   Better, but I'm still a little baffled because the belt armor still extends somewhat below the waterline. But maybe it wasn't as far below as earlier practice.

   Well, take a look at Bayern for instance; the main belt was about the same as here; 70 inches above lwl and 14 below, but then it continued down to 67 inches below lwl in reduced thickness. In this case, it just stopped completely at 14 inches below lwl. Perhaps I'll add a note giving this example. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   That would be helpful in explaining the rationale for the decision.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No sketch available under fair-use?

   I haven't seen a single one; Conway's is the only book of that type that has an entry (odd to me that Groner's doesn't), but it doesn't have a line-drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   How about this one? http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg

Garyvp71 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Is there anything left to be addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   That will do it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Belt armor

I am really not convinced that the tapered section of the underwater belt was to be discarded. Forstmeier & Breyer mention nothing like that. Similar, later designs (like the GK XXXX Series) also still have that belt, it would not make sence to discard it, since it would not only weaken torpedo resistance but also resistence against underwater hits from heavy artillery. Given Germanys concern to make their ships steadfast and hard to sink, this decision would throw all that overboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.190.45 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what Weir states the Germans decided to do. Does Forstmeier & Breyer say anything about the thickness of the lower belt? Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The lower belt thickness would have been 170 mm tapered down to 30 mm in a manner similar to this plan: http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4531_100dpi.jpg (which seems to be authentic, it is reproduced in Forstmeier & Breyer). There is a comparison of different design studies: http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Zusammenstellung_100dpi.jpg. This seems to be the source of Forstmeier & Breyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.40.199.171 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Campbell article I added to this article earlier today confirms the 170mm lower belt strake. I don't know why Weir says that the lower belt was discarded.Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1906-1921 doesn't state that it should have been removed either. I propose that that section of the article is removed.

Yeah, I'm planning on fixing it shortly - I'm in the process of overhauling German cruiser Nürnberg at the moment though. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

L 20 e α not L 20 α Class Battleship

According to the German language Wikipedia article it is L 20 e α and the German language book Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe 1915 Bis 1918, there is a L24 α. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dominatormaximus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 has just "L 20 α" - I see no reason to believe Breyer over Campbell (the author of the German section of Conway's), especially since I have seen Breyer make mistakes in the past. The L 24 α is a another design (there are dozens of different variants of late-war battleships, battlecruisers, and fast battleships). Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dodson has a fairly in depth discussion of the design history and he uses "L20eα" - seems like the "e" was indeed part of the designation. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

CE Copyedit (minor)

Did a cheeky little ce, blammed a few mad commas, typos, isbn 13'd the references, checked find dup refs, dupe wikilinks, auto ed. RV as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith - I put the refs all back into one list, since there are only two journals, and I don't see much benefit to splitting them off. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of main guns in L2

The text says that L2 would've had 10 x 380 mm guns, but the table below states that it would have 8 like L1 and L3. So what's the correct number? Cléééston (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch - 10 is the correct number. I've fixed the table. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)