Talk:Roon-class cruiser

Kilowatts and volts

I hope everyone will excuse my ignorance, but when the article says "four turbo generators, which provided 260 kW (110 V)", is it converting kW to V, or is it saying that any power outlet onboard had 110 volts, AND the generators cranked out 260 kW.

WeeWillieWiki (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The generators cranked out 260 kW @ 110 volts. To oversimplify, kilowatts are a quantitative measurement, while volts are qualitative. I suppose I could make that a little clearer :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roon class armored cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development, mainly concerning additional details that would benefit the article. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• At several points in the article, particularly in the individual ship histories, the prose doesn't flow very well, with too many full stops breaking it up, can you work on this to make it smoother?

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• "The ships' casemates were placed too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet" - what were, the casemates or the ships? Can you clarify this a bit - did they flood?
• Why were the names changed at commissioning?
• What happened (briefly) at the Battle of Åland Islands (and shouldn't that be Battle of the Åland Islands in English?)
• Why was the seaplane conversion not carried out?

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Is of SMS Gneisenau according to the image tag. It certainly isn't a Roon class vessel - the details of the stern are noticeably different. I have removed it. Drutt (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is mislabeled - the Bundesarchiv has confirmed the error (see here). Compare the photo with this one of Gneisenau; the mainmast is wrong, and as I noted at the Commons error reporting page, the amidships guns are completely different (i.e., mounted in widely-spaced casemates on Gneisenau but in closely arranged turrets on Roon and Yorck). Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Do any better pictures exist of SMS Roon? Drutt (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of photos online, but none of them have copyright information (or worse, the website owners are committing copyfraud like this one). Without the copyright information, we can't use them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The ships did not compare well with their British rivals

Says who? On paper they may have fewer guns, but in practice the ships have very similar capabilities to the Duke of Edinburgh class, which are their closest contemporaries. I can't find any references in any of my books saying that the ships were worse than any nation's rivals or unsatisfactory in anyway other than the casements being unworkable in any kind of swell. Obviously if we compare them to the Warrior subtype they don't look so good, but then you'd expect that as the Warriors were (re)designed to overmatch them... Getztashida (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very clearly cited - the author states "When compared with their British contemporaries, [the German armored cruisers] do not show up particularly well, in fact, with the possible exception of the last pair, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, it is probably true to say that the armored cruisers were Germany's worst designed and least battleworthy ships in service in 1905." Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice the citation further down the page. I shall have to check this out as none of my references go beyond a basic decription of the class and I'm interested to learn more about the design history of the ships. Getztashida (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. For what it's worth, Holger Herwig states, "Owing to restrictions imposed upon armored cruiser construction by the limited size of her docks and harbors, the Reich was never able to develop fully the armored cruiser type on a level with France, Great Britain, and Russia. It was only in 1906 that Germany was able to build ships approximately equal to their British counterparts with the Scharnhorst class." - page 28 of "Luxury" Fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)