Talk:Type 1936B destroyer

Inconsistencies in the sources

There are inconsistencies between the sources regarding maximum speed, range and main armament.

Kriegmarine has a top speed of 36.5 knots, ( Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk has 38 knots).

Kriegmarine has a range of 2,600 miles, ( Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk has 6,200 miles, which seems to be the correct figure).

Kriegmarine gives a more detailed account of the main armament as consisting of 15 cm (5.9 in), but on a related page shows it as 12.7 cm! ( Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk has 5 in for the Type 1936B, but 5.9 in for the 1936A).

Both sources contain typos, which may be another indication of unreliability - I've tried to use the values which seem to be the most consistent Bahudhara (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just put in a request for assistance with this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships - see also additional discussion on User talk:Driftwood87's page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Navweapons gives the 12.7 cm/45 (5") SK C/34 as the armament. its a more trustworthy source in my opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too - the Navweapons 12.7cm page does specifically refer to the Type 1936B being armed with this gun.

Unfortunately the German Wikipedia page on the Type 1936 gives details of the Type 1936A, but makes no mention of the Type 1936B. Bahudhara (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

November 2003 - Osprey Publishing - "German Destroyers 1939-45", page 23, by Gordon Williamson. Doesn't give the range at 19 kts but lists the maximum endurance as 2900 nmi & max speed at 37 kts. The source also lists the armaments. Driftwood87 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go with 2900nmi—6200nmi is a really long range for a destroyer of that time. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the data from the Gordon Williamson source re the Type 1936B:

Displacement: 3,542 tons

Fuel oil carried: 825 tons max

Max speed 37 knots

Max endurance 2,900 nautical miles

and here's the data for the British Tribal class destroyer (1936)

Displacement: 1,850 tons (standard), 2,520 tons (full)

Max speed: 36 knots

Range: 524 tons oil, 5,700 nautical miles (10,600 km) at 15 knots

However, the German Wikipedia page on the Type 1936 gives a range (Fahrbereich) of 2,050 nautical miles at 19 knots for the earlier Type 1936 (which had a fuel capacity of 786 tonnes, increased to 820 tonnes for the Type 1936A).

Williamson (on the last page of the Google preview) emphasises that " these vessels, though fewer in number than the British destroyer fleet, tended to be much bigger and more powerful than their Allied counterparts ". This would mean that their fuel consumption would be higher; but with the much bigger (yet proportional) fuel capacity, might they not be expected to have a similar range?

Endurance isn't necessarily the same as range, especially if the speed isn't given as well. Is the figure of 5,700 nautical miles for the Tribal class the effective range from a home port (i.e. two-way), or the distance travelled before needing to refuel?

To get an idea of what these distances mean, I've just tried the experiment (using Google Earth) of measuring the distance of a voyage around the British Isles (including the Shetlands), starting and finishing in Bremerhaven, and came up with a figure of around 2,155 nautical miles; a round trip from Bremerhaven to the northern tip of Norway would be about 2,600 nautical miles, and the distance from New York to London seems to be around 3,150 nautical miles.

So perhaps it does mean that 'range' is being used in different senses in different articles, with the two-way range given for the German ships because they may have tended to operate from a home port, and the distance travelled before needing to refuel for the British destroyers, because they tended to be used more point-to-point over longer distances, as e.g. transatlantic oonvoy escorts.

If this is the case, then perhaps Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk is fairly consistent with the other sources if it is actually giving a point-to-point 'range' for the 1936B, although its figure of 6,200 nautical miles is somewhat higher.

At least the sources (apart from Kriegmarine) do seem to be in agreement on the armament - with the Type 1936Bs having five 12.7 cm guns mounted in single turrets, with only the earlier Type 1936As having the heavier 15 cm guns. 27.33.222.118 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops - that last post was by me - I must have accidentally logged out before posting! Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be the word 'range' is being substituted for radius in some comparisons, but not in others. 'Range' should be used for the total distance a ship can travel, not the radius of area it can operate in from one base. Driftwood87 (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 1936B destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: White Shadows (talk · contribs) 04:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The link to the host site for the image located in the infobox is broken.
  • Replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• The lead seems just a tad short. Is there any way that can be expanded by just a few sentences?
  • Since there were only three operational ships, none of which lasted more than a year in service, there not really much I can add as all three pretty much did the same kind of thing. And adding info from the description section would just be redundant, IMO.
• I don't see anything about the armor on the destroyers. Did they have any?
  • Nope.
    • Wow.
• I feel like the layout of the Design and description section can throw a reader off. It begins with talking about the armament of the destroyers before switching over to the dimensions of the class, only to return to more details about the armament of the ships in an entirely new subsection after covering the propulsion systems.
  • You get one paragraph of design stuff, then lots of description. Armament and sensors is a sub-section, not a full section.
    • Gotcha. That's a fair rebuttal.
• The service section seems rather short too, but this is probably something that would be better addressed at a Peer Review or if/when you bring it up to ACR.
  • Like I said above, there's not a whole lot of material on these ships since they had such short careers and did the same kinds of things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, great work as usual Sturm. I don't think I'll have any issues passing this GAN after the image issue has been dealt with and I hear back from you on my other points/suggestions. I envy how quickly you can churn out content!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's me done. Congrats on yet another GA Sturm. Like I said, I'm very envious of how quickly you churn out content!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been distracted by RL stuff these last couple of months so it seems like I haven't done anything in ages. Developing a standard format and using a lot of boiler plate for descriptions really speeds things up. That's one reason why I chose to work on ships, they're generally not all that complicated and don't take that much time compared to more general articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)