A slight change of pace - or at least from the seemingly endless overhauled pre-dreadnought articles. This ship was Bismarck's consort during the May 1941 operation, and she was one of only two major German warships to survive the war intact. I wrote this article a while ago (back in 2011) so it might need a little work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"Her anti-aircraft battery was to have consisted of twelve 10.5 cm (4.1 in) L/65 guns, twelve 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns, and eight 2 cm (0.79 in) guns. The ship also would have carried a pair of triple 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo launchers abreast of the rear superstructure. The ship was to have been equipped": Everything else in this section is simple past tense; I'm not getting the point of the change in tense.
Probably because I copied that section from one of the unfinished ships in the class and didn't fix it ;) Thanks for catching it!
"OKM": Write it out at first occurrence
Good point, fixed.
"remained in their stations": slightly jargony. "... relative positions", maybe?
Yeah, I can see that - have a look at how it reads now.
Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Nice work as always Parsecboy: this article provides a good summary of the history of a famous, though somewhat under-achieving, ship. I think that this meets the A-class criteria, but I have the following comments for your consideration:
"Prinz Eugen saw extensive action during Operation Rheinübung" - not sure about 'extensive' in this context: the term is usually used for ships who saw lots of combat over time, not a couple of clashes
Good point, removed.
" As designed, her standard complement consisted of 42 officers and 1,340 enlisted men" - Not sure if it belongs in the class article rather than here, but can it be explained why the crew was so huge for a heavy cruiser?
Well, it's really not all that large for a ship of her size - for instance, the smaller US Cleveland-class cruisers had a crew of almost 1,300 and the Baltimores topped 2,000 officers and enlisted. Remember that these cruisers were as large as the battleships of 20 years earlier (and not to mention the proliferation of anti-aircraft weaponry and other equipment).
"Prinz Eugen and the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were continually threatened by Allied air attacks while stationed in Brest, so Adolf Hitler ordered their return to Germany in early 1942" - wasn't Hitler's overall motivation a belief that there was an imminent threat to Norway, and that all of his heavy ships needed to be there, rather than concern about the raids on Brest? If so, you might want to tweak this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point - I've added a bit on the "zone of destiny", as Hitler apparently referred to Norway. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
CommentSupport The article puts a lot of emphasis on Operation Rheinübung in comparison to the German fighting retreat in Eastern Prussia of early 1945. The fact that her commander Hans-Jürgen Reinicke was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the only commander of Prinz Eugen so honored, is not (yet?) mentioned. He received the award for Prinz Eugen artillery support in the area of Riga and Tukums (Operation Doppelkopf) and for covering the naval evacuation of the German forces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll pull some information from his article - nice work expanding that by the way.
I think I've added everything from Reinicke's article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: Action on 29–31 January 1945: Prinz Eugen along with destroyer Z25 and torpedo boat T33 in support of the XXVIII Corps supported the bridgehead Cranz and fired 871 20.3cm rounds.
This was referenced in the article but additional details from K&S have been added.
According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: 10 March actions start in the area of Gotenhafen and Danzig. Prinz Eugen fired 2025 20.3cm and 2446 10.5cm rounds. Prinz Eugen is supported by Schlesien and as of 25 March by Leipzg.
Added, thanks for these details
Vizeadmiral Bernhard Rogge led the task force from 10 March to 22 March
The original ship bell of the SMS Tegetthoff was handed over to Prinz Eugen on 22 November 1942. The presentation was made by the Italian Contrammiraglio de Angeles. Koop & Schmolke page 182-183
Koop & Schmolke state (page 160) that her ship bell now resides in the Washington Naval Museum and the Tegetthoff bell is in Graz.
Don't know why I didn't think of that - I've seen the Prinz Eugen bell in Washington. Good catch! Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this up piecemeal... Koop & Schmolke page 159 state that the US crew had difficulties handling the propulsion system. Apparently 11 of 12 boilers failed after the last German crew left the ship on 1 May 1946. Koop & Schmolke speculate that this may have influenced the decision to use her as a target ship. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem at all - these are all great additions to make. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about the propulsion system. Koop & Schmolke page 157 state 135,000 WPS (shaft power?), the infobox says 100,000 hp (75 MW) and the main body says 132,000 shaft horsepower (98,000 kW). In the class article it reads "Admiral Hipper's and Prinz Eugen's boilers were manufactured by Wagner, while the boilers for the other three ships were built by La Mont." Koop & Schmolke page 36 state La Mont boilers were used in Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen while the other three ships used Wagner boilers. Could you check into this please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It was an error on my part - Gröner confirms La Mont for Hipper and Eugen and Wagner for the rest. I'll fix it over there as well. As for the infobox, I'm guessing that was from before I overhauled the article and I missed when I updated the infobox. Thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am done. Maybe check HRS which seems unused as a reference so far. good job overall MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Stopping my copyedit/review for the night having done top and tail, leaving war service still to do -- pls let me know if any issues. Two comments while I think of them:
The "Notes:" label in the infobox looks a bit silly to me with the footnote next to it. Since the label's there anyway, why not just write "Figures are for the ship as built" right there and dispense with the footnote?
Sounds fine to me.
I find parts of the first two paras of Service history somewhat convoluted, as though there are multiple versions of the same thing written by different people. The commissioning is mentioned three times, with gaps in between. First it's in an introductory sentence: "The ship was launched on 22 August 1938 and completed two years later, on 1 August 1940, the day she was commissioned into the German fleet." Then there's details of the launch. Then we mention the commissioning again, and its delay owing to an air attack. Then we start a new para and mention the commissioning a third time, again with reference to an air attack shortly before, but apparently a different one... Since the lead summaries her laying down, launch and commissioning in one sentence already, I think it'd be better if we just stuck to a strict chronological sequence of events here, telling us everything about the launch, then everything about the commissioning, and not mixing/repeating things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A result of some careless restructuring - the construction details had originally been in the design section and I wasn't paying attention when I moved it to the service history section (though there were in fact two authors of the material, so you weren't far off!
Resuming copyedit/review with the wartime history, I just wanted to say that although I'm pretty familiar with details of Operation Rheinübung, I still found this account very well written, as though I was reading it for the first time, so well done.
Structure and level of detail seem fine. Aside from what I copyedited (pls check I haven't misunderstood anything), no concerns beyond those above.
Everything looks good to me.
No issues stood out re. image licensing.
Source review revealed just one formatting issue that I corrected.