Talk:Battle of the Denmark Strait

Prinz Eugen's Torpedoes

Inspite of the reference to Ludovic Kennedy's remark in his book "Pursuit", the claim that HMS Prince of Wales had "come into torpedo range of Prinz Eugen and turned away as the German cruiser was about to fire", does NOT bear any scrutiny. There was never ANY point during the battle where this was the case. The maximum range of German G7a naval steam torpedo was 12km at their lowest "Weitschuß" speed setting. HMS PoW's gunnery charts show that at the point of turning away from the German ships her salvoes, fired at a range of 14100 yards, were "short" of the German ships.

Even if PoW had come within 12km of Prinz Eugen before turning to withdraw, at the Weitschuß speed setting of 30knots it would take the G7a torpedo nearly 14 minutes to cover that 12km, meaning that due to the prior convergent courses of the combattants, to arrive at the point where PoW turned to withdraw, a torpedo fired 14 minutes earlier by the Prinz Eugen would have been fired at a range in the region of 30,000 yards from the point where PoW withdrew at 06:03.

While Prinz Eugen's torpedoes had been readied at the start of the engagement, she was never in a position to use them, so why perpetuate earlier speculation that is later shown to have been incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.111 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Classification of Scharnhorst & Gneisenau

There are opposing views about whether these two warships should be described as "battleships" or "battle-cruisers" - see discussion: Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser.

Simply speaking, the pro-battleship arguments appear to be 1) that's a correct translation of the German "schlachtschiffe", 2) the German builders have the right to define the classification, 3} Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had all the characteristics of battleships except the main armament. The pro-battlecruiser arguments appear to be 1) English-language articles are not bound by German (in this case) terminology and should use terms familiar to their audience, 2) English-language authorities such as "Jane's" and the Royal Navy use the term "battlecruiser", 3) the lesser armament made the difference, 4}both ships acted as battlecruisers and could not have acted as battleships.

My view? We write for our audience. Use whichever description best helps the reader (in his/ her own language) and explain the dispute. Folks at 137 19:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If "schlact" translated as war, then they'd "warships" and life would be much easier. We have to define them in terms of the definitions in the English wiki articles and the purpose for which they were designed and used. Their armament is too small for a battleship, their armour too heavy for a cruiser - battlecruisers were neither battleships nor cruisers - it'll do.GraemeLeggett 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They were "light battleships". The only reason they had 11 inch guns was cos the larger ones weren't ready yet. They were designed to be upgunned if needed and in fact Gneisenau was proceding with this. Her turrets were removed before the end of the war. Remember that battleships in WW1 sometimes had 11-inch guns also, yet they were still battleships. The main difference between battlecruisers and battleships was armor vs speed anyway, not gun size. BCs traded armor for speed - they were an evolution of armored cruisers. S/G didn't do this. Their speed was not that much faster than battleships of their time period, and their armor was not thin enough to be considered a BC. Other battleships had lighter armor and higher speed too (Iowa class for eg). "fast battleships" and "light battleships" I think are much more accurate terms than "battlecruiser". Even Hood was barely a battlecruiser when finished. I'd call the Strasbourg class "light battleships" also. I don't see this as a problem. You can't go by what some book says. Books say a lot of things. Janes gets things very wrong sometimes. I'd go by what Conways says perhaps. Or what the German navy (in this case) said.

A battlecruiser is NOT "something between a cruiser and a battleship", it is "a vessel with battleship-level armament and cruiser-level armour and speed". With an armour-to-displacement ratio of more than 1:3, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were well within battleship standards of protection (the actual entry for these ships is incorrect), were undergunned, and had cruiser speed, so making them rather the opposite of a battlecruiser. Note that their small armament is irrelevant to classification. If you actually study warships you'll find numerous (mainly pre-dread, admittedly) "battleships" which had armament not much above a large cruiser (mainly in the German and Austro-Hungarian navies). The precedent has always been that if the using navy calls it a "battleship", it's a battleship. It doesn't matter what enemy sources prefer to call it out of ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, o Korean commentator, is that we need RS's for articles, not personal opinions, which do nothing to add to the value of the article, and the Talk Pages are not a Forum.

I am a citizen of the Commonwealth. Not that that should make a difference. And I know what I'm talking about. It's your opinion that is personal. Check any Jane's Fighting Ships from the pre-WWI period. I am the one making primary source checks here. The term "Battle-cruiser" doesn't even exist in German. The term for their Imperial-era vessels of that stamp is "Line-Cruiser" (Linienkruiser) seriously. Check your sources.

These ships don't fit that pattern, or the British pattern term "battlecruiser". They are Battleships.

I don't know whether to be appalled more by your ignorance or by your strange assumption that my opinion means nothing because I posted from Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.88.80.138 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The British classed them as battle cruisers because with 11-inch guns they did not carry a heavy enough armament in British eyes for them to be classed as battleships.

BTW, a battle cruiser has a battleship's guns and a cruiser's speed and range, the latter being needed for the protection of British merchant shipping worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Simple. The designed intent of the Scharnhorst was as a counter to the French Dunkerques. They were designed with engaging them at the forefront of their mission. A capital ship designed to engage other capital ships is a battleship Warspite85 (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen hitting the Hood

This article asserts that an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen hit the Hood at 06.01, causing the enormous explosion that sank the ship. This cannot be right, as Prinz Eugen had been firing at Prince of Wales for some minutes, as ordered by Lutjens after Bismarck received several hits from the British battleship. It is not disputed that the first hit Hood received was from Prinz Eugen, at about 05.56, which set off a large fire on Hood's deck. However, the majority of opinion accepts that it was a 15" hit from Bismarck that sank the battlecruiser, not a delayed reaction to the first hit she received from Prinz Eugen five minutes earlier.

Of course it's impossible to be certain of this fact, therefore some caution needs to be shown. Still, I don't see that there can be any doubt that it's incorrect to say that a shell from Prinz Eugen hit Hood at 06.01. bigpad 21:15, 10 April 2006.

For more on this topic, see the "Modern theories on the sinking" section of HMS Hood (51), and also the source material cited on the Talk: HMS Hood (51) page. John Moore 309 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Captain Leach report on Hood loss: three near miss, "something hitting onboard" from Bismark at 0600. It's impossibile for an experienced seaman mistake about shell splashes: think only about shell weight, 800 kg for Bismark 15" rounds, only 120 kg for 8" Prinz Eugen. And there is absolutely no chance for a 8" shell to pierce even a two decade old 12" Hood main belt, or the thinner 178 mm secondary belt above: even the tiny 76 mm main Hood main deck armour is more than capable to defeat a 8" shell plunging from above. And you have to take into account that the shell was falling with a 50-60 degree horizontal angle, thus increasing the armour thickness. The only chance is a 15" shell, perhaps hitting aprow secondary ordnance magazine and detonating inside it, propagating fire to the adiacent main gun stern magazine and igniting propelling charges rather than shells. Even the survivors onboard Hood tells about a not-so-strong detonation or large shock wave, which is what you expects form launch explosives, prone to "burn" rather than "explode". Only after charge ignition and flash propagation in the rear part of the ship, including boiler and engine rooms you had a real "explosion" that smashed hull, sides and all produced structural collapse. According to my opinion it's much more important to speculate about the French veteran dreadnought "Bretagne", older and more unarmoured than "Hood", that survived a magazine direct hit from British fleet in Norther Africa. Why she did not exploded, while "Hood" did ?

IIRC, Hood had been fitted with PAC anti-aircraft rocket ("UP") batteries at the approximate location of the Bismarck's shell hits, and it was supposed that the hits had set-off these rockets, which in turn set-off the magazine.

Cleanup required

Lots of work needed here. I intend to start work on this article myself, but have a backlog of tasks to clear before I can get started. Apart from adding the cleanup tags, I have made a start by adding the Battle of the Denmark Strait Documentation Resource link. John Moore 309 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is cleaned up and tag has been remove. Expert needed now`

Someone very familiar with the subject matter neede to look over the article. Also, the article needs to be referenced. KarenAnn 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck chase linking

There is patently a dispute over whether or not to link to the Bismarck Chase. Is there a consensus on the matter and the Chase article? GraemeLeggett 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's very important that this article mentions the final days of the Bismarck somehow, either by linking to that article or somewhere else. Currently the 'Aftermath' section reads very strangely as it does not mention the final fate of the ship. Dave w74 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bismarck Chase is no longer titled that on the page itself. Someone has renamed it "Last battle of the battleship Bismarck." Neither of these titles explains that the ship was sunk. The Sinking of the Bismarck is now a mere subhead in the Bismarck Chase, found halfway down the page without even a table of contents at the top to give the reader a clue that it is buried in the story. Instead, it should be the title of the page, and of the link to it. -- In the Battle of the Denmark Strait article, a new short section called Pursuit and Sinking of the Bismarck should be added before the Aftermath section. It would briefly summarize the chase and sinking, and link to the renamed Sinking of the Bismarck article (at the Bismarck_Chase URL unless a new Sinking_of_the_Bismarck URL is desirable to redirect from that). Then the Aftermath section would wrap up what happened after the sinking. -- If this is acceptable, I would be happy to make these revisions, which should make things flow more sensibly for the reader. Rstevec 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The "someone" to whom Rstevec refers is me. I am sorry that you are not happy with my solution to the problem of the Bismarck Chase article; I can at least assure you that it was not adopted lightly. Before rescoping and renaming the article, I posted my intentions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, as well as to the Talk:Operation Rheinübung and the talk page of the article page itself. I was remiss in not posting here as well. This produced quite a lot of discussion, including a poll of possible titles. As a matter of fact, Sinking of the Bismarck was my own first suggestion for a name; in the end, I opted for a title which - so I thought - was more neutral and more closely described the content of the article (not least because Bismarck was not the only ship sunk as a result of the battle). With regard to Graeme's original question, I suggest that Aftermath should link to Operation Rheinübung, which already contains a brief summary of the Bismarck's loss. Can I suggest, if people are unhappy with the way things are now, that we carry this discussion across the to Talk:Last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Regards, John Moore 309 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing the decisions

Personally, I don´t see a reason to question the decision of Lütjens to not pursue the Prince of Wales. There are a number of good reasons to not do so. I don´t think it´s necessary to judge about it, as this is an encyclopedia and there is too much speculation in it. However, if we do so, we should open a new section, which I did right now and also add counter-arguments, which I did right now in only to a very limited degree. We then also need to discuss the decision of the Hood to attack the way it did, who failed to engage Suffolk and Norfolk in it as well etc. That´s a huge discussion and not really encyclopedical. Therefore, I´m more to open to just delete the new "discussion" section. Mausch 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more important that the fact that Lutjens ordered Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to avoid the Hood and PoW, and that Captain Lindemann disobeyed his order and directed Bismarck to open fire. The article makes it seems like the opposite occurred. Parsecboy 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

However, to avoid these ships has been a strategic decision, while Lindemann order to fire was tactical - and not contradicting a standing order, but just not waiting for Lutjens order to fire. You are right that this should be mentioned. But this is different from a discussion which can rightfully judged on multiple ways. Mausch 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is speculative and (I believe) basically non-encyclopedic in nature. It is very largely non-factual, and the officers' imagined thought processes cannot be verified by any known means. Second guesses, third guesses - what next!? The article does not need this section, and reads as a better article without it. I agree with Mausch that the "Discussion" section should be removed. I see two voices here against including this "Discussion" and one in favor. Any others? Rstevec (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three months since I asked here for comments by anyone in favor of retaining the "Discussing the Decisions" section. And there is now yet more material piled there. This cannot conceivably be considered encyclopedic content. Some of it sounds like it was written by video game fans. This is a disgrace to Wikipedia and I intend to remove it tomorrow. Please comment here if you have an opinion on the matter. Rstevec (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Condensed the Discussion section into one paragraph of a less unseemly nature. If anyone seriously objects to dispensing with the speculative material removed, please first explain why it is at all necessary or desirable in a respectable encyclopedia. This section was merely a vehicle for various pet theories and opinions. Rstevec (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen Striking Hood Part 2

According to Chesnau, Prinz Eugen's Gunnery Officer, and principal Historian, Paul Schmallenbach, has stated that at the time of the initial salvos the Eugen's target was Hood, and may have been responsible for the hit amongst the ready to use ammunition. Citation added. Dapi89 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to read in the article that "(it) is a matter of contention over which German vessel struck Hood at this time. It has been claimed Prinz Eugen was targeting Prince of Wales and could not have been responsible. However, Prinz Eugen's Gunnery Officer, Paul Schmallenbach (and later principal Historian), rejects this, confirming Eugen's target was also Hood". I have never seen any source which denies that Prinz Eugen was firing at Hood at the time of the hit (or hits?) on the boat deck, although it is clear from the Prinz Eugen's War Diary that she shifted fire to the Prince of Wales before the Hood blew up (Dapi89 will remember that we disccused this extensively on his Talk page back in June). At the time, British witnesses credited this hit to the Bismarck's third salvo, while German observers credited the Prinz Eugen. Most modern authorities appear to accept the German view, but obviously the loss of the ship and the devastated condition of its wreck makes a conclusive judgement impossible. Would anyone object if I deleted these sentences?

Regards to all, John Moore 309 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnett?

The references state Barnett was used in the article but there's no mention of the work in the bibliography. Can someone clarify. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bismark1040.jpg

The image Image:Bismark1040.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

British Commanders listed as Holland and Leach however R.Adm Wake-Walker aboard Norfolk took command after loss of Holland aboard Hood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.56.206 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales' guns

I edited the article to correct the false statement that most of Prince of Wales' guns were out of action. This edit has been reverted by kurfurst, without justification. I put this information up for discussion on the king george V battleship talk page, where he has had ample opportunity to discuss it. Once again kurfurst is engaging in an editing war to try and maintian inaccurate information in the article. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop your accusations; the only one edit warring here is you. You were replacing sourced statements from reliable secondary sources with your own conclusions (original research) from primary documents. Despite having been warned by several editors, it appears you have engaged in sock puppetry on KGV talk page to 'support' your own position and to make edits back to your own position. You have been warned for this by an administrator, too. Recently you made edits into a number of related articles that represent this POV yours, adding text far in excess to to weight the question is related to the article.

I do not think such serves as an improvement to the article.

I think you, by now, well aware why putting your own conclusions from a primary source is Original Research, and as such, is not permissable on Wikipedia - you have been told about that several times (see entries on your talk page you keep deleting). Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, and conclusions drawn by established authors in those sources. You have to follow these rules if you want to accept your edit. Kurfürst (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the text into a footnote so that readers could understand the contents of the gunnery report without having to study it, which was in response to a suggestion User_talk:Toddy1 my actual edit made a very small change to the article. The statement that most of Prince of wales' guns were out of action is simply false, and if you have read the report, you know this to be true, especially since the report explicitly states that Prince of Wales achieved a 74% output from her main armament, and details the timing of the breakdowns that did occur. This may seem like a minor point but it is not, because the action terminated with the Prince of Wales having considerable firepower, and this in turn helps explain why the Bismarck did not pursue. As for the rest, I won't dignify it with a response. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You also appear to have removed a substantial part of the text, which was also referenced. The edits you made are easily checked. See your edit. By now, you should be aware of that this kind of editing is against wikipedia principles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research

This is the same kind of editing behaviour you&'and heg'(revealed to be from the same city, country, ISP as your login...) did over the KGV article: remove referenced parts, replace them with your own research. The source you are drawing your own conclusions (which is OR) is a primary source, wikipedia relies on published secondary sources.

Also, the tendency you show to remove referenced 'false statement' as you call them makes your edits less likely to be accepted, and accusing editors of edit warring and trying to 'maintian inaccurate information', despite the support you seem to enjoy on talk pages from newly registered editors (coincidentally from the same country, city, and ISP).

I only ask you to follow the wikipedia rules: do not remove referenced statemetns from reliable secondary sources. Do not add statements from original research, or from primary documents; try to find a reliable secondary source for these, if you wish to add them. And, most importantly, refrain from incivility. Kurfürst (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst, stop this deletionist attitude. You have been blocked twice in relation to this on two articles in recent days. And stop accussing others of things you are so obviously guilty of yourself. You couldn't find a technical reason to reverse Damwiki1's revision, so you've decided it is "undue weight" - utter nonsense. Further reversals will require someone to come in and mediate or deal with you again. Dapi89 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have come to this page at the invitation of Damwiki1 [1]. I am going to break this into two pieces. Style of comments and article content.

Style

As a general rule editors must assume WP:good faith (that we all want to produce a better encyclopaedia) and comment on the edit and not the editor. Only commenting on the content is a strategy that has evolved on Wikipedia because it has been found that it makes it more difficult to reach a consensus on the content of an article if comments are made about an editor with one disagrees.

Damwiki1 made a bold edit, and user:Kurfürst reverted it. This is quite acceptable Wikipedia behaviour, it is not edit warring Damwiki1.

Given the provocation, (although I don't condone Kurfürst's reply because replaying as (s)he did it escalated the situation and made it more difficult to reach a consensus on the content) his/her response is understandable and is a good example of why it is unwise to start a new section with accusations of edit warring in the first paragraph.

Also it is no use saying "I put this information up for discussion on the king george V battleship talk page" because the content of any page should be discussed on the talk page of the article, remember you are not writing comments on this page just to convince a person with whom you could not reach agreement on another page, but you are explaining your edit to a new audience of editors who have this page on their watch list, or who may read this talk page months or years later. So it is better to provide a link to the section on another talk page where you have gone into details and give a brief summary here as to why you made the edit that you did.

Content

Wikipeida has a clear policy on original research, this is not the place to publish it. To help facilitate this there is a policy on the use of primary sources WP:PSTS.

What this means is that despite the statement "my actual edit made a very small change to the article" the change that was made was to change the content of the article which is written in the passive narrative voice of the article was from "By this time, serious gunnery malfunctions had put most of the main guns out of action." to "By this time, serious gunnery malfunctions had caused intermittent problems with the main armament, leading to a 26% reduction in output." In my opinion unless there is a secondary source that draws these conclusions it is original research because WP:PSTS is quite clear "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."--I am very aware of this part of WP:PSTS because I have been involved in many many discussions over a couple of years or more on this very issue--and AFAICT there is not mention of a 26% in the primary source.

To use a primary source, it is really necessary to have a quote or words that paraphrase precisely what the primary source states, so although I don't think that the words added to the main content of the article are acceptable, it seems to me that the wording in the footnote is acceptable.

I appreciate that this is very frustrating to an editor who has a detailed knowledge of a subject and knows that something is wrong, but Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."(Wikipedia:Verifiability).

If you do not agree with me, and would like another opinion please explain how and why you want to use a primary source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I've said all I will on this subject and although I'll put this page on my watch list and monitor it for editorial behaviour, but I'll not get any further involved in the content dispute or edit the article. --PBS (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I reverted Kurfurst on the grounds his complaint was not acceptable. His reversal related to "undue weight" not OR. Just to clarify my involvment. Dapi89 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was plenty of OR, see the note : 'In summary, 3 guns in "A" turret, 2 guns in "B" turret, and 2 guns in "Y" turret, were in operation at salvo 18 when Prince of wales turned away, for a total of 7 guns in operation.' That is certainly not stated by G+D, or the primary source on PoW for that matter, its a conclusion by Damwiki1, about how many guns were operational - ie. OR. G+D in fact notes the after action report radioed of Capt. Leach, which stated - amongst other things - that both A and Y turrets were out of action, and specifically state that only two guns were operational.

As far as I go, the edits by Damwiki are fine, except the OR at the end of the note, and it would probably a better solution to just link the PoW gunnery report as an external link. Kurfürst (talk)

13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is Leach's radio messages: http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/pofw_damage1.htm And heg (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. I have lots of articles on my watch list, and I've made significant contributions to naval articles over the last three years. It isn't surprising. Besides, looking at your edit history and block log you seem to be at war with half a dozen editors. If I were you, I wouldn't draw attention to that. Given your edits to the Tirpitz article and the falsified wording (which didn't match the book I found on Google books) which was not supported, your edits needed monitoring closely. And I for one am glad people do police your edits. Dapi89 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst even the most simple person can see the folly of your accussations. The community is having trouble with you. You are the only one that has been blocked for issuing threats among other things. Who do you think you are kidding? Over, and most definitely out. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP all of you. Kurfürst this is not the place for me to mentor your behaviour ... but I am going to! Please read WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Instead of replying to Dapi89 as you did and then continued your editor critical remarks, a much better approach would be to have written "Dapi89 my mistake, Philip is right it is OR, do you agree and can we revert back to the original text" Dapi89 could then reply on the merits or otherwise of doing so, based on the text, but as it stands at the moment you have forced Dapi89 into a needless confrontation. I suggest that you strike out all your comments since my last edit and restart the conversation talking about the content of the article not the editors who have contributed to it. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

This is not OR, but a simple summary of the Action Report, the state of each turret is detailed with salvo timings given. If a source (G&D) written over 20 years ago is mistaken, then we should use newer material to correct it, if we have access to it in an understandable format. OR would be me finding the ships logs and reconstructing the event, and I haven't done this, I have taken a report and summarized it. In this sense the Action Report is a secondary source, since it in turn is based upon the the primary data collected by the gunners. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed "The Bismarck episode" by Grenfell, "The loss of the Bismarck by Rhys-Jones", and "The sinking of the Bismarck" by Admiral Tovey which is his official despatch and I've added it to the external links along with Captain Leach's sworn statement regarding his decision to end the action. None of these sources state that most of PoW's guns were out of action when she turned away. Trying to prove a negative is always difficult, but there are abundant sources to work with, in this instance.

Damwiki1 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that the recent additions by damwiki1 are OR based on by primary sources. The 'I have taken a report and summarized it' is the very definition of it, and there seem to be a NPOV problem with the OR part (summary) as it strongly concentrates on showing that PoW had no or little trouble with its main armament during the engagement - which is contested by practically all RSSs on the event. That 'none of these sources state that most of PoW's guns were out of action when she turned away' is, although yet unverified (could cites be provided?) is non-relevant (as it was not stated anywhere that most of PoW's guns were out of action being the cause of disengeagement, but that the troubles with the main battery, amongst other factors like battle damage and poor tactical sit after Hood was blown out of the water - correctly noted by Damwiki in his last edit - were the causes); in this last edit I reckon there is good agreement amongst us. The disagreement is with the dismissal of G&D, claiming that '(G&D) written over 20 years ago is mistaken' - there is no evidence of this at all, G&D's works are widely recognized as the best work on the subject, meticulously researched. It is IMHO against wiki principles that reliable secondary sources are questions by OR of editors based on PSs - this would create a similiar situation as self published sources.

In any case, the current edit seems largely acceptable to me. Kurfürst (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In my post of 20:56, 3 June I stated that I had reviewed 4 sources, including 3 secondary sources and I placed Tovey's despatch online in the external links along with Leach's testimony, and although Leach is a primary source it enables us to judge the accuracy of the secondary sources. None of these mention that the majority (IE 6 or more out of ten) of PoW's gun were out of action at any point, and even after Y turret jammed, 5 guns were still in action. There is no reason for a source to comment on something that didn't happen!!! Admiral Tovey defended Leach's decision to withdraw, and he doesn't mention something that would have been very relevant, IE most of PoW's guns going out of service, for the simple reason that it didn't happen, and he couldn't anticipate that 40 years later an author would make a mistake, and claim that it did. Both Grenfell's "Bismarck Episode" and Rhys-Jones' book are respected sources and make no mention of such an event, although it would be critically important to note, but again they didn't comment on something that didn't happen! Damwiki1 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's Antonio Bonomi's meticulous reconstruction of the battle: http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bonomi_denstrait1.htm and again there's no mention of the majority of PoW's guns being out of action. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurfürst (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2009

Bonomi's article is pretty easy to read. And heg (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the 26% figure recently inserted into the article have any real relevance? It is an editor's calculated average of the percentage of possible shells not fired over the course of the engagement. This percentage isn't so much less than that for the German ships. However, after receiving battle damage Capt. Leach's radio dispatches stated that both of Prince of Wales' forward high angle directors (rangefinders) were out of action and that both port SL sights (rangefinders) were destroyed. PoW had relied on the forward HA directors because of problems in using the forward turret's rangefinders. His ship's fire had been relatively poorly directed even when these directors had been operative. Afterward, PoW's fire appears to have possessed even less effectiveness. In view of this, it seems out of place to emphasize this 26% calculation. The earlier statement, that most of PoW's main armament was out of action at the time Capt. Leach left off firing, is technically inaccurate according to most sources in that half or perhaps even more than half of the guns could still propel shells, at least somewhere in the general direction intended. But the article promotes the implication that 74% of the main armament was in proper working order at that time and that it could have been used in a normally effective manner to continue the engagement. That might have been true only after some considerable repairs could be effected. In my (non-expert) view the article leans too much on this bit of statistics.

Rstevec (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SL lights = searchlights, not rangefinders. Pow was directing her 14in guns from her forward main armament Director control tower (DCT), which also contained a 15ft rangefinder. The DCT was not damaged during the action. The 26% reduction figure is taken from Prince of Wales' gunnery report. As you point out Prince of Wales gunnery is not that much different from the German ships, which also suffered a loss of output.And heg (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the PoW also lose the forward turret (with 40% of its main guns) due to flooding for a time? it is not in the article but I read it in a book somewhere, if anyone else can reference it, it should probably be included (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC))

Nope, never happened. PoW's gunnery report is pretty clear on that point.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of discussion comments

Kurfurst removing other people's comment is a violation, cease and desist. Not to mention you did so under a false and misleading edit summary. It was youwho were being confrontational. PBS was refering to you. Dapi89 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I tried to be continue with the discussion, removing that mess of false accusations you produced, along with my replies to it, as it seemed to be fair, and tried to concentrate on the article. You continued with the personal attacks... its noteworthy that all your blocks were issued for personal attacks against me and edit warrring. Now all can see why, and that nobody 'forces' you into anything. Kurfürst (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You did nothing of the sort. The above linked comments are not provoking are they? Kurfurst you have been blocked eight times. Once for gross incivility and then blocked indefinitely. You were given a second chance as you promised to change. You havn't. Until you do so any technical discussion is impossible. Dapi89 (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who reviews this page finds that 90% of your contributions are nothing but ad hominem attacks and accusations concentrating on the other editor. As for your misrepresentation of my blocking circumstances, I have to respond that - the admin who issued was involved, and it was not a 'second chance', but a his decision overruled by another admin, and, if I might add, the original admin even apologized for his mistake. Like him, I have learned from my previous mistakes, you have not, so I won't engage further in this 'discussion'. Kurfürst (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Your mock outrage is kidding no one Kurfurst. You're not believed. Any reply from me has been a retort to gross incivility, as noted at the time of your indefinite block and as noted by PBS. But I, like so many, have had enough of your trouble making. Dapi89 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize it was probably a mistake to remove your ad hominem edits. So I suggest a compromise, I have removed my own edits about your behaviour, and I suggest you do the same about your accusations on the talk page and concentrate on contents of the article, and suggested edits. Would you kindly share any comments you may have on the article itself? Kurfürst (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC

Kurfurst, this is a backhanded attempt at "compromise". You are still doing it. I'm not taking the bait. So I'll ask you to refrase your suggestion without knowing you, I should have expected that.....that forced you(not actually my words, but PBS'), ad hominem? (please look this up), but with NPOV wording. A simple paragraph without trying to encourage another confrontation with reference to any past issues - and you just might get a response and editing relationship that 99% of the people I deal with onm wikipedia get. Its infuriating that I have to get a compromise just to begin discussion. Dapi89 (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is ironic that you complain about references to past issues - just look at your own edits - but whatever, lets do it, this will be a good chance for you to show you are willing to cooperate. Kurfürst (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're still doing it. You are the one that needs to prove they are cooperative, you. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please keep cool you two !!

Please focus on improving the article and stop continuing your dogfight. BTW removal of other users's comments should not happen unless it's vandalism or on the removers user talk page. --Denniss (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89 edits I have removed consisted of clear cut personal attacks, in which case it seems to be allowed to remove them: On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. In any case, the last edit by this editor (you! you! you!) blow any remaining hope I may have left that this editor can be reasoned with, so I am going to ignore his future ad hominem comments in the first step. All of his attention is directed at my person, rather than the article itself, in which I reckon there is a a consensus already - or not...? - so I guess its a moot point anyway. Kurfürst (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, do not remove other peoples comments please. This is considered vandalism you could be blocked for. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst when I said strike out I meant do this (<s>do this</s>) not delete your comments. As a general rule deleting comments should not be done, as the replies that others give look non-nonsensical (see WP:REDACTED). If you do strike out your comments that you now think are not constructive to the development of this article, then in a spirit of goodwill Dapi89 may choose to do the same thing (but your strike outs have to be unconditional, and only he can decide if or if he is going to follow your lead) as that will defuse this spat, and both of you must by now realise that such behaviour is counter productive to the development of this Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If Kurfürst is going to remove comments, maybe he should start with removing his false accusations against me. This kind of behavior is very unseemly. And heg (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst behaviour is very similar on all other pages he is editing. Constant conflicts with other editors, false accusations and edits against consensus. If this behaviour continues, he will be reported and possibly blocked again.--Jacurek (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP, personal comments about another editor have nothing to do with the development of this article and are not appropriate on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone has read anything I have posted to this page about personal attacks! If any of the following editors: user:And heg, user:Jacurek, user:Dapi89, user:Kurfürst, and user:Damwiki1; make an edit to this talk page, or leave a comment in the history of this talk page, or leave a comment in the history of the article, that I consider to be a breach of WP:CIVIL, within the next seven days from the time stamp at the end of this paragraph, I will block their account for a time. (As the say in soccer "play the ball not the man") --PBS (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I missed your previous post.--Jacurek (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've put a comment at the end of the above section (Price of Wales' Guns) but it seems lost in the lengthy discussions here. It is or should be impartial to the personalities involved, and I don't want to re-scratch people's itches about whatever was going on here. But I do question the way this is now treated in the article. — Rstevec (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I restored the article to Hugo999's last edit as Kurfurst's edit amount to a major re-write of the article. We should discuss this here first.And heg (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And heg, your edit history makes it obvious that you are not a separate editor, but a meatpuppet/sockpuppet used by someone to revert my edits in naval articles. It is very hard to believe that you have any real concerns here wit my edits, since you have raised no specific point about what you find problematic in my edits, which were, as opposed to your claims, of minor nature, having touched no sources in the article. Kurfürst (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And heg you need to expand on what you have written. Please bullet point those major changes that you think that Kurfürst has introduced to the article with the edits Kurfürst made. -- PBS (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that given the history of Kurfurst's editing here, that the onus should be on him to explain the rational for his edits.

• He has changed the paragraph structure significantly, this makes it hard to follow all of his edits.
• I have no problem with this edit: "Fortunately for Prince of Wales, neither shell exploded, but she still suffered minor flooding and the loss of some fuel oil. The 380 mm shell that struck Prince of Wales below the waterline came to rest abreast of an auxiliary machinery room. "
• I have major problems with his edits that change footnotes and I see absolutely no justification for the changes.
• we devoted a good deal of discussion on this page regarding the number of guns in action on Prince of Wales and Kurfurst is now trying to ignore the past discussion and again trying to place undue weight on a single source. His edit: "According to Bennet and Roskill, this temporarily left only five main guns in operation, while Garzke and Dulin notes that only two guns remained in operation by this time. 14-inch guns operational, but nine of the ten were operational in five hours." tries to again places undue weight on G&D. We have Prince of Wales Gunnery report, ADM239/509 which is also referenced and summarized in the article and makes it very obvious that Prince Of Wales never had less than 5 guns in operation. Roskill, the Royal Navy's official historian supports ADM234/509. G&D's statement that two guns only remained in operation is quite extraordinary and multiple sources dispute it,and I can certainly add more, if need be. In prior edits G&D's statement was referenced in a footnote and given the amount of evidence against it, that is where it belongs.

And heg (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Time, gentlemen

I confess that I do not understand the times given in the Plan gone awry subsection. There the time of sunset is given as 0151; if that is local time, how can sunset anywhere be between midnight and noon? If it is Greenwich time, is it summer time (one hour ahead of the Sun) or double summer time or whatever it is called? And in any case, what was the condition of daylight when the two fleets met (first sighting 0535, firing commences 0552)? PKKloeppel (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question! Kennedy, 1974, states in Chapter 6 that - for the British fleet - 'ship's clocks were four hours ahead of local time' at the point when Victorious was preparing to launch the first Swordfish attack on Bismark. As these events take place in the longitude range 30-37 degrees West (corresponding to 2 hours behind Greenwich), the implication is that the British fleet was indeed operating on Double Summer Time. Clearly operational coherence requires all units in a given command work to the same clock; immense confusion would result if each ship adjusted to its own longitude! Later in this chapter Kennedy remarks that the USCG cutter Modoc had its clock set one hour behind local time, therefore 5 hours behind the British fleet. I have added Kennedy's statement to the article, but not my OR about double summer time. As to light conditions on engagement, early in Chapter 4 Kennedy states: '..in that cold, pale dawn, with the eastern sky pink and violet on the low cirrus and a hazy blue above..' John M Brear (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the first source that claims the sinking took eleven minutes. I've heard seven and five minutes, as well as a claim that, in England, there were few people that were further than two degrees of separation from those lost on The Hood--that is, if you weren't associated/related to someone lost on The Hood, you almost certainly knew someone who was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlangenFarben (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Admiral Lutjens did not die in this battle

Please pardon a new comment in the middle of all the hostile discussion amongst various individuals, but as of today (23 May 10 local time) the fact box for this entry shows that Admiral Holland died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait (true) and that Admiral Lutjens also died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I hope no one will accuse me of original research from primary sources if I say that I believe accepted primary sources show that Lutjens did not die in the Battle of the Denmark Strait and was killed in another battle several days later.

With all the hostility about inappropriate editing and reverting of the entry I am not going to touch the fact box even though I believe it is factually incorrect, but perhaps one of you with sufficient authority and seniority will do so.

My word processing program does not allow me to make umlauts so maybe one of you old-timers will also take a moment to add them to my comment so that Lutjens' name is spelled correctly. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

I reverted this edit as he was still alive after the battle. --Denniss (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo probably shows A turret, not X turret

The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Untrimmed" version of the image in question: available here --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't impossible that they were temporarily steaming in opposite directions, PoW may have been swinging around to pass under Hood's stern. But on the balance of probabilities, I think you are right; this is the port side, forward. The clincher is that a breakwater is visible, running right to the rail, and in this photo (admittedly just a model) we can make out a breakwater forward, in the way of A turret, but only clear decks aft. One thing that perplexes me is that the barrels seem to be independently aligned. Was this the case? Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, most likely the port barrel has been raised to clear the housing of B turret at extreme traverse. That would make sense. This is A turret. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This being the case, the pic would have been taken from a "gunport" type door opening into the base of the main superstructure from the main deck. Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All mention here of "X" turret should be changed to "Y" turret as POW had no "X" turret, the rearmost turret was the "Y" turret. All other mention of the aft turret on a KGV class battleship calls it the "Y" turret. An "X" turret is generally an aft facing turret that is just forward of and generally elevated to fire over the rearmost turret. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

duplication

There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this comment has duplicated elsewhere, which carries some irony. See Talk: Ernst Lindemann. At this stage, no support. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment has been duplicated in ever article which is part of this duplication problem, so its not ironic, its logical. Please see discussion at [2]. Wdford (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sketch

The original text at the top of the 'Sketch' image (presumably endorsed by Leach), says: "...as seen from H.M.S. Prince of Wales at a distance of 4 cables". [My emphasis].
If a cable is 200 yards, does this mean that Leach saw the explosion on HMS Hood from 800 yards away ? It seems rather close when all the other distances in the article are expressed in thousands of yards or even miles. RASAM (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

800 metres which is much the same as 800 yards. But it is correct. PoW and Hood were operating as squadron. Holland's strict adherence to admiralty fighting instructions kept the two of them in very close order Warspite85 (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

RN cruisers and destroyers.

It's fair to say that the RN destroyers didn't take part in the battle, but Suffolk attempted to engage Prinz Eugen at 0619. The presence of the cruisers also caused Lutjens to place Prinz Eugen in the Van while both RN cruisers engaged the KM forces, briefly, during the hours prior to the battle.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Denmark Strait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728032446/http://legacy.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf to http://legacy.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"all six of the ship's 26-man damage control teams" ?

It would help if the words in the sentence
Since Bismarck's receiving the first hit in the forecastle, all six of the ship's 26-man damage control teams had worked ceaselessly to repair the damage.

could be explained. I can guess that the area was too cramped, partially under water or less likely that the 6 were the specialist hull repair divers but the current sentence sounds odd. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Late to comment but for the record; the sentence says that all six teams (each made up of 26 men) were at work on the damage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Court martial claims

The section on the British response to the battle says Admiral Pound tried to have the captain of Prince of Wales and another guy court-martialled. So far as I know this has never been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:28A5:81C2:35C8:284E (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)