Talk:Bismarck-class battleship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Armor and technical data

Ther are a lot of primary sources regarding armor protection thicknesses and layout available The data and explanations here partly conflictsignificantly with the original sources

to increase the value of the explanations citations from secondary sources should replaced by primary sources when possible

• AVKS-700 Schlußbericht vom 31.05.1941, AVKS Erprobungen auf Schlachtschiff Bismarck
• Bauvorschrift fuer den Schiffskoerper der Schlachtschiffe "F" und "G" ("Ersatz Hannover" und "Ersatz Schleswig-Holstein") O.K.M Archiv K I Nr. 20 Berlin, den 16.November 1936
• Entwicklungsrichtlinien für Seezielgeschütze A Wa A I B Nr. 21230-41 geh.
• Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft a Textband
• Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft h Eigene Durchschlagsangaben für Schlachtschiffe Bismarck, Tirpitz und Beispiele (G.Kdos 100)

some of the citations are definately wrong "the turret roofs were 130 mm (5.1 in) thick, the sides were 220 mm (8.7 in) thick, and the faces were 360 mm (14 in) thick with 220 mm (8.7 in) thick shields.[2] However, these armour thickness's were less than those of contemporary British (King George V) and French (Richelieu) designs. turretface" this is only correct for the french ship KGV 324 mm Bis 360 mm barbettes KGV 324 mm Bis 340 mm

"The two ships were broadly similar to the World War I-era Bayern class, in that they mounted a similar main battery and were protected by a similar armour arrangement." the primary sources states otherwise

others are questionable and represents opinions "The stern, however, was weakly constructed; this would have significant consequences on Bismarck's only combat mission.[10]" any jam of rudder by torpedodamage had significant impact on maneuverability of a ship especially within heavy seas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoddyx (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Those figures come from Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945, which he wrote based entirely on official documentation at the time (for instance, the first volume, which was German Warships 1815-1936, was published in 1936). He had full access to the Kriegsmarine data, and his figures are correct. Secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources.

I don't have Breyer in front of me, so I can't see exactly what he says about KGV and Richelieu.

How do the primary sources dispute that Bismarck and Bayern were similarly armed and armored? They both carried eight 38 cm guns in an identical arrangement (albeit Bismarck mounted a new type) and the armor arrangement was indeed similar. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz dates

The first paragraph of this section has her commissioned in February and going to Norway in January. David R. Ingham (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, should have read January 1942 - fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Heaviest Capital ship in Europe?

Are you sure about this? Surely HMS_Vanguard_(23) was heavier - if only on the standard weight for Tirpitz 62.73.132.82 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a false claim, see also the List_of_longest_naval_ships. --82.113.103.164 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Bismarck and Tirpitz were sunk before Vanguard was complete. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not the assertion in the article. The article claimes they were the heaviest ever built for a European Navy regardless of wether they were sunk or not.Staygyro (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read this article? I'm curious, because 82.113 removed that claim in September. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Specific fuel consumption

It says "The powerplant had a full power specific fuel consumption of .325 kg of fuel per hour;". Obviously, the whole ship consumed more than that, so it means per some unit of power, which is what the linked Brake specific fuel consumption article says. But is it kg of fuel per kilowatt hour or kg of fuel per ship horse power hour, or what? David R. Ingham (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, even better would be to express it as the dimensionless efficiency, mechanical energy out per chemical energy in. (This is not a perfect measure, because the theoretical maximum is not exactly 1., but it seems to be the most easily understood measure one could use here.) I have seen that used in a popular article to describe ship engines. David R. Ingham (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OT, David you might like this http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-077.htm Greglocock (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The calculation of specific fuel consumption is discussed here: specific fuel consumption, which is linked in the relevant section of the article.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistaken edit; for some reason I saw a comma not a semicolon!Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, our eyes all get tired at some point or another :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I still do not understand the units expressed in the article, which do not agree with the cited page on BSFC, and don't seem to make sense. Could somebody please explain how a battleship can move with 0.3 kg/hour fuel consumption? The should be a power spec in this value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.122.58 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What doesn't agree with the BSFC article? The Rolls-Royce MT30 has an SFC of .21kg/KW-hr, for instance, though it's much more recent (and thus presumably far more efficient). Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect main belt thickness conversion

320mm is not 13 inches, it is 12.6 inches (12.598 to be more precise). Urselius (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, if you use the construction: {convert|320|mm|in|sigfig=3|abbr=on} rather than the existing construction: {convert|360|mm|abbr=on} (add another brace (curly bracket) - {} - each side to make the coding work!). Why don't you template-lovers get busy making the world of warship statistics more accurate.

Errors in "main artillery" section

The artillery section states that the Bismarck-class guns out ranged all of their foreign 38 cm and 40 cm contemporaries, except for the Italian 381 mm gun.

This is patently false, as the French 380 mm gun also out ranged the German gun (for easy reference, see their Wikipedia articles). It is also confirmed on navweaps (a reliable source as per stated policy, and no page anywhere seems to say that's changed) (addendum: the policy was just changed, but by the same user who is undoing this which is quite dubious), and Conway's All the World's Battleships lists a 50,000 yard range for the French guns (no range is listed for the German guns, but other sources, and this article, give a maximum range around 40,000 yards). I don't have access to Campbell's **Naval Weapons of World War Two**, the probable source navweaps uses for the range, but if someone does it will also confirm that the French gun had a longer range than the German. After all, it fired a heavier shell at a higher muzzle velocity, with a higher maximum elevation.

Anyway Wikipedia User:Parsecboy keeps undoing my changes to that article claiming contrary to policy that Navweaps is not a reliable source, even when my change cites Conway's which the article already uses as a source. I cannot think of any good reason for this. The section as it stands is both inaccurate and unverifiable. But User:Parsecboy has already broken the three-revert rule and I would rather not - I would be interested in hearing their justification, but I'm mostly interested in fixing this false and unreferenced bit of wikipedia. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I've been writing Featured Articles on these ships for the better part of the last decade. You have not. I think I know better than you what sources are acceptable.

You were still citing Navweaps, not Conway's.

As for your wikilawyering, I suggest you familiarize yourself withe policy you're linking. 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.

The reason is that Garzke & Dulin said as much - they are reputed naval historians. You are not, and neither is Tony DiGiulian. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOREX

Did you even read the edit? It cited both navweaps and Conway's page 26.

An acquaintance actually has access to Campbell. Campbell p. 229 gives 35,550 m maximum range for the German guns, p. 281 gives 41,700 m for the French. Incidentally Italian 381 mm is 42,260 m (p. 320). I will be replacing the paragraph again; there are plenty of sources for this, in any form. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_67#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com. Are we happy?

Your edit summary mentioned Conway's. That's not good enough. But thank you for adding proper citations now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, go back and read it. Citation 23 is Conway's.

You are linking the same discussion that (before you changed it) the military history project page gave as justification that navweaps was reliable, and you are in there saying it is a reliable source... 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion did not go my way, which you should be able to figure out if you read the entire discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to write that bit differently though. Mentioning the weaknesses of the other guns is awkward (it sounds like the article is trying to claim that Italy/France somehow 'cheated' to get guns that out ranged the German ones). Also, navweaps shows the Japanese 41 cm 3rd year type gun also having more range, so at this point the German gun out ranges three of its contemporaries (US 16"/45 Mk 6, UK 15" Mk I and 14" Mk VII), is out ranged by three (Italy 381 mm, France 380 mm, Japan 41 cm), and seems about equal to one (UK 16" Mk I). Not really "most", I think. I didn't mention the Japanese gun though, because it is technically 41 cm and not 40.6 cm and because I don't know the page number in Campbell. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)