Jump to content

Talk:German cruiser Seydlitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGerman cruiser Seydlitz has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starGerman cruiser Seydlitz is part of the Heavy cruisers of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 18, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
May 26, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

95% complete

[edit]

Difficult to understand why a ship 95% was not just pushed through and commissioned. Seki1949 (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They assumed it would be a short war, that Seydlitz would not enter service before the end of the conflict, and that they would resume construction once they were victorious. As the war dragged on, manpower shortages, especially as officers and men were drawn away for the U-boat arm, and the infeasibility of using surface raiders successfully (at least actual warships - the auxiliaries are a different question) militated against completing the ship as a cruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, Thanks! Seki1949 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not sure which conflict is meant here ... France, Norway, UK ? I mean in 1940 Hitler's idea was to attack the UK next, not the Soviet Union. And for that purpose they could have used more or less anything that floats. I think I would like a deeper explanation for stopping that boat at that point in time. One would probably have to check what they did instead. At that time there was still enough capacity for anything they wanted. Maybe it was before the French fleet was lost to the Germans ? JB. --92.193.146.62 (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ship was never renamed Weser

[edit]

The project to convert the ship into an aircraft carrier was given the code name "Weser-1", but the ship itself was never renamed. The Kriegsmarine already had a ship by the name Weser (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weser_(Schiff,_1931)). --Cosal (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That means nothing - ship names are routinely reused, with the older ship being renamed. See for instance SMS Deutschland (1874), which was renamed Jupiter so that the name could be reused for SMS Deutschland (1904), which would not enter service for nearly another two years. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the existing tender "Weser" could have been renamed to make room for the planned carrier, but warships in the Kriegsmarine tended to receive more "martial" names or names recalling a certain naval or military tradition.
The ship was still called "Seydlitz" when it was scuttled in 1945 in Königsberg.
As to other references, the website http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/seydlitzcvl/history.html also notes that the ship itself was never renamed. See also: http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/seydlitz_luetzow/seydlitz_ships_design/seydlitz_ships_design.html. Also Siegfried Breyer: Die Schweren Kreuzer der SEYDLITZ-Klasse. Marine-Arsenal, Band 22, Podzun-Pallas-Verlag, 1993, ISBN 3-7909-0472-4
Gröner is great, but not the one and only meaningful source. --Cosal (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that Breyer is correct all of the time? He is certainly guilty of his share of mistakes (see for instance here for just one example). You'll note that the first website also cites Breyer, and the second presents no citations at all. Hardly what I'd call quality references. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Breyer is correct all the time, did I? Was the ship scuttled in Königsberg in 1945 called Seydlitz or Weser? Has there been any advance in the state of knowledge on Kriegsmarine ships since Gröner's book came out in 1966, almost 50 years ago? --Cosal (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that Groener is unreliable (for as of yet unspecified reasons) and then present Breyer as an apparently authoritative counterpoint. The implication is obvious.
As for Groener, you are of course aware that his book was revised again in 1983 again in 1990, which is the version this article cites?
You don't happen to have access to Koop & Schmolke, do you? I can get a copy of the English version from the library but it would likely take some time. Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference - the German Wikipedia states explicitly that the ship was NOT renamed. As things go with military vessels above a certain size there has to be a (re-)christening ceremony. Didn't happen. The German WP states that the conversion project was given the code name "Weser-1" but the vessel was NOT renamed. They give the following source: http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/seydlitzcvl/history.html JB. --92.193.146.62 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-published source, which is not acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_cruiser_Seydlitz&oldid=1213107320"