Talk:Naval history of World War II

Recent edit

Re: recent edits by Special:Contributions/79.113.133.253 and Special:Contributions/79.118.112.247, is there any connection between the editor(s) and User:Romanian-and-proud? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not this person, I have no idea what is going on, I ask you with all due respect to put my 2 hours of hard work back. 79.113.133.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend registering for an account so that there are no question. Please also see prior ANI thread: permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I absolutely required to make an account for a single edit? I've been working hard to do that section as detailed, yet as condense as possible, and source from books as much as I could. Please, put it back. 79.113.133.253 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns that the pattern of editing is similar to that of User:Romanian-and-proud, and thus I believe the content should not be restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I based my edit on almost 30 citations, you base your attitude on a hunch, that I am one guy from a city of 70,000 people. Look, if I make an account, it would be mostly stale, because as stated earlier: this is the only edit I really care about. I thus ask you again, with all due respect, to put my section back and settle this for good. 79.113.133.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My recent edits

I corrected and detailed the Romanian Navy order of battle as of 1941, when the country entered the war, and also corrected the Polish one. I am sorry, but ORP Gryf is not a cruiser just because of her size. She has the guns of a destroyer, and besides, the Romanians had an even heavier warship, the submarine tender NMS Constanța. I am for keeping the standards, Gryf could not be kept because there is no section strictly for minelayers in the infobox. If an escort ship or cruiser or destroyer is also a minelayer, that's another story. I also decreased the number of destroyers to the 4 which the Polish had at the start of the war, which is what the table is addressing to begin with. I also decreased the number of escorts from 11 to 9, because ORP Nurek doesn't fit at all, and ORP Batory is simply too small. By convoy escort, it is meant a somewhat sizable warship fitted for AS and AA warfare, so only the 6 Jaskolka-class, the two gunboats and the old torpedo boat fit. If we lower the standards to allow ORP Batory in, what stops me from also adding in the dozens of Romanian small ships fitted for AA and AS warfare? I am for keeping the standards, and this is why I made this edit. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Romanian claim?

"The Romanian Navy was the most effective navy of the Second World War." I guess this summarize the enthusiasm and the poor military knowledge of Romanian contributors: "It was the only navy to fight for over three years without losing a single unit of its main force of destroyers and submarines.[75] At the same time, it caused the sinking of one destroyer and over a dozen submarines, all Soviet." Technically speaking, Romanian lost the WHOLE Navy as seized/captured by the Soviets: not an operation failure but naval-wise it is considered a loss (regardless if sailors opposed resistance). On the other hand the Romanian Navy was recognized by the German command was weak and limited in purpose only for defensive operations: it never lost " a single unit of its main force" because Romanian destroyers were ordered to restrain from offensives, while the submarines (only Romanian offensive force) never scored victories, suffered damages and overhall failed the aims of 1941 and 1944 offensives. The only 100% confirmed direct sinking caused to the Soviet Navy was submarine ShCh-206. Mines were indeed a success, but to equate them as if they were victories scored in naval battles (as this line seems t imply) seems a bit excessive: minelaying victories were hardly considered in time of War and little credit was given due the same nature of this kind of warfare.

I would suggest a more realistic summary out of multiple sources.

   Agree with this completely. In the meantime I'd suggest to take out that sentence as it's based on such a narrow, arbitrary and selective form of measurement that really there's not enough there to support it and one can't really call it objective. And that's not to mention all the counter arguments one could make on behalf of other navies that were more modern and powerful.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:4856:F2BC:5DF3:EDA3 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Table Consistency

The table at the start of the article hasn't been clearly labeled as to what it contains... whether it's production or fleet at war's end... and what dates are being used. In addition the values seem to be very inconsistent in tables/information across Wikipedia such as United States Navy in World War II (the values are fairly similar, but the surroundings there suggest it was the fleet at the end of the war, not production... yet that wouldn't seem to be true on Japan, given the common claims that they had one remaining capital ship at the termination of the war?)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_World_War_II is either incomplete, or the numbers are too high here? And Military production during World War II doesn't seem to match any of them either. Perhaps the note about not including ships before the war is false?

I feel like this table is a central key to weighing the forces and successes in World War II, but needs to be well referenced and reasonably consistent across pages (or at worst, the level of uncertainties inherent to such estimates clearly noted). As it is, it seems almost useless to include it. I'd love to see someone step forward and work on this. If time permits maybe I can try to do some, but I don't have a background in such matters, and don't know which sources are closer to primary and more reliable. I certainly appreciate all the effort here, and understand any tables are naturally oversimplifications due to the varying technologies and such... but would still be great to have a more reliable central table! JeopardyTempest (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Naval Production

The table early in the article on production during WW2 is almost meaningless, consistent neither when including or excluding ships built before the war, eg. Britian had 15 Battleships before the war and finished 6 during, where does 19 come from? Across the board on cruiser and destroyer numbers the anomalies continue. Needs cleaning up or clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.82.129 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

USN 1939-1941

I disagree with the reversion [1] of the addition of a section titled "1939-1941" (for the US Navy). Whilst the USA was not a formal belligerent, there was plenty of naval activity that affected the course of the war - not least the neutrality patrols. There is substantial coverage on this in Morison - vol 1 Battle of the Atlantic 1939-43. Other sources also cover this subject. Other actions include the USA taking over the occupation of Iceland in July 1941. Then, early in September 1941, there was the co-operation between USS Greer and British aircraft in tracking a German submarine, which subsequently attacked (but missed) Greer. By mid-September, American destroyers were accompanying convoys from Newfoundland to the mid-ocean meeting point. On 17 October, U568 torpedoed USS Kearny. All of this (and more - shipbuilding - studying British anti-submarine tactics, equipment and training - moving capital ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic - etc), all before the USA became a belligerent.

See also Evan Mawdsley: The War for the Seas as a useful ref, covering some of the remarks above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

23 battleships

which 23 battleships did the United States build during WW2? Nowakki (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A muchas armadas le faltan muchos barcos

Por ejemplo a UK tuvo mas de 5 acorazados italia igual Enmapro (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Translating this, the editor is saying that "Many navies are missing many ships" and "For example, the UK had more than 5 battleships, Italy had the same". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)