Talk:SMS Fürst Bismarck

Context Comment

Although the sources you have available don't mention this ship specifically in the context of the European arms competition, I don't see a problem with adding some material on that to put the shipbuilding efforts of the German navy in that context. From about 1890 to the start of the war, Germany and Britain engaged in an arms race, and the Germans sought to increase the strength of their navy and its presence overseas. The ship was constructed at the beginning of this race; ships afterward had modifications that made them lighter and more maneuverable. Following the war, the Versailles treaty limited the number of ships the Germans could have in commission, even for patrolling the borders. I think you need some material on this, even if it's short, to place the construction of this ship, and your comparisons to other ships, in some kind of framework. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have a couple of books about the Kaiserliche Marine that will probably be useful in this regard: Building the Kaiser's Navy and By Order of the Kaiser, by Weir and Gottshcall, respectively. Unfortunately, I don't have them handy at the moment—I can probably get ahold of them either tomorrow or Thursday—so it'll have to wait until I do. Thanks for clarifying your suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

in addition, I found this material on the German page, or linked to the German page. Your article is better, btw, than the German one on the ship.

The material you found on your google search, Naval intelligence from Germany by Matthew S. Seligmann -- there is here some discussion of the naval race and the construction of armored ships in the context of the naval race. It seems to me that you could offer 3-5 sentences (a small section) that is documented about the context of the construction of armored cruisers and battleships as part of a broader European arms race, and part of a more specific arms competition between Britain and Germany. This would satisfy the "broader" requirement of the coverage criterion. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Konteradmiral

[[Datei:Panzerkreuzer-Fürst-Bismarck.jpg|thumb|Panzerkreuzer „Fürst Bismarck“]] Die folgenden Jahre brachten erneut häufigen Wechsel und Aufstieg: Im Herbst 1901 wurde er 2. Admiral des 1. Geschwaders in Kiel und fuhr mit S.M.S. „Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm“ nach Norwegen. 1902 kam er als Inspekteur der 2. Marine-Inspektion nach Wilhelmshaven und mit dem 1. Oktober 1903 erhielt er seine Ernennung zum Chef des in Ostasien stationierten Kreuzergeschwaders (Ostasiengeschwader) mit dem Panzerkreuzer „Fürst Bismarck“ als Flaggschiff.

Gerade als Prittwitz mit seinem Geschwader nach Ostasien ausgelaufen war, starb am 10. Dezember 1903 seine Frau in Kiel an den Folgen einer Darmverschlingung; eine Kontaktaufnahme mit dem Ehemann und Vater war kaum möglich, zumal diese durch den russisch-japanischen Krieg zusätzlich erschwert war. Prinz Heinrich von Preußen und Prinzessin Irene wollten sich der beiden Kinder annehmen, doch wurden diese privat versorgt.

Dimensions: hull plating

Ship's hull was steel, not wood. A thin layer of Muntz metal was installed to prevent growth of marine life. A layer of wood separated the steel from the Muntz metal. The Muntz metal was not .95m thick! Does someone know the correct thickness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.216.211 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Page 49 of Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945, which is based on official documentation from the German navies, states, "Transverse and longitudinal steel frame construction, with a single layer of wooden planks with Muntz metal sheeting up to .95m above CWL." Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, he probably meant the metal sheet extended up to a meter above the waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

This image is claimed on Commons to be from a visit of the ship to the United States. There is nothing in the source data at the Library of Commerce to support that, and it seems unlikely that the ship would have come to the US (although the vessel did visit at least one US possession).

The claim on Commons, that the photograph is a work of the US government, is also dubious, as the LOC says it is from the collection of a news service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bain News Service donated a collection to the Library of Congress, which included turning over the rights to the images. They are therefore in the PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The following website (in German) claims that SMS Fürst Bismarck uninterrupted between 1900 and 1909 was based in East Asian waters. "S.M.S. Fürst Bismarck blieb von 1900 bis 1909 ununterbrochen in den ostasiatischen Gewässern und traf am 26. Juni 1909 wieder in Kiel ein." This contradicts the claim "The German cruiser SMS Fürst Bismarck during a visit in the U.S. sometime between 1900 and 1909." MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean the ship couldn't have visited the US during that time. SMS Dresden was assigned to the Caribbean station, but was in San Francisco at the outbreak of war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Große kreuzer?

Is this the same ship referred to as Große Kreuzer Fűrst Bismark? As pictured here, it seems to be so. In that case, should the infobox be changed from "unique class" to Große Kreuzer ("large cruiser", or "heavy cruiser")? ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. This ship was classified by the German navy as a Große Kreuzer, but that is the ship type, not the class. In this context, class refers to ship class, not a specific type of ship. For example, the previous German Großen Kreuzer, the Victoria Louise class, are part of a class because they were five ships built to the same design. In this case, Fürst Bismarck was a unique design. Parsecboy (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:S.M. Grosser Kreuzer Fürst Bismarck - restoration, borderless.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:S.M. Grosser Kreuzer Fürst Bismarck - restoration, borderless.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 31, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

SMS Fürst Bismarck was Germany's first armored cruiser, built for the Kaiserliche Marine before the turn of the 20th century and launched in 1900. Named for the German statesman Otto von Bismarck, the ship was primarily intended for colonial duties. She served in this capacity as part of the East Asia Squadron until she was relieved in 1909, at which point she returned to Germany. The ship was rebuilt between 1910 and 1914, and after the start of World War I, she was briefly used as a coastal defense ship. She proved inadequate to this task, and so she was withdrawn from active duty and served as a training ship for engineers until the end of the war. Fürst Bismarck was decommissioned in 1919 and sold for scrap.Illustration: Hugo Graf; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:SMS Fürst Bismarck/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

While the content of this article is thorough, in terms of its naval and military value, there is no "so what" involved here that might lead to its broader importance for German history. Although you've said it was decommissioned immediately after it was put into service for coastal work, there is no sense of why? Why was this ship important? What was its value, as a teaching vessel, as the 'first' of its kind, etc. Why was it named Bismarck? Yes, he was an important man, but so were others. You hint at a controversy in its building, but you don't follow up on that. I wouldn't approve it for GA status without this additional assessment. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This should be usable as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)