Talk:SMS Von der Tann

Gun nomenclature

Wilhemine Kriegsmarine gun nomenclature is usually given as caliber (in cm) SK (for Schiffskanone) then the length in calibers. Thus 11 cm SKL/45. 11 cm L/45 SK reads very oddly although I understand that the editor might have wanted to emphasize the gun's length.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I must've been temporarily dyslexic when I was reading the source. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Von der Tann naval guns appear on List of naval guns, but they are all red links. Rees11 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

heligoland bight raid

There seems a little confusion over when the ship was asked to sail during the british raid on heligo bight. I'm not sure why anyone would have ordered her to sail earlier in the day if it was impossible because of low water. If she could not have left harbour at 10.15, then she wasnt exactly ready to sail in the sense implied. Either she had to wait for Moltke, or she had to wait for tide. (well, presumably one came first, but logically she would have waited for the later obstacle to disappear). My impression from Massie's description in 'Castles' is that all the ships were sent out as soon as it was physically possible without waiting for any others. He argued this was one of the things the Germans did wrong, and which they realised after the raid was a mistake not to be repeated. He stated that Hipper was not informed of an attack by cruisers untill 2PM, when he was told about the british battlecruisers. Thus some carelessness in sending his cruisers out alone against presumed destroyers.Sandpiper (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

treaty of versailles.

Someone put in: Believing that the Treaty of Versailles had been signed and his fleet about to be seized by the British (both erroneous conclusions), Rear Admiral von Reuter... While it was true the treaty was not about to be signed that instant, it was only a short time off. It seems to me the conclusion that the fleet was about to be seized was entirely correct. Sandpiper (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The implication was the Germans thought that the British would seize and incorporate the German ships into the Royal Navy while the Treaty of Versailles would have allotted the ships between the Allied powers as war prizes, as was done with the Nassaus. von Reuter was well clear of the mark in his guesswork. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that specific misconception should be mentioned in the article? Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The present wording implies that the ships were not about to be seized at all. My reading of the current wording was Reuter believed the ships were to be seized, but that this was wrong. It seems to me he was correct in the major point that they were to be seized, whether or not correct in the lesser point of exactly who would get which ships. He was only slightly off in that the matter was imminent. As a military exercise, I think his timing was pretty good and he had waited just about as long as he could. I noted in reading somewhere that the British were in fact entirely happy he sank the ships, which they didnt particularly want given the existing unsupportable size of the navy after the war. Sandpiper (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As always, a discussion I forgot! Some Royal Navy officers were happy with the result. The fact is that whatever happened the British were not going to seize any warships. By the terms of the Treat of Versailles the Germans would have been obligated to hand-over the ships - and in the absence of any other navies in Scapa Flow this would naturally have been to the British. "Seized" suggests that the British would have illegally taken, by force or otherwise, the ships, which is simply not true. By scuttling when he did von Reuter broke the terms of the armistice. Had he done it a few days later he would have broken the terms of Versailles - both agreements signed by his country which he was supposed to honour. There is absolutely no excuse for his actions. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be seen by his actions that Adm. Von Reuter was not going to "hand over" the ships under any circumstances. The British would then have taken (Seized?)the ships by force. If the British wouldn't have used force "whatever happened", why did the British machine-gun German sailors in the waters of Scapa Flow? The German sense of honor is equal to anyone else bar none. Adm. Von Reuter is a hero in Germany. And rightfully so. A yank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.23.52 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Go have a look at Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow. And what is your source for the machine-gunning of "German sailors in the waters of Scapa Flow"? It's a shame that the Admiralty never followed through on its desire to court-martial von Reuter or prosecute him in civilian court on a charge of barratry. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The British had no right to charge Reuter on anything. The British didn't own the ships. A claim of "Barratry" would have been laughed out of any court worthy of the name. And going by the very article you referenced "Nine Germans were shot and killed". In time of armistice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:440c:1412:8100:3541:5f5d:1002:ac29 (talk • contribs)

Indeed - the British no doubt didn't follow through on the barratry charge because they knew they had no legal basis for it, and they knew it. They didn't own the ships, Germany still did. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Design speed

The article says:Like all the German battlecruisers that would follow her, she was considerably faster than her design speed of 24 kn

Immediately reading this it occurs to me as something of a non-sequiter, that Germany could keep building ships which accidentally exceeded their design speed. Surely, they would have cut back on over-engineering in later ships. Or, if they were entirely happy building ship which did 27 instead of 24 and knew this would be the case in advance, then they did not 'exceed the design speed', because they got the speed they were expecting. It might just be, considering Turpitz aim to produce good ships, that he considered a design speed of 24 to equate to a ship which could do 27 under optimal conditions? Sandpiper (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I' understand, the 24 knots was the minimum speed required in the design specs from the RMA bigwigs, if the ships were faster and still met size/weight/etc. requirements, all the better. Also, your last point is probably correct; these speeds were really only possible under optimal conditions (chief among these was access to high-quality coal, something the BCs almost never had during the war, see the various complaints by VdT's captains, etc.) Perhaps a slight rewording is in order. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that the article mentioned the ship's speed twice in the design section, so I merged them, and that sentence ended up being dropped. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Query from skim reading

"Neither Derfflinger, due to battle damage, nor Von der Tann, due to the dirtiness of her boiler fires, could steam at more than 18 knots."

What do you mean by "dirtiness of her boiler fires"? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The boilers were getting very dirty from protracted use and extra crew couldn't be spared to clean them. Why this reduced the speed I'm not sure, but I'd guess that the grime and soot from the low-quality coal was building up on the ducts that carried the steam from the boilers to the turbines, reducing efficiency. Who knows though, that's just a guess, and Tarrant's book isn't more specific. Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly confused me

Following the end of the war in 1918, Von der Tann, along with most of the High Seas Fleet, was interned at Scapa Flow pending a decision by the Allies as to the fate of the fleet. The ship met her end when the fleet was scuttled in 1919 to prevent them falling into British hands

I guess it might just be me, but when it said it was interned at Scapa Flow it makes it sound as if the fleet was already in British hands. Maybe if the first sentence said something along the lines of "was interned at Scapa Flow, along with the remaining crew, at Scapa Flow...". Is this correct, or am I still not understanding what went on? I presume some of the crew must have been left on board (for a year?) or they wouldn't have had chance to scuttle it. --86.139.65.151 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The ships were still held by their German crews (all just skeleton crews); the fear was that the British would seize the ships and either put them into Royal Navy service or give them to the navies of other Allied powers. Does that make more sense? Parsecboy (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Blohm + Voss

The company name is not "Blohm and Voss" as this article had it. It was originally "Blohm & Voss", which could be rendered "Blohm und Voss" in German, and is now "Blohm + Voss". (See the WP article Blohm + Voss and its own website.) The "&" was changed to a "+" in 1955, after SMS Von der Tann was built, so maybe that is the issue? But what is the point of a partly-translated name when that is not the company name either! Please justify here before changing. Laughing Jean Genome (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's supposed to be an *issue*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.23.52 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name be "Blohm & Voss" then so because this article is referring to something that was around before 1955? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fate

"A month later, the German Revolution had begun, which toppled the monarchy and led to the Armistice that ended the war." This sentence reflects the infamous Dolchstosslegende, which was a key argument in the propaganda against the Weimar Republic. In fact, it was the call of the german military - seeing that the war was being lost - for negotiations , which led to the armistice of 1918. --85.3.240.180 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)