Talk:Sleipner-class destroyer

A question

This article lists six ships in the class; yet Conway lists them as two classes of three (Sleipnir and Odin). Also, this article calls them destroyers, while in Conway they are torpedo-boats. Are these points reconcilable? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Norwegian Navy at the time considered them one class, and refereed to them as torpedojager - litt. torpedo-hunter or turpedo-destroyer. WegianWarrior (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Having just rechecked the most authoritative sources on the Royal Norwegian Navy that I have access to, nowhere do I find that there were two classes. Conway's dead wrong. Except minor differences all six ships were identical. There were, however, two larger "improved Sleipner-class" vessels being built at the time the Germans invaded (those two ships were never completed, due in part to sabotage), so that might have confused the Conway folks. The Germans did call the class "torpedo boats" when they themselves used captured Sleipner-class ships, but the British referred to them as destroyers, as do Norwegian books on the subject. Manxruler (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, I find it unimpressive that Conway appears to refer to a Aalesund class of Norwegian destroyers. This is the larger, improved Sleipner-like type. It never had a class name, as only one of the two ships was ever given a name at all - Ålesund (not Aalesund - a typical case of non-Nordic authors struggling with the letter Å). Does one ship, which was never even completed, make a class? And does one then name said class after that one named ship, which was the second of the two to be launched? I've never even heard of an Ålesund class of destroyers. This is as far as Ålesund ever got. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying

But, “Conway is dead wrong” – not much room to reconcile them there, then!

Just to clarify, Conway lists Sleipnir, Aegir and Gyller as the Sleipnir class, and Odin, Baldur and Tor as the Odin class. And I agree, there are only minor differences between them (another 40 tons displacement, another 2 metres on the length, one less gun). The vessels described here as "Improved Sleipnir" destroyers are listed by Conway as the Aalesund class of destroyers

If the specialist sources list the six as one class, I can live with that, but I would say that, because Conway is a major generalist source, the page ought to have a mention somewhere about the discrepancy. (I’ve put something similar on the TA page which I am working on at the moment).

As for the other two, it's fair enough if you are unimpressed by Conway's treatment of them; it does make sense to me (they are about twice the size, with a different armament: and though they have a superficial resemblance to each other, so did Prinz Eugen and Bismarck (which were also in classes of two)). But it isn't up to us, really, is it? It depends on what the sources say (and Conway is a reliable source). I think the best we can do in this case is point out the discrepancy exists, and let people make their own minds up about it, n'est ce pas? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Conway is a source that is considered by many to be reliable. I fully agree that it should probably be noted that Conway disagrees with the specialist sources, and claims that there were two classes. By the way, the specialist sources spell Balder with an e, not a u. And said sources use Sleipner, not Sleipnir, as well as Æger, not Aegir. If Conway uses Aegir, Baldur and Sleipnir, then that discrepancy with the other sources should also be noted.

Regarding the two larger ships I've been thinking for some time about what an article on those ships should be called. Conway uses Aalesund class, presumably after the single ship to be named by the Norwegians (both were given German designations during the war), Ålesund. I'd still like to see another source use that name. And the name is spelled in a different way to the other sources, too. Conway seems very "creative", with regards to classes and names and such. Manxruler (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with books like Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946, is that they can't possibly achieve the accuracy of specialist books. Which is why I never rely on such sources. Plus, samples from Gardiner's book doesn't exactly inspire trust in its attention to detail (the names it uses and such). Manxruler (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Conway claim that there's a general difference between ships that they define as two classes? I'm thinking about the "another 40 tons displacement, another 2 metres on the length, one less gun" bit. That would be incorrect. Here's the stats for for the various ships (source Abelsen 1986, who had access to Norwegian naval archives): Sleipner: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, 3 main 10 cm guns and one 40 mm AA gun. Æger: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, 3 main 10 cm guns and one 40 mm AA gun. Gyller: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, 3 main 10 cm guns and one 40 mm AA gun. Odin: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, 3 main 10 cm guns and one 20 mm AA gun. Tor: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, not yet armed when the Germans invaded. Balder: 735 tons, 74,3 metres, not yet armed when the Germans invaded. That does not sound like two different classes to me, at all. Manxruler (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I’ve added a note about the discrepancy; ideally I’d have put it in a section tabulating the ships, but the article doesn’t have one (do you think it should?)

On the spellings, my apologies, most of those were mine. I had assumed (without looking closely) that Sleipnir, Aegir and Baldur were correct. Conway does use the standard transliterations though; Ae for Æ, Aa for Å.

For what to do about a class page for the other two, I’d planned simply to put one at Aalesund class destroyers ( with a note about also being called Improved Sleipner class); but if you want to do one titled Improved Sleipner class destroyers, (with a note about the Aalesund name) that’d be fine. There’s a precedent here, if you’ve not come across the format before.

On the specifications, Conway gives:

• for Sleipners (laid down: 1934, 35, 37)

• displacement: 597 tons, standard
• dimensions:72m(pp) x 7.80m x 2.10m
• armament: 3x102mm/40, 1x40mm Bofors, 2xMG, 2x533mm TT

• for the Odins (laid down: all 1938)

• displacement: 632 tons standard
• dimensions: 74m(pp) x 7.80 x 3.00m
• armament: 2x102mm/40, 1x40mm Bofors, 2xMG, 2x533mm TT

It’s the sort of difference you might expect to see in modified/improved examples of a class; the changes in the Flower class corvetts over time, for example. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, good. It looks okay. I just did a search of the Norwegian National Library's database of thousands of books, and came up with nothing relating to a Odin class. One clue with regards to the difference in armament with regards to Conway, could be the fact that when the Germans rearmed the for Sleipner class ships they captured (Gyller, Odin, Tor and Balder, the last two in an unfinished state) they fitted them all with two 10,5 cm guns (including Gyller). That might explain the confusion. Manxruler (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll find the time to work on the two larger ships. The name is still a bit of a conundrum for me too. They're described as improvements on the Sleipner class, rather than named as such. Some sources call them Stor Jager (English: Big Destroyer), while most use their yard numbers (129 and 130). Manxruler (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

i've now ceated a class article for the two "big" destroyers at Ålesund-class destroyer - this name (or at least Aalesund-class) is used by Conway's, by Whitley's Destroyers of World War Two: An Illustrated Encyclopedia and by Fock's Z-Vor!: Internationale Entwicklung und Kriegseinsätze von Zerstörern und Torpedobooten: 1914 bis 1939, although there is probably an equally good case to call them the TA7-class.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)