Talk:Bismarck-class battleship

Some misleading wording

12.6 inch main belt armour is not "very thick" in contemporary terms - "thick" perhaps but not "very". Considering that the French Richelieu (13in), German Scharnhorst (13.78in), British KGV (15in) and Japanese Yamato (16in) classes all had thicker armour, the modifier "very" is not supported by reality - "averagely" might be more appropriate.

Are we still at this? Compared to other warship types of the day, and contemporary vessels that readers might be familiar with, it is indeed very thick. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no! The only reasonable comparison for a statement on the armour of a battleship is the armour on other battleships, and specifically other contemporary battleships. The reader will not be thinking of other ship types at all. No one, not even you, thinks of the armour of a battleship in relation to the splinter-protection on a bloody corvette! My reasoning here is exact and appropriate, please respond in kind. Oh I spoke to my friend the Lloyds Register marine inspector and Lt. RANR, and barbettes are not superstructure; they are neither hull, nor superstructure but are classed as "armament". Urselius (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, if we hadn't already established this before, I can't help you with your apparent inability to distinguish between whatever you read into text that isn't there and what the text simply says. That is a problem you need to solve in your own time, not repeatedly fight about here.

Let me let you in on a little secret. There's a reason we avoid jargon. Most of our readers are not marine inspectors. We write articles for a general audience, not experts. What the average DNC will assume about a given line of text is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no you don't! You tried your very best to browbeat me with jargon (easily confirmed by looking at Battleship Bismarck talk page), you are an arch-hypocrite. Urselius (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's a wee bit of a difference between discussions on talk pages and how articles are written. Let's drop the personal attacks before the issue has to leave our hands. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Of the nations building battleships in this era only the Italians and Americans produced battleships with thinner main belt armour than the Bismarck, the French, British and Japanese all produced battleships with thicker main belt armour.

Comparison of combatant vessels

Battleship class	Main armour belt (maximum thickness)
King George V (Britain)	15in
North Carolina (USA)	12.0in
South Dakota (USA)	12.2in
Iowa (USA)	12.1in
Scharnhorst (Germany)	13.78in
Bismarck (Germany)	12.6in
Dunkerque (France)	11.1 (Strasbourg)
Richelieu (France)	13in
Littorio (Italy)	11in
Yamato (Japan)	16in

Bismarck's armour is average, not "very thick".

Thats a really nice table you have there. You know what the average reader would think? "Wow, those battleships all have very thick armor!" Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All figures taken from Wikipedia articles, that are reliant themselves on secondary sources, not OR then is it! Urselius (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your understanding of the policy I linked is even worse than your understanding of the topic at hand... Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Except the rather weedy Italian and American ships, of course! Urselius (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely! If the phrase "Very thick vertical belt armour was adopted..." is not to be understood in relation to other battleships, then it is a tautological expression and should be struck out. It is in the nature of battleships to have armour, and in relation to armour found elsewhere (on tanks or destroyers for example) it is thick. Saying, out of any context of comparison, "battleship X has thick armour" is the equivalent to saying "ice-cream is cold" or "a horse has four legs". You are in a logical cleft stick here, Parsecboy, either "very" goes, because it wasn't "very thick" in relation to the armour of its contemporaries, or the whole phrase goes, because it is tautological and adds nothing useful to the text. Urselius (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All well and good, but we do not expect readers to know that all battleships have very thick armor. And indeed some do not, as evidenced by many classes of Italian warships from the 1870s onward. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted your change as this wording is cited to reputable authors. Nothing to change for fanboys of either side.--Denniss (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I will buy the book and check that liberties have not been taken with its wording. Urselius (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Denniss. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

KGV isn't 15" it 600# per sq ft which is about 14.7" and scharnhorst has the same armour as Bismarck (320mm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.12.76 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN

Per the original version of this article, American spellings are the correct variant to be used in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Why use "metric ton" instead of "t" just the once, then? Grassynoel (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it's useful to use the full name of a unit the first time and then abbreviate it thereafter? Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Armed with ...what?

Lede, 2nd sentence: ...they were armed with a battery of 38 cm (15 in) and were capable...

Hi, i am no expert on naval guns, but i have the impression the actual thing, which fires the 38 cm wide shell is missing. All the best Wikirictor 17:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

out-ranging most of the 38 cm and 40.6 cm guns of contemporary navies, huh? Here is the table from the North Caroline Mark 6 from Navweaps...

Elevation AP Mark 8 HC Mark 13 10 degrees 15,900 yards (14,539 m) 17,700 yards (16,185 m) 15 degrees 21,000 yards (19,202 m) 23,400 yards (21,397 m) 20 degrees 25,500 yards (23,317 m) 27,950 yards (25,568 m) 25 degrees 29,500 yards (26,975 m) 31,700 yards (28,986 m) 30 degrees 32,200 yards (29,444 m) 34,900 yards (31,913 m) 35 degrees 34,500 yards (31,547 m) 37,400 yards (34,219 m) 40 degrees 36,100 yards (33,010 m) 39,200 yards (35,844 m) 45 degrees 36,900 yards (33,741 m) 40,180 yards (36,741 m

Tirronan (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Out-ranging most of the contemporaries" is not a phrase that is incompatible with the German gun having shorter range than the 16-inch as installed on the North Carolinas. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but it's also kind of meaningless, as all of the guns in question could shoot further than anyone could accurately direct them. The paragraph doesn't serve much of a useful purpose to me, so I've removed it. Also I checked Campbell and Sturton and they don't make the claim sourced to them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

10.5 cm fire control

My edit about the domed anti-aircraft artillery was reverted, mostly because I am a relative new and inexperienced at providing references.

I would respectfully ask for help in getting the edit undo reversed, as my information is correct.

The reference is the Warship Profile on BISMARCK and the updated Anatomy of the Ship volume in BISMARCK.

https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Warship-Profiles/KM-Bismarck/KM-Bismarck-18_Page_19-960 for the Warship Profile

Phhotos in Breyer German Capital ships also clearly show that the objective (target-side) ends of the rangefinders in the after positions on BISMARCK are different from those in the forward installations. Also, it is easy to see that the rangefinders in the after positions actually sit lower, directly above the truncated inverted cone shields; whereas the complete positions with the domes, the rangefinder arms clearly sit higher.

Moreover the Anatomy of the Ship volume even identifies the systems by different model numbers.

Garzke and Dulin are not error-free. The most egregious example is the rather well known photo from astern of TIRPITZ which they (and the USN) mislabel as BISMARCK.

Armour

"The armor plate was mainly Krupp cemented steel. This had two classifications, Ww for Wotan (soft) and Wh for Wotan hard.[42]" This is a misleading statement Wotan Harte and Wotan Weich are both homogenous armour grade steels with Wh being used for deck protection and splinter wall and WW in the torpedo bulkheads as it was more ductile. Krupp Cemented armour of the main belt, upper belt, conning tower, barbettes and turret faces is neither Wh or Ww.

also minimum thickness of main deck inside the citadel is 80 mm over the machinery whilst info box states Deck as "100 to 120 mm (3.9 to 4.7 in)" really deck is 80-100 mm with 110-120mm slopes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.12.76 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hull number?

I have noticed a lack of a hull number in the KMS trpitz and KMS Bismarck Battleships. Anyone know the hull numbers. It is only giving me an add campaign of how great a ship it was and short lived one. It seems like it's trying to sell me something. I need more info then this is giving. I look at other sites and they seem to be a copy of each other. I'd like more on the ship then the same brain washing on the shitty submarine. 72.8.240.200 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a lack of hull numbers because the Germans didn't use them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

They did not use hull numbers for their surface ships. And no, there was no "KMS" prefix. Daobao1301 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)