Talk:Coastal defence ship

Title

I see this page was moved from Pantserschip. This is not any less "bizarre" since the first title was Dutch and this one derived from German. Better title would be in English. Armoured ship (direct English translation) or Coastal defence ship (more descriptive name). In my opinion armoured is too generic since almost all naval ships have armour. I also contest the factual accuracy of this article. It omits quite a lot of information and in its current status it's basically just a selective list of ships with everyone adding their "favourite" ones. About a month ago I added the see also to Pocket battleship since those ships share some conceptual similarity. That doesn't mean these ships are battleships. If you do a google search on the Swedish ships you'll find a lot of hits calling them "coastal battleships", but that is a translation error. I find it hard to edit this article without bordering on original research. --Laisak 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever about the factual content, but the German word "panzer" is pretty widely known in English, whereas the Dutch title is not. But if you want to move it back, that's okay with me. Arre 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Laisak's suggestion Coastal defence ship seems quite reasonable. Support move & redirect and such. Scoo 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger & naming confusion

See also Talk:Battleship#Swedish_battleships.3F, Talk:Pansarskepp, Talk:List of battleships by country

There would seem to be alot of confusion regarding this class (or rather niche) of vessels. This is not helped by a lack of a proper name for these vessels in English. Last year's proposal of naming the article per their role might be better technically, while there is no proper equivalent to the ships denotation in their respective languages (be it de:Küstenpanzerschiff vs. panzerschiff, pantschership, pansarskepp, panssarilaiva etc.). The census seems to be that while sometimes used, Coastal battleship or Coastal defence battleship might mislead English speakers.

My suggestion is to initiate a discussion (and possibly dig up more references regarding the subject) in order to reach census on the issue and ultimately expand this article and direct (possibly with pipered links, á la Ilmarinen was a Finnish [[Coastal defence ship|Panssarilaiva]]) users to this article when looking for pansarskepp and so on. This rather than having stubs on various vessel classes named after their respecive language (such as Pansarskepp). Scoo 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe "coastal defence ship" is a good name. I don't think the word "battleship" should be used in the title; it's deceptive. I think a merge from Pansarskepp would be appropriate. TomTheHand 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they basically the battleship equivalents which small navies could afford to build? They aren't the same as the 3 German 1930s armored cruisers, though. I think their purpose was different, correct? They had much slower speed generally, that's the main difference. The German ships were definately intended for ocean operation. It seems to me that the Swedish/Finnish/Dutch/Danish/Norwegian ships of 1880-1935 or so were intended for coastal protection and operations in the Baltic and maybe North Sea, so "coastal battleship" seems accurate, specially as they often had low freeboard. Not all battleships are big, that's all we need to remember. The British/French/Germans (Siegfried class) also built somewhat similar ships but they were sometimes called "second class battleships" rather than coastal. All these "pansarskipp" articles should probably be merged since the ships in each navy were very similar and we could compare them more clearly on the same page. It's not like there were terribly many of them.

"Battleship" isn't a relative term; the largest ship a small navy can afford doesn't become a "battleship." TomTheHand 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Siegfried"-Klasse is not regarded as "Linienschiff" or "Schlachtschiff" in german literature, so I doubt they should be called "battleships" in english (however I admit my mother-tongue is german, not english). Actually, from 1899 onwards, they were re-classified as "Küstenpanzerschiff" (at the same time, the "real" battleships were re-classified as "Linienschiffe"). I think "Siegfried"-Klasse falls under the scope of this lemma. --172.176.84.26 10:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The German ship class "Panzerschiff" from the 1920th has no connection with the German ship class "Küstenpanzerschiff" form the 1890th and has also nothing to to with a translation from Swedish but with a french term in the Versailles Treaty used in the German translation. So I corrected that passage in the article. -- Rakell (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

General Ideas

This is in discussion in the Battleship talk section as well. My take on the situation is that these ships are mostly NOT battleships. There were some "inexpensive" battleships built (the American second class types), however those had a different function. This type of ship was meant for shallow water operation - and was specialized for that. They had no common mission requirements with a Pocket battleship or Panzerschiff and should not be confused with them. My current thought is to insert a "Coast Defense Ship" page, with "Coast Defense Battleship" forwarded to it, and on that page discuss the general commonalities, and then link to each of the specific types, as the various national navies built vessels that had very different design considerations. I think that: Panssarilaiva Pansarskepp Pantserschip Should each have their own page. BTW, Pansarskepp is Swedish - does anyone know the Danish and Norwegian terms? UrbanTerrorist 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Norwegian term is Panserskip, I'm assuming the coresponding danish term is either the same or panserskib, but we better ask a Dane to verify that. A quick google seems to indicate the latter, but also in the meaning 'ironclad'...

According to Weyer 1941/42, the official danish term for "Peder Skram" and "Niels Juel" was "Artilleriskib". In 1914 and 1922 , Weyer gives "Kystforsvarskib". --172.176.84.26 10:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In a way they are battleships, at least in the function they filled within the navies who had them; they were the capital ship which formed the core of the fleet (that the Norwegian panserskip was not used in the intended way in the run up to WW2 is another matter). Even if Wikipedia may classify them as something else, this factoid ought to be pointed out in the article(s). WegianWarrior 15:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term coastal defence ship is too wide. We might almost as well use armoured ship. Any naval ship not intended to patrol the open seas might be labeled a coastal defence ship. I am leaning more towards the term coastal battleship as this says more about the "intention" behind the ship and the type of ship. It also implies they were smaller than normal battleships. They were in many ways the battleships of the small navies. Inge 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, "battleship" is not a relative term. It doesn't mean "the biggest ship in your navy." "Coastal defence ship" is too broad only if you don't know what it means; in the same way, if you don't know what a battleship is, you might think it's a broad term because many ships do battle. These ships are quite small and were not intended to be used in the same way as battleships: standing in a battle line and slugging it out with the enemy's heavy ships. TomTheHand 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Swedish wikipedia page sv:Pansarskepp:, I wrote an short paragraph explaining the reasons why the definition varies between the different countries. I will try to put it here too so you can judge it. MoRsΞ 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point to be considered is that they have to be differentiated from Monitors - which also were "Coast Defense" ships in effect. UrbanTerrorist 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's not relative. The reason I called them battleships was that they performed the same function as regular battleships, but in the coastal regions of the baltic states where bigger ships couldn't easily go, and they had the same qualities of those larger ships (heaviest armor, largest guns etc.) of any ship which operated in that same coastal region, just like bigger battleships had in their operational areas. Calling them "coast defence ships" is fine of course, just semantics really. Their function was to defeat anything the enemy could send against them in coastal waters, so in a way what you said is incorrect, TomTheHand. They might not fight larger battleships, nor form a battle line, due to small numbers, but they were intended to fight anything they encountered, be it other similar ships or, say, a light cruiser. That's my understanding, anyway.SpookyMulder 10:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unternehmen Polarfuchs

There was an "Operation Polarfox" (although that name also had previously been used for an operation to conquer Murmansk), which were plans for invading Sweden. I saw the plans yesterday in a book in the lockal university library, when searching for something entirely different. I can go back to the library and check the book data. The only landing sequence would have been about 100 km north of Stockholm (if I remember the map correctly), the rest of the invasion forces would have come from Norway where they would have swept through middle Sweden. MoRsE 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cerberus class

The article Cerberus class battleship claims that they are battleships, while this article claims that they are coastal defence ships. This inconsistency should be solved but since I know very little about this subject I ask for some input. Jeltz talk 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

HMS Wasa

The Link goes to the Galleon Wasa from the 17th Century and not to the Armoured Ship built at the turn of the previous century, unfortunantley there is no article for the Ship in the english Wikipedia but there is in the Swedish version. I don't know how to link in this regard, especially since the old Wasa is such a famed ship whule the later remains in historys obscurity. Darkwand (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chibi panzer.

In the Habsburg empire (KuK fleet), everybody called these vessels "defended by coast battleships" unofficially, in a realistic assessment of their might or lack, thereof. The same was true for tsarist Russian Navy. 82.131.134.66 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

List of operators

This section has grown longer than the article, as lists not only the navies but also the ships. I'm redoing it in a more concise way, without losing information; will take a couple days to finish. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What is and is not a coastal defense ship

Since we have some confusion about what is and is not a coastal defense ship, let's look at a standard source on warships: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships.

1. It lists all of the French ships I added to the page in the category of "Coast Defense Ships" in the 1860-1905 volume
2. It classifies SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf and SMS Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie as barbette ships (a type of sea-going ironclad) in the same volume
3. Yongfeng is classified as a gunboat in the 1906-1921 volume

Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: - please provide sources that support your assertions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think we can rely on just one book series for our definition of Coastal Defence Ships. As the article mentions, the definition of what is and is not a Coastal Defense Ship varies. Some sources list ships as Coastal Defence Ships, while others list them as something else. As someone who studies Naval History for a living, and who has actually worked on historic American ships, I can tell you that the Onondaga is not a Coastal Defence Ship. It is a river monitor. Anasaitis (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So your position is that we don't need sources? I think you have a strange conception of what we're doing here (and makes your claim to study "Naval History" for a living seem pretty dubious). Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Here’s one: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/onondaga.htm

I’ll post some more shortly.

Please do. Firstly, tell me where the navsource page refers to Onondaga as a "river monitor" (amusingly, it says "but was intended for coastwise duties as well" - did you bother reading your own source?). Then tell me where it says literally anything about what the French used the ship for. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Check DANFS: "...sold the ship to the French Navy...[where] she served as a coast defense battleship until 1903." Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Or The Monitor and the Navy Under Steam, which states: "[Onondaga] still figures on their navy list as a coast defense vessel..." Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My source clearly classifies it as a Monitor. Furthermore, if you think Ironclads don’t qualify as Coastal Defence Ships,,then you are clearly contradicting yourself, because that was clearly an ironclad. Also, I don’t appreciate your insults, and don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed that we never needed sources. Here is another that reflects the confusion associated with the classification of the Zhongshan and her sisters. This source calls it a cruiser: http://en.people.cn/90001/90783/91300/6419815.html Anasaitis (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say ironclads don't count as coastal defense ships? "Ironclad" is a very broad category of warship, and coastal defense ships of the 19th century would certainly fall into it as a subcategory. In any event, your source also says that Onondaga was intended for "coastwise duties" - what would those be, hmm? Pleasure cruises? As for Zhongshan, I'm still waiting for a reputable source that refers to it as a coastal defense ship (i.e., not a mass media outlet that doesn't know a battleship from a tugboat). Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, virtually all of your sources date back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Your source calls it a battleship, when it clearly pre-dates the earliest pre-dreadnought. As I’m sure you are aware, the definition of battleship, and the classification of naval vessels in general, has changed significantly over time. Anasaitis (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What? Literally only one source dates from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And where, praytell, does it call it a battleship? Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

But if you want more recent sources that refer to Onondaga as a coastal defense ship, try these on for size; one is from 1977 and the rest are from the 1990s. They took literally less than a minute to find; there are more. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources call it a monitor. If you cannot see where it calls it a battleship, then you obviously don’t read your own sources. Speaking of which, are you not the one that changed the name of the the article SS Zhongshan to Chinese coastal defense ship Zhongshan? You clearly haven’t read your own work. Anasaitis (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop lying, please? It's becoming rather hard to take your position as one in good faith when you make patently false statements like those. The Warship article, for example, clearly states "Onondaga, Coast Defense Ship (monitor type)". And nowhere does The Monitor and the Navy Under Steam refer to Onondaga as a battleship. At this point, it's hard to see your posts here as anything better than trolling. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is where you stated that: 00:29, 8 March 2020‎ Parsecboy talk contribs‎ 18,053 bytes -275‎ no they aren't - Rudolf and Stephanie are ironclads (go read their articles), as is Vasco de Gama - and a 700-ton vessel with a single 4-inch gun is a gunboat, not a CDS - the phrase is a term of art that means more than just vessels used to defend a coastline Anasaitis (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This article clearly states that coastal defense ships DIFFER from monitors. Monitors have their own page. Anasaitis (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

One wonders why you have failed to provide sources...

As to what this article states, who literally gives a crap? It's a wiki, written by amateurs. The fact that you're citing it as proof for your position makes your claim about being a historian even more laughable. Provide published sources or find something else to waste your time with. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the Austro-Hungarians, there's The Late Victorian Navy and Warship 1995, both of which describe them as barbette ships, The Naval Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1867-1918, which refers to them as battleships (along with a slew of late 19th century publications that label them barbette ships). Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

On Yongfeng, these sources all use gunboat to refer to the vessel. And that's just under her original name. These use the later name and "gunboat". These are not exhaustive examples by any means. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s called having a job. I can’t spend all day on Wikipedia, nor would I want to considering the way you have treated me. Yes, I mentioned I studied history and worked on ships, but I did not say that we don’t need sources and can rely on my word alone. Stop putting words in my mouth. That is I known you would accuse me of such things, I would not have mentioned it. If that is how my comment sounded, I apologize. I honestly didn’t mean to give the impression that I was saying that my opinion matters more than others. Still, that is no reason to accuse me of being a troll. I was actually going to start posting sources after the initial post, but you started posting before I could, which triggered an edit conflict.

Here’s more sources referring to the Onondaga as a Monitor: https://books.google.com/books?id=i9-0ZuKsMvIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=French+Monitor+Onondaga&source=bl&ots=pFTBYwKDaB&sig=ACfU3U3wUwbT0OgnuIrsLVMcxyBwlFHIvw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5NScuo7oAhVGnuAKHcBvBV84ChDoATAFegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=French%20Monitor%20Onondaga&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=qiJ-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=French+Monitor+Onondaga&source=bl&ots=eL5zSTMvm6&sig=ACfU3U1236kWJZBodTFLfy5KcGtU6hwjvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5NScuo7oAhVGnuAKHcBvBV84ChDoATAGegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=French%20Monitor%20Onondaga&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=x-XcAgWYTMMC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=French+Monitor+Onondaga&source=bl&ots=wTrCrPR7yN&sig=ACfU3U1iwVxVP0X2DXwok4NkgTMnqNGqEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinirXbu47oAhWid98KHTfUDpI4FBDoATACegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=French%20Monitor%20Onondaga&f=false

I can list more.

How have I lied? The article’s history clearly says that you were the one who changed the name to Chinese coastal defense ship Zhongshan, and that you changed the name to Chinese gunboat Zhongshan today. You also changed Yongfeng-class coastal defense ship to Yongfeng-class gunboat, and you also changed the USS Onondaga’s page, all within a short period of time. Monitors were often used for coastal defense purposes, but coastal defense ships are a specific type of warship that differs from earlier Monitors, as described in this article. If no one truly “gives a crap” about the difference, as you say, then what is the point of this article? Anasaitis (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It literally took a few minutes to find the sources I listed here, I don't buy that excuse. As for my treatment of you, I'm not going to waste time mincing words with someone who isn't going to discuss things in good faith.

Do you realize that monitors are commonly used for coastal defense? And a major problem this article has is conflating the general concept of a "coastal defense ship" with specialized Scandinavian vessels built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Here's the category tree: it starts with the generic term "ironclad", which is divided into two basic categories: sea-going and coastal vessels. The sea-going ironclads include things like armored frigates, central battery ships, barbette ships, high-freeboard turret ships etc. that are intended for fleet actions, while the coastal vessels can be basically divided into offensive and defensive vessels (there are relatively few of the former - the French Terrible class are an example), and the defensive vessels include types like armored rams (think HMS Polyphemus), monitors (including breastwork monitors), and the specific type you're meaning when you use the phrase "coastal defense ship" (which are, in fact, essentially just monitors under another name, no different than central battery/casemate ships - what practical difference is there between USS Puritan and the Danish Herluf Trolle class?) The other problem is one of role versus ship type; many older battleships in the 20th century were downgraded as coastal defense ships (for instance, Asahi) - does this make them a coastal defense ship? Or are they just a guard ship? Which leads me to another question: why do you object to the inclusion of Onondaga but you have no problem with almost all of the South American ships on the list?

Where did you lie? Let's see:

virtually all of your sources date back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - nope, only one of them did (and your argument is invalid anyway, and if anything, reinforces my point)

our source calls it a battleship - no it didn't

Every single one of those sources call it a monitor - no they don't

studies Naval History for a living - but now you just studied history and worked on ships - next we'll hear you took a class in college and went on a boat trip once

My only remaining question is, at what point are you going to admit you're wrong and move on? Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems you didn’t even bother reading my responses thoroughly. I already mentioned that Monitors could be used for coastal defense. There is a difference, however, between the earlier Monitors and subsequent Coastal Defense Vessels of the late nineteenth and twentieth century. As for the South American ironclads, I never said that I didn’t have a problem with them. I would have discussed that had you not started calling me a troll and a liar. Speaking of the latter accusations, let’s address those:

1. While I did mention that I studied naval history for a living, I did not specify the exact nature of my job. You simply jumped to the assumption that I was claiming to be some big-shot naval historian whose word was better than any source, yet historians are not the only people whose job requires the study of naval history. I would assume someone as passionate about naval history as you claim to be would know that there are a number of jobs that require knowledge of the history of the world’s navies. So that’s not a lie.

2. I am starting to suspect that you stopped reading your sources the moment you saw the words “coastal defense”, because virtually all of those sources call the Onondaga a monitor or a “monitor-type” vessel. The Monitor and the Navy Under Steam, for example, refers to it as a “double-turreted monitor”. That’s not a lie.

3. DANFS does call it a coast defense battleship. You assumed I was talking about another source. I will admit that is partially my fault for not specifying which source I was referring to. My comment on the changing history of the battleship over time certainly didn’t help matters, as it makes it seem like I was referring to one of the older sources. That was a mistake, but not a lie.

4. I was also mistaken when I said that you were primarily using nineteenth and early twentieth century sources. I mistook them for something else. I was mistaken, but I did not lie.

Do not insult me by accusing me of lying. Now, can we still have a civil conversation on the matter of coastal defense ships, or is this going to devolve into an exchange of insults? Anasaitis (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Re #1: let's not walk back what is plainly visible on the talk page. You said: As someone who studies Naval History for a living, and who has actually worked on historic American ships, I can tell you that the Onondaga is not a Coastal Defence Ship. You directly cited your supposed expertise as a naval historian to support your position. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's exactly what you said. Don't pretend you didn't.

Re: #2: You say there's a difference between earlier monitors and the later vessels, but you haven't exactly done the math. Asserting something is not proof of its truth. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I was going to cite sources, but you posted as I was trying to post them, which triggered an edit conflict. Perhaps I could have worded that initial comment better, but that is my fault. It was not my intention to imply that my word alone was sufficient to prove my point. Furthermore, how have I not done the math? There is a clear difference between the monitors and the other vessels labeled coastal defence ship here. It is also clear from the sources that vessels like the Onondaga were designed for shallow water operations, especially rivers. If further evidence of the difference is needed, page 38 of this book clearly states that coastal defence ships are those designed specifically for the defence of the sea near the coasts of a nation’s coasts, as opposed to the rivers and harbors that the Onondaga would have operated in:

https://books.google.com/books?id=i9-0ZuKsMvIC&q=Coastal+defense+ironclad#v=snippet&q=“Coastal%20defense%20ironclad%2Fbattleship”&f=false

It also explains the difference between the American made ironclads and coastal defence ships. Even the New Ironsides would have had difficulty in any conditions other than calm waters in the sea near the coast, and the ocean going monitors, the monitors which it cites as the closest to the definition of a coastal defence ship, would not have operated their guns outside of the waters in or around harbors, where the majority of the naval battles of American Civil War were fought. Such ships would have required modification to operate in coastal waters away from harbors and the mouths of rivers, modifications which were not made to the Onondaga by the French, who merely replaced the guns in the turrets, as stated in the sources on that ship’s article. Breastwork monitors like those listed in this article would have to been able to operate further out to see thanks to the elevated positions of the guns and armored superstructure, but none of the Civil War era monitors built in the United States were breastwork monitors. The so-called “new navy” ironclads of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century also discussed in the book are closer to the definition of the coastal defence ironclad/battleship, but even these were different from the coastal defence ships of Europe and Asia. Anasaitis (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Onondaga would better fit the definition of a guard ship, since it would have operated in and around French harbors and ports. Anasaitis (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. You keep saying that monitors are clearly different from later coastal defense ships, but you have not explained how. I even prompted you with an example, which you ignored. Didn't you ever have a math teacher remind you to show your work?

That source of yours says "Some of the larger U.S. monitors could also be considered coast-defense armorclads." Funny, wasn't somebody saying something about not reading past the material one thinks supports one's argument? In other words, the source doesn't make the argument you wish it does - go down another paragraph after it talks about Monadnock and Miantonomah and explain to me why Sandler talks about the armored rams that the Royal Navy built in a section about coastal defense ships if he interprets the term in the same, very limited way you do.

Let's see what Ted Ropp has to say in his seminal The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871–1904: "The French also bought two American coast-defense ships, the casemate ship Dunderberg and the monitor Onondaga. The whole collection was admirably described as a flotille de siege garde-cotes (coast defense siege train), and its mission was to repeat the offensive triumphs of the Crimean War." I think I'll take Ropp's word over yours. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

While reading through Watt's The Imperial Russian Navy for another project, I noted that his chapter "Coastal Defense Ships" includes a host of vessels you'd not think to be coastal defense ships, including all of the monitors Russia built in the 1860s, including the Uragan class, which were duplicates of the American Passaics - it seems your definition is idiosyncratic. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Discipline vs role. (Suggested article name change)

This article seems to perpetuates a small but noticeable modern issue regarding nomenclature of this type of ship, seemingly more apparent since about 2010.

The article is at present titled 'Coastal defence ship', but the subject under discussion were actually known as 'coast defence ships'.

If this seems like a subtle distinction, it is not.

These ships were built as a part of the discipline of 'coastal defence'; that is, defence which is coastal in nature - considering or relating to the coast. This is the strategic overview. The mission of these ships was 'coast defence' - defending the coast^. This would be very much a tactical or operational level of assessment.

When referring to these ships, it is as common to refer to them as diminutive battleships, in which case they are frequently referred to in contemporary & modern works as 'coastal battleships'; that is, a 'battleship' only in terms of the kind of craft liable to be encountered in the coastal environment & discipline - and not to be confused with a true blue-water fleet unit of that type name. The term 'coastal battleship' is, therefore, somewhat metaphorical. It is the least commonly-used of the three main terms for these ships.

More usually, both contemporary sources and secondary academic works refer to these units by more mission-specific terms; either "coast defence battleships" (ie; 'battleships' reassigned to or designed for the coast defence mission, being battleships mainly in the sense of their weight of armament & armour to size but otherwise not / no longer to be considered as true ocean-going battleships); the similar "coast defence ironclad", "coast defence monitor" and "coast defence turret ship"; or most commonly as "coast defence ships" (which is unequivocally a ship tasked with defending the coast). Notably, the USN adopted the classification of Coast Battleship (no.#) for the early numbered battleships when they were demoted from fleet duties - as far as can be told, the USN is unique in this regard.

The terms "coastal defence ship" and "coastal defence battleship" were never used in contemporary or secondary sources of any repute or worth, and are incorrect.

Bottom line: The adjective 'coastal' followed by a specific warship type (battleship, monitor, ironclad) is perfectly commonplace & acceptable; the term 'coast defence' followed similarly is the usual form and totally acceptable; the term 'coastal defence' followed by a specific ship type is not the normal or correct form.

I move to rename this article to the correct term 'Coast defence ship'.

(I would just as readily suggest 'Coastal battleship' but that is more specific in that it eliminates from consideration many weaker or lower-ranking coast defence vessels, whereas 'Coast defence ship' is a broader church, encompassing many different sizes and design concepts.)

(References: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships series exclusively use the three terms "coast defence ship"*, "coast defence battleship/ironclad/turret ship"** and "coastal battleship"***; *1860-1905 vol - pp.272, 298, 353, 361, 369, 374-375; 1906-1921 vol - pp.142, 192, 226, 330, 365-366, 372; 1922-1946 vol - pp.365, 386, 396, 404, 406, 410; **1860-1905 vol - pp.174-177, 360, 365, 369, 372, 378, 390, 401-402, 405-407;1906-1921 vol - p.295; ***1906-1921 vol - pp.348-349, 351-352, 356, 359; 1922-1946 vol - pp.368, 378, 382; Jane's Fighting Ships in its very first edition (1897) uses the terms "sea-going 'coast defence' ships", "coast defence ironclads" and "coast defence gunboats" - p.15; Jane's WW1 reprint edition also use 'coast defence ship'. Ironclads at War, by Greene & Massignani, quotes R Adm Roger Morris discussing the Dutch navy in Warships - "Between 1867 and 1875 they had built two large and four smaller seagoing armored turret ships, and thirteen low-freeboard coast defence turret ships." - p.156; ^"By 1880, J.W. King, Chief Engineer of the United States navy, said of the Dutch navy, "It is strong, however, chiefly for the purposes of coast defence"" - Greene & Massignani, p.156.)

Hard to pin down where the error originates - it's a very easy one to happen, but possibly since the publication in 2010 of a series of titles (presently unavailable and seemingly of limited merit) which use 'coastal defence ship' in the title: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781156059135/Coastal-Defence-Ships-Navy-Bjorgvin-1156059135/plp 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F525:54D7:4585:B9C5 (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an error, and it certainly predates 2010; that you think so only shows that you haven't looked. The term turns up in Ziemke's official history of German operations in the northern theater of operations all the way back in 1959. The edition of DANFS published in 1959 also uses the term; presumably the US Navy knows what it's talking about. But usage elsewhere is well attested: Philbin's Admiral von Hipper describes SMS Beowulf as a "coastal defense ship", Wilmott uses the term, as does Stoker here, and Evans & Peattie use the term in Kaigun. They are certainly not the only examples. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"that you think so only shows that you haven't looked"

That was unnecessary. I obviously did look, or else |I wouldn't have provided a catalogue of examples to the contrary.

Your slight of me is sadly typical of the manner in which WP editors deal with these sort of matters.

You dissuade others from wanting to help.

But fine, keep the article name as it is; obviously 'common usage' means whatever the individual wishes it to mean.

Perhaps I'm regretting giving any money to support the cause, given how you treat me.

In future, why not just stick to the topic and stay away from personal comments though, yes?

Maybe we'll both learn something from this. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F076:39EF:930F:6C8 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You looked, but only for examples to prove your argument. You clearly didn't look for material that contradicted the point you wanted to make; this is a statement of fact. That you take offense to me pointing out your mistake is your problem, not mine. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Greek ships?

The lead mentions Greece as a country which used coastal defence ships as its flagship, but Greece isn't mentioned in the operators. Are we talking about Georgios Averof here, and does anyone know enough to add a bit on the Greek navy? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No idea what that would be in reference to; Georgios Averof is an armored cruiser, not a coastal defense ship, and before that, it would have been one of the Hydra-class ironclads, which also weren't coastal defense ships. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)