Talk:HMS Barham (04)

Untitled

"U-331 returned to Salamis on 3 December, where her commander von Tiesenhausen was subsequently promoted to Kapitänleutnant and awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross." for the sinking of HMS Barham. So, the German high command must have known a lot earlier than "late january" that Barham was sunk. Or was the award for merely damaging this ship? The first quote is from Wikipedia's page on U 331.80.101.7.35 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

U-331 had radio equipment – torpedoing and observing a battleship blowing up a mile away was probably instantly reported to their base at Salamis. Will modify the text and remove this nonsense of "an opportunity to mislead ..."–Gamahler (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but wasn't. Leaving supposition out of it and looking at the sources, Tiesenhausen underwent a heavy depth charge attack, and was forced to dive to save his submarine. He only heard the torpedo detonate, and was unaware of what the result had been. He waited until the area was clear before resurfacing. He couldn't be sure whether Barham had been sunk, or had been damaged and left the area. He radioed in the torpedoing of a battleship, but Barham's fate was unknown. Tiesenhausen was granted the award of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but on 27 January 1942. The U-331 article doesn't make this clear, hence the ip's reading that the award came well before this is understandable, but incorrect. When the Admiralty announced the sinking on 27 January, the circumstances of the loss became clear and Tiesenhausen received his award. Benea (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and source! -Gamahler (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I misread the article.

1939 OF LEWIS

WHEN THE BARHAM WAS HIT IN 1939 FOUR MEN DIED, THEY WERE BURIED IN UNMARKED GRAVES IN BOTTLE LIVERPOOL. the navy denied this and told the relatives they lost at sea. in later years the graves were discovered by prisoners clearing the grave yard. this was kept for the families and denied by the navy... my great uncle was one of the four men. ASM Lockerly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.17.28 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jutland section

I think the level of detail is just about right in comparison to articles I've written on ships that took part in the battle, and certainly so for those that were as heavily involved in the fighting as Barham was. It is a bit of a "wall of text", but there's not a whole lot that can be done, apart from adding more pictures. You might want to put File:Headstone for the dead of H.M.S. Barham - geograph.org.uk - 1533677.jpg toward the end, and maybe a photo of one of the German BCs (probably Seydlitz would be the best choice, IMO) - File:Seydlitz badly damaged.jpg. File:HMS Warspite and HMS Malaya during the battle of Jutland.jpg might even be an option if you need another image. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, since you mention it I think it's far too long. Most of the Jutland section does not concern Barham - she is not even mentioned until the fourth paragraph - and she didn't play a particularly noteworthy role (at least not independently of the rest of the 5th Battle Squadron). Compare this with the equivalent section on Warspite (which did play a notable role): That is is 550 words and this is 1860 words. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As squadron flagship, you have to detail the movements of the squadron considerably more than private ships, IMO. Barham's not mentioned until the 4th para because she did nothing of note as an individual ship until then. Warspite's section will probably get expanded somewhat whenever I get around to it, although most of the squadron movement stuff won't be covered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy that. The level of detail might be appropriate for the article on the squadron, but not for an article on an individual ship. Take a look at the coverage of Trafalgar in the Victory article, or Tsushima in Mikasa. And I was offering Warspite as an example of how to cover the topic, not as a candidate for 'treatment'. It is fine as it is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I agree. I wrote Mikasa and the reason why the account is sparse is because it's hard to get reliable details about her actions during the battle. And as for Victory, Trafalgar was not a complicated battle tactically. I mean, you need some set up for Nelson's tactical principals, but after the ships break the Allied line of battle, it's merely engaged this ship, take damage, it surrenders, take more damage, move to fight different ship, etc. And much the same is true for the bulk of the Grand Fleet. Not so for the battlecruisers on both sides, nor of the 5th BS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

SINKING

Regarding the number of casualties, the loss of life is given as 863 at the following site: http://www.britishpathe.com/gallery/ten-tragedies-caught-on-film/4 while the narrator for the newsreel (Archive: British Pathé, Issue Date: 09/07/1945) at: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/hms-barham-1914-1941-aka-hms-barham-1914-41 states the loss of life as being 859 The figure in the article is unreferenced and indicates 841 people died. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so maybe someone with greater skill might edit the article to reflect these facts? Lord Ferguson (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Lord Ferguson

I'm reluctant to make this change because I'm not 100% sure but all the good sources I have talk of the sinking as being 25 November, not 24 November. This includes the first British notice of the sinking in January 1942. Can someone make the change if they are sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.37.125.106 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

B Class Review

The meaning of the following sentence is unclear. "Evan-Thomas turned northeast at around 18:06 and then made arced around to the southeast once he spotted the Grand Fleet." Please fix. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Forgot to mention location: Battle of Jutland, paragraph 8. Djmaschek (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Tidied references.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Barham (04)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. JAGUAR  17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "Other than that battle, and the inconclusive Action of 19 August" - why is this not written fully as Action of 19 August 1916?
• "Barham was played a minor role in quelling" - removed 'was'
• "At 18:17 he realized that" - realised, if you want to stay consistent with British spelling
• "before she stabilized without any damage." - stabilised too
• "Lützow was little bothered by these hits" - I don't understand this. Not sure if it sounds too informal here - does this mean she suffered little damage?
• "Von Tiesenhausen was not certain of the results of his attack and radioed that he'd hit a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship with one torpedo" - he had
• No dead links

This is a great article. Well written, comprehensive and very deserving of GA status. Once all of the above are clarified this should be good to go. JAGUAR  17:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these; this is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for my reviewer to find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I'll promote this. I might review a few more soon. JAGUAR  13:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal

@Sturmvogel 66 Why did you remove what i wrote ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You've been reverted on a number of articles where you've added unexplained (and sometime duplicative) material. The question is "why did you add this?" not "why did someone else remove it?"; difficult for us to know since you didn't add edit summaries. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ed I accept your objection your right. I should have explained my edit fist. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is a good article and has to be held to a higher standard than ordinary articles. Some of your edits needed some tweaks, but others violated WP:MOS or were badly formatted. Ultimately I'll send this article to WP:FAC and I prefer to meet that level of writing and compliance with the MOS as early as possible. I have a preferred method of writing the description that has been very successful for me at FAC and I usually adapt it for each ship article that I write.

One of the necessary things for the description section of an individual ship article is to pass over a lot of details that are better saved for the class article. If I get into the weeds describing elevation limits and gun ranges in the ship article, what's left for the class article? In my earlier articles I put a lot of that type of material in the ship articles, but have been reducing that kind of thing more recently. So I don't put caliber length, fuel supply, ammo counts, etc., in the ship articles any more because they're just not that important to the general reader. Forex, I just say that the ship had enough fuel to travel x nautical miles at y speed. However, I do add details that are relevant to that particular ship, like speed trial results, metacentric heights, displacements, etc., if available.

I haven't been diligent about updating all my articles to this new standard, so feel free to do so whenever you might come across them.

If you feel there's useful material that the article is lacking please start a discussion on the talk page before devoting a lot of time to adding them only to having them reverted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)