![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
My latest additions to the article content are solid fact, supported by reliable sources and not actually controversial. The "controversy" is only regarding the Introduction, where an editor with a strong POV is using "nuances" to create a biased and misleading summary of the content. No editor has veto rights on any article, and verifiable content can be added by anybody. Wdford ( talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wdford, can you please suggest the exact changes you think should be made to the article's text, along with the sources that support these changes? It's more productive to discuss concrete text than argue over differing interpretations of events. Nick-D ( talk) 10:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually I fail to see the strong discrepancies in the two lines of argumentation. I want to remind that English is not my native language so I may miss the subtleties in the wording. For me personally the discussion over PoW is irrelevant. PoW withdrew whether due to mechanical failure of her guns, combat damage sustained seems irrelevant to the lead of the article. Now based on my sources, which are mostly German and thus of lesser relevance to the English Wiki, the hits sustained by Bismarck from PoW had far reaching tactical implications on the mission. According to Gaack and Carr, Lütjens plans were to run over a U-boat defense line as a means to shake the British ships. This had been planned for. However the fuel situation on Bismarck, due to the hits sustained, made this option obsolete. I gave this example because I feel that the sentence in the lead "The destruction of Hood spurred a relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy involving dozens of warships." from my humble point of view, does not fully capture the collaborative effort by the British and events in the actions that pinnacled in the destruction by pair of British battleships. Again, my mastery of the English language may be the reason for this. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The Royal Navy was in a position to save those men, but instead left them to drown. This is an undisputed fact, which your side-tracking cannot alter. The article clearly says the British were scared of U-boats, and I made no attempt to alter that para, merely to separate it into a para of its own.
However you are no doubt aware that the U-boats of that era had to launch their torpedoes from periscope depth, and in rough seas they were thus no threat at all. The Royal Navy knew that, of course, which casts some doubt on their explanation for leaving the scene. Wdford ( talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
That's utter rubbish. The "to" bit doesn't "imply" anything, it states clearly that this was the known and inevitable outcome of the action. The British knew those men would drown, and they left anyway. Whether they left in order to drown the men, or if they left to avoid a U-boat, is a separate issue which does not affect the outcome - either way, the outcome of mass drowning would be the same, and the British commanders knew it. Your hysterical reaction to this simple statement of fact yet again betrays your POV.
After telling us that this "featured article" must include everything, you now want me to remove the info you don't like to another article? Once again you blatantly attempt to buff up the British battleships, to the disadvantage of completeness, accuracy and neutrality. Pathetic. Wdford ( talk) 18:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am tired of going around in circles, so I have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, here. I only mentioned Wdford and myself as involved parties, but if you are interested in helping resolve this dispute there, you are more than welcome to comment. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding scuttling of Bismarck I want to refer to Gaack and Carr pages 76 to 81, in particular page 80 is of relevance. These pages deal with the biography of Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Gerhard Junack. Junack was commanding officer of the 10th division on Bismarck. The 10th division was one of three divisions responsible for running the engines. Junack survived and later served in the Bundesmarine. During the final battle Junack was in the middle turbine room when he received the order to prepare scuttling Bismarck. He then ordered scuttling charges installed with a 9 minute delaying fuse. Intercom communication then broke down and he ordered a messenger to the engine control room. This messenger did not return and Junack ordered the scuttling charges primed. He was the last person to leave the fully lighted and intact turbine room before heading to the middle deck. According to his account this deck was still fully intact with no evidence of the ongoing battle. He then reached the battery deck where he encountered the first evidence of battle damage sustained. Here he could hear the scuttling charges going off. On page 81 he claims that when Bismarck went under he had a good view of the starboard side of the hull with no torpedo holes. This is his account. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that most experts on this issue have adopted a sort of middle-ground position, exemplified by Kennedy's quote in the article, namely that Bismarck would have eventually foundered if the Germans would not have scuttled the ship. Ballard said the ship could have remained afloat for perhaps a day, and Cameron said she might not have sunk for "half a day" (I've added this quote to the article already). Even Mearns conceded in his book that the scuttling probably hastened the inevitable.
Now, the meat of the proposal: we can make this clearer in the Wreckage section, and adding the following sentence to the lead: "Several other expeditions surveyed the remains seeking to document the ship's condition and to determine what sank her. Most experts generally agree that the scuttling at least hastened the sinking, but that the damage inflicted in the ship's last battle would have caused her to sink eventually."
(edit conflict - will reply to your points below)
The way it phrased the figure of 400 comes from G&C not Junack. G&C make no statements regarding the timeline, not even approximate times. I personally find his account of where he first encountered damage to ship interesting and maybe noteworthy. On page 77 G&C state Junack was also responsible for the newspaper Die Schiffsglocke, which was only published once on 23 April 1941. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the Wreckage section, mostly pulling out the individual comments re: eventual foundering and the effects of scuttling and put them into one paragraph - see here. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This section actually looks much better now. However:
It seems there have been six expeditions thusfar, and we have only addressed four of them. We should at least mention the others?
Re the Ballard expedition’s conclusion: The German reports were that scuttling was accomplished by explosive charges, so I presume the valves were blown out by explosive charges, rather than just “opened”?
The article currently says that the Mearns’ team “concluded that the ship sank due to combat damage”. The Mearns’ expedition included Jurens, Dulin etc, and they seemed to actually be much more open-ended. If Mearns himself professed that conclusion, should we not rather attribute it to him personally, and also give a summary of the (differing) conclusions of the rest of the team?
Wdford ( talk) 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
How can we say "Lindemann was probably killed here" when eye-witnesses saw him alive later on? B&H presumably were unaware of the other eye-witness sightings at the time of writing, but you cannot match a "probably" against a number of confirmed sightings. Wdford ( talk) 07:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I started sketching out Günther Lütjens early life a bit. I would appreciate an occasional tweak of my English word crafting. Feel free to comment. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
(...and coming somewhat later to the party)
I can’t decide sometimes if this article is a slow moving car-crash, or a triumph of NPOV achieved though a consensus among editors of very different viewpoints; though on reflection it’s probably both.
But the problem of leaning to avoid falling off one side of a horse (as
someone once said) is the danger of falling off the other side.
There seem to be two positions on this sinking business.
From the British standpoint Bismarck was brought to battle, reduced by gunfire to a helpless blazing wreck, then torpedoed, and was seen to sink.
From the German standpoint, when the position became hopeless, they set scuttling charges and abandoned ship.
If those are the facts, and the article already said so, the only purpose served by talking up the “scuttled by her own crew” aspect is in order to diminish the British achievement, n’est ce pas?
The account of the Atlantic campaign is replete with ships hit by U-boats and subsequently scuttled as unrecoverable; they are invariably recorded, without embellishment, as sunk and credited to the boat and her skipper (
of which this
is
but
one
single
ex
ample)
That is the standard applied to the German Navy; are we saying the RN should be held to a higher standard?
Does this mean we have to re-evaluate all the achievements of U-boat aces and reduce their scores?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And the suggestion that the British "could have rescued all the crew, but left them to drown" is an insult.
From their
earliest operations U-boat commanders had no compunction at all about torpedoing ships involved in rescuing survivors; because of this Admiralty standing orders were that survivors should not be picked up at all if there was a U-boat threat. Given that this required RN crews to steam past their own comrades in the water at times, what is remarkable about this incident isn't that they left, but that they attempted to pick up anyone at all; Donitz had already committed all his available boats in support of Bismarck, in an attempt to trap the Home Fleet, so there was nothing unrealistic about perceiving a threat.
And U-boat routinely sank ships and left the crews to their fate, so the benchmark had already been set on that score.
To suggest or imply that the British were remiss or had failed to meet some standard of decency, one that the German navy had already kicked great holes in, is frankly insulting.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Kennedy is quoted in the article using the word "foundered", but I'm happy with your wording. Wdford ( talk) 12:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
POW article says two boilers were shut down because of her fire. This one talks only about the damage to the bow and two apparently insignificant hits elsewhere. Which is correct? The Cameron expedition concluded that a shell did indeed cause flooding to one or more boiler rooms forcing them to be shut down. They mention a 9 degree list to port. Dapi89 ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford ( talk) 07:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I was rebuked by Parsecboy for correcting the "discovery" section of KM Bismarck. It is a crying shame that the myth continues.
From Parsecboy:
I don't know who you are, or why you seem to have a problem describing Dr. Ballard's discovery of Bismarck as such, but please stop changing it. Clearly, the location of the wreck was unknown before Ballard found it. Clearly the act of finding it is a "discovery." Please familiarize yourself with a dictionary, and if you still have problems, go to the article's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
My response:
In 1975, I had access to a classified book showing the exact location of all known magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor. Out of curiosity, I looked up both RMS Titanic and KM Bismarck. Both were listed, right down to minutes, seconds and decimal fractions of the seconds.
"Clearly, the location of the wreck was unknown before Ballard found it." Clearly, the location of the wreck WAS known before Ballard "found" it.
"Clearly the act of finding it is a "discovery."" Since he never "found" it, he could not have possibly "discovered" the wreck. Clearly, your statement is a complete load of rubbish.
"Please familiarize yourself with a dictionary." Please familiarize yourself with FACTS, not fiction. A dictionary is my primary tool in life. Insults are not. You insult me and many others with your falsehoods.
Parsecboy, I WILL continue to correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptSquid ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The United States Navy IS a reliable source. The document is classified. What level of security clearance, if any, do you or have you held?
Google is nowhere near reliable. Ballard no more "discovered" the wreck of Bismark than you discovered your wallet in your pants pocket.
END OF STORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptSquid ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Attn: Benea: The president of RMS Titanic, Inc, can verify my information. This information is NOT unsupportable, but I will not argue with individuals who will not examine other aspects; I will not engage in a battle of intelligence with someone who is decidedly uneducated. I did NOT proclaim to edit war. Truth is seldom, if ever, disruptive, except to those who refuse to open their eyes.
Believe in your fairy tales, because it becomes apparent that Wikipedia is not even close to an Encyclopaedia.
Attn: Greglocock: Rumor mill? Not bloody likely. The "Great" Dr. Robert Ballard worked for the US Navy as an oceanographer and would have had access to the same document, thereby facilitating his alleged "discovery" of quite a number of wrecks.
All three of you have managed to insult me and cast aspersions. I changed an article for USS DeWert based on first-hand information, but your organization did not want accurate information and deleted the change. I believe that the moderator/editor cited that Wikipedia did not want to open themselves to possible litigation. I DO, however, DEMAND an apology from the three of you.
So, bearing in mind that truth and/or accuracy is not desired nor needed in Wikipedia, I will leave your site alone. Founder in your misbeliefs and inaccuracies. CaptSquid ( talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Attn: Benea:
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that such document does NOT exist? That the Navy did NOT discover and catalog numerous wrecks on the ocean floor prior to Dr. Ballard's alleged discoveries? That Google is a reliable source? News magazines in Germany have confronted Dr. Ballard with the truth and that he crawfished away from the reporters.
You, and by default, Wikipedia, are NOT reliable sources, either. Propaganda can take many forms, including Wikipedia. Newspaper gossip rags have a bit more credibility. CaptSquid ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I never said I was a Captain in the US Navy; however, I did serve, having attained the rank of ETN2(SS). Can you say that you served? Do you know your draft card number? What about your lottery number? Since, in all probability, you didn't serve, you will NEVER be able to see the classified document of which I speak. I never lie about my military service and have a hole in my leg to prove it, having been in the Persian Gulf before Desert Shield/Storm.
My login name is also a screen name that has served me well these many years. I used it while playing an on-line wargame involving submarines and I use it on many other forums.
To you, Greglocock, I retract my accusation that you insulted me. Re-reading the talk, I do realize that you were being supportive while still toeing the company line. For this, I do apologize. As for the other two, they can go jump in the lake. CaptSquid ( talk) 06:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"...One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates the shell that created the hole was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain. ..."
Presumeably the shell in question was fired from one of the British ships? That would make sense. 143.238.122.254 ( talk) 12:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit caused some flooding and splinters damaged a steam line in the turbo-generator room, though Bismarck had sufficient generator reserves that this was not problematic. The flooding from these two hits caused a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]"
Suggest maybe: "The second hit damaged a steam line in the turbo-generator room and caused some flooding. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]"
Or something like that. Best of luck. Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit ruptured a steam line in the turbo-generator room and caused some flooding. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]" Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit ruptured a steam line in the turbo-generator room and breached the integrity of the hull. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]" Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Note c. reads: "SK stands for Schiffskanone (ship's gun), C/34 stands for Constructionjahr (Construction year) 1934, and L/52 denotes the length of the gun in terms of calibres, meaning that the gun is 52 times long as it is in internal diameter." The SK bit seems ok. But "C/34 stands for Constructionjahr (Construction year) 1934" looks wrong.
I can't find a German word "Construction", but "Konstruktionsjahr" would make sense. It would also make better sense for the date, if it were "Konstruktion" in the sense of "design", since the keel was not laid down until 1936. Perhaps Germans use "C" in that sense, to avoid some sort of confusion with "K", though I don't know what that confusion could be. Or maybe it is traditional, from some time when the word was spelt "Construktion" or even "Construction", possibly borrowed from English - and then "Constructionsjahr" or even "Constructionjahr" might be right.
This German source - in WP:de "Bismarck (Schiff, 1939)" - describes the Bismarck's guns as "C/30", "C/34" and, for a ship launched in 1916, has "C 13". It says: "verwendete man bei der Bismarck-Klasse eine Neukonstruktion der alten 38 cm SK C 13 der Bayern-Klasse", where "Neukonstruktion" surely means "re-design". This English-language source mentions design of the Bismark class by a German "Construction Office" beginning in 1934.
That German-language source uses the abbreviation "L/", presumably for German "Länge". It could also abbreviate English "length", but why would Germans do that?
I'll stick with my guess that "C/34" means "design year 1934". -- Wikiain ( talk) 05:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Done with slight change-- Wikiain ( talk) 01:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
My latest additions to the article content are solid fact, supported by reliable sources and not actually controversial. The "controversy" is only regarding the Introduction, where an editor with a strong POV is using "nuances" to create a biased and misleading summary of the content. No editor has veto rights on any article, and verifiable content can be added by anybody. Wdford ( talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wdford, can you please suggest the exact changes you think should be made to the article's text, along with the sources that support these changes? It's more productive to discuss concrete text than argue over differing interpretations of events. Nick-D ( talk) 10:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually I fail to see the strong discrepancies in the two lines of argumentation. I want to remind that English is not my native language so I may miss the subtleties in the wording. For me personally the discussion over PoW is irrelevant. PoW withdrew whether due to mechanical failure of her guns, combat damage sustained seems irrelevant to the lead of the article. Now based on my sources, which are mostly German and thus of lesser relevance to the English Wiki, the hits sustained by Bismarck from PoW had far reaching tactical implications on the mission. According to Gaack and Carr, Lütjens plans were to run over a U-boat defense line as a means to shake the British ships. This had been planned for. However the fuel situation on Bismarck, due to the hits sustained, made this option obsolete. I gave this example because I feel that the sentence in the lead "The destruction of Hood spurred a relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy involving dozens of warships." from my humble point of view, does not fully capture the collaborative effort by the British and events in the actions that pinnacled in the destruction by pair of British battleships. Again, my mastery of the English language may be the reason for this. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The Royal Navy was in a position to save those men, but instead left them to drown. This is an undisputed fact, which your side-tracking cannot alter. The article clearly says the British were scared of U-boats, and I made no attempt to alter that para, merely to separate it into a para of its own.
However you are no doubt aware that the U-boats of that era had to launch their torpedoes from periscope depth, and in rough seas they were thus no threat at all. The Royal Navy knew that, of course, which casts some doubt on their explanation for leaving the scene. Wdford ( talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
That's utter rubbish. The "to" bit doesn't "imply" anything, it states clearly that this was the known and inevitable outcome of the action. The British knew those men would drown, and they left anyway. Whether they left in order to drown the men, or if they left to avoid a U-boat, is a separate issue which does not affect the outcome - either way, the outcome of mass drowning would be the same, and the British commanders knew it. Your hysterical reaction to this simple statement of fact yet again betrays your POV.
After telling us that this "featured article" must include everything, you now want me to remove the info you don't like to another article? Once again you blatantly attempt to buff up the British battleships, to the disadvantage of completeness, accuracy and neutrality. Pathetic. Wdford ( talk) 18:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am tired of going around in circles, so I have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, here. I only mentioned Wdford and myself as involved parties, but if you are interested in helping resolve this dispute there, you are more than welcome to comment. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding scuttling of Bismarck I want to refer to Gaack and Carr pages 76 to 81, in particular page 80 is of relevance. These pages deal with the biography of Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Gerhard Junack. Junack was commanding officer of the 10th division on Bismarck. The 10th division was one of three divisions responsible for running the engines. Junack survived and later served in the Bundesmarine. During the final battle Junack was in the middle turbine room when he received the order to prepare scuttling Bismarck. He then ordered scuttling charges installed with a 9 minute delaying fuse. Intercom communication then broke down and he ordered a messenger to the engine control room. This messenger did not return and Junack ordered the scuttling charges primed. He was the last person to leave the fully lighted and intact turbine room before heading to the middle deck. According to his account this deck was still fully intact with no evidence of the ongoing battle. He then reached the battery deck where he encountered the first evidence of battle damage sustained. Here he could hear the scuttling charges going off. On page 81 he claims that when Bismarck went under he had a good view of the starboard side of the hull with no torpedo holes. This is his account. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that most experts on this issue have adopted a sort of middle-ground position, exemplified by Kennedy's quote in the article, namely that Bismarck would have eventually foundered if the Germans would not have scuttled the ship. Ballard said the ship could have remained afloat for perhaps a day, and Cameron said she might not have sunk for "half a day" (I've added this quote to the article already). Even Mearns conceded in his book that the scuttling probably hastened the inevitable.
Now, the meat of the proposal: we can make this clearer in the Wreckage section, and adding the following sentence to the lead: "Several other expeditions surveyed the remains seeking to document the ship's condition and to determine what sank her. Most experts generally agree that the scuttling at least hastened the sinking, but that the damage inflicted in the ship's last battle would have caused her to sink eventually."
(edit conflict - will reply to your points below)
The way it phrased the figure of 400 comes from G&C not Junack. G&C make no statements regarding the timeline, not even approximate times. I personally find his account of where he first encountered damage to ship interesting and maybe noteworthy. On page 77 G&C state Junack was also responsible for the newspaper Die Schiffsglocke, which was only published once on 23 April 1941. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the Wreckage section, mostly pulling out the individual comments re: eventual foundering and the effects of scuttling and put them into one paragraph - see here. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This section actually looks much better now. However:
It seems there have been six expeditions thusfar, and we have only addressed four of them. We should at least mention the others?
Re the Ballard expedition’s conclusion: The German reports were that scuttling was accomplished by explosive charges, so I presume the valves were blown out by explosive charges, rather than just “opened”?
The article currently says that the Mearns’ team “concluded that the ship sank due to combat damage”. The Mearns’ expedition included Jurens, Dulin etc, and they seemed to actually be much more open-ended. If Mearns himself professed that conclusion, should we not rather attribute it to him personally, and also give a summary of the (differing) conclusions of the rest of the team?
Wdford ( talk) 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
How can we say "Lindemann was probably killed here" when eye-witnesses saw him alive later on? B&H presumably were unaware of the other eye-witness sightings at the time of writing, but you cannot match a "probably" against a number of confirmed sightings. Wdford ( talk) 07:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I started sketching out Günther Lütjens early life a bit. I would appreciate an occasional tweak of my English word crafting. Feel free to comment. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
(...and coming somewhat later to the party)
I can’t decide sometimes if this article is a slow moving car-crash, or a triumph of NPOV achieved though a consensus among editors of very different viewpoints; though on reflection it’s probably both.
But the problem of leaning to avoid falling off one side of a horse (as
someone once said) is the danger of falling off the other side.
There seem to be two positions on this sinking business.
From the British standpoint Bismarck was brought to battle, reduced by gunfire to a helpless blazing wreck, then torpedoed, and was seen to sink.
From the German standpoint, when the position became hopeless, they set scuttling charges and abandoned ship.
If those are the facts, and the article already said so, the only purpose served by talking up the “scuttled by her own crew” aspect is in order to diminish the British achievement, n’est ce pas?
The account of the Atlantic campaign is replete with ships hit by U-boats and subsequently scuttled as unrecoverable; they are invariably recorded, without embellishment, as sunk and credited to the boat and her skipper (
of which this
is
but
one
single
ex
ample)
That is the standard applied to the German Navy; are we saying the RN should be held to a higher standard?
Does this mean we have to re-evaluate all the achievements of U-boat aces and reduce their scores?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And the suggestion that the British "could have rescued all the crew, but left them to drown" is an insult.
From their
earliest operations U-boat commanders had no compunction at all about torpedoing ships involved in rescuing survivors; because of this Admiralty standing orders were that survivors should not be picked up at all if there was a U-boat threat. Given that this required RN crews to steam past their own comrades in the water at times, what is remarkable about this incident isn't that they left, but that they attempted to pick up anyone at all; Donitz had already committed all his available boats in support of Bismarck, in an attempt to trap the Home Fleet, so there was nothing unrealistic about perceiving a threat.
And U-boat routinely sank ships and left the crews to their fate, so the benchmark had already been set on that score.
To suggest or imply that the British were remiss or had failed to meet some standard of decency, one that the German navy had already kicked great holes in, is frankly insulting.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Kennedy is quoted in the article using the word "foundered", but I'm happy with your wording. Wdford ( talk) 12:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
POW article says two boilers were shut down because of her fire. This one talks only about the damage to the bow and two apparently insignificant hits elsewhere. Which is correct? The Cameron expedition concluded that a shell did indeed cause flooding to one or more boiler rooms forcing them to be shut down. They mention a 9 degree list to port. Dapi89 ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford ( talk) 07:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I was rebuked by Parsecboy for correcting the "discovery" section of KM Bismarck. It is a crying shame that the myth continues.
From Parsecboy:
I don't know who you are, or why you seem to have a problem describing Dr. Ballard's discovery of Bismarck as such, but please stop changing it. Clearly, the location of the wreck was unknown before Ballard found it. Clearly the act of finding it is a "discovery." Please familiarize yourself with a dictionary, and if you still have problems, go to the article's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
My response:
In 1975, I had access to a classified book showing the exact location of all known magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor. Out of curiosity, I looked up both RMS Titanic and KM Bismarck. Both were listed, right down to minutes, seconds and decimal fractions of the seconds.
"Clearly, the location of the wreck was unknown before Ballard found it." Clearly, the location of the wreck WAS known before Ballard "found" it.
"Clearly the act of finding it is a "discovery."" Since he never "found" it, he could not have possibly "discovered" the wreck. Clearly, your statement is a complete load of rubbish.
"Please familiarize yourself with a dictionary." Please familiarize yourself with FACTS, not fiction. A dictionary is my primary tool in life. Insults are not. You insult me and many others with your falsehoods.
Parsecboy, I WILL continue to correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptSquid ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The United States Navy IS a reliable source. The document is classified. What level of security clearance, if any, do you or have you held?
Google is nowhere near reliable. Ballard no more "discovered" the wreck of Bismark than you discovered your wallet in your pants pocket.
END OF STORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptSquid ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Attn: Benea: The president of RMS Titanic, Inc, can verify my information. This information is NOT unsupportable, but I will not argue with individuals who will not examine other aspects; I will not engage in a battle of intelligence with someone who is decidedly uneducated. I did NOT proclaim to edit war. Truth is seldom, if ever, disruptive, except to those who refuse to open their eyes.
Believe in your fairy tales, because it becomes apparent that Wikipedia is not even close to an Encyclopaedia.
Attn: Greglocock: Rumor mill? Not bloody likely. The "Great" Dr. Robert Ballard worked for the US Navy as an oceanographer and would have had access to the same document, thereby facilitating his alleged "discovery" of quite a number of wrecks.
All three of you have managed to insult me and cast aspersions. I changed an article for USS DeWert based on first-hand information, but your organization did not want accurate information and deleted the change. I believe that the moderator/editor cited that Wikipedia did not want to open themselves to possible litigation. I DO, however, DEMAND an apology from the three of you.
So, bearing in mind that truth and/or accuracy is not desired nor needed in Wikipedia, I will leave your site alone. Founder in your misbeliefs and inaccuracies. CaptSquid ( talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Attn: Benea:
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that such document does NOT exist? That the Navy did NOT discover and catalog numerous wrecks on the ocean floor prior to Dr. Ballard's alleged discoveries? That Google is a reliable source? News magazines in Germany have confronted Dr. Ballard with the truth and that he crawfished away from the reporters.
You, and by default, Wikipedia, are NOT reliable sources, either. Propaganda can take many forms, including Wikipedia. Newspaper gossip rags have a bit more credibility. CaptSquid ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I never said I was a Captain in the US Navy; however, I did serve, having attained the rank of ETN2(SS). Can you say that you served? Do you know your draft card number? What about your lottery number? Since, in all probability, you didn't serve, you will NEVER be able to see the classified document of which I speak. I never lie about my military service and have a hole in my leg to prove it, having been in the Persian Gulf before Desert Shield/Storm.
My login name is also a screen name that has served me well these many years. I used it while playing an on-line wargame involving submarines and I use it on many other forums.
To you, Greglocock, I retract my accusation that you insulted me. Re-reading the talk, I do realize that you were being supportive while still toeing the company line. For this, I do apologize. As for the other two, they can go jump in the lake. CaptSquid ( talk) 06:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"...One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates the shell that created the hole was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain. ..."
Presumeably the shell in question was fired from one of the British ships? That would make sense. 143.238.122.254 ( talk) 12:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit caused some flooding and splinters damaged a steam line in the turbo-generator room, though Bismarck had sufficient generator reserves that this was not problematic. The flooding from these two hits caused a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]"
Suggest maybe: "The second hit damaged a steam line in the turbo-generator room and caused some flooding. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]"
Or something like that. Best of luck. Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit ruptured a steam line in the turbo-generator room and caused some flooding. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]" Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"The second hit ruptured a steam line in the turbo-generator room and breached the integrity of the hull. Although, the ship had sufficient generator reserves to compensate from the strike, the resultant flooding created a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim by the bow.[69]" Ijustreadbooks ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Note c. reads: "SK stands for Schiffskanone (ship's gun), C/34 stands for Constructionjahr (Construction year) 1934, and L/52 denotes the length of the gun in terms of calibres, meaning that the gun is 52 times long as it is in internal diameter." The SK bit seems ok. But "C/34 stands for Constructionjahr (Construction year) 1934" looks wrong.
I can't find a German word "Construction", but "Konstruktionsjahr" would make sense. It would also make better sense for the date, if it were "Konstruktion" in the sense of "design", since the keel was not laid down until 1936. Perhaps Germans use "C" in that sense, to avoid some sort of confusion with "K", though I don't know what that confusion could be. Or maybe it is traditional, from some time when the word was spelt "Construktion" or even "Construction", possibly borrowed from English - and then "Constructionsjahr" or even "Constructionjahr" might be right.
This German source - in WP:de "Bismarck (Schiff, 1939)" - describes the Bismarck's guns as "C/30", "C/34" and, for a ship launched in 1916, has "C 13". It says: "verwendete man bei der Bismarck-Klasse eine Neukonstruktion der alten 38 cm SK C 13 der Bayern-Klasse", where "Neukonstruktion" surely means "re-design". This English-language source mentions design of the Bismark class by a German "Construction Office" beginning in 1934.
That German-language source uses the abbreviation "L/", presumably for German "Länge". It could also abbreviate English "length", but why would Germans do that?
I'll stick with my guess that "C/34" means "design year 1934". -- Wikiain ( talk) 05:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Done with slight change-- Wikiain ( talk) 01:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)