H-class battleship proposals has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
H-class battleship proposals is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
H-class battleship proposals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How about using metric system units in an article about a European ship? How about using the metric systems in all of the articles since most of the civilized world uses the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.191 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sorry guys, but what you have here is not the H Class as it was originally designed. You have the stats for the "H-44 design", which was re-tooled from the original "H-39 design". Balin42632003 8:47 16 August 2006 (UTC) If you'd like to look it up here are my sources: (History from Battleships, Axis and Neutral Battleships in world War II, 1985, by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr.)
I think we're going to need some compromise language in this article. You've got a source, apparently (in Groener), that claims a 48 cm main battery for H-42 and H-43. However, Breyer asserts 42 cm bored-out heavy artillery for H-42 and 50.8 cm weapons for H-43 and H-44. Garzke and Dulin, who use plenty of primary source material themselves, come up with the same figures. So, there should probably be something about the figures being disputed. Sacxpert ( talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The design listed as being "H45" does not exist. What happened was that the Warships Projects Discussion Board ( http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects has a theoretical discussion of the sheer size of a battleship that used the guns in question. One contributor to that thread (posting as seeadler) than ran up a purely hypothetical 'design' to illustrate how absurd the idea was. To quote seeadler
"If he took information about H45 as describing a real ship I think he needs to read this site more closely or German naval technical design history more closely. I am the one who made H45 up. It was a ship of 700,000 tons (based on an engineer's estimates of a vessel capable of carrying 4 x 2 80xm guns). A heavy AA armament of 8 24 cm guns (the Kriegsmarine was developing such a gun for land base use at the end of the war) and numerous 12.8cm flak in enclosed mounts. I made a drawing of the ship and placed it on the site but I assure you it was entirely imaginary. If Mr. Porter merely googled the design without checking further then he did a disservice to his readers and to his reputation."
This thread can be found at http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890&mforum=warshipprojects
It appears that David Porter found the reference to H45 by searching the internet and did not pay any attention to the actual provenance of the data. This pretty much destroys him as a serious historian. H45 is not a genuine H-class design and it should be removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 ( talk • contribs)
The question is whether Hitler ever asked for a version of the H battleship design to be armed with Gustav/Dora cannon. Even if a design was never created, and Porter indicates in his book that it was not, then if the request was true then the H-45 concept bears some valdidity. The question is, was there ever a request for an H battleship with 31.5" cannon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It's apparent that some of the authors of the otherwise excellent H-Battleship page are adamant that no mention be made of Porter's H-45 reference. While I initially was only citing Porter's work, I did later modify the H-45 citation to include reference to its potential napkinwaffe status. Yet that too was deleted. Even talking about a controversy about it was deemed impossible. So I created a SEPARATE page - which included a lengthy reference to the controversy involving Porter's citation - and after a few months the same individual who deleted the H-45 reference was thoughtful enough to petition Wikipedia to have it removed. Do you guys have to be this rigid...even when I am agreeing with your facts and not Porter's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Reopening to note that User:Marino73 seems to have reopened this can of worms in May and June through WP:AFC at H45 Battleship Proposal, again sourced almost entirely to Porter's book, and with no controversy section or anything like it included at any point in the page history, certainly not since User:DGG moved it out of draftspace at the end of June. I've WP:PRODded it; let's see if anything happens there. rdfox 76 ( talk) 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I had found a second literary source for the H45 battleship proposal. [1] I also mentioned in the article that there was no real design work done upon it. The question is, did Hitler ever suggest putting 31.5 inch guns on a H-class battleship ? If so, then the article should stand or at least be mentioned in a minor section within the H-class battleship article. It might only have as much weight as the Kaneda battleship proposal, but I felt it deserved mention if it was derived from that time period. contribs) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Okay, fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you know if the Kaneda battleship proposal was a similar hoax, or did it have legitimacy? contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs)
The Grosser Kurfurst would be one of the ships in this class with 313m. The Grosser Kurfurst is the largest battleship in World of Warships. 187.62.156.212 ( talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I edited it down on an earlier version but this time I'll just note that infoboxes should present information in an easily read form and having all the design stats in the infobox makes it rather unwieldy and visually lacking. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This article easily meets the GA criteria - great work. My suggestions for further improvements are:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why a European article is written in American, rather than English? Surely makes no sense whatsoever? Won't change it now, as that'll probably be called 'vandalism' by the American mod cabal, but let's at least raise this point... 82.21.7.184 ( talk) 21:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Back to the point of the matter. I think this comes down to interpretation of TIES with respect to the difference between "English-speaking nation" and "the version of English spoken as a foreign language in a nation". GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
General characteristics (H-41 design) | |
---|---|
Displacement |
|
Length |
|
Beam | 39.0 m (127 ft 11 in) |
Draft | 12.15 m (39 ft 10 in) full load |
Installed power | 165,000 shp (123,000 kW) |
Propulsion | 12 × MAN diesel engines, 3 × shafts |
Speed | 28.8 knots (53.3 km/h) |
Range | 20,000 nautical miles (37,000 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h) |
Armament |
|
Armor |
|
Notes | Characteristics listed are prior to design changes approved on 15 November 1941 |
The H-41 is the final detailed design by the OKM Construction Office and was approved by Admiral Raeder, unlike the subsequent H-42 to 44. Should we have a separate infobox on that? Steve7c8 ( talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H-45. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#H-45 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
When h class battleship laid down and launch? 94.128.164.153 ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
H-class battleship proposals has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
H-class battleship proposals is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
H-class battleship proposals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How about using metric system units in an article about a European ship? How about using the metric systems in all of the articles since most of the civilized world uses the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.191 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sorry guys, but what you have here is not the H Class as it was originally designed. You have the stats for the "H-44 design", which was re-tooled from the original "H-39 design". Balin42632003 8:47 16 August 2006 (UTC) If you'd like to look it up here are my sources: (History from Battleships, Axis and Neutral Battleships in world War II, 1985, by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr.)
I think we're going to need some compromise language in this article. You've got a source, apparently (in Groener), that claims a 48 cm main battery for H-42 and H-43. However, Breyer asserts 42 cm bored-out heavy artillery for H-42 and 50.8 cm weapons for H-43 and H-44. Garzke and Dulin, who use plenty of primary source material themselves, come up with the same figures. So, there should probably be something about the figures being disputed. Sacxpert ( talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The design listed as being "H45" does not exist. What happened was that the Warships Projects Discussion Board ( http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects has a theoretical discussion of the sheer size of a battleship that used the guns in question. One contributor to that thread (posting as seeadler) than ran up a purely hypothetical 'design' to illustrate how absurd the idea was. To quote seeadler
"If he took information about H45 as describing a real ship I think he needs to read this site more closely or German naval technical design history more closely. I am the one who made H45 up. It was a ship of 700,000 tons (based on an engineer's estimates of a vessel capable of carrying 4 x 2 80xm guns). A heavy AA armament of 8 24 cm guns (the Kriegsmarine was developing such a gun for land base use at the end of the war) and numerous 12.8cm flak in enclosed mounts. I made a drawing of the ship and placed it on the site but I assure you it was entirely imaginary. If Mr. Porter merely googled the design without checking further then he did a disservice to his readers and to his reputation."
This thread can be found at http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890&mforum=warshipprojects
It appears that David Porter found the reference to H45 by searching the internet and did not pay any attention to the actual provenance of the data. This pretty much destroys him as a serious historian. H45 is not a genuine H-class design and it should be removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 ( talk • contribs)
The question is whether Hitler ever asked for a version of the H battleship design to be armed with Gustav/Dora cannon. Even if a design was never created, and Porter indicates in his book that it was not, then if the request was true then the H-45 concept bears some valdidity. The question is, was there ever a request for an H battleship with 31.5" cannon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It's apparent that some of the authors of the otherwise excellent H-Battleship page are adamant that no mention be made of Porter's H-45 reference. While I initially was only citing Porter's work, I did later modify the H-45 citation to include reference to its potential napkinwaffe status. Yet that too was deleted. Even talking about a controversy about it was deemed impossible. So I created a SEPARATE page - which included a lengthy reference to the controversy involving Porter's citation - and after a few months the same individual who deleted the H-45 reference was thoughtful enough to petition Wikipedia to have it removed. Do you guys have to be this rigid...even when I am agreeing with your facts and not Porter's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Reopening to note that User:Marino73 seems to have reopened this can of worms in May and June through WP:AFC at H45 Battleship Proposal, again sourced almost entirely to Porter's book, and with no controversy section or anything like it included at any point in the page history, certainly not since User:DGG moved it out of draftspace at the end of June. I've WP:PRODded it; let's see if anything happens there. rdfox 76 ( talk) 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I had found a second literary source for the H45 battleship proposal. [1] I also mentioned in the article that there was no real design work done upon it. The question is, did Hitler ever suggest putting 31.5 inch guns on a H-class battleship ? If so, then the article should stand or at least be mentioned in a minor section within the H-class battleship article. It might only have as much weight as the Kaneda battleship proposal, but I felt it deserved mention if it was derived from that time period. contribs) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Okay, fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you know if the Kaneda battleship proposal was a similar hoax, or did it have legitimacy? contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 ( talk • contribs)
The Grosser Kurfurst would be one of the ships in this class with 313m. The Grosser Kurfurst is the largest battleship in World of Warships. 187.62.156.212 ( talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I edited it down on an earlier version but this time I'll just note that infoboxes should present information in an easily read form and having all the design stats in the infobox makes it rather unwieldy and visually lacking. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This article easily meets the GA criteria - great work. My suggestions for further improvements are:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why a European article is written in American, rather than English? Surely makes no sense whatsoever? Won't change it now, as that'll probably be called 'vandalism' by the American mod cabal, but let's at least raise this point... 82.21.7.184 ( talk) 21:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Back to the point of the matter. I think this comes down to interpretation of TIES with respect to the difference between "English-speaking nation" and "the version of English spoken as a foreign language in a nation". GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
General characteristics (H-41 design) | |
---|---|
Displacement |
|
Length |
|
Beam | 39.0 m (127 ft 11 in) |
Draft | 12.15 m (39 ft 10 in) full load |
Installed power | 165,000 shp (123,000 kW) |
Propulsion | 12 × MAN diesel engines, 3 × shafts |
Speed | 28.8 knots (53.3 km/h) |
Range | 20,000 nautical miles (37,000 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h) |
Armament |
|
Armor |
|
Notes | Characteristics listed are prior to design changes approved on 15 November 1941 |
The H-41 is the final detailed design by the OKM Construction Office and was approved by Admiral Raeder, unlike the subsequent H-42 to 44. Should we have a separate infobox on that? Steve7c8 ( talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H-45. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#H-45 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
When h class battleship laid down and launch? 94.128.164.153 ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)