Talk:Deutschland-class cruiser

Biased article

This is a article about the Deutschland class or about yours enemys and "how the Deutschland is insignificant against British navy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.117.10 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the speed and endurance

The part of the text which says "26 knots and range of 18,650 miles" is incorrect. The actual speed of these ships were 28 knots and had an endurance of 9000 miles. If you meant kilometers instead of miles, then this number is also incorrect, as it is more close to the 16500 km. These numbers varied from ship to ship (Lutzow had a speed of 28.5) but this can be supported by numerous books. Thank you. 89.172.224.141 11:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) -Nemesis1000

One source stated the designed (and publicized) cruising range of Graf Spee was 19,000 miles but actually ended up at 10,000 miles. That is at "economical cruising speed" about half the top speed of 28.5 knots (fuel consumption at top speed was something else). In any case, the "range of 18,650 miles" was overly hopeful, but will be found in 1930s sources. 76.7.185.171 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way an edit could be made to have individual ships' speeds in the general characteristics section to the right of the article? Due to the fact that speeds vary on a ship to ship basis, would it be able to separate the speeds in that section? e.g.

Speed:

Deutschland: 28 Knots, Admiral Scheer: 28.3 Knots, Admiral Graf Spee: 29.5 Knots.

Looking at other articles such as KMS Bismarck and HMS Hood, the maximum speed for the ship is given. If this example is to be followed, the speed written in the General Characteristics section would have to be separated as in the example above.

In the Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship article the maximum speed for the class is given. If this example was followed instead, the speed written in the General Characteristics section would be 29.5 Knots. Der.tieg11 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the armorment section correct? 8 × 533 mm (21 inch)guns seems wrong, seeing as the largest naval gun ever built was on the yamato and that was ony 18.1 inch. unless this is refering to a torpedo tube or something of that nature, i am fairly sure it needs to be removed sorry forgot to sign--Manwithbrisk 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not guns. The Deutschland class carried two torpedo launchers with quad tubes on the aft deck. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging articles

What is the more common English language term for these ships? Pocket battleship or Deutschland class cruiser? Markus Becker 09 Aug. 2006 23:24

Many British readers will know the term "pocket battleship", but "Deutschland class cruiser" is the more accepted term, now. Folks at 137 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case the article "pocket battleship" should be be merged into this one. Markus Becker 13 Aug. 2006 15:27(CET)

Agreed. Just keep the Pocket battleship page as a redirect. Folks at 137 07:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Pocket Battleship" was coined by the British press to describe the ship. I do not believe that the United States Navy or the Royal Navy ever officially referred to them as such. A merger would be practical since the ships of the Deutschland class were the only ships ever to be classified as "Pocket Battleships". --Two way time 22:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that there might be a place in the article where the German Navy is referred to as the Kriegsmarine before 1935. From 1920 to 1935 the Navy was the Reichsmarine. The name change was ordered by National political leadership. --Two way time 22:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Both terms describe the same ships, so a merger makes good sense. Keeping the pages separate would only force the reader to sift through two pages to find the information he is looking for. Since the ships were built by Germany, I'd put the article on the page with the German name (Deutschland class cruiser) and turn Pocket battleship into a redirect. --Badger151 06:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles merged. --Badger151 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The United States Navy referred to these ships as Heavy Cruisers (CAs) in their ONI recognition manuals, so naming this page with the term Cruiser is the correct thing to do. LukeFF (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The term pocket battleship is of historic interest if you research the popular press of the 1930s. One could argue that cruiser is inadequate also: at the Battle of River Plate, the secondary armament of Graf Spee (eight 6 inch guns) was equal to the main armament (either) of the cruisers HMS Ajax and (or) Exeter Achilles (eight 6 inch guns each). The main armament of Graf Spee (six 11 inch guns) far out-classed cruiser HMS Exeter (six 8 inch guns) for generally speaking an increase in diameter of shell is a cubed increase in weight of shell. The Deutschland class were very heavily armed warships built on a large cruiser-style hulls, literally a class of their own. Deutschland class cruiser is a more apt and adequate description than either battleship or cruiser, but pocket battleship is a notable historic term for these ships. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The informal designation of pocket battleship is similar in character to how flat top or milk cow were used respectively. It is indeed of historical interest however, though it says more about the politics, propaganda and jingoism of the era than it does about the ship's capabilities. As an aside, the Deutschland class ships were essentially a freshened-up modernized German take on Britain's Glorious class large light crusier from 15 years earlier, and were intended to perform a very similar mission profile, and were very similar in capability and performance, as built. Sort of like with the Scharnost and Renown classes. I'm sure there are those who will violently disagree with my assessment, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkasan (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the article title as "Deutschland class cruiser" to match the typical naval class ship article with mention in the lede or abstract of "pocket battleship" as a term historically applied to the class. A German site on German Navy history http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/admiralscheer/history.html states:

The concept of the new Panzerschiffe was "faster than stronger enemies" (i.e. battleships except the British BC Hood, Renown and Repulse), "and stronger than faster enemies" (CAs and CLs), which was plausible in the days before the fast battleships.

and acknowledges the Panzerschiffe "were called "Westentaschen-Schlachtschiffe" - "Pocket Battleships" outside of Germany,..." The Mauser "Westentaschen Pistole" WTP1 and WTP2 were small pistols that could be carried in a vest pocket; thus the popular foreign (to Germany) press references to "Westentaschen-Schlachtschiffe" as an analogy of "pocket battleship" to "pocket pistol": a lot of power in a small package. Research in 1930s English language sources will find "pocket battleship" far more often than the technical term "Deutschland class cruiser" or even "Panzerschiffe". Naaman Brown (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes?

Seeing as the Notes "section" is a massive eyesore, is there some way the information could be worked into the paragraph, so it resembles a coherent article rather than a post-it? Super Jedi Droid 06:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I copy-edited part of the information into the paragraph above it; if anyone else knows how to work it in, go for it. �??�?��?�! 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deutschland class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• "Deutschland was not particularly successful on her raiding sortie, during which she sank or captured three ships." True, but German admiralty thought her deployment was successful in tying down British forces and thus relieving Admiral Graf Spee. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Lützow was raised and broken up for scrap" Wrong, she was sunk in Soviet bomb tests. This is based on the newly opened Soviet archives MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll need citations for both of those before I can add them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • regarding her fate you can have a look at the German Wiki article. It sums up what Prager writes on pages 317–320. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Finally got the time to get to this. Added now. Parsecboy (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can the review be continued/completed? Everything seems to be addressed thus far. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pocket Battleship?

Due to their heavy armament of six 28 cm (11 in) guns, the British began referring to the vessels as "pocket battleships"

This description of the phrase "pocket battleship" could use some explanation. At least I cannot make the connection between pockets and heavy armaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.241.77 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The press used this term to show how the Germans had violated the limitations of the treaty - in other words, they had hid battleships in their "pocket" because their hull length would allow them to "fit" - ready to be pulled out and used. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

More or less correct; but it is an allusion to "pocket pistol", implying that is was "smaller but just as deadly". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

it wasn't/isn't just the British that referred to them as "pocket battleships", the US newsreels, newspapers, etc. also used that term (presumably Canada, etc. too). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you never hear or see foreign media incorporating a term/nickname suggested/developed by another countries media? --Denniss (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pocket-pocket battleship photo.

Two-boy crewed, quite exacting "pocket-pocket battleship" from 1940, hi-res downloadable: https://fortepan.hu/en/photos/?id=264329 Apparently she belonged to H.jugend or its hungarian equivalent, the so-called Levente movement. 94.21.229.41 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How many airplanes did the Deutschland-class carry ?

I see in many articles and sources that the ships of this class are equipped with two Arado airplanes. Yet the ships do not have an aircraft hangar, they carry only 1 airplane on the catapult. In both the actions of the Graf Spee and the Scheer it is detailed how the lack of a spare airplane interfered with their operations ; for Graf Spee it meant that it could not fly reconnaissance for her raid on the river Plate ; for the Scheer it meant she could not try to attack a shadowing cruiser reconnaissance floatplane ( for which purpoose the Arados were equipped with 20mm canon in the wings ) since its only Arado was in very bad shape. Also there was only one aircrew aboard the ships. When the one pilot was sick, there were no air operations possible.

I think the ships were allocated two airplanes but only one could be aboard. The spare plane of the Spee was in storage in harbour and I remember the captain of a hilfskreuzer was not allowed to take it, even after the Spee was sunk.

So I think the nbr of airplanes should be one, not two. Even if some sources tell otherwise. Klutserke (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is, disregarding what sources say is WP:OR, which is not permitted.

It may be that two aircraft were carried in peacetime, but only one during the war. It may also be that when the ships were fitted with He-60s, they carried two, but the larger Ar-196 meant only one could be carried. There are of course other possibilities. Since we don't have any sources that speak to the issue directly, we cannot change the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)