Talk:German battleship Gneisenau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Class

Battleship or battlecruiser. Discussion copied and centralised on Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Displacement

We now have two values for the displacement in the article, 31,500t in the table (just changed from the original 31,552t) and 31,100t in the main text. I googled aroung a bit and found some other values:

31.850t 32.100t 30.676t 31.632t

Some of these have slightly different names.

So, which is it? Which is the most characteristic weight weight anyway? What about the weight before and after the refit?

Landström, who is usually reliable, has 31800 ts stdd, 38900 ts fully equipped, where a ts is a long ton (1016 kg). Since the ships were built by different companies and in different places, I suspect there is quite some variation anyways, and anything with more than 2 significant digits is hard to justify. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

source

I got my information from Axis and Nuetral Battleships in World War II, and Breyer's book Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905 - 1970.

--PAUL

Brest 1941

Who was the guy who received VC for torpedoing Gneisenau in Brest 1941?

The pilot was Flying Officer Kenneth Campbell flying a Coastal Command Beaufort from St. Eval in Cornwall. At dawn on 6 April 1941 Campbell skimmed over the Brest mole and dropped his torpedo. As he did so, the German gunners hit him and he crashed in flames into the water. His torpedo exploded against Gneisenau on the starboard side aft and she began to list heavily. A salvage vessel was brought alongside and started to pump tons of water. The bodies of Campbell and his aircrew, Sgts Scott, Mullis and Hillman were fished out of the harbor and brought on board the battleship. Their bodies were draped in flags and placed on the quarterdeck as a mark of respect. The following morning Gneisenau entered drydock and inspection confirmed that Campbell’s torpedo had wrecked the starboard propeller and shaft tunnel. She would be out of action for six months.--Gamahler 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eugene Esmonde got a VC during the Channel Dash (Operation Cerberus) in early 42

Engine Problems

Kurk Leyman is quite correct to state that the Gneisenau had no engine problems beyond the normal maintenance issues. I think the previous poster has confused this ship with the Hipper Class cruisers which had chronic maintenance problems thoughout their service lives. Galloglass 14.50, 11 June 2006

Rearming

can we have an verifiable origin for the conclusion that had she bene armed with the bigger guns that she would have still been fast etc? GraemeLeggett 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I note also well armoured is mentioned which given the thickness protecting the King George V ships seems dubious. GraemeLeggett 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well taking data from navweaps.com, it seems that the 3 turrets with the 3x28cm guns weighted 2727 tons, while 3 turrets with 2x38cm guns (from Bismarck class) would have weighted 3822 tons. Maybe a naval architect will tell us how much speed hit it would have caused.
As for the armor thickness, note that these ships had inferior armor distribution, as the belt was not inclined and the deck armor was of the "turtle" type, from (pre-)WW1 era. Note that the Dunkerque-class ship had the "all or nothing" type of armor, though their belt armor is clearly inferior to the Gneisenau-class. Still, using gun data from navweaps.com, it seems that the Dunkerque-class ships had the advantage from over 25kms, which is quite a shame for the german ships, as they were designed to beat the Dunkerques...

"Jane´s Battleships of the 20th Century", published by Harper Collins in 1996. The nine 28cm guns were supposed to be replaced by six 38cm guns. And the armor belt of the KGVs was indeed just 30mm stronger than the one the Scharnhorsts had.Markus Becker02 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the deck is thicker too on the KGV.GraemeLeggett 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that this article is seeking to redress the issue of why the HMS Renown was able to inflict damage on one of the two while they were sailing together by citing all these reasons why longer range guns were not fitted. When a ship of any navy was designed (at least before 1945) things had altered because of constrictions all the time but on this website I've read very few similar articles that bombard the reader with such excuses. While it would have probably made it a more formidable opponent as you said, statistics show that it wouldn't have been superior. HMS Renown and Repulse were also just as fast (if only slightly slower). Some sources state that Repulse and Renown could do 32 knots and other say that the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst could only achieve that speed. Large ships were rarely pushed to their higher speeds and the Germans were fonder of testing the top speed of their ships than the British were so nobody can really say which was faster. Plus, as someone said above, bigger guns might have made it slower.

One of the 38 cm guns exists today at the museum of Hanstholm in Denmark?

According to this link:[1] The guns no 3&4 made their 1. shot May 15th 1941 and no 1&2 on the 28th of August 1941.

If "..she was withdrawn from service in July 1943 to allow the replacement of the 28 cm battery with twin 38 cm (15 in) turrets..." it does not seem likely that the guns at Hanstholm originaly came from Gneisenau. Today a 38cm barrel with breech can bee seen at Hanstholm and this may come from Gneisenau. Reference needed. KjellG 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorted out and worked into the article. KjellG 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gdynia naming during WWII

Gdynia never was a German town (opposed to e.g. Gdańsk/Danzig) and there is no need to use a German name in English wikipedia for a Polish town. User:Parsecboy is persistently reverting my changes, and doesn't seem to give a single argument besides mentioning anachronism (?!). It doesn't matter in English wikipedia, how Hitler liked to call a town in 1939 - one should use English or Polish naming here. The name change wasn't legal (was conducted under occupation), there was no German minority in the city at all.--EAJoe (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what an ananchronism is? It's something in a context of a specific time that does not fit. For example, calling Gdynia "Gdynia" during WWII is an anachronism, because it was called Gotenhafen during the war. And yes, it was for a few hundred years, a German town. Let's not forget that Poland didn't exist for a couple hundred years. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what are you writing about? Gdynia is always Gdynia, because it never ceased to be in Poland, whether occupied or not. For a few hunder years a German town?? The city was founded in 1925 - please read the relevant article first, and revert later, ok? Even if you'd like to go back to times when it was a small fishing village, it'd be "Gdingen", not "Gotenhafen". "Poland didn't exist for a couple hundred years" - again you don't know what are you writing about. Not "couple hundred", but AFAIR 123 years, minus short periods of uprisings+partial independence. And what in your opinion have partitions of Poland to do with Gdynia? --EAJoe (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The earliest mention of the town known as Gdynia was in 1253. Certainly not "1925". The reason I mentioned the fact that for a large chunk of time Poland did not exist is because you stated "Gdynia never was a German town", when it most clearly was, when it was a part of Prussia. The fact of the matter is that during the time Gneisenau was sunk as a blockship in the city's harbor, is was known as Gotenhafen. Parsecboy (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gdynia could not be "a German town" in any time, simply because it was founded by Poles in 1925. Earlier near the place was just a fishing village (few villages actually), and it was called Gdynia by Poles, and Gdingen by Germans. There is even no connection between the village and the city, because it wasn't an evolutionary growth, but rather building new city from scratch. I really don't get it why I have to clarify this, as this is quite clearly written in Gdynia article. "during the time ... was known as Gotenhafen" - was known to who? To Nazis? Doesn't matter here. If Hitler conquered New York, and decided to name it, say, Hitlerstadt for those few years, would you really refer to the city everywhere as "Hitlerstadt"? I doubt that. It somehow comes quite easy to ignore Slavic names, but you doesn't seem to use e.g. Dünkirchen for Dunkerque but rather prefer English name in this case.

I understand use of different language for naming the city, if

• it was legally belonging to particular state for a significant period of time (surely more than few years...)
• and had significant fraction of inhabitants speaking the language and actively using the name

For Gdynia case:

• change of state was not recognized internationally, so it was all the time a Polish town, only it was under occupation
• the change lasted only 4.5 years

So even if we call those several thousands of temporary seaport/shipyard workers "inhabitants" it is not enough to call the city in German. --EAJoe (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are case where using the geographical name that existed during the period of a conflict makes sense, but only in the case of larger battles like Kursk, Stalingrad and Leningrad, each of which has had different names at different periods. This is not one of those cases, Gotenhafen is purely a National Socialist construction used for propaganda purposes and in my opinion has no legitimate historical usage other than in the Gdynia article describing the occupation and expulsion of the local inhabitants. Gdynia is the proper usage here.Awotter (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gdynia was granted city rights in 1926. It was an existing settlement for a long time before. In any case, it is clear that we refer to European towns by their official name at the time. The Siege of Leningrad, not the Siege of Petrograd or the Siege of St. Petersberg. The Nazis took it over, they gave it a German name (or restored its old German name), we use that name. If NYC had fallen and been renamed Hitlerstadt, then yes, it would be appropriate in analogous contexts to talk about Hitlerstadt. <eleland/talkedits> 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand and clarify my comment based on what I've seen on the talk page. If "Gotenhafen" was just writing on some map in Berlin, and everyone including the Germans outside of officialdom referred to it as Gdynia, that would be different. For example, if Gneisenau's logbook says "Gdynia", or letters home from German sailors say "Gdynia", then so should we. <eleland/talkedits> 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Call it Gdynia

Call it Gdnyia, and then, whenever you are writing about WWII, add the phrase, "which the Germans renamed as 'Gotenhafen' during the war." In other words, take just a few extra words to explain the siuation. The Japanese, for example, occupied Wake Island during the war and probably called it by a Japanese term, but it still remained Wake Island. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your stance. By the way, the Japanese called Wake Island Otori-Shima for its birdlike shape. I oughta put that into an article somewhere... ;) ... Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it with an explanation, clunky as it was. I checked three personal sources, 2 called it Gydnia and one referred to it as the article did. The source that had the most information about the Baltic operations was Seekrieg 1939-1949 and the author ( or translator at least) did not use Gotenhafen at all.Awotter (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections

The sections I have renamed and put in are a little small, but give me some time to expand the article. Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fate

Why is there a revert war over the ship's fate in the infobox? Everybody must agree that the ship was severely damaged, decommissioned, put in for repairs, sunk as a blockship and finally scrapped. Why don't we list all of that in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not just here. See Hood and Scharnhorst's page. He is doing the same thing there. He is claiming Bismarck did not sink Hood. And He's also claiming it was not the Home Fleet, but them and the R. Norwegian Navy that sunk Scharnhorst. Ignoring that the Norwegian ship did not hit the ship, and that it was subordinate too the Royal Navy, because the R.N.N was not sovereign. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know why either. Kurt and Dapi are doing the same thing at the Scharnhorst page as well; it seems that Kurt likes to discuss things via edit summary only. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)