Talk:HSwMS Sverige

HMS?

Why in the world are the Swedish ships on wikipedia prefixed with HMS? As far as I know that prefix is reserved for Royal Navy vessels. Shouldn't the correct term be HSMS? Manxruler 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who would have the authority to reserve that prefix? No, ships of the Royal Swedish Navy is just as royal as their British counterparts, hence the designation HMS (Hans/Hennes Majestäts Skepp) 130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be HMS. If not HMS and instead HSwMS than we should use the same prefix for british ships as in HBMS no? Or does the british navy somehow take president? Superpig05 (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Debated many times before We use HSwMS for Swedish warships [1] Lyndaship (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Terminology

These vessels (trying to avoid showing my own preferences here) are a type that is not satisfactorily described by the terminology of either their own times or anything that has evolved since from historians. While the article does say their official type-name was panserskep, literally armored ship and coincidentally the same name used later by the Germans for their "Pocket battleships" (the latter a British term), that does not describe their function in doctrine. The article on "Sverige-class coastal defence Ships" has a very helpful section on doctrine which implies they were intended as capital ships in miniature, operating in line of battle in confined waters (doubtless counting on cooperation from shore batteries and torpedo boats) against an attacking amphibious group or blockading fleet. According to this doctrine, "Coast defence battleship" would be descriptive and correct. In English-language naval literature the categories of monitors, coast defense ships in general, and shore bombardment vessels are confusing and not always descriptive. The phrase "Small Capital Ships" was suggested to me in conversation and may be useful in this context. In the evolution of capital ships, USS Monitor may be viewed as a step towards the eventual apotheosis of the Dreadnought, or as a competing, lesser vessel to force a capital ship of the time to keep to blue water rather than mix it up with such craft. The French, who in the 19th century had a vested interest in limiting the power of British capital ships with their overwhelming firepower, should probably have shown more interest in the monitor type than they actually did; they were influenced more by the "Jeune Ecole" and its notions of sea denial for commercial ships being a better way to oppose a superior fleet. These Swedish vessels are an example of a smaller maritime nation that could not compete with the great powers going its own way to protect itself. They show a high degree of ingenuity and creativity. (This is a "think" piece rather than objective analysis so I don't think it requires references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capn JackA (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors in the article

I've never edited a Wikipedia article nor do I know how it works, so hopefully this suffices.

The article mentions a fundraiser in section 'background and description': "Despite initial political uncertainty, the fundraising campaign for Sverige was successful, thanks to the support of King Gustav V.", linking to the 1500's king Gustav Vasa/Gustav I. Should it not be Gustaf V (with an F)?

Even the Swedish Wiki article on Gustav doesn't use the f spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The name of the ship is also spelled as Svierge rather than 'Sverige' at the top of the info box. 2A02:1406:3F:431B:9CAF:EF5C:38DB:63AF (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)