Talk:Naval order of 24 October 1918

Regarding the section entitled "A realistic plan or pointless sacrifice?" and the criticism that has been made that it contains "original research": could you please be more specific over what you are objecting? There are already multiple in-line citations or wiki-links to sources in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfvj (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-written the section "A realistic plan or pointless sacrifice?", including more citations, and hopefully avoiding metaphyical speculation; rather it is intended to explain why the attitude of the German high command was equivocal. Please be specific if there are points which you consider need citation or are inappropriate.Dfvj (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, but I am somewhat doubtful of the claims of the excellence of British intelligence - sure, they had broken the Germans' codes, but the Germans appear to have figured that out (or at least knew that the Brits were learning something from wireless intercept) - for instance, the advance on 23-24 April, the Germans maintained radio silence until Moltke broke down. The Brits had no clue the HSF was at sea until it was too late to intercept them. I see no reason the Germans wouldn't have repeated this for the "death ride".

In addition, from a tactical point of view, the Brits had gotten the Green Boys to the fleet by now, and so the problems with faulty British shells was gone. I seriously doubt whether the Germans could have escaped from the superior British weight of fire comparatively unscathed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: N.B. I was not trying to argue "who would have won" (the readers can make their own minds up on contentious "might have beens"), but rather to explain the equivocal comments from Scheer and Hipper. I've removed the "excellence of British intelligence" bit as that is a bit judgmental (although according to Beesly, Fremantle was giving Beatty continuous and accurate updates from midnight 28 Oct onwards. Beesly does not explain where the intel was coming from: presumably decrypted messages being sent to all those U-Boats. Also recall that the April sortie was a surprise to the British because of the captain of J6 to report the sighting of the outward-bound HSF, and Hipper could not have counted on the Brits making the same mistake twice). The Greenboys are mentioned in the "state of the Grand Fleet" section above.Dfvj (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: "Given the distances involved, if the Grand Fleet sailed promptly in response to reports of the German sortie, they would have arrived at Terschelling in good time to cut off the German line of retreat and force a fight to the finish.{{Citation needed|reason=seems like original research|date=June 2013}}": please can you explain why you think this constitutes original research? Hipper clearly thought there was a risk they would get annihilated: I'm trying to explain why. You want a citation on the distances involved or the speed of the ships? I agree there is NO evidence that Beatty would have tried to give battle off Terschelling, so I have changed the language thus: "if the German sortie were reported promptly and the Grand Fleet sailed immediately on receipt of such a report, there was every possibility that they could have cut off the German line of retreat and forced a fight to the finish."Dfvj (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To do

Other sources to check: •VfZ 1966, Wilhelm Deist: Die Politik der Seekriegsleitung und die Rebellion der Flotte Ende Oktober 1918, S. 352-353. Dfvj (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Need source material on the historical/historiographical/political controversy surrounding this plan, which is not adequately described:

• contemporary role of left wing in denigrating it and portraying it as a death ride (the stab in the back?), and subsequent attempts to justify this stance;
• plausibility of self-serving accounts by senior German officials;

Dfvj (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Leonidas Hill (1988): Signal zur Konterrevolution? VfZ, pp.112-139 [1]? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Inter-Language Links

Refer to WP:REDLINK for standard formatting for inter-language links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfvj (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That is one approach but, as it says on that page (and on Help:Interlanguage links), the template:ill is more effective as once the missing article is written it will suppress the link to the other language. I also believe that the correct language code to show should be "de" (or DE) for Deutsch rather than "GE" for "German" to fit in with the style used in other interlanguage/interwiki links.

I'll also say that I don't think your blanket revert of my edits of the other day was helpful. While grammar choice may be a matter of taste, as also what to pipe in a link, several elements of the edits were to bring the article into line with the Manual of Style eg use of capitals, or images in section names) and others added links to articles which could help the readers. Personally, I don't feel I did introduce a grammatical error; would you mind indicating where I did. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of your changes seem to have been a question of personal taste or style, but a number of them actually degraded the authenticity or factual content of the article, neither of which is at all helpful. Specifically, you prefer "Battlecruiser", however the term "Battle Cruiser" was used in the Admiralty documents of 1918; the box around the text of the translated order was there specifically to indicate the limits of the translated original document (without it the following sub-section might have been construed as part of the order); the capitalization of the message header appears in the original; British submarines in the era were not referred to as "His Majesty's Ship", but rather "His Majesty's Submarine", abbreviated "HMS/M": referring to "HMS G2" is not correct. Other changes you made served no purpose other than to make the article more cluttered (e.f. by spelling out officers' ranks rather than using the standard abbreviations, which are defined; adding multiple links to the same articles (e.g. Henry Newbolt)); or removing the ensigns from the order of battle appendix (WHY make an article duller in appearance?). Grammatical errors: the text of the document is the same now as it was when written, and thus is referred to in the present tense: using the past tense suggests it may be different then than now; "Dreadnought" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Inter-Language Links: since this article is written in the English language, GE is used for German (Deutsch is a German word); I agree this is a minor point, but you removed the foreign language links entirely, leaving just the Red Link.Dfvj (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I felt the Changes I made to article were to bring it in line with the MoS, or with other common practice across wikipedia.

Specifically, while "battle cruiser" may have been in use at the time, this article is written in present day English and battlecruiser is the article on wikipedia. Likewise while at the time HMS/M was the form, these days HMS is used for Her Majesty's Submarine (eg HMS Talent on the RN website)

while I see your point about keeping the order itself separate, and original spelling should be maintained WP:Allcaps says "avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps. Reduce them to one of the other title cases or normal case, as appropriate." which means that material in the original is commonly rendered in lower or sentence case, and if emphasis is required it should be through the use of italics.

As I linked above WP:MOSHEAD "Headings should not contain images, including flag icons", also WP:MOSFLAG says "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags" and gives as an example - "such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail". Any use of images other than to actually illustrate a point just to make it look a bit more lively seems wrong. The ensigns were redundant to the text, which made it clear which force was being referred to, so I removed them completely. If images are required to illustrate the text why not use an image of the Grand Fleet or one of the flotillas to illustrate the force.

Per WP:Abbreviations "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses" I wouldn't do this in the case of abbreviations, acronyms etc thay have become words in the own right, or are commonly recognizable (laser, sonar, NATO) but within the article these are not standard abbreviations as far as the average reader is concerned.

Dreadnought may for a period have been capitalized when referring to the ship type (as opposed to earlier meanings) but is commonly rendered "dreadnought" these days (and on wiki in the dreadnought article).

As you say Deutsch is a German word, but since each of the wikis is known by their language code it made sense for an interwiki link to follow the same format. I did remove the foreign language links on the first occasion, but since you think they were worth keeping I converted them to an use a template which precludes the need to edit them if/when a en.wikipedia article is written.

so while the question of past versus present tense may be more personal to some editors, I feel that the other changes were not a personal style choice but a logical and justifiable choice to work to the MoS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read your comments with some care. Phrases such as "I felt the Changes I made", "seems wrong" or "is commonly rendered" are the sort of equivocal statements that would immediately (and rightly) draw adverse editorial comment if they appeared in a Wikipedia article. The changes you made did not correct any factual error, or any egregious unequivocal violation of Wikipedia guidelines. What constitutes a "logical and justifiable choice" is a matter of personal judgement; otherwise, it would not be a "choice".

In what way is the usage "Battle Cruiser" or "Dreadnought" as opposed to "battlecruiser" or "dreadnought" likely to confuse or confound the reader, especially when appropriate links to Wikipedia articles are included? In both cases, either usage is common enough today, and using the historical usage is entirely appropriate. Similarly, there was nothing factually, grammatically or stylistic incorrect in the phrase "the British submarine G2", which you saw fit to change to "HMS G2", which is an inaccurate designation of that vessel, which could indeed mislead and confuse readers attempting to research her history.

I agree that the MOS comes down against flags in section headings; but it also says they are acceptable in tables in military contexts. In this case, besides underlining the identities of the two naval forces being listed, they also help to brighten up what would otherwise be a rather dull list of squadrons and ships, much more than some fuzzy black and white image of dreadnoughts at sea. Why are you against making articles a little bit aesthetic, just to satisfy your narrow interpretation of the MOS?

The abbreviations appearing in the order of battle are all given in a list which is appended to it; including full, spelt-out ranks there would clutter up what is already a rather crowded section of the article, which I took some pains to make as readable as possible.

"I did remove the foreign language links on the first occasion, but since you think they were worth keeping": those links were originally put there because they do provide additional useful information from the German Wikipedia about some of the individuals involved in this important historical event. It took some effort to find them. Inter-language links are allowed (see: WP:REDLINK), provided they don't supplant the English red-link and give a false indication of what articles have yet to be written. In other words in this case your edit was contrary to the established, agreed practice for Wikipedia. Dfvj (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Partial German Text of the order

Kommando der Hochseeflotte

Op. 269/A I SMS KAISER WILHELM II den 24.10.1918

GANZ GEHEIM O.SACHE O.-BEFEHL Nr.19

A.NACHRICHTEN VOM FEIND Das Groß der feindlichen Streitkräfte wird in den ostschottischen Häfen vermutet; Teilstreitkräfte in Tyne, Humber und im Kanal.

B. Eigene ABSICHT Der Gegner soll unter für uns günstigen Bedingungen zur Schlacht gestellt werden. Hierzu Nachtvorstoß der gesamten Hochseestreitkräfte in den Hoofden, Angriff gegen Streitkräfte und Verkehr an der flandrischen Küste und in der Themsemündung. Durch diesen Stoß soll der Gegner veranlasst werden, sofort Flottenteile in Richtung auf die Verbindungslinie Hoofden-Deutsche Bucht vorzuschieben. Es ist beabsichtigt, diese Flottenteile am Abend des II. Operationstages zur Schlacht zu stellen, oder sie während des Anmarsches in der Nacht vom II. zum III. Operationstage mit den Torpedobooten anzugreifen. Unterstützung der Hauptaufgabe werden die Anmarschwege des Gegners von den ostschottischen Häfen nach dem Seegebiet bei Terschelling mit Minen verseucht und durch Uboote besetzt werden.

C.DURCHFÜHRUNG Hier folgten die Einzelbestimmungen des Ablaufes mit gesonderten Details für die einzelnen Geschwader, der Flottillen und anderen beteiligten Stellen …

[Unter Punkt 7 hieß es ergänzend:] Dieser Befehl darf Offizieren und Mannschaften erst bekanntgegeben werden, wenn jeder Verkehr mit dem Lande abgebrochen ist.

Gez. Von Hipper

Source: http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f62/die-opferung-der-hochseeflotte-im-oktober-1918-a-26301/

N.B. Grant's English translation given in the article does not include the last paragraph: "Unter Punkt 7...abgebrochen ist." which translates as: "Under item 7 this was added: This order must not be divulged to officers and men until all contact with land severed." Does anyone know of a source for the full German text?

CE

Did a tidy up and rejigged the order of sections. Moved ensigns from headers and managed to collide with another editor. Apols. Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Just mixed signals. Looks great. Llammakey (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The MOS permits flag icons in tables in the military context; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WORDPRECEDENCE Please revert to the way it was!Dfvj (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that babe, didn't see that bit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Post-Jutland sorties by the HSF

Someone added a link to the Battle of the Dover Strait to the place where the German Fleet sortie of October 1916 is mentioned; the two events, though connected, are NOT the same! There were three sorties by the fleet, with all three battle squadrons present, after Jutland; all were in the North Sea. This does not include destroyer raids on the Straits of Dover.Dfvj (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Philbin

Philbin [34] is wrongly quoted in the article: "Admiral Hipper seemed well aware of the risk in this plan, and expressed a sanguinary attitude about it: 'a battle for the honour of the fleet in this war, even if it were a death battle, it would be the foundation for a new German fleet'." Philbin wrote instead: "Hipper AND HIS STAFF ..." The sentence cited was actually written by his chief of staff Adolf von Trotha.--Kuhl-k (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dfvj (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the thoughtful comments; the copy of Philbin I used is inaccessible right now due to the library being locked down; If I recall I might have taken the comment from another source without checking the original (which was sloppy of me), but it was a long time ago.

Analysis

The table lists aircraft carriers; we should also list the seven airships on the German side, which were allocated according to “Krieg zur See” vol 7 (new critical edition p. 417) There are 25 U-boats shown in the table, but below in “Orders of battle” are thirty U-boats recorded (Source: Spindler): We should at least give a hint in the table, that there are two differing figures. Secondly, when I counted the “thirty U-boats”, it makes thirty one!--Kuhl-k (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked Spindler: he definitively lists 30 U-boats. U 60 is not in his list, I think this is taken from Robert M. Grant: U-Boat Intelligence 1914–1918. London 1969, S. 161-163 ?? See chapter "U-boat operations", first paragraph. --Kuhl-k (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the thoughtful comments. Right now I don't have access to either edition of Spindler or to Grant (the libraries are shut due to the pandemic lockdown); if I recall the discrepancy of 25 vs 30 in U boat numbers was in the original edition of Spindler and I took the list as more authoritative; I can't recall why U-60 was included (whether I got it from Grant or from the earlier edition of Spindler I used included her). The seven available airships are already listed in the order of battle; I did not include shore-based aircraft in the table (I could not find information about either the British airships or either sides' seaplanes)Dfvj (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding U-60 I checked Grant (Robert M. Grant: U-Boat Intelligence 1914–1918. London 1969.) Grant mentions U-60 but he states that the boat was not able to take part in the planned sortie (p. 161): “On the 28th [October 1918] a German signal was also received asking for the locations of UB-123 (sunk October 18 or 19!), U-46 (an error for U-43), U-60, U-119, UB-94 and U-122. They had hoped that all these boats would take part in the North Sea operation, but answers intercepted during the next two days showed that only U-43 could do so." I therefore propose to take out U-60.--Kuhl-k (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Spindler lists seven U-boats that could not take part in the sortie due to “Machinenschaden oder andere[n] Störungen (engine breakdowns or other disruptions)” namely: U-43, U-67, UB-86, UB-87, UB-98, UB-118, UB-130. Thus out of the 30 U-boats, 2 were sunk and 7 had to abort their sailing, so that only 21 were available. Arno Spindler: Der Handelskrieg mit U-Booten. Januar bis November 1918. Frankfurt/M. 1966 (Der Krieg zur See 1914-1918, Band 5), S. 338–340. I suggest to modify the sentence: „Two other submarines, UB-98 and UB-118 were damaged in collision with each other on 28 October, and had to return to port. Two others, UB-87 and UB-130 also aborted their missions due to breakdowns.“--Kuhl-k (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)