Talk:Romanian Navy during World War II

Lead

G'day, nice work on this article. The only suggestion I have at this stage is that the lead should probably be expanded by at least a couple more sentences so that it summarises the article more fully. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

AustralianRupert Greetings and thankyou for your appreciation of my work. I apologize for seeing your message only now, I did add to the header. I hope it's good, if you have any further suggestions of improving this article they are very much welcomed. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your efforts. If you are keen to get further comments/suggestions, I suggest taking your article to peer review. You might also consider listing it or assessment at WP:MHA. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

New article section

I added a new article section containing various things I missed, or that did not fit into any other sections. The engagements on the Danube are river warfare, the torpedo attack is an action that only damaged a ship instead of sinking it, the submarine attack as well and the naval aviation is fully different. I noticed however that all these were part of an effort of the Romanian Navy to support the Axis land offensives, so I named the section as such, instead of something like, say, Miscellaneous. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Minelayer Aurora?

About the sentence "Minelayer Aurora, the largest Romanian warship sunk by Soviet forces during the war", if I am correct the largest Romanian warship sunk by Soviet forces was the Regele Carol-I (sunk by mines from L-4). By pure importance of classification it was the old torpedo boat Naluca(by aircraft in 1944), but for age, size, and battle value she was far less important than the Regele Carol-I and the Aurora combined. Greetings. Lupodimare89 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Either way it's not supported by the source, so I've tagged it accordingly for now. Alcherin (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Y'Guys, Regele Carol was not a warship. She was an armed merchant ship. I am dealing strictly with purpose-built warships. Say if I take a cargo ship, put an MG in her bow, and she get sunk, could that be called the greatest warship lost by my country? No, ofcourse not, that would be ludicrous. So please, let's stick to proper warships. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to type the classic: "In wartime, the distinction between warships and merchant ships is often blurred. In war, merchant ships are often armed and used as auxiliary warships, such as the Q-ships of the First World War and the armed merchant cruisers of the Second World War. " to move on this specific case yes, the Regele Carol- I (like Dacia, Durostar and Romania) were all more significant in terms of weapons, capabilities and importance (for laying defensive mines) than Aurora could be and they were all . However that was just an opinion: my interest on the Romanian Navy is per-se limited to the specific clashes with the Soviet Navy and adding more balanced information where there are articles based entirely on (overestimated) Romanian claims. Lupodimare89 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If I could speak Russian, I would very well search on Google Books for their take on the events too. But since I only speak English and Romanian (and to a lesser extent, French) those are naturally the languages I take my sources from. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reached its apex, in both fleet strength and territorial control?

I really do not wish to spoil everything, but I would very likely read a direct source stating this. Because one thing is reading the ships operative and observe the amount of units "operative". For what I recall, Rechinul and Marsuinul were NOT yet operative in 1943 (infact both departed for few missions only in 1944), while the Sublocotenent Ghiculescu-class gunboats could be indeed classified as "corvettes", it is obscure to me how completely different ships like the minelayer Amiral Murgescu, the monitors/riverine-gunboats Mihail Kogălniceanu-class and others could be classified as "frigates". Also the four "M-class" minesweepers (again, not "frigates") were NEVER completed during the war. But completed post-war by Communist Romania as gunboats/escort ships. I would also stress how the 4 Romanian destroyers were far a formidable force by Axis standards (and quite resonably restrained to defensive purpose alone). Lupodimare89 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I should stress how the terrible this article turned: a mix of fantasy tails and plainly WRONG info. Sister ship of Amiral Murgescu never entered in service! Nor the M-class minesweepers. None of the two newly built Romanian submarines entered in service in 1943. Lupodimare89 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)