# Talk:Bismarck-class battleship

Per the original version of this article, American spellings are the correct variant to be used in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Why use "metric ton" instead of "t" just the once, then? Grassynoel (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Because it's useful to use the full name of a unit the first time and then abbreviate it thereafter? Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

My edit about the domed anti-aircraft artillery was reverted, mostly because I am a relative new and inexperienced at providing references.
I would respectfully ask for help in getting the edit undo reversed, as my information is correct.
The reference is the Warship Profile on BISMARCK and the updated Anatomy of the Ship volume in BISMARCK.
https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Warship-Profiles/KM-Bismarck/KM-Bismarck-18_Page_19-960 for the Warship Profile
Phhotos in Breyer German Capital ships also clearly show that the objective (target-side) ends of the rangefinders in the after positions on BISMARCK are different from those in the forward installations. Also, it is easy to see that the rangefinders in the after positions actually sit lower, directly above the truncated inverted cone shields; whereas the complete positions with the domes, the rangefinder arms clearly sit higher.
Moreover the Anatomy of the Ship volume even identifies the systems by different model numbers.
Garzke and Dulin are not error-free. The most egregious example is the rather well known photo from astern of TIRPITZ which they (and the USN) mislabel as BISMARCK.

Its fine to mention that this was Bismarck's maiden voyage, as well as the Swordfish attacks from Ark Royal.  Meanwhile Tirpitz was under repair for 6 months after Operation Source, so that is more descriptive than stating that she wasn't seriously damaged until the Tallboys. Turnbulltrump (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to make changes; and moreover, the length of repairs probably had more to do with poor facilities in northern Norway, not the scale of damage that was done. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This better reflects the article content, which in its own right is well sourced. The wording of Operation Source mentioned "Very extensive damage was sustained" and "Tirpitz had been successfully neutralized". Even the paragraph of Source was bigger than the other attacks in terms of details. Turnbulltrump (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I would say its misleading to state that "but she was not seriously damaged in these attacks" as it implies Tirpitz was largely unscathed until Operation Catechism. It's true that all attacks did no harm until Source, and of course we can't mention all damaging attacks prior to Catechism, but Operation Source does stand out for the above reasons. Turnbulltrump (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
How about:
{{|xt|She was repeatedly attacked by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force between 1942 and 1944, but she was not seriously damaged in most of these attacks. Operation Source, and attack by X-craft in late 1943, inflicted significant damage and neutralized the ship for six months.}}
The rest of your edits are not improvements. Maiden Voyage is a disambiguation page, which shouldn't be linked. "She sunk the British" is grammatically wrong. The scuttling debate is one of the reasons the ship is still famous, which should be in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That mention of Operation Source is fine, perhaps more stylish than my own.
Suggest mentioning the scuttling debate with Ballard and Cameron at the end of Bismarck's service history, which in turn would then merit a brief mention in the Intro. Turnbulltrump (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
The article currently states: There is still significant debate as to the direct cause of Bismarck's sinking. Please stop adding irrelevant links and grammatical errors; you are actively damaging the article's quality. Parsecboy (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Its also undue weight to mention the debate over Bismarck's sinking in the article of the class, this instead properly belongs on the vessel's page. Turnbulltrump (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
You're entitled to that opinion, but frankly, having edited these pages for nearly 2 decades, you are simply wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That's an odd description, that type of armor layout was common in WW1 but abandoned in more modern designs because (a) for a given weight of armor a single layer was more effective, and (b) the space between the two layers of armor caused a shell trap, which intensified the damage done. The reason the Bis was effectively a WW1 design is that Hitler got rid of all the experienced naval design guys, so the noobs based everything on old plans rather than fundamental analysis and experiments. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is that your opinion or is that based on facts? The IP changes are unsourced and will probably be reverted. --Denniss (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I would assume that anybody familiar enough with the topic would know. Start with Campbell for shell traps and dunno for Hitler. Greglocock (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
1.) Compared to the AoN designs it was different 2.) Thats your opinion, the purpose was to introduce yaw so that the shell hit the armored slope at an unfavorable angle, the opposite of a “shell trap”. Name a WWI ship that had 110 or 120 slopes, at the time they were glorified splinter decks (not too mention WWI shells largely detonated at or right after penetration of the main belt): regardless what on earth is your point? It was PART of the side armor, and as you say other navies didnt use it, so whats the problem with that? 76.164.125.53 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Not what is meant by shell trap. The shell penetrated the outer layer, bounced off the angled inner, exploded, and the resulting explosion was constrained by the box formed by two decks and the 2 armors, resulting in frame buckling pressures etc, turning a machinery damaging explosion into a hull wrecking one. You are obviously just repeating fanboi nonsense. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

“ you misunderstand the Medina & Jurens article, in that the MV is not "corrected", it's adjusted to the British standard for ease of comparison - the "armored scarp" was the main deck, and the comparisons based on penetration tables is excessive and myopic”
1. Sorry but no, I did not misunderstand the article for the most part, and indeed the verbatim word used in that article is indeed “corrected” — but it seems the issue is that the Germans, unlike other navies, did not use new gun velocities, but rather a slightly worn gun, this was what I meant by “new gun velocity” (I did not mean “new research shows the velocity to be this”, but admittedly it seems I botched my wording in the article. Yes the 2,690 FPS isnt incorrect per say, it was the offical German value for the gun, just that it isn’t comparable to the new gun velocity used by other navies and the true “new gun” MV was higher. There have been a number of discussions about this, including one which Bill Jurens himself participated. See:[1]
2. This is the most bewildering part: why would you think the “armored scarp” was the same as the main deck? No it wasnt, Im referring to the 120mm to 110mm slope that ran down to meet the deck, it was intended to supplement the main belt, it was made of deck armor material but was intended for side armor protection, Im not referring to the main armored deck that it meets. This was made of armor grade material was not simply a splinter deck either. Anyways like I said before I’ll find better sources for citation this, but even a cursory analysis of the Bismarck armor scheme available just about anywhere would show you this.  
3. Thats your opinion, as it seems to me the whole purpose of naval guns is to, you know, penetrate the armor and destroy other ships. Admittedly it was focused on penetration, information about bursting charge and so on is missing, and perhaps I should have shortened it.
I hope your day is going well. 76.164.125.53 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Go read page 133 and then check the table values provided on that page. The difference in muzzle velocity from "old" to "new" is entirely attributed to adjusting for propellant temperature to the British standard.
Because it's the main armor deck. Did you not wonder why this style of armor is referred to as a "turtleback deck"? Go give protected cruiser a read.
Let me respond to this point with a question: do you happen to know the penetration tables for the British 13.5-inch gun in 1915?
My day is fine, thanks, I hope yours is as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Coincidentally, in the current volume of Warship International on page 127, Dirk Nottelmann states "Until today, there appears a tendency to equate effectiveness of a weapon, heavy guns in particular, with the size and weight of the thrown projectiles, and its resulting penetration capabilities." Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page
Good evening. I suppose it's about time that we get this cleared up:
1. I added a "d" (yes, the letter "d", lower case) to the end of "blade" under the "| Ship propulsion" tag, thus turning "3 three-blade propellers" into "3 three-bladed propellers". If that's too much whitespace for you, then I... can't make much sense of what happened there, honestly. I do apreciate that we share the same sentiment of not needing to know how many blades were on the propellers, nor do I know who thought that might be important, but it was there, and it was misspelled, so I added the "d". The only thing I know is that it was there before User:Denniss' last edit, so don't go blaming them for it either. 
2. I honestly don't know where to list the depth charge racks if not under the decoy label. Spoofing shell splashes (i.e. creating big fountains of water adjacent to the own vessel to confuse an adversary's gunners) is, in my humble view, the only remotely sensible explanation as to why the ships were so equipped. Yes, I am aware that all of the post-WWI german capital ships were built with sonar systems, but as the GHG Typ 57 a passive system I don't see how one could squeeze any kind of useful range data out of it. Without a means of establishing the range to target, I consequently can't see how the DCs could have been of any use against submarines. Psychological effects, maybe? Trying to trick the submariners into thinking that they'd failed a spot check? 
3. In regards to the armour of the Main deck... 50mm is the figure given by the article itself. The Armour deck '(Panzerdeck)' is thicker... but the Panzerdeck isn't the main deck; as per Wikipedia's article on that subject: 
"The main deck of a ship is the uppermost complete deck extending from bow to stern. A steel ship's hull may be considered a structural beam with the main deck forming the upper flange of a box girder and the keel forming the lower strength member. The main deck may act as a tension member when the ship is supported by a single wave amidships, or as a compression member when the ship is supported between waves forward and aft." 
If you simply want to list the thickness of the Panzerdeck in the infobox, then why don't you call that item "Armour deck"? Or, if you wish to express the deck protection in general as a single item, you could call it "Decks". Either is perfectly fine, but you have to stop insisting that the Oberdeck armour was 110 to 120 mm thick when we both know its actual thickness to have been less than half of that. 
4. I'm also somewhat confused as to why you don't want to see the GHG listed in the infobox, but given your increasingly exasperated tone it might be best if I don't ask. 
Kindly. 
Gus
Gusten Grodslukare (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Look at your most recent edit - you've added dozens of spaces randomly. There is no reason to do that.
The depth charge racks don't need to be mentioned in the box. Not every detail needs to be crammed into the box, which is meant to be a summary of the article, not an exhaustive replacement. Far too many people are of the mistaken impression that because a field exists, it must be filled, or that because a factoid exists, it must be squeezed into the box. Again, the point of the box is to provide readers with basic facts at a glance, not include trivial details. And if you're just speculating that they were intended as some visual countermeasure, then that's entirely a non-starter - please see WP:NOR.
In the context of discussing a ship's armor layout, the "main deck" means the "primary deck"; i.e., the one primarily meant to defeat incoming fire. You are conflating that and "main deck" in a marine engineering sense. The two are not used interchangeably here.
See point #2; I'll also note that you haven't included a citation for it there, and it's not currently mentioned in the body of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)