# Talk:German cruiser Admiral Scheer

Added some WW2 history from "Defiance at Sea" by Jon Guttman (ISBN 0-304-35085-0). Wiki-Ed 00:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute over the armament. The source I have in front of me ("The Illustrated Directory of Warships from 1860 to the Present Day", David Miller, Salamander Books Ltd, London 2004, ISBN 0-86288-677-5) states that the Scheer had the following:
6 x 280mm, 
8 x 150mm, 
6 x 88mm,
8 x 37mm AA,
8 x 533mm TT
I suggest the two of you cite your sources and we can work out which is correct. Wiki-Ed 10:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the armament information, the 88mm AA were replaced with 105mm AA before the war. Source: German-Navy.de Admiral Scheer. I assume it started with someone accidently mistyping the 105 as 150 and then people started believing this to be correct -- Nevfennas 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. My Father was a gunner at the 105 mm AA.--87.184.192.218 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Though it may very well be the case that the sailors on board considered the Admiral Scheer to be male, I suggest that the masculine pronouns in this article be changed to feminine to follow standard English language usage relating to ships.  As it is now, the masculine pronouns serve mainly to confuse and distract readers used to seeing ships referred to as "she," thereby detracting from the article.  Furthermore, precedent on the English Wikipedia when dealing with ships that are male in their native tongue (e.g. those of the Russian navy) is to use female pronouns.  There is no reason the Admiral Scheer should be treated any differently. Jrt989 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's good to know that the ship's crew referred to the ship as "he", but the article should call the ship "it" or "she".Ettormo (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there's been no dissent in the nearly three months since I posted, I have changed the pronouns to feminine. Jrt989 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A better solution would be to follow the original common use. When the ship was called "he", it was only "the Scheer" without the "Admiral"-prefix.

Just to note, I'm overhauling this article (and will do Deutscland/Lutzow, Admiral Graf Spee, and the class article as well). I've got Williamson's book on the way, so it'll be a few days before I can finish the rewrite. If anyone wants to help out, please do, and please cite reliable sources when adding material. I'm saving some text here during the rewrite for possible reuse. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Towards the end of its Spanish deployments, Admiral Scheer served in April 1938 as a polling booth for the extraterritorial vote of German and Austrian clerics, studying at the German college of Santa Maria dell'Anima, on the question of the German annexation of Austria (Anschluss). For this purpose, she anchored in the harbour of Gaeta. Contrary to the overall German result, these clerical votes rejected the Anschluss with over 90%, an incident which was coined as "Shame of Gaeta" (Vergogna di Gaeta, Schande von Gaeta) at the time.

Please note that the Reichsmarine was renamed to Kriegsmarine in 1935. Also noteworthy is that Ernst Lindemann was first gunnery officer durig the Spaish Civil War. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the first part and grabbed the citation from Lindemann's bio. Thanks for pointing those out. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Suspect that this in fact is Elsaß Lothringen (the German name for Alsace-Lorraine)
DeGency (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, "Ersatz" means replacement - SMS Elsass and SMS Lothringen were two different ships. Admiral Scheer was ordered as a replacement for Lothringen, while Elsass was replaced by Scharnhorst. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In regard to some of the photos on the main page: Unless I am ignorant of alterations to SCHEER, three of the photos appear to be of the GRAF SPEE, not the SCHEER.
Joseph CoutureMoosemin (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. These are all photos of Admiral Scheer, which received the same mast as Admiral Graf Spee - it was Deutschland that had the smaller pole mast. One easy way to check is to look at the bow ornaments - it's somewhat hard with these low-res photos, but see for instance this one of Admiral Scheer and this one of Admiral Graf Spee (and for reference, here's this one of Deutschland). Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello gents, POV I prefer the metric ton (t) as the base unit with long and short in parentheses if we feel the need to clarify. I personally don't, despite the historical perspective. See List of obsolete units of measurement for more options.
Please consider changes to: "The ship had a design displacement of 13,660 t (13,440 long tons; 15,060 short tons) and a full load displacement of 15,180 long tons (15,420 t),[2] though the ship was officially stated to be within the 10,000 long tons (10,000 t) limit of the Treaty of Versailles."  Leaving aside POV, this "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" is inconsistent with the preceding. I see you're still around and thanks for the great work Parsecboy. Cheers. Doug (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally for ships of the post-WNT era, long tons are the default unit of measure, and units should always be converted - we are an international encyclopedia, after all.
I used the figures as provided by Gröner, in the units he presented them. The Germans generally used metric tons, and Germany had not been admitted to the treaty system when the ships were designed, which is probably why Gröner, who was working with original documents, used metric tons for the designed displacement figure. I have no problem flipping the numbers, however. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As it happens my father Jack (Ted) Lubran DFC MRIN Assoc MRINA (1924 to 2014) was the Master Navigator of a flight of RAF Avro Lancaster bombers sent to 'sow mines' in the entrance waters of the Kiel Canal. I have his personal account, including on film, and his operational log books. Their mission was to drop mines as a part of the British tactic of hemming the Admiral Scheer in port. They were not supposed to attack the ship itself because both the ship and port defences presented a formidable anti aircraft capability. They arrived over the target to find it covered in low cloud with no visibility below the cloud. Knowing they were very close to the target area they circled in the hope of getting a visual reference. Whilst carrying out that maneuver the clouds opened up and they found themselves immediately above the Admiral Scheer, at the same time every AAA gun below opened up on them. The Lancasters immediately dropped their mines and moments later a huge explosion erupted from the ship sending columns of smoke and shrapnel high enough to rock the aircraft and make holes. The differing physics of mines compared with bombs is significant. A mine falling on to an armoured ship like the Admiral Scheer would not normally be expected to cause such an explosion. It was thought most likely that by a caprice of fate either a mine fell through an open hatch, fell through a smoke stack or lit up munitions being loaded into the ship.
So many myths and half truths relied upon by commentators and historians. 'Ted' Lubran has testified on film, as yet to be released as a part of any documentary, a number of experiences he had during nearly 40 missions over Nazi occupied Europe that conflict with so much asserted statements that suggest propaganda distortions providing many false narratives with regard to the modern history of World War Two  2.96.30.119 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Most published sources are inexact over the location of the wreck, often said to have been 'buried under a quay'. However, the exact location is shown on the official Allied Strategic Bombing Survey map, now published in Dodson and Cant, Spoils of War (2020), p. 165, top, and when overlaid on a modern map of Kiel it shows that the whole inner dock complex, including the place she was sunk, was filled-in post-war, leaving the wreck well inland, under a now-grassed area, at position  54° 19' 13.57"N, 10° 9' 50.46"E. The area is partly used as a heli-pad, with the 'H' directly above the location of the ship's remains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMDC (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC) 

Hi, would anyone happen to have any definite info on the floatplane 'landing sail' mentioned in the 'Operational history' section? I haven't been able to find very much about it. According these US patent designs from 1936, [1] and [2], it appears to have been a large canvas sheet which somehow  slipped under the floats and allowed the aircraft to be hauled out out of the water in something like a giant hammock. I might have got the wrong idea. I always imagined the planes were recovered with a crane, like in the photo of an Arado Ar 196A-3 on the Graf Spee, or this one on the Prinz Eugen. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So, I found another patent for improvements to a landing sail, assigned to a German firm in Bremen. The text on the web page is OCR 2-column gobbledygook, but the downloadable PDF shows the original printed page. The drawings show the sail being towed underneath the floats, as I thought: but I still don't quite understand what the sail actually achieves. Is it meant to bring the aircraft alongside the ship, a bit like a submersible flexible pontoon, so that the plane is travelling at the same speed as the ship, effectively being towed, and can then reduce or cut the power? And then the crane jib can be swung out to haul it out of the water without fouling the prop? MinorProphet (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
And another US patent, Apparatus for recovering seaplanes from the water filed in 1938 which references the patents previously reffed above. The text explains the principle fairly clearly. Almost worth its own little article... MinorProphet (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think the minutiae of a minor piece of rarely used equipment need to be expounded upon in an encyclopedia article about a ship? The purpose of the sail is explained, we don't need further technical details here. If you want to create an article and link it here, be my guest. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: A citation to a page that says From September 1939 until September 1942, the HX series carried traffic from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Liverpool. Subsequent to September 1942, and until the end of the war, this series departed from New York. Slower vessels were routed in the SC series while faster vessels sailed in the short lived HXF series. Additionally, the BHX series sailed from Bermuda and rendezvoused with the HX convoy of the same number. There were no cancelled convoys. does not support the passage Admiral Scheer sank Jervis Bay within 22 minutes, but the engagement delayed the German ship long enough for most of the convoy to escape. Admiral Scheer sank only five of the convoy's 37 ships, though a sixth was sunk by the Luftwaffe following the convoy's dispersal. Please provide a {{cite web}} to the specific web page that supports the passage, as per WP:CITEWEB. You cannot point the reader at a library of tens of thousands of books and say “there, find it yourself”. Elrondil (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you had bothered trying to use the site, you would see why it's impossible to provide a more specific url. Regardless, it's not too much to expect of a reader, who, wondering where they could find more information on convoy HX.84, to be able to pick that convoy from the drop-down list on that site. I'm not pointing readers to a library, I'm pointing them to a specific website that requires a modicum of effort on their part to figure out how to operate. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That website is awful trying to locate the individual url but I think I have managed it. I would have been quite happy with the general link Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: I get an error when I try to access the URL as currently provided. How about the following, which provides the instruction needed by the reader to navigate to the cited page using |at=? Because the website doesn't seem to return the same result all the time, at least for me, how about also using a recent archiving of it … since what the original sometimes returns deviates from the page that supports the passage in the article?
"Convoy HX.84". Arnold Hague Convoy Database. Note: Select Convoy HX.84 in the drop-down list. Archived from the original on 2024-05-31. Retrieved 2024-12-13. Elrondil (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Well that is interesting. It works for me as do several similar links I changed last night. I've just managed to save it in wayback so it is available. Perhaps the geographical location of the user or the browser used has a bearing but all that technical stuff is beyond me. Looking around other articles use this sort of url to get to an individual page http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/hx/index.html?hx.php?convoy=84!~hxmain . Does that work for you? Otherwise I have no problem returning the link to the original index one or to an archive as you suggest Lyndaship (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: The new URL you suggest also doesn’t work (http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/hx/index.html?hx.php?convoy=84!~hxmain), but an archive of it does (https://web.archive.org/web/20241213080549if_/http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/hx/index.html?hx.php?convoy=84!~hxmain). I therefore suggest the following:

While I could certainly work out what is happening from a technical perspective, it won’t be useful: we cannot change the website, and I am using a vanilla configuration representing about 20% of Internet users. I have since found it works for me in a different configuration (Firefox on Ubuntu), but that isn’t a solution either. Elrondil (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with your suggestion. However, I do question if only 20% of users have a problem why should something be modified outside the normal procedure which affects the other 80%? I also note that there are 3897 links to this website which should also be checked to see if these 20% of users would benefit from having a similar change linking to an archive version of the relevant page Lyndaship (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I am curious to learn how you measured that. Would you mind sharing your method?
That certainly is a daunting number that calls for a bot and raises other question such as (1) are too many articles being supported by this one hinky source, (2) is there a better, more reliable source, (3) is anyone fact checking and if not why not, (4) what else would we find if we did, and (5) if 1 in 5 readers aren't deserving of proof that what is said is true, are the other 4 in 5, that is, why do it at all (I must stress that I don't believe that)? Elrondil (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Since it seems you don't know: Arnold Hague was a respected historian of the Battle of the Atlantic; his site is reliable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Certainly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=*.convoyweb.org.uk 1) if you feel the site is hinky raise it at the WP:RS board, the number of articles any site supports is irrelevant. Hague is a respected historian. 2) Not to my knowledge, 3) We assume that editors check facts with any cite provided, 4) who knows until someone checks it 5) I accepted your 20% claim but you are the first to my knowledge to find such a problem which you resolved by using another browser Lyndaship (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: (1) He may be a respected historian, but his website is godawful. (2) Unfortunate. (3) Which they may now do more readily and reliably with the archived URL provided. (4) I tried, and we're here because of what I found. I marked it up as failing verification because when I first checked, the citation did NOT support the passage it claimed to support. And yes, I did try to use the site Parsecboy. "Honour the bug." (5) Being the first doesn't mean I shouldn't speak up when I see a problem nor be bold by finding a solution, despite some stiff resistance as in this case. You cannot seriously be suggesting that fact-checking be done using multiple browsers (which, the big five, or also others?) and platforms similar to the way respectable testing of websites happens? I note if it had for this website, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be here. Elrondil (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The website architecture may well be outdated but of course when did it become outdated and if internet archive can read it currently that's good enough for me. I accept your good faith in finding a problem and working to resolve it. I've pointed out that there are many other pages which are also liable to not work on your system. If you wish to sort them too using your archive solution feel free but I'm certainly not. Don't think there's anything else to say here Lyndaship (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I don't question the person, nor their work. I question the website. Elrondil (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The website is their work. That the page architecture is dated is not a problem (and to be expected, given that Hague is no longer with us) - it is quite usable. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Is he also a respected software engineer, web designer, information scientist, database administrator, systems engineer, and tester? Elrondil (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Entirely irrelevant. He is an expert in the field, which is all that matters when evaluating sources. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: The problem I saw is now fixed and there is nothing left to be done here as far as I am concerned ... except perhaps explain myself, because in the heat of whatever this was we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.
I saw (past tense) the citation not directly support the passage (see WP:CHALLENGE). I completely accept that Arnold Hague is a respected source, and the citation (now) supports the passage in the article. In my assessment, a citation that points readers at a searchable database of 98 series, 18,461 convoys, 271,310 ship entries and 40,880 escort duties with the expectation they themselves find the specific data in that database that supports the passage does not "directly support the passage" (see WP:PROVEIT). If it were paginated material comprising more than about a dozen pages, the citation would have been marked with {{page needed}}.
I proposed the use of |at= to include instructions for getting from the provided citation to the data that supports the passage, akin to a page number in a book. However, Lyndaship proposed an even better solution; @Lyndaship: please accept my belated expression of gratitude for your excellent counter-proposal.
Unfortunately the URL provided also does not directly support the passage, at least when I look at it. For technical reasons, when I use that URL on the device I normally use, I never see the data (by the respected source) that directly supports the passage. However, a wayback archive if it works like a charm! Which is what we ended up with. The original URL is still there, but by default the archived version is presented for WP:V, along with instructions in |at= for finding the data in the database that directly supports the passage. Using an archive oughtn’t be a problem since the database, currently at "revision #4", has not been updated since 25 April 2012 (see here).
So this article is "fixed", but as Lyndaship has pointed out, that potentially leaves 3896 usages of the same database (thank you for sharing your method for finding them!). I don’t have an easy solution for that … I’m just the editor that found the problem. I note that some usages are via {{Cite Arnold Hague Convoy Database}}, so it might not be as bad after all, and I have added the database into wikidata as Arnold Hague Convoy Database (Q131442649) so {{cite Q |Q131442649}} (see {{cite Q}}) or some derivative of that may also form the basis of a solution, or the website could be asked to provide a better and more reliable way to get at the data (my PHP is rusty but I did use it "in anger" for a few years in the naughties "making a crust"). But that is as far as I got, and unless I decide to take another crack at it after Christmas, is where I will leave it. Elrondil (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)