# Talk:German cruiser Prinz Eugen

I question the assertion that by 1943 Hitler had relegated all Kriegsmarine heavy units to training duties, and propose that it be edited. Certainly their profile and standing had diminished, but they acted as a fleet-in-being and tied down British units. And what about the Battle of North Cape in December 1943 in which Scharnhorst was sunk? That was as a result of an aggressive effort to attack merchant shipping Patrick.

I am a big fan of Wikipedia's neutrality policy but sometimes it appears a bit ridiculous that no "judgement" comments can be made at all.
Let's look at the facts from 24 May 1941: a cruiser scored at least four hits on two capital ships. Some argue that one of these may have contributed to the loss of that ship (HMS Hood). In what circumstances can it be denied that the cruiser performed very well against much superior adversaries.
What are warships for, if not to inflict damage or sink enemy ships? Therefore if a comparatively lightly armed and armoured ship hits a bigger ship several times and avoids damage, what does that say about its performance? It says that it was high-quality or, in this case, "magnificent" bigpad 08:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

What was so superb in the performance? Two ships on each side firing at the other side, the RN first fired at Prinz Eugen (because of the misidentification but) soon switched to Bismarck so Eugen was not in that great danger to be hit. Is it really a superb performance to score some hits on the enemy warships with a minor change the Eugen was responsible for the loss of Hood? What performance attribute should the Bismarck get? --Denniss 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I assume you meant to say "with a minor change of aim"? Even if the change looks relatively 'minor', this was PE's first major action and nothing is easy in the rolling North Atlantic. Surely you aren't saying that a cruiser hitting *two much larger capital ships was nothing to write home about? PE's actions that day undoubtedly aided the Bismarck and enabled her to sink Hood and damage Prince of Wales (I don't see any dispute about what ship sank Hood). For the record, I rate Bismarck's performance as awesome and it could have been ever better if she had continued to batter Prince of Wales, uneven as the struggle was at its later stages. By way of comparison, it's not unknown for smaller ships to hit larger vessels (e.g. the British cruisers v Scharnhorst/Graf Spee, but Graf Spee was not a battleship and those were combined actions). Ok Denniss, let's have your rating for PE that day. Can we agree to say that the ship fought above its weight or is that unacceptable to you too? Regards, Patrick.

Prinz Eugen is the only titular ship of Austria, and use Austria flag. Could someone write this section? Matt86hk talk 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Austrian flag was flown on Prinz Eugen on Skageraktag, when the rest of the KM flew the Imperial war flag.  
Why does this entry have no external links section?  I don't know how to add one, but there are some great web references, in particular www.prinzeugen.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.30.123 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:German cruiser Prinz Eugen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: User:Canpark
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The article is very well written, and is clearly compliant of MoS guidelines.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
References are used appropriately throughout the article, and the notes are particularly useful.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
The ship's specifications, service history pre-1945 and post 1945 are well covered.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This is an excellent article about a battleship, which is well referenced and enjoyable to read. I am happy to pass this article.Canpark (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to 22 March, the third sentence under “Subsequent operations” stated:

"Two days later, while steaming off the Trondheimsfjord, the British submarine Trident torpedoed Prinz Eugen".(ref Schmalenbach, Paul (1971). "KM Prinz Eugen". Warship Profile 6. Windsor, England: Profile Publications. pp. 121–144.)
On 22 March, a newcomer to Wikipedia, User:SelectSplat noticed a problem with the syntax of this sentence.  It was the Prinz Eugen that was steaming, not the submarine.  (The Trident was powered by a diesel-electric arrangement, not by steam.)  SelectSplat edited the sentence to state:

"Two days later, while steaming off the Trondheimsfjord, Prinz Eugen was torpedoed by the British submarine Trident."  See the diff.
On 23 March, User:Parsecboy reverted the sentence to its original syntax, summarising his edit as “passive voice is not so good:)”  See the diff.
I agree with SelectSplat that the present sentence implies the submarine was steaming.  The first sentence in the paragraph establishes very clearly that steaming is what the Prinz Eugen, Admiral Scheer and five destroyers were doing.  The present sentence structure is unworthy of an encyclopedia, and especially unworthy of a Good Article on Wikipedia.  I can see a number of ways to improve it:
SelectSplat’s syntax:

Two days later, while steaming off the Trondheimsfjord, Prinz Eugen was torpedoed by the British submarine Trident.
Another option:

Two days later, while steaming off the Trondheimsfjord, the British submarine Trident torpedoed Prinz Eugen.  (Nothing is achieved by reminding the reader that the Prinz Eugen steamed.  That has already been stated.)
A third option:

Two days later, while submerged off the Trondheimsfjord, the British submarine Trident torpedoed Prinz Eugen.
Dolphin (t) 06:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. What he said. SelectSplat (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Except of course it's possible the submarine wasn't submerged when it fired the torpedo. However, I've seen all the old WW2 movies, and the submarine was always submerged with the captain (plyed by Randolph Scott, Fred MacMurray or similar) looking through the periscope and giving the order to fire torpedo number 1 or whatever. Another possibility is that it actually WAS the submarine that was steaming. Perhaps that particular submarine had specially engineered funnels on top which prevented the water flooding into the inside bits when the captain yelled "Dive! Dive!". We just don't know. SelectSplat (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Steaming" is a generic term that means the vessel is underway, not necessarily operating a steam engine (FWIW, there were some steam-powered submarines, for example, HMS Swordfish). If you would prefer, we could change it to "while patrolling off..." Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think while patrolling off is an excellent compromise. Dolphin (t) 11:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed steaming to patrolling. Dolphin (t) 07:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that it survived WWII, would it not be serving either for the Bundesmarine or whichever country it got sold to? --83.108.30.71 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bundesmarine didn't exist until 1956; Prinz Eugen was seized by the US at the end of the war but was not placed in service. It would be misleading to add a US flag to the infobox, since that implies seeing active service. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A few months ago I posted a photo of the wreck of the Prinz Eugen, taken in the late 80s or early 90s.  The photo was deleted over permissions issues.  I was given the photos to scan by the original photographer, a movie industry model maker, with the explicit intention of having them posted on wikipedia.  My question for the group is if these photos would have some value to the article.  Obtaining the required written permissions would require some travel on my part, so before I do so, I want to know that photos of the wreck add something.  Please post your thoughts below, and I'll check back in a bit. Squeakapeep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.86.50 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 

I had to delete the file commons:File:The_wreck_of_the_German_cruiser_Prinz_Eugen_in_the_mid-1980s.jpg because it lacked the permission that was claimed to be sent soon. A wreck image would be nice, showing the state of the wreck in the 1980s. The permission could also be sent per mail, see commons:Commons:Email_templates --Denniss (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to see some photos of the wreck added to the article, especially since it's become a diving location. We might add a gallery at the bottom with some pictures of the wreck, and one of the screw that was salvaged and returned to Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be going to see Bruce over thanksgiving, and will get hardcopy permissions then.  I understand why they were deleted - no hard feelings.  I just wanted to be sure that they would be used before I bugged him about it.  I will post again after thanksgiving. Squeakapeep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.48.250 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 
I would like to add some photos I took of the removal of the screw taken in 1978.  I am the photographer and will upload it to wiki.  Hopefully it will also put to rest the dispute between the folks who revert the removal date back to 1979 when in fact, it was 1978 (the prop arrived in Germany in 1979, but the removal was the year prior).  I do not have the dates wrong as I left the island in December of 1978. - choppes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.49.208 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 

The discussion about the activities of the PE near the end of the war makes reference to the Lützow, and it's sinking by Tallboy bomb.  It should distinguish between the renamed Deutschland and the partially completed heavy cruiser Lützow that was transferred to the Soviet Union and renamed by them.
99.122.152.229 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see that as necessary. The ex-Deutschland-now-Lützow is linked in the article, and the ex-Lützow-now-Tallinn is not mentioned in the article, so there shouldn't really be any confusion. And perhaps more importantly, the ex-Lützow is an obscure enough vessel that if the reader is aware of its existence, then they will assuredly know that the ship by that name in this context is the former Deutschland (as you did, for example). Conversely, if they aren't familiar enough with this topic they would know the difference between the two ships, they likely won't know that the original Lützow even existed, and thus still won't be confused. Parsecboy (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The book "Seek and strike" sonar antisubmarine warfare and the royal navy 1914-1954 by Willem Hackmann and published by the brithish science museum states in Pag. 293 "she sank in Kwajalein Harbour in some mysterious circumstances just before she was destined to be handed over to the russians" This is a quotation of the book "German Navy" pp 164 and 213-214 by Von der Porten.
So this suggest that the ship was actually a russian war prize, that was taken by US to be delivered to the russians...

And NOT an US prize.

Please indicate the reference that makes this ship is a US prize war, because the allied powers distribute formally between them the war prizes....  so it needs a writen reference that makes this ship a proper war prize.  Milton (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Hackmann is wrong. And you would have found this out if you had bothered to read the citations already supplied in the article for this. Specifically, this page from the US Navy, and even more specifically, the line "She became property of the U.S. Navy, and was classified IX–300". And the circumstances of her sinking are in no way mysterious, which calls into question Hackmann's scholarly credentials. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hummm At those time, the US clearly was not to deliver an innovative ship to the Soviet Union, so the US history is not exactly a non-biased reference, also the US  history don’t said when the allied assign the ship to US. (There is no reference in the history WHY this ship became US property... big prizes like this clearly call for an assignment from the Allied commanders)
And Hackmann, by his side, gives a reference, by quoting a German Book.
What is missing in Wikipedia is a page about the official assignment of war prize in WW2, I think that needs to exist a document about this.
So we have two conflicting references the US official version and the book "German Navy", quoted by Hackmann....Milton (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you (or Hackmann) think that Prinz Eugen was an innovative design, you (or he) are sadly mistaken. The design was more than ten years old and was rapidly outclassed by foreign designs.
And your alleged conspiracy theories ignore the fact that the Soviets already had a Hipper class cruiser. The only things on Prinz Eugen that weren't on Lützow (apart from a completed superstructure and armament) were the radar systems, and German naval radars weren't particularly advanced even by the end of the war. And in any case, the USN did let the Soviets take the cruiser Nürnberg and the carrier Graf Zeppelin, among other warships.
So no, we have one reputable reference and one from an author who apparently thinks sinking from being hit by a pair of nuclear weapons (one of which was a submerged burst, mind you) constitutes "mysterious" circumstances, and that the USN would try to prevent the USSR from acquiring technology it already had.  Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In addition, here are some sources that support the fact that the USN was awarded Prinz Eugen after the end of the war:
Daniel Lenihan's Submerged, which states "The Eugen, turned over to the United States by the British as a war prize..."
John Ward's Ships of World War II, which states that "She was allocated to the United States and was used as a target..."
Gordon Williamson's book, cited in this article, states that "In December 1945, she was handed over to the Americans and was actually commissioned into the US Navy..."
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, also cited in this article, goes a step further and states that "During the Potsdam Conference she was ceded to the United States..."
Paul Schmalenbach's article, which is also cited in this article, and which states that on 13 Dec. 1945 (i.e., long after the surrender instrument had been signed) that "The Prinz Eugen [was] allotted to the USA and taken to Wesermuende." Note that Schmalenbach is a respected naval historian, was a veteran of the Kriegsmarine, and he served aboard Prinz Eugen. And perhaps more importantly, he served as the ship historian. He is just about as authoritative as one can be for the activities of this ship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
OK you make a good point, specially  by including a reference to Potsdam agreement.
just a comment, the ship have a really important and innovative system his sonar, based on an array of sensors (60) in both sides that can be electronically "steered" by the operator, so, they can obtain the bearing of the target with a 1 degree precision, the range in the Prinz Eugen  was 27 km. the allied have nothing similar. They tracked the Hood over the horizon. (Seek And Strike book).
Milton (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the "General characteristics" box for this entry shows the as built configuration for Prinz Eugen. The issue I have, is that it shows the length for the ship with the straight bow, which as far as I'm aware of, it was not completed with, as it was changed out for a clipper bow during fitting out I believe. Would it be possible to change the note at the bottom of that box to as completed, so that the length with clipper bow could be used instead? I think this would be more correct, as anybody looking for the length of PE would likely not be looking for the length with straight bow. I should also note that other wiki articles for ships in the german navy which had straight bows changed out for clipper bows (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, & Gneisenau) have only the length with clipper bow shown in the "General characteristics" box. 184.146.153.242 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article use the US spelling for metres? Just asking before I change it. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I could just as easily ask why it should use British spellings (or Canadian, Australian, or any other variant of English) - it's a German ship, so it's up to the author (i.e., me). If anything, the ship has a stronger national tie to the US anyway, given that she was briefly commissioned as USS Prinz Eugen. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
We use the appropriate units of measurement where there is a strong national tie. Overwhelmingly German, in this instance, though I note the brief US service long after her active career had ceased. I don't think that trumps her Kriegsmarine service, do you? --Pete (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is your point? They speak German in Germany - perhaps you're looking for this article? Though I'd note that the Germans also spell it "meter" (so if anything, "metre" would be flat wrong from either perspective). If your argument is that since this is a European article, it should default to British spellings, that's simply not how WP:TIES works. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware that the Germans spelt in "Meter" - I thought you were puling my leg! Well, live and learn. I put it down to the sort of creeping Americanism that adds to confusion between measuring devices and measuring units. This does not arise in German, of course, but throughout the English-speaking world only the USA spells the unit as "meter". Thanks for your trouble. --Pete (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Contrammiraglio (Rear Admiral) de Angeles is a typo in Koop's book, the actual name was Carlo De Angelis, military attaché to Berlin, he's mentioned here. Previously he was the commanding officer of Eugenio di Savoia, the Italian cruiser named after the same historical figure. This piece of info is mentioned in this Italian forum, but I don't have more authoritative sources to offer right now.
--Hyper Shinchan (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says "Prinz Eugen scored a hit with a high-explosive 20.3 cm (8.0 in) shell, detonating Unrotated Projectile ammunition" but the link Unrotated projectile is to a British anti-aircraft rocket system. 80.29.155.223 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is your question? Parsecboy (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The second last paragraph in the 'Service with the United States Navy' section mentions the bell of Tegetthoff.
What relevance does that have to this article??
Sejtam (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Read further up: "In reference to her originally planned name, the ship's bell from the Austrian battleship Tegetthoff was presented on 22 November by the Italian Contrammiraglio (Rear Admiral) de Angeles." Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)