# Talk:German cruiser Blücher

I came to think of the following: it is (historically) important that we use the original measurement units when specifying gun calibers and other measurements of the ship and its technical systems (e.g. using inches and feet where that is appropriate, but be very mindful of continental Europe's preference for metric units when specifying some calibers and most other measurements (giving the equivalent corresponding measurements in parentheses is OK in most places, of course). I'll look into this in more detail if no one else beats me to it. :-) --Wernher 17:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for giving the info in metric where it's avilable - after all, it was a german ship, and germans used/use the metric system. WegianWarrior 14:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The units are ok, but the information isn't. Regarding length the main text differs from the infobox. Main text: 202.8 meters at launch, and modified to 205.9 meters during sea tests. Infobox states that length is 203.2 m. Apparently 202.8 meter was the length at lauch of Admiral Hipper and Blücher was 203.2. Both ships were modified during sea tests and Blücher was 205.9 when it entered service. I belive this should be the value listed in the infobox. It was a permanent modifications of the ship. Check the numbers with the Admilar Hippe Class article, and preferably reference sources. There are conflicting numbers, and Wikipedia shouldn't contrubute to confusion. Hstyri (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My primary source, Binder & Schlünz, contains detailed info on the ship's life from its launch till its final minutes. I'll try to include some of this in the op. hist. section, but will be happy for help by anyone having good sources and 'feeling the urge'. --Wernher 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wish I had a good source... I'm sure I have a pamplet from Oscarsborg around somewhere relating the events from the 9th April in detail, but can't seem to find it thought. It ticks me off, since it had lots of details about not just the early history of the ship (and the fortress), but also on what has happened to the ship after it went down. WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have, or be able to get access to, some decent pictures to include? I sort of imagined three pics.. a picture of the ship in all her splendour, a map of the area just around Oscarsborg showing where she was first hit, where she was torpedoes and where she sank, and (if possible) pictures from the sunken ship.WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blücher did not carry any 40 mm AA (Source: Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz: Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe Vol. 2; Whitley: Kreuzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg). I guess german ships received them much later in the war. Also, Whitley lists only 8 single 20 mm and no mines for Blücher (the latter only for Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen).  I do not want to mess up the box, furthermore I am not a registered english user (only german), so could somebody please correct? --172.177.34.147 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes made, using Whitley's Cruisers of WWII (1995 edition). Collin's Warships of WWII records the class as having capacity for 160 mines. Also extended the ship box and deleted some duplicated info. Folks at 137 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article refere to the first shot at 05.21 and the sinking at 07.22. This is German (summer)time or GMT.  Norwegian time is 04.21 and 06.22. What time reference should be used? KjellG 08:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article state this to be at the base of one of the 20,3 cm turrets. How come that Stückmeister im Türme A und B both abandoned their turrets in full combat order? The first (some say the second) 28 cm hit was in the battle mast above the bridge, doing little damage besides killing AO II and some of his staff. The top of the mast, with battle station for AO I, got out of alignment rendering the top long distance, range finder useless, but Blücher had 4 other large range finders and a number of smaller ones. The 20.3 cm batteries was all i full combat order until after the second torpedo hit and the turret crew ordered to take part in fire fighting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.65.18 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:German cruiser Blücher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Starstriker7(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got this review. --Starstriker7(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


### Criterion 1
In Note 1, a period should go at the end of the second sentence.
In the Construction section, why was the ship "to have" the other guns? Was her anti-aircraft battery not installed before she sank? If so (or if not), the this reason should be clarified in this section.
I remember being told in previous GA reviews that wikilinks do not need to be repeated. If this is true, then you can/should de-wikilink Oslo, Oslofjord, Oscarsborg Fortress, and Oskar Kummetz.
Should all be fixed - I wrote this one after doing German cruiser Seydlitz and German cruiser Lützow (1939), both of which were unfinished - must have had that still on my mind :) As for links, I like to link in the lead and the first time in the body, which I think is fine per WP:REPEATLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright! Thank you also for clarifying that section of MOS for me. I'll keep it in mind. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


### Criterion 2
As always, this is all set, from what I can see. The article is well-referenced, and inline citations/a separate ref section is used. Because the sources are offline and inaccessible to me, I will accept 2c (NOR) in good faith.


### Criterion 3
Article is both broad and well-focused.


### Criterion 4
The article is written in a neutral tone. There are no sides to whom you can really give due weight.


### Criterion 5
All quiet in the edit history.


### Criterion 6
Can "Recognition drawing" (second picture) be wikilinked?
In the third image's caption, replace "Norway, from" with "Norway as seen from"
In the last image caption, Oscarsborg is misspelled.
Thanks for catching those. As for "recognition drawing", I seem to think someone asked the same question at a recent FAC (maybe one of Ed's?) and the conclusion was that there isn't an article that would make a good link for the term. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


### Overall comments
This was a pretty fun read. I've seldom imagine World War II like this, and it feels like someone could make the story of the Blücher into some sort of movie. :P
In any case, Parsecboy, I hope your transition to World War II-era ships continues to go smoothly. This is pretty much already a good article, and I'll pass it as such once the remaining comments are addressed. --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Starstriker7. And as for editing articles on WWII-era ships, I've been all over the board over the last couple of years, the ironclads were sort of a diversion for me :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How do you remain so dedicated to writing all these ship articles? I feel burned out after writing only about fifty planet articles.
If you're gonna answer that, do it on my talk page, because this article's all set to pass. I will do so in a moment. As always, good work. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The following is completely anecdotal, but I'm wondering if some corroboration can be had anywhere. My grandfather served on the Blücher and related that most of the soldiers on board were mountaineers. He believed that many of them hadn't ever seen the ocean, and that few could even swim. When the ship went down, a great many of them apparently abandoned ship with their life vests, but also with all their gear and tackle. Most went under and never came back up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.245.176 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC) 

I believe the old guns that got the first hits on Blucher were called Joshua and Moses (Aaron was not manned). Moses was dropped in the ocean when being installed, hence the name. And Aaron was named after the name-sakes brother. ref http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/bluecher/miscellaneous/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today.html
JP Axelsson
jpaxelsson@yahoo.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCED:C7B0:21CB:3EF3:B702:8A7D (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 

An interesting detail, but I don't know that it's particularly relevant for this article, which should focus on the ship. It would probably be more relevant at the Oscarsborg Fortress article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The name bit is supported by reliable sources. I'll add it to the Oscarsborg article when I have time. One thing, though, the guns were of course not called Moses, Aaron and Joshua. Being nicknamed by Norwegians, not English-speakers, they were called Moses, Aron and Josva. As far as I recall, it is not entirely clear which two of the three guns were fired on 9 April 1940, will check with reliable book sources. Manxruler (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blucher (1939 German criser). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Blucher (1939 German criser) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~ GB fan 09:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Must have stung - basically just out of port and a total loss w/o scoring against any enemy. 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The section on the battle with Oscarsborg Fortress makes the following claims:

The German flotilla steamed on at a speed of 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph). ... The explosion also probably punched a hole in the armored deck over turbine room 1. Turbine 1 and generator room 3 stopped for lack of steam and only the outboard shafts from turbine room 2/3 were operational.
The Germans were unable to locate the source of the gunfire. Blücher increased speed to 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) in an attempt to get past the Norwegian guns.
That Blücher tried to increase speed while under attack sounds reasonable. What's highly doubtful is that she managed to get anywhere near 32 knots, which is listed as her maximum speed. Even with a perfectly intact powerplant, a ship powered by steam turbines is not a car; it takes a long time for its powerplant to work up from cruising to maximum power and for it to accelerate to maximum speed. And this one has just lost all power from one of its three turbines and propeller shafts! Furthermore, in the narrow confines of that part of the fjord, 32 knots would be a very dangerous speed for a ship of that size. That acceleration claim needs to be checked more carefully. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've found another source which claims that after Blücher was hit, she tried to accelerate with full power, but only managed to reach 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) momentarily before losing speed again from steering difficulties in the narrow channel:
Haarr, Geirr H.; Melien, Tor (2023). The Sinking of the Blücher: The Battle of Drøbak Narrows: April 1940 (1st ed.). New York: Greenhill Books. p. 233. ISBN 9781784388768. Retrieved 14 July 2025. Woldag was one of the first to recover from the blast of the shell passing close over the port bridge-wing and exploding 10 metres away. He immediately shouted 'Feuererlaubnis' — 'Permission to fire' — and rang for full speed ahead. ... Emergency procedures were initiated, but these took time, though the speed of the cruiser increased slowly up to 12 knots. ... As the rudder at that moment was trained to port due to a brief course change to passing Småskjær, Woldag had to order 'full astern' on the starboard screw via voice-pipe to avoid the ship running aground on Nordre Kaholmen. Emergency steering from the tiller-flat aft, on orders given by voice-pipe from the bridge, eventually restored some degree of control, but due to the time-lag between steering orders being given and executed, Blücher started to yaw, and speed dropped from the 12 knots briefly gained.
This implies she was moving considerably more slowly than 12 knots before then, which is reasonable, though I couldn't find a precise figure. It seems the group varied its speed as they went through the channel. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
In light of the source listed above, I've edited the article to remove the dubious claim of reaching 32 knots, instead mentioning that Blücher only got to 12 knots before the turn made her lose speed, and citing the above source, with quote. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the leg work on this - the article is pretty old (I wrote it back in 2011) and needs to be updated with newer and better sources. Williamson is somewhat questionable in general (I've seen him referred to as something of a Wehraboo in other places), so I'd like to cull him from all of the German ship articles of the era, but I haven't gotten around to it (obviously).
As you may have already seen, I removed the quote, since that's generally excessive to include in my opinion. If you want to add in any other details from Haarr & Melien, feel free to update the article. I probably ought to track down a copy of the book, but I've got other priorities in the immediate future. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, in hindsight I quoted way too much for direct use in the article. Thanks for trimming that, and for backing me up! :) Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)