Talk:Operation Rheinübung

message: I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to revise the scope of this article and also rescope and rename the Bismarck Chase article. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become 
an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate  template, and scoped as follows:
*A description of the planning and objectives of the operation, 
*A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
*An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
*A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.
I am placing a similar post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rescope this article and rename [[Bismarck Chase]]?

message: Readers of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck will be aware that there is a proposal to merge that article with with this one. I have placed my own comment below. Regards to all, John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against: This is a revival of a proposal that I made (above) when the Last battle ... was still the Bismarck Chase. However, the renaming and rescoping of the old Bismarck Chase has removed the rationale for a merge (see the  Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase? section above). John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto: Op Rheinubung has a lot of material to cover and bring sections out into their own articles for the detail work makes the most sense.GraemeLeggett 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Against merging is appropriate; one is a specific battle, and is a legitimate daughter page.  I'm boldly closing this merger as no-consensus, since there's been no movement in more than a month.  Feel free to revert me.  --Haemo 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge them and rename Operation Rheinubung and the Sinking of the Bismarck.  One directly lead to the other and Rheinubung doesn't resonate at all with an english speaking readership.--Lepeu1999 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[Last battle of the battleship Bismarck]] and "Operation Rheinubung"?

message: :Against: This is a revival of a proposal that I made (above) when the Last battle ... was still the Bismarck Chase. However, the renaming and rescoping of the old Bismarck Chase has removed the rationale for a merge (see the  Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase? section above). John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto: Op Rheinubung has a lot of material to cover and bring sections out into their own articles for the detail work makes the most sense.GraemeLeggett 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Against merging is appropriate; one is a specific battle, and is a legitimate daughter page.  I'm boldly closing this merger as no-consensus, since there's been no movement in more than a month.  Feel free to revert me.  --Haemo 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: As a lay person researching Bismarck topics it was confusing and rather irritating to read almost identical text in the "Last Battle Of..." page. The merge seems almost complete as things stand as no substantial additional info is provided on the seperate page that could not be incorporated here. Spoiltcat 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge them and rename Operation Rheinubung and the Sinking of the Bismarck.  One directly lead to the other and Rheinubung doesn't resonate at all with an english speaking readership.--Lepeu1999 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: I've added some detail about the operation itself; it shouldn't just be about Bismarck, or it overlaps too much with all the other pages on the subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: A source was requested for this:
"On the other hand, the Atlantic U-boat campaign was disrupted; boats in the Atlantic sank just 2 ships in the last weeks of May, compared to 20 at the beginning of the month."(fact|date=July 2009)
(specifically, is the decreased number of sinkings directly related to Bismarck et. al. or just a coincidence? If not, this line needs to go, because it implies a direct relation.) 
This is from Blair; I’ve put it in the article. And yes, that’s pretty much exactly what he suggests;
“The Bismarck affair brought the U boat war against shipping in the North Atlantic to a standstill in the last ten days of May. The twenty boats in that area sank only two ships ….”
He then lists them  (2 freighters sunk by U-557 and U-147) and lists the totals for the rest of the month:
347 ships sailed eastbound , 13 sunk (9 from HX126 and 4 stragglers
no numbers for westbound (Hague gives 439 ships at sea in May),16 sunk (7 from OB 318 and 6 others)  plus 1 in home waters, and 2 sunk by Italian boats further south (total 29: my figure of 20 was wrong, I’ve corrected it); a total for May of 31.    
So yes, there is a direct relationship; taking U-boats off commerce raiding to set up submarine traps around Bismarck led to a drop in sinkings (which is logical enough) while failing to achieve anything in a fleet action role (which is also not surprising; there were hardly any occasions in either world war were submarines were used successfully in a fleet role). Xyl 54 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing that (I was the editor who requested the clarification/citation). I hadn't heard before that the U-boats had been ordered to aid Bismarck, other than the one sub that was sent to pick up her war diary. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion: sources 

message: There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion at . Wdford (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplication 

message: Die Landkarte( The Map ): "Map of Operation "Rheinübung" and Royal Navy operations against the battleship Bismarck"
wrong border ( the map is not history boarder from 1939 - the border from the map is 1990-2000-2010 )
Ist voller Fehler, allein der Grenzverlauf ist von heutigen zeit aber nicht mit echten Historischen Grenzverlauf von 1941 versehen bzw identisch.
Oder Liegt Etwa San-Francisco und Los-Angeles in Mexiko ? Und Alaska zur Russland ?
Map = Germany = 1937 = Real History correctness vs political correctness Map
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_in_den_Grenzen_vom_31._Dezember_1937
Japanese Map from Europa 1939
https://www.mapmania.org/map/65579/japanese_map_of_europe_from_1939
In the Map Danzig a Poland Protektorat, in Real History 1939 a Free City/Staate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig
Free City Passport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig#/media/File:Danzig_passport.jpg
Luxembourg = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1939 = 290.000 Population )
Danzig = Free Staate = 1939 (  1938 = 388.195 Population )
Sory from my english ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denglisch ) :-) - i am a German from Berlin :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C1A0:4889:4700:870:95E8:55BE:DDEB (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but it's not that big of a deal. It was a naval battle and I would argue that it might actually be even better to not show any land borders at all, since the 1941 borders are open to interpretation and would also draw unnecessary attention to the wrong part of the map. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fehlerhafte Landkarte , wrong map - ( Fantasy Wikipedia Map vs Real History 1941 Map )