Talk:Bayern-class battleship

message: "That the basic design of the Bayern class was carried over into the Bismarck class twenty years later is just a legend. The only similarity between the Bayern and Bismarck class is the arrangement of the main artillery in 4 turrets with 2 barrels."
There is another opinion about the similarity of those ships: http://www.avalanchepress.com/Baden.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.153.102 (talk • contribs) 
:This comment relates to a 2007 version which contained the quote.  The quote was uncited and has since been removed.  Other sources in addition to the avalanche press article also trace the Bismarcks' design to Baden.  Kablammo (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Baden to Bismarck?

message: Why is it SMS Baden (1915) if it was launched in 1916 and completed in 1917? Likewise SMS Württemberg (1915) is a redlink, but SMS Württemberg (1918) redirects to the ship class article. There might be other oddities, but these are the ones that struck me.  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Baden was launched on 30 October 1915. As for Württemberg, the ship was launched in 1917; if you look where the article used to be, you'll see the 1918 dab was a mistake from the original creator in 2006 that was subsequently fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had put 1916 as the year of launch for Baden in the lead of its article.  Now rectified. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wager it was a typo on my part :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: If SMS Württemberg (1918) is a mistake, then  should be updated and SMS Württemberg (1918) sent to .  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship years 

message: Needs a more balanced approach; the article seems to suggest that a high MH is an unreserved advantage, when it is one of many design compromises. Highly stable designs, though resistant to list, are more affected by wave action and consequently tend relatively poorer gun platforms & seaboats, described as "unsteady." Which quality (steady vs stable) a nation chooses prioritise tends to represent it's expectations of the ships service life & the nature of likely combat. 
Obviously ship design does not exist in such mutatis mutandis terms, plain "better" design occurs, achieving high stability while still producing good gunnery ships.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely reported what the sources say; Gröner, for example, says "very good, stable sea-boats." I don't have Lyon in front of me, but what I wrote is a fair representation of what he said. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on metacentric height  

message: Bayern class used 38 cm L/45 guns. The link   SK L/45 (4 × 2) refers to the railway gun, which was developed from the naval gun. There seems to be no article on the naval version. The railway version is two hops from Bayern class ships (Bayern -> 38 cm naval gun -> 38 cm raiway gun). Should there be a short article on on naval gun, which would be linked to its railway modification?
:The guns themselves are identical, the only real difference is the mounting. The article in question should really be moved to 38 cm SK L/45 gun and cover both the naval and land usage - there's no real reason to have two separate articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  38 cm L/45 gun 

message: Turret roofs were 120 mm, not 200 mm thick (G. Staff, German Battleships 1914-18(2): Kaiser, König and Bayern classes, 2009 Osprey Publishing p. 41).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.137.14 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Gröner gives 200mm; though Gary Staff produces good books, he is still an amateur historian. I'll take the word of Gröner, who was working from original documents, over Staff's. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error in article 

message: Please verify the initial coal bunker design capacity of just 900 tonnes - seems way to small. Or is it a typo and should read 2900 tonnes ? --Denniss (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gröner does indeed say 900t of coal as designed, with up to 3400t - that's in line with preceding classes, so it's unlikely to be a typo. I also checked Dodson's The Kaiser's Battlefleet and he has the same figures. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd figures for such a large warship, 900t sounds more like a costal ship than an ocean-going one. --Denniss (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Coal capacity

message: What were the reasons to use two different types of fuel for the main propulsion? It would seem to needlessly complicate logistics, and wasn't the writing on the wall already seen for coal firing by the time these ships were built?--Cancun771 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of coal vs limited oil sources ? --Denniss (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - oil is better than coal in just about every regard, but Germany had very limited access to oil and ample (albeit relatively low quality) coal reserves. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: "Machinery" says that they had 11 coal-fired and 3 oil-fired boilers each. I think the Royal Navy ran on Mexican oil. The Middle EAst wasn't so big in oil; e.g. Kuwait hadn't even discovered it! Hugo999 (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the combined oil/coal firing? 

message: The article refers to "the naval force that drove the Imperial Russian Navy from the Gulf of Riga during Operation Albion in October 1917". Russian Republic says that that entity was proclaimed on 1 September 1917. Should the article refer to "the Navy of the Russian Republic"? Alekksandr (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Russian Navy?

message: The dates for the ships in the article intro don't match the dates in the "Construction" section. I don't know which is correct. Dans530 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship dates