Talk:Battle of Drøbak Sound

message: The information on this page is from the article about the fortress of Oscarsborg. But the Oscarsborg article contains information that isn't relevant for the battle of Drøbak sound. This article is supposed to evolve in to a proper Battle article. The Battle of Drøbak is one of the single most important events in Norwegian WWII history. Please let the article live. Inge 19:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition this article does not meet the criteria. 
§4 A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. The original article has not been deleted and does not meet the deletion policy.Inge 19:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Three Arado Ar-196 seaplanes were lost on the Blücher. Should this be mentioned, or left out? I vote mention, due to the fact that these were potent aircraft and this battle being one of the early losses of such machines. Manxruler 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why leave it out if it happened? The air power situation in Norway in these early days/months were peanuts compared to later years and events of the war. The Norwegian Air Force was almost non-existant , but the Germans too had few such resources in place at the time. So allthough three such planes would perhaps be trivial to mention in later events I feel a mention is merited here. Inge 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, then we're agreed on that mather. I felt that being that they were onboard Blücher and were lost with her, they should be mentioned. I just got some trouble with User:Kurt Leyman continously deleting any mention of said three aircraft, calling it "silly" to include them in the article. I'll put them back in now. Manxruler 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems it is impossible to retain any mention of the Arado Ar 196s. User:Kurt Leyman is evidently intent to start a edit war and remove them everytime I put them in there, using somewhat inaccurate arguments to justify his actions. What to do? --Manxruler 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. You're just doing everything that signifies an edit war, but you're "not trying to start one". That's right, you don't have anything to say to this, you're happy just reverting in eternity. Come on, actually explain your actions properly. That's the least to be expected of anyone. --Manxruler 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They were lost with the Blücher, thus they belong on the loss list. The end. Manxruler 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the aircrafts' connection to the Kriegsmarine have to do with anything? or what role they had? There were there, they were destroyed, the were lost. They were lost, therefore they belong on the loss list.Manxruler 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And if you absolutely need a "operational" role for the Ar 196s in Operation Weserübung then here's one: They were used for recon, as is shown by the example of the Ar 196 that was interred in west Norway 8 April 1940, having gotten lost while reconning for the invasion force. Manxruler 13:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The remains of one Arado Ar-196 was taken up in the evening of 9. November 1994 and are now the only Arado Ar-196 that can bee seen. The sparse remains was donated to the Air museum at Sola, Stavanger. KjellG (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great fact. Can you dig up some ref for that so we can somehow add it to the article? Manxruler (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will. Currently reading Binder/Schlüntz: Schwerer kreutzer Blücher. Seems that B only had to Arados, "one in the hangar and one on the catapult". Hipper-class could bring 3 but had hangar only for 2. 
The one salvaged is probably the one on the catapult. In a very poor shape. KjellG (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I see. Good work. I think it's amazing that there was anything left of the Ar-196 at all, considering the destruction wreaked on Blücher and the time it spent in the Oslofjord. Manxruler (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ar-196s lost on the Blücher

message: The article state that a 10,5cm magasine exploded. Is there a reference to this statement? To me it seems unlikely. Normal position for munnition stores are near the ship's bilge, well below the armoured deck. Stores normaly also could be set under water in case of emergency. Only a limited amount of ammo is taken up to the battery. Should it explode, then it is will be above the waterline (armoured deck). Imo it is unlikely that a slow fire would reach these stores. So, is there any reference? KjellG 08:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you are: Hauge 1995: 38 See the article for the title of Hauges book. Manxruler 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you for the references. Even so, I find it hard to belive that within a timeframe of 4 minutes (0421-Moses to 0425-Torpedo) on average Blücher receives one hit every 6th second, are shooting back with her 10.5cm, and a crew in their first battle, start singing? The intruders was reported from Filtvet at 0338 and I have read somewhere that they reported german spoken onboard. I will try to find a reference and consider if its seems reliable. KjellG 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the intruders were reported by the guard boats Alpha and Furu at Filtvet at 03.38, and again at 03.40. The exact wording (translated from Norwegian) is: 03.38:"A major vessels with lit lanterns. After being lit up by the guard boat, both ships turned off all their lights." 03.40: "Warship passes the station with all lights off." (Ribsskog 1998: 48). There are no references at all in the official report as to anyone hearing German voices, and I should think it be highly unlikely for the crews of two guard boats hearing what was being said on board warships passing their station. Manxruler 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree that this may be a myth, but you state that it is unlikely to hear voices, in this case from a "friedly ship" at close distance, but it is possible to hear singing from a ship during a battle with all hands under deck or in their turrets with closed hatches? To me this sounds like a myth even though it is referenced. KjellG 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll probably won't find anything more reliable than the official communications journal of Oscarsborg that I just quoted. That whole "hearing German voices" sounds suspiciously like one of those myths that's so common online. Perhaps there's some one who claims to have heard something, but oral sources are notoriously unreliable. Manxruler 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a distinct difference between being able to identify the language of people talking at a distance and hundreds of people singing in unison. Manxruler 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: After looking into the available sources I have come to the conclusion that you may be correct in assuming that the sinking of Blücher might not have been caused by an explosion in the 10,5 cm ammunition hold. Ribsskog makes the point that Blücher catastrophic damage to the midship section of the cruiser caused by the combination of the first 28 cm hit, the second torpedo hit and the out-of-control fires raging on board. I'll go to the library tomorrow and see if they have # Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Klar til strid - Kystartilleriet gjennom århundrene", Kystartilleriets Offisersforening, Oslo 1999  (Norwegian). If so that book might provide some more answers. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Manxruler 03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the hits beside the two 28cm, must have come form the Drøbak side. On the photo of Blücher capsising to port, there are no sign of any hudge gap in the starboard side over the waterline. Under tehe waterline is difficult to say. On which side is this gap reported? Imo the first hit from Moses was a near miss, pointing too high. It did kill one officer - Pochammer - but did next to no other damage, but for possibly the radio aerials - the last message from the flaggship was with an Alddis lamp over the stern. It is often said that the first hit cripled the artillery controll, but does the battle mast contain much more than a crows nest for the artillery? KjellG 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Both the Main Battery and the torpedo battery are located to Blücher's port side (Grimnes: p. 12), so that makes perfect sense. Where do you have your information on the damage of the first 28 cm hit from? Manxruler 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, one important thing: I did not have the time to go find Fjeld's book today, but I did dig up a English book on the German WWII heavy cruisers; German Heavy Cruisers 1939-45 by Gordon Williamson. He has used three English and one German book as bibliography so I think he's very reliable as a source. He states (on p. 33) that the main cause of Blücher's demise was that "one of her 10.5 cm flak ammunition magazines suddenly exploded, with the blast rupturing the bulkheads between her boiler rooms and tearing open fuel bunkers". This also explains why she sank so fast. Manxruler 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ammunition hold for the 10.5-cm guns 

message: Does the text reflect the layout and function of the torpedo battery? There are no "tubes" in this battery. At Oscarsborg the torpedos lies in a "bed" in an open frame of angle iron. The frames are lowered into one of three underwater exit tunnels. 
The exit tunnels are separated by about 19 degrees. At 500m, 10kt and a length og 205m, Blücher would be within one launcher for about 40 seconds, or she would be within the arc of fire (38 degrees) for about 120s. The launchers could also be individually trained +/- 12.5 degrees, so the maximum fireing arc would 12.5 + 19 + 19 + 12.5 degrees. I do not know if this +/- 12.5 training was in use at April 9th.
Is "torpedo laucher" the best wording? To me a "torpedo laucher" is a trainable "torpedo gun" e.g. mounted on the deck of a battleship or the fixed tubes on an MTB. KjellG 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A torpedo launcher is exactly that, a launcher of torpedoes. Oscarsborg needs something to send the torpedoes off with anyhow we see it. I agree with the removal of the "tubes", that word was incorrect, but I don't think we'll find anything better than "launcher" in this instance. Manxruler 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article indicates that the torpedoes comes form two different launchers. Do we know that? They could as well have come from the same launcher - each capable of two torpedos. By using two launchers, only one launcher/two torpedos would stay ready for the next ship to come or reloading would take longer. KjellG 22:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for claiming that the Oscarsborg has double launchers? Manxruler 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo of the launchers today - and the launchers are beleived to be the originals. One can clearly see the bed for two torpedos, the waterfilled "bathtub" into which the elevators/launchers are lowered and a scale indicating +/-12.5 degrees training pr launcher. KjellG 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember: the torpedo battery was very much upgraded during the 1980s, what is there today isn't necessarily what was there 9.4.40. We need a detailed list and map of the fortress in 1940. Could you perhaps help in finding such info? Manxruler 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "The torpedos had been practice launched 200 times.."? The very same, live, torpedos with warheads? When I was doing evaluation shooting in 1969 with a Swedish torpedo guidance system for Norwegian Navy, we never used live torpedos. The practice torpedo was a reworked version. The "bombe" was taken out and replaced with a compressed air recovery system and proper weights. The rest of the "fish" was like the live version. Nobody would launch a live torpedo in Drøbak in peacetime with a warhead. Did they indeed rebuild live torpedos for practice shooting or did they use a pratice torpedo 200 times, and no wonder if the never used torpedos would work?  KjellG 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. You're right, the torpedo battery could fire six torpedoes in quick succession without reloading. I just read the book on Norwegian fortresses "Norges bedste Værn og Feste" where the layout and armament of the torpedo battery is explained. I'll make the necessary adjustments, with refs, of course.2. The torpedoes were used for training by firing them at a depth low enough to allow it to pass underneath the target vessel, a very realistic form of training as the only difference with combat was the lack of an explosion. Manxruler 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody with their sences will shoot a live torpedo in Drøbak, besides in combat! I personally got an award feeling when the skipper ordered:"Close down ship!! Torpedo heading towards us!!" It was our own fish! Of course the torpedo was set go go under our keel,but... In this case it had turned 180 degrees! Our practice torpedos had no explosives, but a waterfilled "bomb bay" thas was flushed by compressed air at the end of the run. KjellG 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, you're right on that one. The torpedoes' warheads were replaced with training heads filled with water back in the pre-WWII days (Fjeld 1999: 160). Manxruler 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what on earth is a "torpedoramme" in English? The launch system at Oscarsborg is called a "ramme", but I'm very much unsure what English-speakers would call such a system. Directly translated "ramme" is of course "frame", but can that word be used in this context? Manxruler 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why I tried to use "elevator". It is a frame made og angle iron with two torpedos lying side by side. The frame is then lowered down into sea inside the battery hall. I suggest that it is called a "torpedo elevator". Rasjonale: It is different than a torpedo gun/launcher mounted on deck using compressed air to shoot the torpedos out into the sea. Neither is it a torpedo tube known from U-boats. The construcion of the battery seems to be unik, so is the naming: "Torpedo elevator". KjellG 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the torpedo system at Oscarsborg does use compressed air (trykkluft) to fire the torpedoes from the "frame". Manxruler 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And isn't a torpedo elevator the system that lowers the torpedoes down to the launch frame? Manxruler 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Launch sequence: The torpedo was put in a frame and lowered down to the launch tunnel. When the torpedo was to be fired it was started in the frame and sent off by its own power. The torpedo's engine ran on compressed air. (Fjeld 1999: 159) I think launch tunnel or torpedo tunnel might be the appropriate term here. Manxruler 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats right. when up in the battery hall the torpedos are pushed forward into an open frame, two torpedos, side by side. Behind the torpedo one closes a "door"/hatch (open frame again) and the elevator with the two are lowered into the sea/start of underwater tunnel. In the center of the "door"/hatch is a trigger mechanism that starts the compressed air engine in the torpedo. It then propells itself out via the exit tunnel. I have read somewhere that 9 torpedos where available and the order was: 2 in each of the first 3 ships, then 1 by 1 until all are out. The layout of the battery idicates that all three elevators/launchers where loaded with 2 torpedos and a third was stored ready at each elevator/frame/launcher (take your pick). This does not give any clew about fireing sequence. KjellG 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: True, true. I read the thing about the torpedoes being distributed on target ships like you say, but that was a website without citations and I never trust those. And you're right, we don't know the firing sequence, if the text suggests that I'll make the necessary changes. Manxruler 06:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imo the description of the torpedo battery should be moved to the article of Oscarsborg and the battle description in that article removed. I.e. The Oscarsbord article describes the history, layout etc, the Battle in Drøbak describes the battle at 9th of April.KjellG 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's definitively an option. The Oscarsborg Fortress article is VERY poor article as it is today. If we should do that, then we should leave a brief reference at Oscarsborg Fortress about the participation in this battle, with a Main article: Battle of Drøbak sound reference pointing this way. Oscarsborg Fortress has a long way to go before its in any way sufficient. I have some issues to take care of the next few weeks, but we could move most of the torpedo battery description now, and I'll work on the fortress article when I'm back again. I have all the necessary books, so its merely a question of spare time. Manxruler 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move has been successfully carried out. I'll improve the fortress article further when I have the time in some weeks time. Manxruler 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to now I have three sources (better than Stangeland & Valebrokk) indicating that in 1940 the torpedo battery had 3*45cm launchers, not 3*twin launchers as of today. The north launcher set at an extra 10degree left, center launcher set at 0 degrees and the south launcher set at an extra 10 degrees south = maximum spread, in 1940. Looking for more info regarding the conversion from 3*1 to 3*2. KjellG (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Which three sources? Manxruler (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of torpedo battery 

message: Shouldn't the title of this article be Battle of Drøbak Sound? Manxruler 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has opposed a move to "Battle of Drøbak Sound" (capital S in Sound), and after googling Drøbak Sound and finding that just about all websites other than Wikipedia use the capital S, I will now move the article to Battle of Drøbak Sound. Manxruler (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Check dictionary.com, specifically sound4 – and let's not forget The Sound.  Words have more than one meaning. :)  — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it's Sound, because that's the most commonly used name in English (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE). Please see further down this talk page. Manxruler (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And you, as an individual, is not a verifiable source. Manxruler (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sound or Sound?

message: This link indicates a Whitehead practice torpedo: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9906E4DE143FE633A25753C2A9639C946296D6CF&oref=slogin so: never trust a torpedo and never send a "live" one in the Drøbak sound unless in combat. KjellG 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. As we concluded earlier the practice torpedoes' warheads were replaced with training heads filled with water. Better safe than sorry. Neat story you found there. Manxruler 08:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whithead practice torpedo 

message: :The two Norwegian guns had been loaded with 255 kg brisant shells to inflict maximum damage ...
Question.  This implies that brisant wasn't the only choice for live ammunition, that there was an alternative choice that might have inflicted less damage, but presumably had some other advantages.  Is that what we mean to say?  Or was the only choice between live ammunition (to do damage) and blanks (warning shots)?  If the later, we probably want to reword this bit.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into to that and get back to the subject once I've had it clarified. Manxruler 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ben Aveling 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: After my first brief round of investigations it seems that, as was the case at least at Oslofjord Fortress further out in the Oslofjord,Norwegian article the orders for the fortresses doing neutrality guard duties were to first fire warning shots with "harmless" (I guess as in "without explosives") ammunition before firing live rounds directed at the intruding vessels. The main difference in the way Col. Eriksen handled the invasion as compared to many of is colleagues was of course that he fired to hit with the first round, without warning shots. I think that was the choice he had: Live (brisant) rounds or dud warning ammunition. Manxruler 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also here's an English language link that states that harmless warning ammo was used by forts further south in the Oslofjord. Manxruler 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What an amazing page.  So orders were that warning shots were to be fired - looking at what other forts did, some fired blanks, some fired across the bows - so technically Oslofjord was disobying orders by choosing to fire live ammunition at the invading ships.  As he said, courtmartials or medals were the only possible outcomes.  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is, Oscarsborg acted, in a way, against orders. Oslofjord, the first of the two fortresses the Germans had to pass, acted according to orders when they fired several warning shots before firing a few live rounds at the intruders. One has to remember that the neutrality guide lines were created at a time in history (about 20-30 years before 1940) when ships had far less speed than in 1940. When the orders for how to act were originally created there would have been plenty of time to hit the intruders before they passed through the zone of fire. In 1940 there was no time and Colonel Eriksen was the only officer in command of a Norwegian fortress to realize this and act according to reason rather than orders. You're of course completely right as to the "court martial or medals"-bit, had these ships not been invading Germans Eriksen would have found himself in a lot of trouble. He was however just about the only Norwegian officer who did what he thought was right despite his incredibly strict RoEs. Manxruler (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  As it was, even with the damage done to the ship, he only had time to fire one shot from each gun.  I wonder how much longer it would have taken to reload.  Given that they fired at a range of almost 2k I assume that the Blucher would have had to travel at least a similar distance to be out of the arc of fire?  So how long would that take?  Minutes to be sure, but I have no idea how many of them.   A map of this area would be good.   I wouldn't be too harsh on the other commanders though, Eriksen had the advantage of knowing that the other forts had been bypassed - in effect, they had fired warning shots on his behalf.  Cheers, Ben Aveling 03:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check the time it took Blücher to pass the fire zone of the fortress. I have the reports in a book somewhere in my library. What is important to remember is that with an almost wholly untrained gun crew at the Main Battery (many of the "gunners" not even artillerymen but various support staff, chefs and the like) it did take a lot of time to load, aim and fire the huge main guns. I know that the third 28 cm gun, often referred to as Josva (Joshua), the one that did not fire, was loaded at the time the two other guns fired, but according to the rapports the gun crews did not have the time to fire that third 28 cm round before Blücher had passed the line of fire of the Main Battery. Manxruler (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And, yes, of course, Eriksen was in the fortunate position that others had fired both warning shots and live rounds (that missed due to the lack of time to get rounds on target), but as he was known amongst his  colleagues as a very much trigger happy commander in exercises and such I suspect he might have fired regardless... Also, Eriksen's age played a role, he was part of the old generation that had been part of the military during the back First World War so had a different, more warlike, mental background than the younger officers commanding the other fortresses. We often say that during the late 20s and most of the 30s we had a policy of "broken rifles" in Norway, that is a tiny defence force that had as its main priority not to provoke an attack by posing anything that might resemble a threath to anyone. Eriksen was of the generation before that began and thus somewhat of an advantage. Manxruler (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he clearly didn't have time to decide what to load.  Live shells must already have been loaded.  I guess that 'aiming' meant picking an elevation and waiting for the Blucher to sail past the point you were aiming at.   It's an odd thought, that the ship might have been able to move faster than the gun could    track.  Ben Aveling 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, the guns were loaded well in advance, and aimed at a certain point of the fjord and fired once Blücher entered that location. With 50 year old guns there wasn't much to do but exactly what Eriksen did. He had to hit, and he did all he could to ensure that he did. Manxruler (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just to clarify: "Oslofjord" is the fortress at the beginning of the Oslofjord. When that English language page talks about "Rauøy" and "Bolærne" that's two of Oslofjord Fortress' forts. "Oscarsborg Fortress" is a separate, older fortress much closer to Oslo with its own batteries (no actual sub-forts like at Oslofjord, though). Manxruler (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added a map, its not very good at all, but its all I could find. It would have been nice to have a better one, but that's all we've got and I don't know how I would go about to create a better map myself. Manxruler (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better than nothing.  We could try Wikipedia:Requested pictures.  A better map would have a scale, maybe even some dotted lines and numbers showing the path of the Blucher and important waypoints.  Also, I suspect that the map is more or less current, meaning that Olso wouldn't have been as big as it is shown.  But even as is, it's still a useful addition, at least for those of us not familiar with the area.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea. And you're right of course, Oslo was much, much smaller in 1940. I got the map from Oscarsborg Fortress and there its only used to show where the fortress is in relation to modern day Oslo. There are some good maps in some of my books, but with copyrights and all that a new one will of course have to be made. Manxruler (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brisant vs ... what? 

message: :If the King and government had been captured, it is likely that Norway would have capitulated fairly soon in order to make a deal with the Germans, perhaps similar to that reached by the Danes. Instead ...
I think this just falls over the line into speculation?  Ben Aveling 06:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I've removed that part and now its much better. Manxruler (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] a crystal ball 

message: Why is "Håøya at Tønsberg" mentioned in an article about the Battle of Drøbak? This "Håøya" is not part of the Oscarsborg fortification while Håøya 200m Vest of South-Kaholmen is. Is it a mixup? KjellG (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Will look into the appropriate literature later today. Manxruler (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Håøya battery 

message: It's called "Drøbak Sund" in norwegian... I'm norwegian so I should know  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolknuth (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually... It isn't called "Drøbak Sund" in Norwegian. The correct name in Norwegian would be be Drøbaksundet. In one word, not two, that is. I didn't name the article, so I don't know if the geographical location should be translated or not. I've been thinking about "Drøbak Narrows" or something like that, as that would be closer to the Norwegian meaning of the name. But, as I said, "Drøbak Sund" would be wrong. Manxruler (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UE doesn't always apply strictly to geographic names, of course we don't translate Ås to "Hill", for instance. On the other hand we have the Norwegian Sea etc with established English names. English "translations" of geo-names should be used when we can cite established uses, but only then. No made-up names. Punkmorten (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Established English names are to be used, and a quick google seems to indicate that Drøbak Sound is indeed an established English name. It's even used by Nasjonale festningsverk . Manxruler (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Battle of Drøbak Sund" 

message: "In all, the fortress was subjected to close to nine hours of air attack, during which time around 500 bombs—ranging from 50–200 kg (110–440 lb) in size—were dropped on Oscarsborg."
The Luftwaffe had no 200 kg bombs, so this is patently false. The common bomb sizes at the time were 50 and 250 kg. 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombs 

message: The text say the 28cm guns where loaded with High explosive shells. I highly doubt that as firing on warships is normally done with some sort of armor piercing shell as high explosive shells wouldn't penetrate the armor.
:The text is cited. The cited source says (in Norwegian) that the shells were "brisantgranater", which according to my Norwegian-English Military Dictionary translates to "high-explosive shell". We go with what the sources say, not what we might or might not find likely. Manxruler (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely unlikely the 28cm guns fired High Explosive shells 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Drøbak Sound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221024222/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece?service=print to http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece?service=print
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321163034/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323063435/http://mil.no:80/culture-attractions/museums/oscarsborgfortress/Pages/default.aspx to http://mil.no/culture-attractions/museums/oscarsborgfortress/Pages/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321163034/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/verdenskrig/article449062.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Drøbak Sound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820061725/http://www.skovheim.org/located/akershus/sorland/sorland.htm to http://www.skovheim.org/located/akershus/sorland/sorland.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article had its infobox significantly summarized in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Dr%C3%B8bak_Sound&diff=963570466&oldid=958390207 (a whole 3 years ago). In particular, that edit made the strength part of the infobox somewhat weird (e.g. mention of "407" on the Norwegian side -- which presumably refers to people -- without any similar mention on the German side). It might be worthwhile to revive some of the information from the version before that edit.
80.49.145.38 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of sides &c. 

message: Minutiae of a single individual plane and pilot involved in a single bombardment do not warrant itemization, especially to only link to a single very borderline notable article. To me it seems clear the information is only presented to generate links to the article in question, and thus to make it seem as if the article has more notability than it actually possesses. If some sort of further importance that justifies the inclusion of this data can be established, feel free to state it here.98.30.43.66 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the sourced mention of an large scale air attack - by 24 bombers - saying that it was "fancruft" - this was a significant attack by a notable unit of the Luftwaffe.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this isn't random minutiae. It's well sourced, and a significant part of the bombing. Teb (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of irrelevant fancruft