Talk:German battleship Gneisenau/Archive 1

message: Battleship or battlecruiser. Discussion copied and centralised on Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: We now have two values for the displacement in the article, 31,500t in the table (just changed from the original 31,552t) and 31,100t in the main text. I googled aroung a bit and found some other values:
31.850t
32.100t
30.676t
31.632t
Some of these have slightly different names.
So, which is it? Which is the most characteristic weight weight anyway? What about the weight before and after the refit?
:Landström, who is usually reliable, has 31800 ts stdd, 38900 ts fully equipped, where a ts is a long ton (1016 kg). Since the ships were built by different companies and in different places, I suspect there is quite some variation anyways, and anything with more than 2 significant digits is hard to justify. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement 

message: can we have an verifiable origin for the conclusion that had she bene armed with the bigger guns that she would have still been fast etc? GraemeLeggett 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note also well armoured is mentioned which given the thickness protecting the King George V ships seems dubious. GraemeLeggett 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Jane´s Battleships of the 20th Century", published by Harper Collins in 1996. The nine 28cm guns were supposed to be replaced by six 38cm guns. And the armor belt of the KGVs was indeed just 30mm stronger than the one the Scharnhorsts had.Markus Becker02 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the deck is thicker too on the KGV.GraemeLeggett 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearming 

message: According to this link: The guns no 3&4 made their 1. shot May 15th 1941 and no 1&2 on the 28th of August 1941.
If "..she was withdrawn from service in July 1943 to allow the replacement of the 28 cm battery with twin 38 cm (15 in) turrets..." it does not seem likely that the guns at Hanstholm originaly came from Gneisenau. Today a 38cm barrel with breech can bee seen at Hanstholm and this may come from Gneisenau. Reference needed. KjellG 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted out and worked into the article. KjellG 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the 38&nbsp;cm guns exists today at the museum of Hanstholm in Denmark? 

message: Call it Gdnyia, and then, whenever you are writing about WWII, add the phrase, "which the Germans renamed as 'Gotenhafen' during the war." In other words, take just a few extra words to explain the siuation. The Japanese, for example, occupied Wake Island during the war and probably called it by a Japanese term, but it still remained Wake Island. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your stance. By the way, the Japanese called Wake Island Otori-Shima for its birdlike shape. I oughta put that into an article somewhere... ;) ... Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed it with an explanation, clunky as it was. I checked three personal sources, 2 called it Gydnia and one referred to it as the article did. The source that had the most information about the Baltic operations was Seekrieg 1939-1949 and the author ( or translator at least) did not use Gotenhafen at all.Awotter (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call it Gdynia 

message: The sections I have renamed and put in are a little small, but give me some time to expand the article. Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Why is there a revert war over the ship's fate in the infobox? Everybody must agree that the ship was severely damaged, decommissioned, put in for repairs, sunk as a blockship and finally scrapped. Why don't we list all of that in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I don't know why either. Kurt and Dapi are doing the same thing at the Scharnhorst page as well; it seems that Kurt likes to discuss things via edit summary only. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate