Talk:Battle of the Denmark Strait

message: Inspite of the reference to Ludovic Kennedy's remark in his book "Pursuit", the claim that HMS Prince of Wales had "come into torpedo range of Prinz Eugen and turned away as the German cruiser was about to fire", does NOT bear any scrutiny. There was never ANY point during the battle where this was the case. The maximum range of German G7a naval steam torpedo was 12km at their lowest "Weitschuß" speed setting. HMS PoW's gunnery charts show that at the point of turning away from the German ships her salvoes, fired at a range of 14100 yards, were "short" of the German ships.
Even if PoW had come within 12km of Prinz Eugen before turning to withdraw, at the Weitschuß speed setting of 30knots it would take the G7a torpedo nearly 14 minutes to cover that 12km, meaning that due to the prior convergent courses of the combattants, to arrive at the point where PoW turned to withdraw, a torpedo fired 14 minutes earlier by the Prinz Eugen would have been fired at a range in the region of 30,000 yards from the point where PoW withdrew at 06:03. 
While Prinz Eugen's torpedoes had been readied at the start of the engagement, she was never in a position to use them, so why perpetuate earlier speculation that is later shown to have been incorrect?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.111 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Prinz Eugen's Torpedoes

message: Lots of work needed here. I intend to start work on this article myself, but have a backlog of tasks to clear before I can get started. Apart from adding the cleanup tags, I have made a start by adding the Battle of the Denmark Strait Documentation Resource link. John Moore 309 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup required

message: Someone very familiar with the subject matter neede to look over the article. Also, the article needs to be referenced.  KarenAnn 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is cleaned up and tag has been remove. Expert needed now` 

message: There is patently a dispute over whether or not to link to the Bismarck Chase. Is there a consensus on the matter and the Chase article? GraemeLeggett 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bismarck chase linking 

message: Personally, I don´t see a reason to question the decision of Lütjens to not pursue the Prince of Wales. There are a number of good reasons to not do so. I don´t think it´s necessary to judge about it, as this is an encyclopedia and there is too much speculation in it. However, if we do so, we should open a new section, which I did right now and also add counter-arguments, which I did right now in only to a very limited degree. We then also need to discuss the decision of the Hood to attack the way it did, who failed to engage Suffolk and Norfolk in it as well etc. That´s a huge discussion and not really encyclopedical. Therefore, I´m more to open to just delete the new "discussion" section. Mausch 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more important that the fact that Lutjens ordered Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to avoid the Hood and PoW, and that Captain Lindemann disobeyed his order and directed Bismarck to open fire. The article makes it seems like the opposite occurred. Parsecboy 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, to avoid these ships has been a strategic decision, while Lindemann order to fire was tactical - and not contradicting a standing order, but just not waiting for Lutjens order to fire. You are right that this should be mentioned. But this is different from a discussion which can rightfully judged on multiple ways. Mausch 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been three months since I asked here for comments by anyone in favor of retaining the "Discussing the Decisions" section. And there is now yet more material piled there. This cannot conceivably be considered encyclopedic content. Some of it sounds like it was written by video game fans. This is a disgrace to Wikipedia and I intend to remove it tomorrow. Please comment here if you have an opinion on the matter. Rstevec (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Condensed the Discussion section into one paragraph of a less unseemly nature. If anyone seriously objects to dispensing with the speculative material removed, please first explain why it is at all necessary or desirable in a respectable encyclopedia. This section was merely a vehicle for various pet theories and opinions. Rstevec (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing the decisions 

message: The references state Barnett was used in the article but there's no mention of the work in the bibliography. Can someone clarify. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnett? 

message: The image :Image:Bismark1040.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bismark1040.jpg

message: British Commanders listed as Holland and Leach however R.Adm Wake-Walker aboard Norfolk took command after loss of Holland aboard Hood  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.56.206 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: I restored the article to Hugo999's last edit as Kurfurst's edit amount to a major re-write of the article. We should discuss this here first.And heg (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And heg, your edit history makes it obvious that you are not a separate editor, but a meatpuppet/sockpuppet used by someone to revert my edits in naval articles. It is very hard to believe that you have any real concerns here wit my edits, since you have raised no specific point about what you find problematic in my edits, which were, as opposed to your claims, of minor nature, having touched no sources in the article. Kurfürst (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And heg you need to expand on what you have written. Please bullet point those major changes that you think that Kurfürst has introduced to the article with the edits Kurfürst made. -- PBS (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that given the history of Kurfurst's editing here, that the onus should be on him to explain the rational for his edits. 
* He has changed the paragraph structure significantly, this makes it hard to follow all of his edits.
* I have no problem with this edit: "Fortunately for Prince of Wales, neither shell exploded, but she still suffered minor flooding and the loss of some fuel oil. The 380 mm shell that struck Prince of Wales below the waterline came to rest abreast of an auxiliary machinery room.Garzke and Dulin, p.181 "
* I have major problems with his edits that change footnotes and I see absolutely no justification for the changes. 
* we devoted a good deal of discussion on this page regarding the number of guns in action on Prince of Wales and Kurfurst is now trying to ignore the past discussion and again trying  to place undue weight on a single source. His edit: "According to Bennet and Roskill, this temporarily left only five main guns in operation,Bennett 2003, p.141Roskill, The War at Sea, Vol 1, p406. while Garzke and Dulin notes that only two guns remained in operation by this time.Garzke and Dulin, 1980. p. 190.  14-inch guns operational, but nine of the ten were operational in five hours.Garzke and Dulin, 1980. p. 190." tries to again places undue weight on G&D. We have Prince of Wales Gunnery report, ADM239/509 which is also referenced and summarized in the article and makes it very obvious that Prince Of Wales never had less than 5 guns in operation. Roskill, the Royal Navy's official historian supports ADM234/509. G&D's statement that two guns only remained in operation is quite extraordinary and multiple sources dispute it,and I can certainly add more, if need be. In prior edits G&D's statement was referenced in a footnote and given the amount of evidence against it, that is where it belongs. 
And heg (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I confess that I do not understand the times given in the Plan gone awry subsection. There the time of sunset is given as 0151; if that is local time, how can sunset anywhere be between midnight and noon? If it is Greenwich time, is it summer time (one hour ahead of the Sun) or double summer time or whatever it is called? And in any case, what was the condition of daylight when the two fleets met (first sighting 0535, firing commences 0552)? PKKloeppel (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Time, gentlemen

message: Please pardon a new comment in the middle of all the hostile discussion amongst various individuals, but as of today (23 May 10 local time) the fact box for this entry shows that Admiral Holland died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait (true) and that Admiral Lutjens also died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I hope no one will accuse me of original research from primary sources if I say that I believe accepted primary sources show that Lutjens did not die in the Battle of the Denmark Strait and was killed in another battle several days later.
With all the hostility about inappropriate editing and reverting of the entry I am not going to touch the fact box even though I believe it is factually incorrect, but perhaps one of you with sufficient authority and seniority will do so.
My word processing program does not allow me to make umlauts so maybe one of you old-timers will also take a moment to add them to my comment so that Lutjens' name is spelled correctly. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this edit as he was still alive after the battle. --Denniss (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral Lutjens did not die in this battle 

message: The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the  photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would  be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Untrimmed" version of the image in question: available here --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't impossible that they were temporarily steaming in opposite directions, PoW may have been swinging around to pass under Hood's stern. But on the balance of probabilities, I think you are right; this is the port side, forward. The clincher is that a breakwater is visible, running right to the rail, and in this photo (admittedly just a model) we can make out a breakwater forward, in the way of A turret, but only clear decks aft. One thing that perplexes me is that the barrels seem to be independently aligned. Was this the case? Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, most likely the port barrel has been raised to clear the housing of B turret at extreme traverse. That would make sense. This is A turret. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: This being the case, the pic would have been taken from a "gunport" type door opening into the base of the main superstructure from the main deck. Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo probably shows A turret, not X turret 

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) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this comment has duplicated elsewhere, which carries some irony. See Talk: Ernst Lindemann. At this stage, no support. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment has been duplicated in ever article which is part of this duplication problem, so its not ironic, its logical. Please see discussion at . Wdford (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplication 

message: The original text at the top of the 'Sketch' image (presumably endorsed by Leach), says: "...as seen from H.M.S. Prince of Wales at a distance of 4 cables". [My emphasis].
If a cable is 200 yards, does this mean that Leach saw the explosion on HMS Hood from 800 yards away ? It seems rather close when all the other distances in the article are expressed in thousands of yards or even miles. RASAM (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sketch

message: It's fair to say that the RN destroyers didn't take part in the battle, but Suffolk attempted to engage Prinz Eugen at 0619. The presence of the cruisers also caused Lutjens to place Prinz Eugen in the Van while both RN cruisers engaged the KM forces, briefly, during the hours prior to the battle.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RN cruisers and destroyers. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Denmark Strait. 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/20110728032446/http://legacy.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf to http://legacy.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf
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) 23:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would help if the words in the sentence 
Since Bismarck's receiving the first hit in the forecastle, all six of the ship's 26-man damage control teams had worked ceaselessly to repair the damage.
 
could be explained.  I can guess that the area was too cramped, partially under water or less likely that the 6 were the specialist hull repair divers  but the current sentence sounds odd.  Regards JRPG (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to comment but for the record; the sentence says that all six teams (each made up of 26 men) were at work on the damage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "all six of the ship's 26-man damage control teams" ? 

message: The section on the British response to the battle says Admiral Pound tried to have the captain of Prince of Wales and another guy court-martialled. So far as I know this has never been proven.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:28A5:81C2:35C8:284E (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court martial claims 

message: If you goal was to sink enemy warships, then yes, this one battle was obviously a German victory. 
But the German goal was for Bismarck to break out into the Atlantic and ship merchants.
The British goal was to prevent the Bismarck from breaking out and sinking merchants. 
The direct consequence of the battle of Denmark Straight for the Germans, was that Bismarck had to abandon her mission. So the British succeeded - at huge a cost - but still succeeded. VSTAMPv (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  German victory?