Talk:SMS Schleswig-Holstein

message: Why is this article not just titled Schleswig-Holstein? Remy B 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I see. Why not Schleswig-Holstein (battleship) or Schleswig-Holstein (German battleship) then? Remy B 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best titled SMS Schleswig-Holstein, like her sisters SMS Pommern and SMS Hannover are. I suppose the argument for keeping the article as it's titled now is that the Schleswig-Holstein (as well as her sister Schlesien) also served in the Kriegsmarine, so they did not have the SMS prefix (DKM, contrary to popular opinion, was never used), so it isn't entirely correct to name the article SMS Schleswig-Holstein. Parsecboy 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The account of the shelling of Westerplatte in September 1939 mentions 15cm guns. However, the table of armament in 1939 does not mention this caliber. I suppose the table is inexact.
The corresponding Wikipedia page in German says the ship had fourteen 15cm guns in 1939. The Polish version mentions twelve such guns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.223.33 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy concerning the ship's armament in 1939 

message: I was surprised to read that the Soviet Navy commissioned Schleswig-Holstein as a battleship — under her original name, no less. Can this be correct? I would have thought she was badly damaged by bombing and scuttling, and would have been raised only for scrap. It just seems unlikely, particularly since she was by then old and obsolete. Sca (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS:  The German Wiki entry says:  Es wurde nach Tallinn geschleppt und dort zum Zielschiff umgebaut — "It was towed to Tallinn and there converted into a target ship." Sca (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS:  Compare to the postwar fate of German cruiser Prinz Eugen. Sca (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Erich Gröner, the ship was broken up in Tallinn. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet use

message: It was apparently sunk in 1944 so that makes me wonder how it was scuttled in 1945, or maybe what is meant by scuttled.  Was it somehow raised out of the water or was the water so shallow that it simply grounded the ship but not cause it to sink below the water surface.  Was it used for anything in between these times if it had been salvageable in some way?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the crew just wanted to make sure the wreck was as destroyed as possible. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Reading the "World War 2" chapter I found some mistakes:
# Westerplatte wasn't any "fortress" - this is tipical German interpretation.
# The battle of Westerplatte ended on September 7, not 8; in my opinion huge mistake.
# Gotenhaven - what should be explained - was Nazi's name of Gdynia, Polish sea port turned into the safe Kriegsmarine base.
# Schleswig Holstein was bombed by the allied aircraft at the Bay of Gdańsk, that's why its crew could be send to nearby located Marienburg, and that's why the ship was taken after the war by Soviets.
I believe it will help to improve this featured article. belissarius (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2014 review 

message: Ref for more details on the action at Westerplatte here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save for later 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SMS Schleswig-Holstein. 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/20121027232117/http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/242302/the_battleship_that_started_world_war_two.html to http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/242302/the_battleship_that_started_world_war_two.html
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) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've changed at to around. I am now improving the battle of Westerplatte article, and sources vary - 0445 is very common, 0447 and 0048 less. I did find a source on this, but it is in Polish and I've only a snippet view, sufficient however to write that "Polish historian Jarosław Tuliszka in his monograph on the battle discusses this discrepancy, noting that 0445 was the planned time of the attack, 0447 was the minute the order to open fire was given by Kleikamp, and 0448 was the minute the guns actually fired.". I think this a bit too much detail here, through if anyone wants to reuse it (maybe as a footnote) go ahead. Proper cite is given in the boW article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's of little importance but I've checked a primary source - the captured War Diaries (German Naval Staff Operations War Diary - 15 Aug to 30 Sept 1939 ) and on 1 September 1939, the very first entry of the day is thus: "0545 - Report from Commanding Admiral, Baltic:  The SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN carried out surprise fire; assault detachment broke into the Westerplatte and is fighting there".  I think the time difference is based on GMT, not local time - so 0445 would be accurate.DarkLight753 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The exact time shelling Westerplatte started