Talk:SMS Goeben

message: TCG stands for "Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Gemisi" which translates as "Republic of Turkey's Ship". There was no Republic of Turkey in 1914 and the ship being renamed "TCG Yavuz Sultan Selim" at that date is not possible. As far as I know it was named just Yavuz after the Ottoman Emperor Selim I who had earned the nickname Yavuz (cruel) because of his massacres of Turkomans in early 16th century.
:Yavuz can be translated as "resolute" and has a positive meaning in Turkish. it is definitely wrong to translate "yavuz" as "cruel".84.71.92.85 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Into Russian yavuz translates as "грозный" (Grozny) , that usually translates as "terrible" or awesome into English (See Ivan-the-Terrible):
The epithet "Grozny" is associated with might, power and strictness, rather than poor performance, horror or cruelty. Some authors more accurately translate it into modern English as Ivan the Awesome 
How about this option? Сергей Олегович (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The 1915 section reads like a biased action script. "Eagerly the Russians chased after them, the ponderous battleships at their maximum of 25 knots," "... but she spurted out of range ...," "...  stern searchlights stabbed back down her wake, illuminating the sinister shapes of five destroyers ...," "The big guns of the battleships belched flame, and columns of water from exploding shells rose all around their lone opponent." 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a couple changes, trying to tilt it a little away from the action novel sound. Hope I didn't ruin anyone's masterpiece. Sorry for not making a note about my edits, I'm a novice still. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: There was a photo od Goeben, but it was deleted.Who can find another one?--Jagatai Khan 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: === under german Flag ===
2. Juli 1912 - 3. April 1914	Captain Otto Philipp
=== under ottoman Flag ===
4. April 1914 - 2. Januar 1918	Captain Richard Ackermann
3. Januar - 2. November 1918  	Captain Albert Stoelzel
1919-1920                     	Corvette captain Vasif
1920-1922                     	Captain Lieutenant Mustafa Rasih
1922-1923                     	Captain  Cevat Toydemir
=== under türk Flag ===
service time	Rang              	Name
1923-1924   	Corvette captain  	Aziz Mahmut
1924-1925   	Captain           	Ahmet Saffet
1925-1926   	Captain Lieutenant	Mustafa Necati
1926-1928   	Captain           	Tevfik Halit
1928-1931   	Captain           	Ahri Engin
1931-1934   	Captain Lieutenant	Hüsnü Gökdemir
1934-1938   	Captain Lieutenant	Ertugril Ertugrul
1936-1938   	Captain           	Ihsan Özel
1938-1939   	DZ. KUR. ALB.     	Mithat Isin
1939-1940   	Captain           	Safiyettin Dağada
1940-1942   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Necati Özdeniz
1942-1944   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Tacettin Talayman
1944-1945   	Captain           	Nedim Ülseven
1945-1946   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Münci Ülhan
1046-1947   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Kemalettin Bozkurt
1947-1948   	DZ.KUR.           	Münci Ülhan
1948-1949   	Captain           	Ndim Ülseven
1949-1951   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Asim Sinik
1951-1952   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Sadik Özcebe
1952-1953   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Naci Seyhan
1953-1954   	Captain           	Hilmi Okcugil
1954-1955   	Captain           	Edip Sahsuv Aroglu
--Gonzosft (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: service time	Rang              	Name
1923-1924   	Corvette captain  	Aziz Mahmut
1924-1925   	Captain           	Ahmet Saffet
1925-1926   	Captain Lieutenant	Mustafa Necati
1926-1928   	Captain           	Tevfik Halit
1928-1931   	Captain           	Ahri Engin
1931-1934   	Captain Lieutenant	Hüsnü Gökdemir
1934-1938   	Captain Lieutenant	Ertugril Ertugrul
1936-1938   	Captain           	Ihsan Özel
1938-1939   	DZ. KUR. ALB.     	Mithat Isin
1939-1940   	Captain           	Safiyettin Dağada
1940-1942   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Necati Özdeniz
1942-1944   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Tacettin Talayman
1944-1945   	Captain           	Nedim Ülseven
1945-1946   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Münci Ülhan
1046-1947   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Kemalettin Bozkurt
1947-1948   	DZ.KUR.           	Münci Ülhan
1948-1949   	Captain           	Ndim Ülseven
1949-1951   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Asim Sinik
1951-1952   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Sadik Özcebe
1952-1953   	DZ.KUR.ALB.       	Naci Seyhan
1953-1954   	Captain           	Hilmi Okcugil
1954-1955   	Captain           	Edip Sahsuv Aroglu
--Gonzosft (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  under türk Flag 

message: This article is obviously biased against the Ottoman Empire.  Terms like "unfortunately" and "the tragedy of Gallipoli" are especially bad.  Though Gallipoli was surely a tragedy in terms of lives lost on both sides, it is a victory that Turkish people take pride in.  Also, the encounter in the Aegean Sea was only "unfortunate" for the British. 
(Brandonwilson (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point. This ship fought under the flag of the Ottoman Empire for most of World War I, and had a very long postwar career as the flagship of the Turkish Navy. It was the Yavuz Sultan Selim for much longer than it was the Goeben, so why isn't it listed under its Turkish name? Jsc1973 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because German things are more familiar to English speakers than Turkish things. It's probably a healthy dose of systemic bias, but all of the books I've got on WWI naval warfare refer to the ship as Goeben, even after transferal of the ship to the Ottoman navy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against Turkey 

message: The introduction reads until her decommissioning in 1960, ship box names 1973 as time of decommissioning, and in the section "Post War Service", it's written In 1954 Yavuz was decommissioned. 89.201.105.23 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My Conway's 1906-1921 states that the ship was laid up in 1948 (i.e., pulled from active service) and actually decommissioned in 1960. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the ship decommissioned? 

message: It was not proper to use the previous German name for a ship that became the flagship of the Ottoman Navy.  I changed them, hope no one minds.  Same with Midilli cruiser, name of the Aegean island, that was under Ottoman rule at the time, needs disambigouation, someone more capable than me should do this please. Also the the proper name of the cruiser is Hamidiye, as it is spelled here.  The other one is Mecidiye.  I corrected them also.  Hamidiye is in desperate need of disambiguation, as it never appears as the cruiser it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.168.53 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the links for the cruisers; neither one has an article yet, but once it does the links will point to the correct locations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Couple of corrections/expansions needed here. Raglan and M28 were at anchor off Imbros Island (there's a brief article on the Battle of Imbros) when sunk. Lord Nelson was at Saloniki, but Agamemnon was at Mudros.  M17 attempted to bombard her while Yavuz was grounded, but only fired ten rounds before giving up.Buxton, p. 38  --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the details pertaining to the monitors, but am a little confused about Lord Nelson. I'm wondering if Halpern was a bit confused when he wrote the line  He wrote a few lines earlier  I wonder if he did mean that Agamemnon was at Mudros. Is there a third source that might give us more of a final say? Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, yes, the HMS Agamemnon article quotes Burt's British Battleships 1889–1904 with Agamemnon at Mudros and Lord Nelson at Saloniki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, I'll make the switch. Definitely looks like a typo in Halpern's book. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Sturm. I added it back to the article. Feel free to add more if you like/have the time :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme take a peek through my issues of WI; I think that there's a pretty good account of the battle somewhere therein, including individual sorties by the aircraft attempting to bomb her, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The best and most readily accessible account of the battle is the relevant chapter of Geoffrey Miller's book, available online. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, where's the full citation for Buxton? All you have are page numbers in the article. I added some more details on the bombing and attempt to shell her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, looks like I forgot to add it. Thanks for catching that, as well as the additional info. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Imbros 

message: What exact aerial attack was Hough referring to? The 1918 attack? I'm pretty sure that he's wrong as the Germans attempted to bomb Slava a number of times in 1915–16.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was the attack after she was beached in 1918. He says . Maybe he meant the first ship to be successfully bombed from the air (regardless of the result, which in this case was nil). Did the Germans ever actually hit Slava? That could be the distinction.  Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  first aerial attack 

message: Nick, nice work. The Ottoman Steam Navy might have some post-WWI stuff as well, but maybe not. One clarification that may or may not be worthwhile. Parizkaya Kommuna (sp) was ordered to the Black Sea in 1929, but arrived in early 1930.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, question: does anyone have access to the New York Times post-1923 archives? They have a lot on Goeben, at least six of the first ten results. If not, perhaps I'll be able to bug someone on IRC to email them to me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A list of the ones I found; there may be less obvious ones that hold information on Goeben:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A17FD3F581B7A93CAA8178AD95F428285F9&scp=3&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C15F8395912738DDDAE0A94DA415B878EF1D3&scp=4&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A1EF83B5F17738DDDAE0A94D8415B848EF1D3&scp=6&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0911F73F581B7A93C2AB1789D95F428285F9&scp=7&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A14FD3B5E1B728DDDA10894DA415B898EF1D3&scp=9&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1091EFC3C5A1B7B93C6AB178AD95F428385F9&scp=10&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D15FA3C5A157A93CBA81783D85F418685F9&scp=2&sq=Yavuz&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F14F939581B7493CBA91789D95F4D8685F9&scp=4&sq=Yavuz&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C15FF345C177A93C6A8178BD95F4D8285F9&scp=13&sq=Goeben&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00917F73D5B107A93C4A8178BD95F478585F9&scp=8&sq=Yavuz&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1081FF83A5D107A93C4A9178FD85F428485F9&scp=19&sq=Yavuz&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30615FA3F58147B93C1A9178ED85F438485F9&scp=18&sq=Yavuz&st=p
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60610FD3554107A93CBAB178DD85F448485F9&scp=21&sq=Yavuz&st=p
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll try to ping someone on IRC tomorrow (well, technically today...) for this —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: It's the former, I believe, as this is the name of the thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-WWI service 

message: Please explain the reasonable reasons about this edits and this. Where did you find sentence A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. ? Do you have sources ? Or did somebody write only with his/her impression ? I cannot think the sentence you tried to defend is so important and encyclopedic. But the sentence  is more important and we can find sources for this easily ? Why do you behave such like this ? Takabeg (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response on my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your message. The sample in WP:ALTTEXT alt=Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte |The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries by Jacques-Louis David is reasonable and meaningful sentence but unfortunately A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. is ambiguous and meaningless. There is no reason to put this sentence and to remove historical facts. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To [[User:Parsecboy]] 

message: Why did Yavuz bombard Sevastopol on 29 October in her first operation against Imperial Russia, though the Ottoman Empire was not yet at war with the Entente? As it brought Turkey into WW1 I rather think the question should be asked. --John (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Souchon wanted to force the Turks' hand in regards to the Russians. But I'll let Parsec answer that one more definitively.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was the reason. He wanted to force a conflict with Russia so the pro-German faction in Turkey would come out on top. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article then? It seems like the single thing the ship is most famous for. --John (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I adjusted the lead as well. --John (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks John. Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key question missing? 

message: My introduction to SMS Goeben/Yavuz was in a coffetable book Anthony Preston's "Battleships 1856-1977" (Chartwell Books, 1977). It is noted in the closing pages that Yavuz was a museum ship in its last days, often "crewed" by only a caretaker and his cat. The scrapping of Yavuz left only USS Texas as an example of a Dreadnaught Era battleship. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have that book - I'll give it a look. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  last days 

message: Article caption states this is "Yavuz steaming at full speed." However, summary box with this pic. from Bundesarchiv identifies it as Goeben and indicates it was taken before WWI, i.e.. before Goeben became Yavuz.
Sca (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point - I've fixed the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Yavuz' pic.

message: Hi, I was randomly reading :fr:Artillerie française pendant la Première Guerre mondiale when I came across a paragraph which says that on 4 August Goeben was fired upon by two Canon de 19 C modèle 1875 coastal guns from the Kantara battery. (See also Caractéristiques du canon de 19 C modèle 1870 sur affût PC modèle 1886) Although the rangefinder wasn't working, the last of only four shots "shaved her poop", whereupon Goeben fled the scene at high speed.
:"Le premier coup de canon a lieu le 4 août à Philippeville en Algérie, où deux canons de côte de 19 cm modèle 1878 de la batterie el Kantara, armées par quelques hommes du 6e groupe autonome à pied d'Afrique, tirent sur le croiseur allemand Goeben : le quatrième coup (le télémètre n'étant pas opérationnel) rase sa poupe, ce qui le décide alors à s'éloigner à grande vitesse.[François 2010, pp 7-8]" 
:* Pierre Touzin, François Vauvillier et général Guy François, Les Canons de la Victoire 1914-1918, Paris, Histoire et Collections, coll. « Les matériels de l'armée française » (no 3, 4 et 5), 2008-2010, trois tomes : 
:** op. cit., vol. 3 : L'Artillerie de côte et l'artillerie de tranchée, 2010, 67 p. (ISBN 978-2-35250-161-9).
I wondered if this snippet (or an expansion of it) would be worthy of inclusion in the article? (Well done with the FA, by the way.) If not, skip the rest, which is an attempt to find more information about some of the first shots fired in the war before Britain joined in, and some vague refs. If so, would you have confirmatory sources to hand? The following info I have hurriedly gathered agrees as to the general facts, but differs devilishly in the details.
Fort el Kantara was located half-way between Skikda and Stora (to the west), and gives its name to a hamlet of the same name: "Un lieu-dit dont le nom provient de celui d'un fort, situé entre Philippeville et Stora." See El Kantara (Philippeville ; Algérie). A beach nearby is called Plage Militaire. See Google maps.  El Kantara, further inland, or many similarly named places.
According to this article (in French): Les bombardements de Bône et Philippeville en 1914, section 'Le bombardement de Philippeville par le croiseur Goeben', (citing Jean Mélia, « Les Bombardements de Bône et Philippeville », Berger-Levrault éditeurs, Paris 1927), The cruiser had been flying the Russian flag, but exchanged it for that of the Imperial Navy. Goeben's attack only lasted about four or five minutes, during which 36 x 150mm shells were fired at a range of 4,500 m. As a result of this unexpected reaction, the cruiser swiftly took to the open sea (prend rapidement le large). One of the guns is in the Musée de l'armée aux Invalides, not that it matters to this article.
:"Au premier tir, à bord du croiseur, le pavillon russe est amené et remplacé par celui de l’Allemagne. Aussitôt la batterie d’El Kantara, la seule opérationnelle, réplique. Quatre obus, mais trop courts sont tirés. Le croiseur qui n’est qu’à 4 500 m, devant cette réaction inattendue, prend rapidement le large, après un tir de 36 obus de 150mn qui n’a duré que quatre à cinq minutes environ."
According to this article (in French) (again unfortunately un-reffed): Find Dans la matinée: the coastal batteries had been alerted the morning before to the cruisers' imminent presence, and news of the declaration of war only reached Souchon at 1800 hrs on the 3rd. Find A la question du journaliste: The Germans were aware that the coastal batteries would not be manned and ready until three or four days after the declaration of war: this information had been published in the Journal Officiel and the specialised press. Unknown to the Germans, however, small detachments of the XIXème Corps had been assigned to the batteries at Bône, Philippeville and Bougie in a state of permanent readiness. Find Vers 4h30: A lieutenant in charge of the Kantara battery raised the alarm about 0430, but didn't have the time to adjust his rangefinder. Goeben had not been flying any colours, but at 0500 (or an hour later) she hauled up the Imperial flag and opened fire on the port. The bombardment of 50 shots lasted from 0500 to 0518 (NB more shells fired for longer than above), at the end of which the shore batteries returned fire with the only two serviceable guns out of four. None of the shots hit. Finding the intelligence reports to be faulty, Goeben broke off the action and fled rapidly towards the high seas (s'enfuit rapidement vers la haute mer).
According to this detailed and seemingly authoritative but unreffed article (in French): Historique du 6ème Groupe d'Artillerie à Pied d'Afrique, pp. 4, 5-7, {is this a banned site?} the gunners were the 12ème batterie bis (ie 12b), reservists from the former 14ème batterie, commanded by lieutenant (R.) Carnot or Cardot. Goeben steamed for cover behind the small island of Srigina, N. of Stora.
So, is it the case that the Goeben, having approached under either a false flag or none, and expecting no opposition, was scared off in her very first action by some good shooting by an alert French reserve lieutenant of artillery with only four shells? If none of this is particularly suitable, could you suggest where it might go? HC, >MinorProphet (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nearly 15 months later, and there has been has no reply of any sort whatsoever. I therefore intend to make some additions to the article in accordance with my findings as outlined above. MinorProphet (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombardment of Philippeville 

message: the text contains two times the statement that the repairs lasted from 7 august to 19 october 1918. the first must be wrong, since is placed before 30 march 1918. it should be replaced by a statement that works in Constantinople in early 1918 allowed the vessel to cross the Black Sea (or something like, because this is what I infer from the text). pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  repairs in 1918