Talk:Bismarck-class battleship

message: Per the original version of this article, American spellings are the correct variant to be used in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why use "metric ton" instead of "t" just the once, then? Grassynoel (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's useful to use the full name of a unit the first time and then abbreviate it thereafter? Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ENGVAR]] and [[WP:RETAIN]] 

message: Lede, 2nd sentence: ...they were armed with a battery of 38 cm (15 in) and were capable...
Hi, i am no expert on naval guns, but i have the impression the actual thing, which fires the 38 cm wide shell is missing. All the best Wikirictor 17:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: out-ranging most of the 38 cm and 40.6 cm guns of contemporary navies, huh? Here is the table from the North Caroline Mark 6 from Navweaps... 
Elevation	AP Mark 8	HC Mark 13
10 degrees	15,900 yards (14,539 m)	17,700 yards (16,185 m)
15 degrees	21,000 yards (19,202 m)	23,400 yards (21,397 m)
20 degrees	25,500 yards (23,317 m)	27,950 yards (25,568 m)
25 degrees	29,500 yards (26,975 m)	31,700 yards (28,986 m)
30 degrees	32,200 yards (29,444 m)	34,900 yards (31,913 m)
35 degrees	34,500 yards (31,547 m)	37,400 yards (34,219 m)
40 degrees	36,100 yards (33,010 m)	39,200 yards (35,844 m)
45 degrees	36,900 yards (33,741 m)	40,180 yards (36,741 m
Tirronan (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

text: "Out-ranging most of the contemporaries" is not a phrase that is incompatible with the German gun having shorter range than the 16-inch as installed on the North Carolinas. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it's also kind of meaningless, as all of the guns in question could shoot further than anyone could accurately direct them. The paragraph doesn't serve much of a useful purpose to me, so I've removed it. Also I checked Campbell and Sturton and they don't make the claim sourced to them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Armed with ...what?

message: "The armor plate was mainly Krupp cemented steel. This had two classifications, Ww for Wotan (soft) and Wh for Wotan hard.[42]"
This is a misleading statement Wotan Harte and Wotan Weich are both homogenous armour grade steels with Wh being used for deck protection and splinter wall and WW in the torpedo bulkheads as it was more ductile. Krupp Cemented armour of the main belt, upper belt, conning tower, barbettes and turret faces is neither Wh or Ww.
also minimum thickness of main deck inside the citadel is 80 mm over the machinery whilst info box states Deck as "100 to 120 mm (3.9 to 4.7 in)" really deck is 80-100 mm with 110-120mm slopes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.12.76 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour 

message: I have noticed a lack of a hull number in the KMS trpitz and KMS Bismarck Battleships.
Anyone know the hull numbers.
It is only giving me an add campaign of how great a ship it was and short lived one.
It seems like it's trying to sell me something.
I need more info then this is giving.
I look at other sites and they seem to be a copy of each other.
I'd like more on the ship then the same brain washing on the shitty submarine. 72.8.240.200 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lack of hull numbers because the Germans didn't use them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

text: They did not use hull numbers for their surface ships. And no, there was no "KMS" prefix. Daobao1301 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull number?