Talk:German battleship Scharnhorst

message: In working to finish this, I've started a complete rewrite of this article here. Feel free to lend a hand if you have the time, but I ask that you only do so if you have access to reliable sources—this article will eventually go to FAC and we don't need to spend time redoing things because they weren't properly sourced the first time. Though based on the response I got when I overhauled Bismarck class battleship, I doubt this will generate much of anything... Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article overhaul 

message: I am just curious. I remembered reading in Otto Busch that the Scharnhorst had as motto "Scharnhorst voran" and so I put that in (initially incorrect).  Why was it taken out? Hpvpp (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the article in a userspace draft and didn't incorporate anything from the old version. Do you happen to know what page it's on in Busch? I have his book, but didn't notice it anywhere (though it's quite possible I missed it). Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the book as well, but I can't find it either. Sorry, no time. Even so, look here http://www.germanmilitaryhistory.com/blog/51484-scharnhorst-immer-voran/ Hpvpp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Busch p. 145, 2nd page of Ch.XVI, also p. 150. Hpvpp (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that, though it's page 127 in my edition. Parsecboy (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ship motto 

message: The Gneisenau has some external links so why not the Scharnhorst? I think this website should be mentioned http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/index.html and http://wn.com/Die_Deutsche_Wochenschau has archival footage. Hpvpp (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, all of the photos on the first website and the footage linked to on wn.com (which is actually just a collection of youtube videos) violate copyright. We therefore can't link to either of them (and once I finish rewriting Gneisenau, it won't have any either). Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a problem for them, sure, but why would it be a problem for us? Hpvpp (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:EL, we can't link to sites that violate copyrights. Parsecboy (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  How about http://www.archive.org/details/GermanBattlecruisersScharnhorstOnPatrol (via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deutsche_Wochenschau) Hpvpp (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no indication that archive.org licensed the images under the Creative Commons license as claimed on the Commons page (or even that the website holds the copyright, which I'd bet they don't). They are most assuredly still under copyright in Germany, which means they're still copyrighted in the US as well (unless they have some sort of status as seized Nazi assets as some photos do, though this has not been asserted or proved). We can't use any of these clips. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, I would have thought there be guardians in Wikipedia (etc) to ensure that whatever is uploaded is indeed not in violation.  Indeed, the phrase which I see underneath this editing box "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" leads me to believe that this is the case and so I suspect that you are overly cautious.  Hpvpp (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, copyright violations are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons all the time, and most of it takes months or even years to be found and deleted. I've also been to FAC over 20 times, and I know what the image reviewers will say if we use this material in the article. It's a copyright violation, and therefore unusable in this or any other article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've nominated all of the videos for deletion here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the point of the external links? I can see a point in an external link to a street-map for an article on a town.  I can see a point to an external link to detailed ship plans for a warship.  In a stub/start article there can be value in external links that could be used to expand the article.  Pointless external links best deleted.  External inks to stolen imagery implies approval of copyright theft and is therefore unethical.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no external links? 

message: Is this a fault or just confusingly written?
:Six minutes after opening fire, Scharnhorst scored a hit at a range of 24,100 m (26,400 yd). ... By 18:26 the range had fallen to 25,600 m (28,000 yd),...
Was 18:26 before the six minutes after opening fire? Then why is it metioned afterwards?--WerWil (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not fixed 4 years later, and there is the added point of an un-referenced claim in the lead claiming a record for longest range naval hit. Given that the guns had a theoretical range of 40,000 m - 25,000 m seems a bit low for such a claim - is this the hit being mentioned? I don't have the references at hand to fix this or I would. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion?

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I know I've read of numerous other ships that were repeatedly damaged in action, but the frequency with which the Scharnhorst was damaged and forced to dock for repairs (both by enemy action and by weather) seems remarkable. Seems I recall the Gneisenau suffering similarly. Not sure whether I'd call that lucky or unlucky, but I'd be interested to see how the numbers compare to other ships. How many other naval vessels were subjected to enemy attack, injured, repaired and returned to be damaged again with such frequency? It's also curious that some of the secondary damage mentioned (turrets jammed by mine explosions, etc) seems to be excessive; I've read of other ships hitting mines, being hit by AP bombs, etc, and basically shrugging the damage off (relatively speaking). Yet it happened a number of times to the Scharnhorst. Not to mention that she seems to end up "a meter down" in the water on 4-5 occasions. Is that a symptom of her relatively light weight and protection, mere bad luck, or was flawed engineering a factor? Or was it just because she was one of only a few heavy German surface vessels, and so was unusually heavily engaged, and therefore took an unusual brunt of the enemies wrath?.45Colt 09:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of damage 

message: In the article:
"With only turret Caesar operational, all available men were sent to retrieve ammunition from the forward turrets to keep the last heavy guns supplied[63]" - I cannot believe that it is possible to retrieve ammunition weighing some 100s of pounds and carrying it inside a ship along a distance of 200 feet which is under constant fire! This can only be pure fiction or a bad translation!
84.155.58.33 (talk)
:That's what Garzke & Dulin say, and they're both noted naval historians. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever examined the method of handling these large shells inside the magazine underneath the turret? If someone can get a shell into a hoist when the ship is travelling at speed in rough conditions, moving shells from one part of the ship to another is not really a lot more difficult. Add a bit of desperation, and the job is achievable. Anyway, how do you think the shells were got into the magazine in the first place, especially if replenishing at sea? (The method of moving shells in the turret involves looping a chain around the shell and then pulling it to where you want it to go - it needs a lot of dexterity with the chain!)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact or Fiction? 

message: The raid on the Scharnhorst on 24 July 1941 is described in the wartime book Tail Gunner by R C Rivaz. Whilst wartime security makes the book a less than complete account of the attack, the aircraft are undoubtedly Halifax's. A website whose provenance I am not able to establish gives a fuller account, confirming the story in the book.
A quality confirming source appears to be needed for this point. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is question is covered by the citation to Garzke & Dulin. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that the article has already been amended in line with my understanding of the correct details of the raid, the question remains on the source. Does Garzke & Dulin support this revision?  I do not have a copy available and I am not sure if I understand the extent of the answer above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This [] seems to tell of a far more complex series of operations that day. Irondome (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tracked down and added the original source [] but based on the new material, I am puzzled. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't be the first time that a cited source contains an error. Are you saying that you have had sight of Garske and Dulin, or just spotted it in the cross reference to the B17 in Wikipedia? The rest of the original text - mention of B24s seems wrong, as all the early B24s were highly valuable for their long range, and La Rochelle is not much of a long trip. I am researching further, but will take a few days to access good sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I seem to recall digging it up on Google books. Their work was not previously on WP as far as I could see. But it is nearly 2 years back, and it was probably late at night. I think the authors have just confused the types that made the hits. There is also this [] which is quite explicit as to 90 squadrons' B-17 experiences that day. The B-24 mention I have nothing to do with! I think that was added later by someone else. Even without sources, I knew that was just daft. Irondome (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air raid on 24 July 1941 

message: The account of the action with Ardent, Acasta and Glorious seems to have combined times from 2 sources which report this action based on different time zones. The start of the action is listed as 1745 with the initial sighting. The cited source, Garzke & Dulin, gives this time as 1645 and this is confirmed by Koop and Schmolke.
It is accepted that the discrepancy might be, for instance, due to an adjustment by an editor to GMT (or some other time zone). However, the torpedo hit is timed at 1839 in the article, citing Garzke & Dulin, and this matches the source (and also Koop and Schmolke). So if an adjustment to time zone has been made, it has not been done consistently.
It is possible that the confusion on times is the source of the problems with ranges, as shown in the "Confusion" section shown above.
It appears that this part of the article needs to be re-researched and rewritten. (Perhaps also solving the problem that the account is difficult to follow, even with the log transcripts that appear in Koop and Schmolke to assist in comprehension.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: HMS Glorious article has 3:46 PM GMT as time of first spotting and action ending at 6:20 PM GMT with sinking of Acasta. The action desription and times are a bit lacking here vs presentation at the Glorious article.--Denniss (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect times in account of Glorious/Ardent/Acasta action 

message: I have made some changes to the details of the air raid at La Pallice on 24 July 1941. 
Firstly, Koop and Schmolke are quite definite that the intention was for the Scharnhorst to leave Brest as too many large warships were now concentrated in one port. (Obviously, as events turned out, La Pallice was not sufficiently far away to avoid bombing attacks.) Koop appears to have excellent credentials as a WP:RS.
Secondly, (a) the readily available aerial photograph  and (b) the account by RC Rivaz both show/talk about the Scharnhorst lying alongside at La Pallice, rather than being anchored. Neither of these sources are precise about whether the ship was simply alongside on 23 Jun and then went to anchor, or was still moored alongside at the time of the attack. However, if the article uses the word "moored" then the ambiguity of that nautical word solves the problem. All we know for certain is that "anchored" has a good chance of being wrong.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air raid on 24 July 1941 (again) 

message: (see also sections above, titled: Confusion and Incorrect times in account of Glorious/Ardent/Acasta action)
This article relies heavily on Garzke and Dulin for the account of the sinking of Glorious, Ardent and Acasta. Looking at other sources suggests that some of the details in Garzke and Dulin are wrong. Furthermore, Garzke and Dulin's account is relatively short, whereas much more comprehensive information is available elsewhere. At this stage, I have compared information with Koop and Schmolke and an analysis by 
Captain Vernon W. Howland
Problems with the article/Garzke and Dulin are as follows:
(1) Distance at which Scharnhorst sighted Glorious. The article states this was 50km, whilst both Koop and Schmolke and Howland give this as 40km. As a check on this, if you use a height of eye calculator, the maximum distance that the masthead lookout would be able to detect another warship is around 40km. (The Scharnhorst lookout who first sighted Glorious, Midshipman Goos, was in the foretop. I don't have the height of eye for that part of the ship, but scaling off the plans in Koop and Schmolke, the masthead is 41m above the waterline - so giving an absolute maximum height. This gives a horizon distance of 22.9km. Presuming that enough visible superstructure, plus the small amount of smoke from Glorious is of a similar height, then that would be an additional 20km or so. So 40km is around the maximum distance that one could expect the sighting to have occurred. From discussion of the rangefinders in Koop and Schmolke, it would appear that the foretop is actually 35m above the waterline, giving a horizon distance of 21km, so shortening the distance a little. In any case, 50 km is clearly too much.)
(2) The article states that Scharnhorst opened fire first. This is incomplete and ambiguous. The first of the two German ships to open fire was the Gneisenau, using her secondary armament against Ardent. The Scharnhorst used her main armament against Glorious about 4 minutes later.
(3) The article gives the impression that the German ships' radar was useful in overcoming the smokescreens laid by the British ships. At this stage, both the battleships had the FuMO22 radar that had a maximum useful range of between 14 and 18km. Whilst this would have been useful for ranging the Ardent (14.5km opening range) , the Glorious was about 26km distant when Scharnhorst opened fire - with critical hits being achieved at not much less distance. The article's comments on radar are misleading by being incomplete.
(4) The article is not clear about when the German ships opened fire - it would be easy to believe from the article that this was a few minutes after the first sighting. Actually, there was a delay of 41 minutes between sighting and the order to open fire.
It appears that other editors on this article have made substantial reliance on Garzke and Dulin, but there is a clear case that this source is not adequate for this section of the article. Before starting a rewrite of the appropriate paragraphs, it seems sensible to see if anyone disputes the account in the two alternative sources given.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate account of Glorious sinking in Garzke and Dulin? 

message: It is stated that Scharnhorst got back up from 5 to 22 knots after the damage by the shell that penetrated the boiler room was partially fixed. Then it is stated that it was pulling away from the British forces; which is false. It was pulling away before that shell penetrated, not after. The destroyers wouldn't have been able to catch up if it didn't take that hit.
Top speed of Scharnhorst almost 32 knots, top speed of Duke of York about 27 knots. So Scharnhorst wouldn't be pulling away at 22 knots. The information just has to be repositioned. Thanks.
Best wishes;
David Torre 
 DaveTorre (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maximum speed in calm waters in peacetime is not the same as maximum speed in gale in December in the Arctic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of North Cape 

message: i don't have a Garzke & Dulin at hand, could somebody check page 146 ? In Martin Middlebrooks 'Hamburg 1943' on p.69-70 ( German lang ) there are some details about the window / Düppel developments by Germany, and it says there that the Germans knew the principle of chaff, and out of fear maybe the British learned about it and use it against the german air defensive, it was forbidden in the Luftwaffe to even talk about it. So it is doubtfull they would use consider to use it themselves first. Also, I don't find any other source stating that Germans possessed chaff for use in 1942, the Düppel research was mid 1942. Nor did I find any other source mentioning chaff in operation Cerberus. Klutserke (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Germans used electronic radio jamming, not Duppel. It was absolutely forbidden to use Duppel under any circumstances in case the British found out about it. (They didn't know, of course, that the British had already discovered it.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On p146 indeed Garzke & Dulin mention German airplanes used chaff, but that must be a mistake. I found another source ( Jones, R. V. (1978). Most Secret War: British Scientific Intelligence 1939–1945, page 383 ) which confirms  Germans did not use chaff in 1942, with Göring even explicitly forbidding to discuss its existence.  Klutserke (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  chaff / Düppel used during operation Cerberus ? 

message: This affects both Scharnhorst’s page and the Page for the class. 
The main belt is listed as 350mm, and to my knowledge this number originated from Janes, wich is known to have accuracy issues. It also partly originated from Gröner.
The proper thickness should be 320mm sourced from:
RM 25/15783 (Original Ship plans for Gneisenau) (using the given scale guide of 1:25) from 1938/39 plus others in the set. 
RM 25/6319 shows it even better & straight up mentions the 320mm belt.
ONI lists it as 320mm (12.6in)
Gröner lists it as being 350mm, but this was most likely having very early 1936 plans. 
Primary documents such as those shown in the Bundesarchiv should have president over secondary sources. Multiple other authors list it as 320mm (IE Whitley). if it says 340, it most likely is including the 20mm backing plate (cba to look up anymore information)
credits out to those who did the research for this on another area of the internet. I borrowed it. 166.181.85.49 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Another note is eventually to add that the armor belt tapered. 166.181.85.49 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing primary sources is generally not acceptable. You need to provide specific citations (i.e., including page numbers) in the article if you want to change the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy with armor should be 320mm not 350mm