Talk:H-class battleship proposals

message: How about using metric system units in an article about a European ship? How about using the metric systems in all of the articles since most of the civilized world uses the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.191 (talk • contribs) 
* I'm just following form, seeing as this is an English article, and all English-speaking countries have a basic knowlegde of Imperial measurements. You want to convert them, do it, but I'm going by the original documents. HawkerTyphoon 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Power 52050 hp ? , that is wrong. H-44 has 5 srew turbine/+Diesel mix. It needs 240.000 hp for 30 kn.  max. speed.  217.9.49.3 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It was left over from where I copied the infobox from - I've removed it ! HawkerTyphoon 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric vs. Standard

message: I think we're going to need some compromise language in this article. You've got a source, apparently (in Groener), that claims a 48 cm main battery for H-42 and H-43. However, Breyer asserts 42 cm bored-out heavy artillery for H-42 and 50.8 cm weapons for H-43 and H-44. Garzke and Dulin, who use plenty of primary source material themselves, come up with the same figures. So, there should probably be something about the figures being disputed. Sacxpert (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gröner's book is based entirely on archival documents, whereas it's unclear what exactly Garzke & Dulin examined. I don't have Breyer handy, but I do know he's made mistakes - see this, for example. How's this for a compromise solution? The note will need the relevant page citations for Breyer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know G&D used a lot of source material: extensive documents from Oberkommando der Marine, Die Geschichte der Detuscher Schiffartillerie, etc. It's in the bibliography of each volume. I think that this discussion should be inline, not a footnote. Something like this: "Sources differ on the primary armament of the H-42 and H-43 designs. Several sources [insert the ref tags there] have asserted a 42 cm main battery for the H-42, and a 50.8 cm main battery for H-43. However, a recent book by Groener posits a 48 cm armament for both designs.[ref tag]" There's no shame in admitting that sources are in dispute, but that should be explained, up front, to the reader, not buried in a footnote that most people (let's be honest) won't read. Again, I know Breyer made mistakes, and also worked from inferior information (especially as regards the S. Soyuz class). I just don't think that makes all of his work and citations invalid, or inherently more suspect than anyone else's. This solution makes clear that multiple sources use the 42 cm/50.8 cm progression, while acknowledging that a recent source disputes this. Sacxpert (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about armament

message: The design listed as being "H45" does not exist.  What happened was that the Warships Projects Discussion Board (http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects has a theoretical discussion of the sheer size of a battleship that used the guns in question.  One contributor to that thread (posting as seeadler) than ran up a purely hypothetical 'design' to illustrate how absurd the idea was.  To quote seeadler
"If he took information about H45 as describing a real ship I think he needs to read this site more closely or German naval technical design history more closely. I am the one who made H45 up. It was a ship of 700,000 tons (based on an engineer's estimates of a vessel capable of carrying 4 x 2 80xm guns). A heavy AA armament of 8 24 cm guns (the Kriegsmarine was developing such a gun for land base use at the end of the war) and numerous 12.8cm flak in enclosed mounts. I made a drawing of the ship and placed it on the site but I assure you it was entirely imaginary. If Mr. Porter merely googled the design without checking further then he did a disservice to his readers and to his reputation."
This thread can be found at http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890&mforum=warshipprojects
It appears that David Porter found the reference to H45 by searching the internet and did not pay any attention to the actual provenance of the data. This pretty much destroys him as a serious historian. H45 is not a genuine H-class design and it should be removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk • contribs) 
:I had questioned the addition of the material - no other reputable German naval historian (such as Breyer, Gröner, etc.) has ever mentioned anything like the so-called H-45 design. It amazes me that Porter didn't bother to fact-check the information, and that his publisher didn't either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the design is pure baloney, conjectural fiction, then it has no validity, and should not be represented here. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The H-45 design is Internet fancruft, but it is true that Hitler wanted battleships with 80 cm weapons. He showed sketches of them to Raeder, who dispatched Adm. Fuchs to explain the constraints imposed by such an arsenal. Sacxpert (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is growing doubt as to whether this is true or not.  It's mentioned in Duilin and Gartzke but it is not sources there and appears to be purely anecdotal.  Also, Admiral Raeder is quoted in "Hitler and His Admirals" by Anthony K Martienssen as saying Hitler had a very good grasp of the technical aspects of ship design and that quotation is sourced to an original document.  It's hard to imagine Raeder saying that if Hitler was floating this crazy scheme.  It seems that the whole battleship with 80cm weapons thing is purely an internet creation that has somehow gained a life of its own and found its way into reputable reference books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I deprodded it. I have no firm opinion, but I think it needs an open discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected the article - it's a substantially similar recreation of the article redirected via this AfD. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

text: That's a copy of Wikipedia content. Which is to say, your Wikipedia content, which can hardly be used as a source to justify including your content. As for whether it deserves mention, it is not based in reality, so no, it does not deserve to be mentioned, either here or in a stand-alone article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Not a hoax, no, but as far as I can tell it was simply the work of Commander Kaneda's overactive imagination. It never was a serious proposal. So if you're asking whether it merits an article, no, it doesn't. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: H45 Does Not Exist

message: I edited it down on an earlier version but this time I'll just note that infoboxes should present information in an easily read form and having all the design stats in the infobox makes it rather unwieldy and visually lacking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The H-41 is the final detailed design by the OKM Construction Office and was approved by Admiral Raeder, unlike the subsequent H-42 to 44. Should we have a separate infobox on that? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attached a draft of the H-41 infobox above. Figures are from Garzke & Dulin. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

text: As a side note, should this infobox be kept separate as it is currently, or merged with the main infobox? Steve7c8 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for the H-41 design? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :H-45. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#H-45 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "H-45" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: When h class battleship laid down and launch? 94.128.164.153 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboood