Talk:SMS Fürst Bismarck

message: Although the sources you have available don't mention this ship specifically in the context of the European arms competition, I don't see a problem with adding some material on that to put the shipbuilding efforts of the German navy in that context.  From about 1890 to the start of the war, Germany and Britain engaged in an arms race, and the Germans sought to increase the strength of their navy and its presence overseas.  The ship was constructed at the beginning of this race; ships afterward had modifications that made them lighter and more maneuverable.    Following the war, the Versailles treaty limited the number of ships the Germans could have in commission, even for patrolling the borders.   I think you need some material on this, even if it's short, to place the construction of this ship, and your comparisons to other ships, in some kind of framework.
--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have a couple of books about the Kaiserliche Marine that will probably be useful in this regard: Building the Kaiser's Navy and By Order of the Kaiser, by Weir and Gottshcall, respectively. Unfortunately, I don't have them handy at the moment—I can probably get ahold of them either tomorrow or Thursday—so it'll have to wait until I do. Thanks for clarifying your suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Context Comment

message: Ship's hull was steel, not wood.  A thin layer of Muntz metal was installed to prevent growth of marine life.  A layer of wood separated the steel from the Muntz metal.  The Muntz metal was not .95m thick!  Does someone know the correct thickness?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.216.211 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 49 of Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945, which is based on official documentation from the German navies, states, "Transverse and longitudinal steel frame construction, with a single layer of wooden planks with Muntz metal sheeting up to .95m above CWL." Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually now that I think about it, he probably meant the metal sheet extended up to a meter above the waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions:  hull plating 

message: This image is claimed on Commons to be from a visit of the ship to the United States.  There is nothing in the source data at the Library of Commerce to support that, and it seems unlikely that the ship would have come to the US (although the vessel did visit at least one US possession).  
The claim on Commons, that the photograph is a work of the US government, is also dubious, as the LOC says it is from the collection of a news service.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bain News Service donated a collection to the Library of Congress, which included turning over the rights to the images. They are therefore in the PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following website (in German) claims that SMS Fürst Bismarck uninterrupted between 1900 and 1909 was based in East Asian waters. "S.M.S. Fürst Bismarck blieb von 1900 bis 1909 ununterbrochen in den ostasiatischen Gewässern und traf am 26. Juni 1909 wieder in Kiel ein." This contradicts the claim "The German cruiser SMS Fürst Bismarck during a visit in the U.S. sometime between 1900 and 1909." MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't necessarily mean the ship couldn't have visited the US during that time.  was assigned to the Caribbean station, but was in San Francisco at the outbreak of war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Is this the same ship referred to as Große Kreuzer Fűrst Bismark?  As pictured here, it seems to be so.  In that case, should the infobox be changed from "unique class" to  Große Kreuzer ("large cruiser", or "heavy cruiser")? ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. This ship was classified by the German navy as a Große Kreuzer, but that is the ship type, not the class. In this context, class refers to ship class, not a specific type of ship. For example, the previous German Großen Kreuzer, the , are part of a class because they were five ships built to the same design. In this case, Fürst Bismarck was a unique design. Parsecboy (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Große kreuzer? 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:S.M. Grosser Kreuzer Fürst Bismarck - restoration, borderless.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 31, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:S.M. Grosser Kreuzer Fürst Bismarck - restoration, borderless.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Substituted at 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be usable as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo