::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
== 10.5 cm fire control ==
My edit about the domed anti-aircraft artillery was reverted, mostly because I am a relative new and inexperienced at providing references.
My edit about the domed anti-aircraft artillery was reverted, mostly because I am a relative new and inexperienced at providing references.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Apparently, if you use the construction: {convert|320|mm|in|sigfig=3|abbr=on} rather than the existing construction: {convert|360|mm|abbr=on} (add another brace (curly bracket) - {} - each side to make the coding work!). Why don't you template-lovers get busy making the world of warship statistics more accurate.
Some misleading wording
12.6 inch main belt armour is not "very thick" in contemporary terms - "thick" perhaps but not "very". Considering that the French Richelieu (13in), German Scharnhorst (13.78in), British KGV (15in) and Japanese Yamato (16in) classes all had thicker armour, the modifier "very" is not supported by reality - "averagely" might be more appropriate.
Are we still at this? Compared to other warship types of the day, and contemporary vessels that readers might be familiar with, it is indeed very thick. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no! The only reasonable comparison for a statement on the armour of a battleship is the armour on other battleships, and specifically other contemporary battleships. The reader will not be thinking of other ship types at all. No one, not even you, thinks of the armour of a battleship in relation to the splinter-protection on a bloody corvette! My reasoning here is exact and appropriate, please respond in kind. Oh I spoke to my friend the Lloyds Register marine inspector and Lt. RANR, and barbettes are not superstructure; they are neither hull, nor superstructure but are classed as "armament". Urselius (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if we hadn't already established this before, I can't help you with your apparent inability to distinguish between whatever you read into text that isn't there and what the text simply says. That is a problem you need to solve in your own time, not repeatedly fight about here.
Let me let you in on a little secret. There's a reason we avoid jargon. Most of our readers are not marine inspectors. We write articles for a general audience, not experts. What the average DNC will assume about a given line of text is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no you don't! You tried your very best to browbeat me with jargon (easily confirmed by looking at Battleship Bismarck talk page), you are an arch-hypocrite. Urselius (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there's a wee bit of a difference between discussions on talk pages and how articles are written. Let's drop the personal attacks before the issue has to leave our hands. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the nations building battleships in this era only the Italians and Americans produced battleships with thinner main belt armour than the Bismarck, the French, British and Japanese all produced battleships with thicker main belt armour.
Precisely! If the phrase "Very thick vertical belt armour was adopted..." is not to be understood in relation to other battleships, then it is a tautological expression and should be struck out. It is in the nature of battleships to have armour, and in relation to armour found elsewhere (on tanks or destroyers for example) it is thick. Saying, out of any context of comparison, "battleship X has thick armour" is the equivalent to saying "ice-cream is cold" or "a horse has four legs". You are in a logical cleft stick here, Parsecboy, either "very" goes, because it wasn't "very thick" in relation to the armour of its contemporaries, or the whole phrase goes, because it is tautological and adds nothing useful to the text. Urselius (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good, but we do not expect readers to know that all battleships have very thick armor. And indeed some do not, as evidenced by many classes of Italian warships from the 1870s onward. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The artillery section states that the Bismarck-class guns out ranged all of their foreign 38 cm and 40 cm contemporaries, except for the Italian 381 mm gun.
This is patently false, as the French 380 mm gun also out ranged the German gun (for easy reference, see their Wikipedia articles). It is also confirmed on navweaps (a reliable source as per stated policy, and no page anywhere seems to say that's changed) (addendum: the policy was just changed, but by the same user who is undoing this which is quite dubious), and Conway's All the World's Battleships lists a 50,000 yard range for the French guns (no range is listed for the German guns, but other sources, and this article, give a maximum range around 40,000 yards). I don't have access to Campbell's **Naval Weapons of World War Two**, the probable source navweaps uses for the range, but if someone does it will also confirm that the French gun had a longer range than the German. After all, it fired a heavier shell at a higher muzzle velocity, with a higher maximum elevation.
Anyway Wikipedia User:Parsecboy keeps undoing my changes to that article claiming contrary to policy that Navweaps is not a reliable source, even when my change cites Conway's which the article already uses as a source. I cannot think of any good reason for this. The section as it stands is both inaccurate and unverifiable. But User:Parsecboy has already broken the three-revert rule and I would rather not - I would be interested in hearing their justification, but I'm mostly interested in fixing this false and unreferenced bit of wikipedia. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I've been writing Featured Articles on these ships for the better part of the last decade. You have not. I think I know better than you what sources are acceptable.
You were still citing Navweaps, not Conway's.
As for your wikilawyering, I suggest you familiarize yourself withe policy you're linking. 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.
Did you even read the edit? It cited both navweaps and Conway's page 26.
An acquaintance actually has access to Campbell. Campbell p. 229 gives 35,550 m maximum range for the German guns, p. 281 gives 41,700 m for the French. Incidentally Italian 381 mm is 42,260 m (p. 320). I will be replacing the paragraph again; there are plenty of sources for this, in any form. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking the same discussion that (before you changed it) the military history project page gave as justification that navweaps was reliable, and you are in there saying it is a reliable source... 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to write that bit differently though. Mentioning the weaknesses of the other guns is awkward (it sounds like the article is trying to claim that Italy/France somehow 'cheated' to get guns that out ranged the German ones). Also, navweaps shows the Japanese 41 cm 3rd year type gun also having more range, so at this point the German gun out ranges three of its contemporaries (US 16"/45 Mk 6, UK 15" Mk I and 14" Mk VII), is out ranged by three (Italy 381 mm, France 380 mm, Japan 41 cm), and seems about equal to one (UK 16" Mk I). Not really "most", I think. I didn't mention the Japanese gun though, because it is technically 41 cm and not 40.6 cm and because I don't know the page number in Campbell. 66.214.105.178 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikirictor17:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
10.5 cm fire control
My edit about the domed anti-aircraft artillery was reverted, mostly because I am a relative new and inexperienced at providing references.
I would respectfully ask for help in getting the edit undo reversed, as my information is correct.
The reference is the Warship Profile on BISMARCK and the updated Anatomy of the Ship volume in BISMARCK.
Phhotos in Breyer German Capital ships also clearly show that the objective (target-side) ends of the rangefinders in the after positions on BISMARCK are different from those in the forward installations. Also, it is easy to see that the rangefinders in the after positions actually sit lower, directly above the truncated inverted cone shields; whereas the complete positions with the domes, the rangefinder arms clearly sit higher.
Moreover the Anatomy of the Ship volume even identifies the systems by different model numbers.
Garzke and Dulin are not error-free. The most egregious example is the rather well known photo from astern of TIRPITZ which they (and the USN) mislabel as BISMARCK.
