This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Denmark Strait article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 24, 2010 and May 24, 2012. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inspite of the reference to Ludovic Kennedy's remark in his book "Pursuit", the claim that HMS Prince of Wales had "come into torpedo range of Prinz Eugen and turned away as the German cruiser was about to fire", does NOT bear any scrutiny. There was never ANY point during the battle where this was the case. The maximum range of German G7a naval steam torpedo was 12km at their lowest『Weitschuß』speed setting. HMS PoW's gunnery charts show that at the point of turning away from the German ships her salvoes, fired at a range of 14100 yards, were "short" of the German ships.
Even if PoW had come within 12km of Prinz Eugen before turning to withdraw, at the Weitschuß speed setting of 30knots it would take the G7a torpedo nearly 14 minutes to cover that 12km, meaning that due to the prior convergent courses of the combattants, to arrive at the point where PoW turned to withdraw, a torpedo fired 14 minutes earlier by the Prinz Eugen would have been fired at a range in the region of 30,000 yards from the point where PoW withdrew at 06:03.
While Prinz Eugen's torpedoes had been readied at the start of the engagement, she was never in a position to use them, so why perpetuate earlier speculation that is later shown to have been incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.111 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are opposing views about whether these two warships should be described as "battleships" or "battle-cruisers" - see discussion: Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser.
Simply speaking, the pro-battleship arguments appear to be 1) that's a correct translation of the German "schlachtschiffe", 2) the German builders have the right to define the classification, 3} Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had all the characteristics of battleships except the main armament. The pro-battlecruiser arguments appear to be 1) English-language articles are not bound by German (in this case) terminology and should use terms familiar to their audience, 2) English-language authorities such as "Jane's" and the Royal Navy use the term "battlecruiser", 3) the lesser armament made the difference, 4}both ships acted as battlecruisers and could not have acted as battleships.
My view? We write for our audience. Use whichever description best helps the reader (in his/ her own language) and explain the dispute. Folks at 137 19:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These ships don't fit that pattern, or the British pattern term "battlecruiser". They are Battleships.
I don't know whether to be appalled more by your ignorance or by your strange assumption that my opinion means nothing because I posted from Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.88.80.138 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. The designed intent of the Scharnhorst was as a counter to the French Dunkerques. They were designed with engaging them at the forefront of their mission. A capital ship designed to engage other capital ships is a battleship Warspite85 (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts that an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen hit the Hood at 06.01, causing the enormous explosion that sank the ship. This cannot be right, as Prinz Eugen had been firing at Prince of Wales for some minutes, as ordered by Lutjens after Bismarck received several hits from the British battleship. It is not disputed that the first hit Hood received was from Prinz Eugen, at about 05.56, which set off a large fire on Hood's deck. However, the majority of opinion accepts that it was a 15" hit from Bismarck that sank the battlecruiser, not a delayed reaction to the first hit she received from Prinz Eugen five minutes earlier.
Of course it's impossible to be certain of this fact, therefore some caution needs to be shown. Still, I don't see that there can be any doubt that it's incorrect to say that a shell from Prinz Eugen hit Hood at 06.01. bigpad 21:15, 10 April 2006.
See also Captain Leach report on Hood loss: three near miss, "something hitting onboard" from Bismark at 0600. It's impossibile for an experienced seaman mistake about shell splashes: think only about shell weight, 800 kg for Bismark 15" rounds, only 120 kg for 8" Prinz Eugen. And there is absolutely no chance for a 8" shell to pierce even a two decade old 12" Hood main belt, or the thinner 178 mm secondary belt above: even the tiny 76 mm main Hood main deck armour is more than capable to defeat a 8" shell plunging from above. And you have to take into account that the shell was falling with a 50-60 degree horizontal angle, thus increasing the armour thickness. The only chance is a 15" shell, perhaps hitting aprow secondary ordnance magazine and detonating inside it, propagating fire to the adiacent main gun stern magazine and igniting propelling charges rather than shells. Even the survivors onboard Hood tells about a not-so-strong detonation or large shock wave, which is what you expects form launch explosives, prone to "burn" rather than "explode". Only after charge ignition and flash propagation in the rear part of the ship, including boiler and engine rooms you had a real "explosion" that smashed hull, sides and all produced structural collapse. According to my opinion it's much more important to speculate about the French veteran dreadnought "Bretagne", older and more unarmoured than "Hood", that survived a magazine direct hit from British fleet in Norther Africa. Why she did not exploded, while "Hood" did ?
Lots of work needed here. I intend to start work on this article myself, but have a backlog of tasks to clear before I can get started. Apart from adding the cleanup tags, I have made a start by adding the Battle of the Denmark Strait Documentation Resource link. John Moore 309 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone very familiar with the subject matter neede to look over the article. Also, the article needs to be referenced. KarenAnn 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is patently a dispute over whether or not to link to the Bismarck Chase. Is there a consensus on the matter and the Chase article? GraemeLeggett 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don´t see a reason to question the decision of Lütjens to not pursue the Prince of Wales. There are a number of good reasons to not do so. I don´t think it´s necessary to judge about it, as this is an encyclopedia and there is too much speculation in it. However, if we do so, we should open a new section, which I did right now and also add counter-arguments, which I did right now in only to a very limited degree. We then also need to discuss the decision of the Hood to attack the way it did, who failed to engage Suffolk and Norfolk in it as well etc. That´s a huge discussion and not really encyclopedical. Therefore, I´m more to open to just delete the new "discussion" section. Mausch 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section is speculative and (I believe) basically non-encyclopedic in nature. It is very largely non-factual, and the officers' imagined thought processes cannot be verified by any known means. Second guesses, third guesses - what next!? The article does not need this section, and reads as a better article without it. I agree with Mausch that the "Discussion" section should be removed. I see two voices here against including this "Discussion" and one in favor. Any others? Rstevec (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Chesnau, Prinz Eugen's Gunnery Officer, and principal Historian, Paul Schmallenbach, has stated that at the time of the initial salvos the Eugen's target was Hood, and may have been responsible for the hit amongst the ready to use ammunition. Citation added. Dapi89 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references state Barnett was used in the article but there's no mention of the work in the bibliography. Can someone clarify. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Bismark1040.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Commanders listed as Holland and Leach however R.Adm Wake-Walker aboard Norfolk took command after loss of Holland aboard Hood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.56.206 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to correct the false statement that most of Prince of Wales' guns were out of action. This edit has been reverted by kurfurst, without justification. I put this information up for discussion on the king george V battleship talk page, where he has had ample opportunity to discuss it. Once again kurfurst is engaging in an editing war to try and maintian inaccurate information in the article. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the text into a footnote so that readers could understand the contents of the gunnery report without having to study it, which was in response to a suggestion User_talk:Toddy1 my actual edit made a very small change to the article. The statement that most of Prince of wales' guns were out of action is simply false, and if you have read the report, you know this to be true, especially since the report explicitly states that Prince of Wales achieved a 74% output from her main armament, and details the timing of the breakdowns that did occur. This may seem like a minor point but it is not, because the action terminated with the Prince of Wales having considerable firepower, and this in turn helps explain why the Bismarck did not pursue. As for the rest, I won't dignify it with a response. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same kind of editing behaviour you&'and heg'(revealed to be from the same city, country, ISP as your login...) did over the KGV article: remove referenced parts, replace them with your own research. The source you are drawing your own conclusions (which is OR) is a primary source, wikipedia relies on published secondary sources.
I have come to this page at the invitation of Damwiki1 [1]. I am going to break this into two pieces. Style of comments and article content.
As a general rule editors must assume WP:good faith (that we all want to produce a better encyclopaedia) and comment on the edit and not the editor. Only commenting on the content is a strategy that has evolved on Wikipedia because it has been found that it makes it more difficult to reach a consensus on the content of an article if comments are made about an editor with one disagrees.
Damwiki1 made a bold edit, and user:Kurfürst reverted it. This is quite acceptable Wikipedia behaviour, it is not edit warring Damwiki1.
Given the provocation, (although I don't condone Kurfürst's reply because replaying as (s)he did it escalated the situation and made it more difficult to reach a consensus on the content) his/her response is understandable and is a good example of why it is unwise to start a new section with accusations of edit warring in the first paragraph.
Also it is no use saying "I put this information up for discussion on the king george V battleship talk page" because the content of any page should be discussed on the talk page of the article, remember you are not writing comments on this page just to convince a person with whom you could not reach agreement on another page, but you are explaining your edit to a new audience of editors who have this page on their watch list, or who may read this talk page months or years later. So it is better to provide a link to the section on another talk page where you have gone into details and give a brief summary here as to why you made the edit that you did.
Wikipeida has a clear policy on original research, this is not the place to publish it. To help facilitate this there is a policy on the use of primary sources WP:PSTS.
What this means is that despite the statement "my actual edit made a very small change to the article" the change that was made was to change the content of the article which is written in the passive narrative voice of the article was from "By this time, serious gunnery malfunctions had put most of the main guns out of action." to "By this time, serious gunnery malfunctions had caused intermittent problems with the main armament, leading to a 26% reduction in output." In my opinion unless there is a secondary source that draws these conclusions it is original research because WP:PSTS is quite clear "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."--I am very aware of this part of WP:PSTS because I have been involved in many many discussions over a couple of years or more on this very issue--and AFAICT there is not mention of a 26% in the primary source.
To use a primary source, it is really necessary to have a quote or words that paraphrase precisely what the primary source states, so although I don't think that the words added to the main content of the article are acceptable, it seems to me that the wording in the footnote is acceptable.
I appreciate that this is very frustrating to an editor who has a detailed knowledge of a subject and knows that something is wrong, but Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."(Wikipedia:Verifiability).
If you do not agree with me, and would like another opinion please explain how and why you want to use a primary source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I've said all I will on this subject and although I'll put this page on my watch list and monitor it for editorial behaviour, but I'll not get any further involved in the content dispute or edit the article. --PBS (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is Leach's radio messages: http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/pofw_damage1.htm And heg (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STOP all of you. Kurfürst this is not the place for me to mentor your behaviour ... but I am going to! Please read WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Instead of replying to Dapi89 as you did and then continued your editor critical remarks, a much better approach would be to have written "Dapi89 my mistake, Philip is right it is OR, do you agree and can we revert back to the original text" Dapi89 could then reply on the merits or otherwise of doing so, based on the text, but as it stands at the moment you have forced Dapi89 into a needless confrontation. I suggest that you strike out all your comments since my last edit and restart the conversation talking about the content of the article not the editors who have contributed to it. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not OR, but a simple summary of the Action Report, the state of each turret is detailed with salvo timings given. If a source (G&D) written over 20 years ago is mistaken, then we should use newer material to correct it, if we have access to it in an understandable format. OR would be me finding the ships logs and reconstructing the event, and I haven't done this, I have taken a report and summarized it. In this sense the Action Report is a secondary source, since it in turn is based upon the the primary data collected by the gunners. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed "The Bismarck episode" by Grenfell, "The loss of the Bismarck by Rhys-Jones", and "The sinking of the Bismarck" by Admiral Tovey which is his official despatch and I've added it to the external links along with Captain Leach's sworn statement regarding his decision to end the action. None of these sources state that most of PoW's guns were out of action when she turned away. Trying to prove a negative is always difficult, but there are abundant sources to work with, in this instance.
Damwiki1 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my post of 20:56, 3 June I stated that I had reviewed 4 sources, including 3 secondary sources and I placed Tovey's despatch online in the external links along with Leach's testimony, and although Leach is a primary source it enables us to judge the accuracy of the secondary sources. None of these mention that the majority (IE 6 or more out of ten) of PoW's gun were out of action at any point, and even after Y turret jammed, 5 guns were still in action. There is no reason for a source to comment on something that didn't happen!!! Admiral Tovey defended Leach's decision to withdraw, and he doesn't mention something that would have been very relevant, IE most of PoW's guns going out of service, for the simple reason that it didn't happen, and he couldn't anticipate that 40 years later an author would make a mistake, and claim that it did. Both Grenfell's "Bismarck Episode" and Rhys-Jones' book are respected sources and make no mention of such an event, although it would be critically important to note, but again they didn't comment on something that didn't happen! Damwiki1 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Antonio Bonomi's meticulous reconstruction of the battle: http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bonomi_denstrait1.htm and again there's no mention of the majority of PoW's guns being out of action. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurfürst (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2009
Bonomi's article is pretty easy to read. And heg (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the 26% figure recently inserted into the article have any real relevance? It is an editor's calculated average of the percentage of possible shells not fired over the course of the engagement. This percentage isn't so much less than that for the German ships. However, after receiving battle damage Capt. Leach's radio dispatches stated that both of Prince of Wales' forward high angle directors (rangefinders) were out of action and that both port SL sights (rangefinders) were destroyed. PoW had relied on the forward HA directors because of problems in using the forward turret's rangefinders. His ship's fire had been relatively poorly directed even when these directors had been operative. Afterward, PoW's fire appears to have possessed even less effectiveness. In view of this, it seems out of place to emphasize this 26% calculation. The earlier statement, that most of PoW's main armament was out of action at the time Capt. Leach left off firing, is technically inaccurate according to most sources in that half or perhaps even more than half of the guns could still propel shells, at least somewhere in the general direction intended. But the article promotes the implication that 74% of the main armament was in proper working order at that time and that it could have been used in a normally effective manner to continue the engagement. That might have been true only after some considerable repairs could be effected. In my (non-expert) view the article leans too much on this bit of statistics.
Rstevec (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SL lights = searchlights, not rangefinders. Pow was directing her 14in guns from her forward main armament Director control tower (DCT), which also contained a 15ft rangefinder. The DCT was not damaged during the action. The 26% reduction figure is taken from Prince of Wales' gunnery report. As you point out Prince of Wales gunnery is not that much different from the German ships, which also suffered a loss of output.And heg (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the PoW also lose the forward turret (with 40% of its main guns) due to flooding for a time? it is not in the article but I read it in a book somewhere, if anyone else can reference it, it should probably be included (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Kurfurst removing other people's comment is a violation, cease and desist. Not to mention you did so under a false and misleading edit summary. It was youwho were being confrontational. PBS was refering to you. Dapi89 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on improving the article and stop continuing your dogfight. BTW removal of other users's comments should not happen unless it's vandalism or on the removers user talk page. --Denniss (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kurfürst when I said strike out I meant do this (<s>do this</s>) not delete your comments. As a general rule deleting comments should not be done, as the replies that others give look non-nonsensical (see WP:REDACTED). If you do strike out your comments that you now think are not constructive to the development of this article, then in a spirit of goodwill Dapi89 may choose to do the same thing (but your strike outs have to be unconditional, and only he can decide if or if he is going to follow your lead) as that will defuse this spat, and both of you must by now realise that such behaviour is counter productive to the development of this Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IfKurfürst is going to remove comments, maybe he should start with removing his false accusations against me. This kind of behavior is very unseemly. And heg (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STOP, personal comments about another editor have nothing to do with the development of this article and are not appropriate on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if anyone has read anything I have posted to this page about personal attacks! If any of the following editors: user:And heg, user:Jacurek, user:Dapi89, user:Kurfürst, and user:Damwiki1; make an edit to this talk page, or leave a comment in the history of this talk page, or leave a comment in the history of the article, that I consider to be a breach of WP:CIVIL, within the next seven days from the time stamp at the end of this paragraph, I will block their account for a time. (As the say in soccer "play the ball not the man") --PBS (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've put a comment at the end of the above section (Price of Wales' Guns) but it seems lost in the lengthy discussions here. It is or should be impartial to the personalities involved, and I don't want to re-scratch people's itches about whatever was going on here. But I do question the way this is now treated in the article. —
Rstevec (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the article to Hugo999's last edit as Kurfurst's edit amount to a major re-write of the article. We should discuss this here first.And heg (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And heg (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
I confess that I do not understand the times given in the Plan gone awry subsection. There the time of sunset is given as 0151; if that is local time, how can sunset anywhere be between midnight and noon? If it is Greenwich time, is it summer time (one hour ahead of the Sun) or double summer time or whatever it is called? And in any case, what was the condition of daylight when the two fleets met (first sighting 0535, firing commences 0552)? PKKloeppel (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! Kennedy, 1974, states in Chapter 6 that - for the British fleet - 'ship's clocks were four hours ahead of local time' at the point when Victorious was preparing to launch the first Swordfish attack on Bismark. As these events take place in the longitude range 30-37 degrees West (corresponding to 2 hours behind Greenwich), the implication is that the British fleet was indeed operating on Double Summer Time. Clearly operational coherence requires all units in a given command work to the same clock; immense confusion would result if each ship adjusted to its own longitude! Later in this chapter Kennedy remarks that the USCG cutter Modoc had its clock set one hour behind local time, therefore 5 hours behind the British fleet. I have added Kennedy's statement to the article, but not my OR about double summer time. As to light conditions on engagement, early in Chapter 4 Kennedy states: '..in that cold, pale dawn, with the eastern sky pink and violet on the low cirrus and a hazy blue above..' John M Brear (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first source that claims the sinking took eleven minutes. I've heard seven and five minutes, as well as a claim that, in England, there were few people that were further than two degrees of separation from those lost on The Hood--that is, if you weren't associated/related to someone lost on The Hood, you almost certainly knew someone who was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlangenFarben (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon a new comment in the middle of all the hostile discussion amongst various individuals, but as of today (23 May 10 local time) the fact box for this entry shows that Admiral Holland died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait (true) and that Admiral Lutjens also died in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I hope no one will accuse me of original research from primary sources if I say that I believe accepted primary sources show that Lutjens did not die in the Battle of the Denmark Strait and was killed in another battle several days later.
With all the hostility about inappropriate editing and reverting of the entry I am not going to touch the fact box even though I believe it is factually incorrect, but perhaps one of you with sufficient authority and seniority will do so.
My word processing program does not allow me to make umlauts so maybe one of you old-timers will also take a moment to add them to my comment so that Lutjens' name is spelled correctly. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All mention here of "X" turret should be changed to "Y" turret as POW had no "X" turret, the rearmost turret was the "Y" turret. All other mention of the aft turret on a KGV class battleship calls it the "Y" turret. An "X" turret is generally an aft facing turret that is just forward of and generally elevated to fire over the rearmost turret. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original text at the top of the 'Sketch' image (presumably endorsed by Leach), says: "...as seen from H.M.S. Prince of Wales at a distance of 4 cables". [My emphasis].
If a cable is 200 yards, does this mean that Leach saw the explosion on HMS Hood from 800 yards away ? It seems rather close when all the other distances in the article are expressed in thousands of yards or even miles. RASAM (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
800 metres which is much the same as 800 yards. But it is correct. PoW and Hood were operating as squadron. Holland's strict adherence to admiralty fighting instructions kept the two of them in very close order Warspite85 (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that the RN destroyers didn't take part in the battle, but Suffolk attempted to engage Prinz Eugen at 0619. The presence of the cruisers also caused Lutjens to place Prinz Eugen in the Van while both RN cruisers engaged the KM forces, briefly, during the hours prior to the battle.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Denmark Strait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the words in the sentence
Since Bismarck's receiving the first hit in the forecastle, all six of the ship's 26-man damage control teams had worked ceaselessly to repair the damage.
could be explained. I can guess that the area was too cramped, partially under water or less likely that the 6 were the specialist hull repair divers but the current sentence sounds odd. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the British response to the battle says Admiral Pound tried to have the captain of Prince of Wales and another guy court-martialled. So far as I know this has never been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:28A5:81C2:35C8:284E (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you goal was to sink enemy warships, then yes, this one battle was obviously a German victory.
But the German goal was for Bismarck to break out into the Atlantic and ship merchants.
The British goal was to prevent the Bismarck from breaking out and sinking merchants.
The direct consequence of the battle of Denmark Straight for the Germans, was that Bismarck had to abandon her mission. So the British succeeded - at huge a cost - but still succeeded. VSTAMPv (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the help page).