Talk:Alfred von Tirpitz

Fleet Review
initiating the 1889 British Fleet Review as a 'show of strength', to which Tirpitz and the Kaiser were invited.

1889 sounds very unlikely. Tirpitz wasn't even Admiral at that time. 1899 would fit far better. Any sources on that? Nevfennas 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

His title?
The "von" in his name usually indicates some title of nobility, at least ritter or freiherr. Something... Could someone find out, please, and add it? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 07:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC).


 * What are you asking? Yes, he was often valled "von Tirpitz" and the battleship I believe was called von Tirpitz. You had that right, so what do you mean? If you're asking if that's what his title was then absolutely. He was very famous, I'm sure. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He's referring to the titles that are often associated with the von, like Franz von Hipper whose full title was actually Franz Ritter von Hipper after being knighted in 1916 (Ritter is german for Knight). Concerning Tirpitz: he was a non-noble until he was ennobled in 1900, no knowledge about an associated title Nevfennas 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"was not strong enough" in the introduction
It seems to me that "did not appear to be strong enough, or he (or they) lacked confidence would be more accurate. If the loss rate of the Battle of Jutland were extrapolated to an all out battle of attrition, the British would have run out of ships first.  The British had problems with ammunition storage that lasted into WW II, and they had armor piercing problems that Jelleco had failed to fix earlier.  Also the Germans had better range finders and perhaps better armor and/or guns.  David R. Ingham (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're comparing apples to oranges here. To quote from an undergrad essay I was once shown as an example of bad writing, "to begin with, we must begin where Kershaw begins in the beginning" (what a waste of a sentence!). Jacky Fisher, the First Sea Lord, was a strong proponent of battle cruisers. The differences between a battleship and a battle cruiser is that a battleship has big guns and is well armored while a battle cruiser has a big guns and is only lightly armored. Battle cruisers were aptly known as "egg shells with hammers". With battle cruisers, one has a ship with very powerful guns that go really fast. But the problem with battle cruisers is that if battle cruiser is close enough to hit a battleship, the converse is also true that a battleship can hit the battle cruiser. Battleships are well armored while battle cruisers are not. The difference between the two might best described as the difference between a knight clad in steel vs. a knight clad in tin foil. Battleships always win against battle cruisers one ship has the armor to take the punishment while the other does not. The German plan at the Battle of Jutland was to send out a battle cruiser force under the command of Admiral Hipper that would engage the battle cruiser force under the command of Admiral Beatty. Once engaged, the main High Seas Fleet under the command of Admiral Scheer would come up and destroy Beatty's force. The British had broken the German codes and were aware of the German plan. Beatty was to engage the High Seas Fleet and lure up to the Grand Fleet under the command of Admiral Jellicoe.


 * As I already noted, battle cruisers can go very fast, but cannot take any punishment, which is why Beatty's squadron took such heavy losses against the battleships of the High Seas Fleet. You cannot extrapolate the losses that Beatty took onto the the Grand Fleet as you suggesting. Beatty's squadron took heavy losses because battle cruisers cannot take any punishment. Had Scheer fought for longer than 20 minutes as he did against the main Grand Fleet, the battle would gone very differently as the battleships of the Grand Fleet were capable of taking such punishment. There is strength in numbers and the Grand Fleet outnumbered the High Seas Fleet by 3 to 1. It is true that the German warships were better built than the British ones, but so what? The same was true with the French warships of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, which were much more better built than the British warships. The British made a choice to sacrifice quality for quantality, to be built a large force of warships that were good, but not great. It is a bit like the much hated Sherman tank of World War Two, which is not a cruiser tank meant to go very fast and was only lightly armored. The Germans used to call the Sherman tanks "Ronsons" (a type of lighter popular in Germany). The Tiger and Panther tanks of the Wehrmacht were from a technical viewpoint much better tanks than the Sherman. But did not matter. The Germans were very good at destroying the Shermans, but American industry was even better at replacing him. By contrast, the Tiger and Panther tanks took much longer to build than the Shermans, and were much more difficult to replace. So even though the Panther and Tiger tanks were much better tanks than the Sherman tank, it was still the Americans who won. The British warships in both world wars were not good as the German warships, but the British could build more warships than the Germans and considerably faster, and that is what the difference. Tirpitz-who was greatly influenced by the theories of the American naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan-wanted the High Seas Fleet to be strong enough to win command of the seas. Scheer turned away from the Grand Fleet after only 20 minutes largely because he knew that the superior numbers of the Grand Fleet would annihilate the High Seas Fleet. The High Seas Fleet was not strong enough to win command of the seas, which makes one wonder what was the point of Tirpitz program. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Translating German naval ranks
It looks like the authors of the article have translated ranks literally, eg, "Leutnant zur See (lieutenant at sea)". Would it not be better to translate these ranks into their English general idomatic equivalents, taking into account that there are specific variations between navies whose service language is English? So in the case of a Leutnant zur See, we'd just write "Lieutenant". Literal translations sound clumsy.

Best regards, theBaron0530

TheBaron0530 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)theBaron0530