Talk:German battleship Gneisenau

Rewrite
Just to note to those who might be watching this page, I'm working on a complete rewrite here, similar to the recent overhaul I did for Scharnhorst. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've since moved the new draft over. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gdynia/Gotenhafen
I recently took the liberty to set something straight and changed the Nazi name of Gdynia to its' official name. However, as the name of Gotenhafen is sometimes copied from Nazi sources to post-war English language books, I believe a mention of the Nazi name in brackets might also be informative. However, User:Parsecboy insists that we only use Nazi name as it was officially Gotenhafen at the time.

I believe this really doesn't matter. From the Allied point of view (and international law, and post-war arrangements), the occupations by Nazi Germany were considered illegal, hence the term "occupied France" rather than "Germany (former French territories)" or something similar. The same applies to occupied Poland. Whether the Nazis renamed Gdynia to Gotenhafen or not does not really matter, as one cannot argue that it was official.

But legality set aside, using Gotenhafen in this context is absurd. Would you use German names for occupied parts of France as well? If we applied the same rules in other cases, we'd have to call Channel Islands Kanalinseln and use German names for towns in Russia or Yugoslavia. Yet I see no such motion in English Wikipedia. Which means it wouldn't be consistent to apply it here. Or is there something I'm missing here?  // Halibutt 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * English sources regularly use "Gotenhafen" rather than Gdynia for the port during the war. I don't know that any of the sources used in the article prefer Gdynia; for instance, Conways states "...the ship was towed to Gotenhafen (Gdynia)..." Williamson does as well: "under her own power, to Gotenhafen..." (see here). M.J. Whitley's Battleships of World War II also uses Gotenhafen (see here). These are but a few. The principle of least surprise is valid here (which is to say that people who have done some reading on the ship are likely to have seen the place of her sinking as Gotenhafen).
 * As to the Allied perspective (aren't we supposed to be NPOV?), that's irrelevant. If the article should have any perspective, it should be the German one, as it was their ship. Gdynia makes no reference to the supposed illegality of the name "Gotenhafen," just that it was the German name of the city during the war.
 * Lastly, it was the official name during the war. The Germans did rename the city, whether you or Churchill think it was legal or not. Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems even more sources use Gdynia, and especially those published in recent years. Compare Google Books hits: 720 vs. 327. So it seems that (per WP:NAME) we should stick with the majority of sources, as the name of Gdynia seems to be prevalent in relation to Gneisenau's past. What's more, many of those books do not even mention the Nazi name (NB the traditional German name of the town is Gdingen, Gotenhafen was used only by the Nazi administration). Robert Jackson's 101 Great Warships (2010), German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II by Eric Grove (2002), War at Sea by Nathan Miller (1995) and so on.
 * Also in the case of other WWII-related topics double naming seems to be a common standard. Gdynia/Gotenhafen, Gotenhafen (Gdynia), Gdynia (Gotenhafen) and so on. Google it if you don't believe me.
 * That's why my proposal is to include both names. This seems like a pretty decent compromise, don't you think? I don't understand why you insist on reverting to a version that essentially reflects only one POV instead of both. Nazi POV was that the town was named Gotenhafen and was in Germany. The ROTW pretty much considered it part of occupied Poland. Some sources use one name, some use the other, why not mention both? So far you failed to provide any explanation why both names cannot be mentioned in the article when it is clear that both are in use in English language books on the topic (sometimes together, sometimes exclusively). Last but not least, you mentioned the Gdansk/Danzig compromise in your revert rationale. If so, then let's stick with that compromise here. In the case of Gdansk, the solution was to use both names, if memory serves me, in the form of Gdansk (Danzig), or the other way around, depending on historical context.
 * Following your suggestion I'm being bold and adding both names back, along with a source. If you insist I can add more books that mention the ship was towed to Gdynia rather than Gotenhafen. Though I believe it wouldn't really be worth our time and effort to quarrel over it. If the inclusion of both names of that city really bothers you - please leave a comment on my talk page.  // Halibutt 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gneissau misspelling
Some references to this ship on the internet use the name "Gneissau" - presumably an error multiplied through copying. Could someone set up a redirect on Wikipedia, so people searching for the Gneissau can find the Gneisenau. Thanks. 79.71.72.211 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible typo "Helgoland"
In the last paragraph of the Operation Cerberus section, there is a reference to "Helgoland." When you click the link, the article on "Heligoland" comes up. Also, there are references to Heligoland in other Wiki articles, for example, Largest Non-Nuclear Explosions. This may be simply a language difference. I am not qualified to resolve it. Fred4570 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, Helgoland is the German spelling (see for instance SMS Helgoland, and since this article is on a German topic, I thought it was appropriate to use the local spelling (per the Danzig/Gdansk dispute, among others). Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I'm surprised this isn't here. G (gut minus the t) nei (ny as in Nyquil, the cold medicine) sen (sent minus the t) au (Ow! That hurts!) You pronounce the Gn as two syllables but let them flow together like "g'day." I have found a lot of people have no idea how to pronounce it or they think they do and are wrong. Traumatic (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German battleship Gneisenau. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120232619/http://www.warship.org:80/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sinking of Glorious
The account of the sinking of HMS Glorious seems to have a problem:

The initial sighting of the carrier "at a range of some 50,000 m" seems excessive. Whilst this is exactly as per the source (Garzke and Dulin) it is not consistent with Koop and Schmolke, who quote directly from the war diary of Scharnhorst's commander. This states:

1646 hrs Reported to Fleet: on bearing 60 smoke in sight..... (this is 1546 in the Royal Navy time zone) 1658 hrs Reported to Fleet: Beneath reported smoke trail battle mast and smoke visible, Approximate range 40km 1700 hrs Wind WNW 4, seas state 2, very good visibility, Course 330, speed 19kt. From Fleet: steam up for highest speed. There are then ordered course changes of 060 at 1706, 070 at 1712 and 150 at 1721. At 1726 speed is 26kt and course 160

Glorious was making 17 kt on a mean course of 250 when sighted (and immediately started flashing up the boilers not in use so as to increase speed). So the ships were going in (very roughly) opposite directions on parallel tracks, with perhaps some 20 km between those tracks. Therefore between 1646 and 1658, the range was increasing. In this 12 minute gap, ignoring the small difference in the angle of the tracks, the range would increase by just over 5 km. At 1705 Glorious ordered a course of 160 and 27 kt. Scharnhorst was at 29 kt at 1728. At 1732 Scharnhorst opened fire at a range of 26km (by rangefinder - and the accuracy of the German fire suggests that their rangefinder was very accurate). Remembering that Scharnhorst's turn to follow Glorious was 1721 (with a further small alteration at 1726), the German ships were going in the same direction as Glorious for 11 minutes. Even if the speed difference was 10 kt, this would shorten the range by less than 2 km in those 11 minutes. So, whilst closing, there is no great reduction in range.

I suggest that the sighting range of 50,000 m (or 50 km) is an unreliable number, despite being given in a highly regarded source. It really looks as though the sighting range was a lot closer to the 26km range at which fire was opened. Given the questionability of the Garzke and Dulin figure, I suggest that the article should go with the estimated range of 40 km in the Scharnhorst commander's war diary (though with some hesitation, as this appears to be somewhat high - the sighting point was above the level of the German range finders, so would have simply been an informed guess based on the size of the ship that they thought they had sighted and how much of it was visible).

Alternatively, are there any better sources out there for this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Found a map illustration there, maybe it's of help. --Denniss (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Using the scale of the plan, that gives a sighting distance of about 40km and an "opening fire" distance of 25 (ish) km. So the plan looks believable, and it fits somewhat with the similar diagram in Carrier Glorious by John Winton. Looking at Winton's diagram, it appears that the course of 160 ordered at 1705 was altered to a more westerly course shortly afterwards. However, the new plan does not seem to reflect a course of 160 at all.


 * Taking the new plan on its own, it confirms my doubts about the 50km sighting distance and allays any concerns I have about the 40km sighting distance. That would mean that the solution for the article would be to give 40km as the sighting distance supported by Koop and Schmolke as the reference.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't entirely happy with Garzke & Dulin when I wrote these articles a decade ago - I've got rewriting them using primarily Hoop & Schmolke and Hildebrand et. al. on the back of my mind, but it might be a while before I get around to doing them. I'd say go ahead and swap out the figures, as it seems more likely to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Without setting out to do so, I have rewritten much of the Glorious action based mostly on Koop and Schmolke. I also could see no evidence that the German radar was used to direct guns when the target was concealed by smoke. The account in Koop and Schmolke specifically says that firing ceased when the target was obscured by smoke. Might well need some further tidying up and improvement.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, thanks for taking care of that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cover for both Narvik and Trondheim
I'm not in the position to check the referance, but the sentence "At 21:00, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst took up a position west of the Vestfjorden to provide distant cover to both of the landings at Narvik and Trondheim." seems a bit strange to me. Vestfjorden is indeed an entrance to Narvik, but it is nearly 600 km from Trondheim, so that it would provide any useful cover seems doubtful. Perhaps someone might want to check it out. Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)