Talk:H-class battleship proposals

Metric vs. Standard
How about using metric system units in an article about a European ship? How about using the metric systems in all of the articles since most of the civilized world uses the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.191 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm just following form, seeing as this is an English article, and all English-speaking countries have a basic knowlegde of Imperial measurements. You want to convert them, do it, but I'm going by the original documents. HawkerTyphoon 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Power 52050 hp ?, that is wrong. H-44 has 5 srew turbine/+Diesel mix. It needs 240.000 hp for 30 kn. max. speed.  217.9.49.3 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. It was left over from where I copied the infobox from - I've removed it ! HawkerTyphoon 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but what you have here is not the H Class as it was originally designed. You have the stats for the "H-44 design", which was re-tooled from the original "H-39 design". Balin42632003 8:47 16 August 2006 (UTC) If you'd like to look it up here are my sources: (History from Battleships, Axis and Neutral Battleships in world War II, 1985, by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr.)

Questions about armament
I think we're going to need some compromise language in this article. You've got a source, apparently (in Groener), that claims a 48 cm main battery for H-42 and H-43. However, Breyer asserts 42 cm bored-out heavy artillery for H-42 and 50.8 cm weapons for H-43 and H-44. Garzke and Dulin, who use plenty of primary source material themselves, come up with the same figures. So, there should probably be something about the figures being disputed. Sacxpert (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gröner's book is based entirely on archival documents, whereas it's unclear what exactly Garzke & Dulin examined. I don't have Breyer handy, but I do know he's made mistakes - see this, for example. How's this for a compromise solution? The note will need the relevant page citations for Breyer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know G&D used a lot of source material: extensive documents from Oberkommando der Marine, Die Geschichte der Detuscher Schiffartillerie, etc. It's in the bibliography of each volume. I think that this discussion should be inline, not a footnote. Something like this: "Sources differ on the primary armament of the H-42 and H-43 designs. Several sources [insert the ref tags there] have asserted a 42 cm main battery for the H-42, and a 50.8 cm main battery for H-43. However, a recent book by Groener posits a 48 cm armament for both designs.[ref tag]" There's no shame in admitting that sources are in dispute, but that should be explained, up front, to the reader, not buried in a footnote that most people (let's be honest) won't read. Again, I know Breyer made mistakes, and also worked from inferior information (especially as regards the S. Soyuz class). I just don't think that makes all of his work and citations invalid, or inherently more suspect than anyone else's. This solution makes clear that multiple sources use the 42 cm/50.8 cm progression, while acknowledging that a recent source disputes this. Sacxpert (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

H45 Does Not Exist
The design listed as being "H45" does not exist. What happened was that the Warships Projects Discussion Board (http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects has a theoretical discussion of the sheer size of a battleship that used the guns in question. One contributor to that thread (posting as seeadler) than ran up a purely hypothetical 'design' to illustrate how absurd the idea was.  To quote seeadler

"If he took information about H45 as describing a real ship I think he needs to read this site more closely or German naval technical design history more closely. I am the one who made H45 up. It was a ship of 700,000 tons (based on an engineer's estimates of a vessel capable of carrying 4 x 2 80xm guns). A heavy AA armament of 8 24 cm guns (the Kriegsmarine was developing such a gun for land base use at the end of the war) and numerous 12.8cm flak in enclosed mounts. I made a drawing of the ship and placed it on the site but I assure you it was entirely imaginary. If Mr. Porter merely googled the design without checking further then he did a disservice to his readers and to his reputation."

This thread can be found at http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890&mforum=warshipprojects

It appears that David Porter found the reference to H45 by searching the internet and did not pay any attention to the actual provenance of the data. This pretty much destroys him as a serious historian. H45 is not a genuine H-class design and it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk • contribs)


 * I had questioned the addition of the material - no other reputable German naval historian (such as Breyer, Gröner, etc.) has ever mentioned anything like the so-called H-45 design. It amazes me that Porter didn't bother to fact-check the information, and that his publisher didn't either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether Hitler ever asked for a version of the H battleship design to be armed with Gustav/Dora cannon. Even if a design was never created, and Porter indicates in his book that it was not, then if the request was true then the H-45 concept bears some valdidity. The question is, was there ever a request for an H battleship with 31.5" cannon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the design is pure baloney, conjectural fiction, then it has no validity, and should not be represented here. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The H-45 design is Internet fancruft, but it is true that Hitler wanted battleships with 80 cm weapons. He showed sketches of them to Raeder, who dispatched Adm. Fuchs to explain the constraints imposed by such an arsenal. Sacxpert (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is growing doubt as to whether this is true or not. It's mentioned in Duilin and Gartzke but it is not sources there and appears to be purely anecdotal.  Also, Admiral Raeder is quoted in "Hitler and His Admirals" by Anthony K Martienssen as saying Hitler had a very good grasp of the technical aspects of ship design and that quotation is sourced to an original document.  It's hard to imagine Raeder saying that if Hitler was floating this crazy scheme.  It seems that the whole battleship with 80cm weapons thing is purely an internet creation that has somehow gained a life of its own and found its way into reputable reference books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's apparent that some of the authors of the otherwise excellent H-Battleship page are adamant that no mention be made of Porter's H-45 reference. While I initially was only citing Porter's work, I did later modify the H-45 citation to include reference to its potential napkinwaffe status. Yet that too was deleted. Even talking about a controversy about it was deemed impossible. So I created a SEPARATE page - which included a lengthy reference to the controversy involving Porter's citation - and after a few months the same individual who deleted the H-45 reference was thoughtful enough to petition Wikipedia to have it removed. Do you guys have to be this rigid...even when I am agreeing with your facts and not Porter's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Reopening to note that User:Marino73 seems to have reopened this can of worms in May and June through WP:AFC at H45 Battleship Proposal, again sourced almost entirely to Porter's book, and with no controversy section or anything like it included at any point in the page history, certainly not since User:DGG moved it out of draftspace at the end of June. I've WP:PRODded it; let's see if anything happens there. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I deprodded it. I have no firm opinion, but I think it needs an open discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirected the article - it's a substantially similar recreation of the article redirected via this AfD. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I had found a second literary source for the H45 battleship proposal. I also mentioned in the article that there was no real design work done upon it. The question is, did Hitler ever suggest putting 31.5 inch guns on a H-class battleship ? If so, then the article should stand or at least be mentioned in a minor section within the H-class battleship article. It might only have as much weight as the Kaneda battleship proposal, but I felt it deserved mention if it was derived from that time period. contribs) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a copy of Wikipedia content. Which is to say, your Wikipedia content, which can hardly be used as a source to justify including your content. As for whether it deserves mention, it is not based in reality, so no, it does not deserve to be mentioned, either here or in a stand-alone article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you know if the Kaneda battleship proposal was a similar hoax, or did it have legitimacy?contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs)


 * Not a hoax, no, but as far as I can tell it was simply the work of Commander Kaneda's overactive imagination. It never was a serious proposal. So if you're asking whether it merits an article, no, it doesn't. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Grosser Kurfurst would be one of the ships in this class with 313m. The Grosser Kurfurst is the largest battleship in World of Warships. 187.62.156.212 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I edited it down on an earlier version but this time I'll just note that infoboxes should present information in an easily read form and having all the design stats in the infobox makes it rather unwieldy and visually lacking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Language
Can someone explain to me why a European article is written in American, rather than English? Surely makes no sense whatsoever? Won't change it now, as that'll probably be called 'vandalism' by the American mod cabal, but let's at least raise this point... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, we meet again. What did I tell you the last time? Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking for other opinions, and a policy decision. Note the lack of editing, despite 'be bold' and all that. Still makes no sense as it is! Last time was a load of abuse and threatening, best I remember (AKA, the American special). 82.21.7.184 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You all the policy you need at your fingertips: WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN. And as I said before, the default for all non-American topics is not British English, despite your chauvinistic beliefs to the contrary. Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the policies here are conflicting, according to TIES it should be in BrEng, as that is what's used in Germany at the time and now. Why does RETAIN take precedent? 82.21.7.184 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * TIES here is not applicable as there is no link with the US, nor UK (TIES says - my emphasis - "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation.." . That leaves only Retain (..."maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary") as an applicable policy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, if we have a British user of all people defending using American for European topics, I give up. No point fighting the inevitable, no matter how wrong it is. Surely I'm not to only oe eto see that RETAIN is almost explicitly written to preserve the dominance of American in topics where it is inappropriate? Wiki started as an American project, so therefore all the early articles were in American (makes sense), whether or not that was appropriate (like this one). How will we ever break that stranglehold without dismissing RETAIN? 82.21.7.184 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Graeme - as for TIES, yes, that's what it says. But you're forgetting the implicit point: in the absence of strong national ties, any variety of English can be used. Which is why, for instance, JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Yamato is written in British English.
 * 82.21.7.184 - The purpose of RETAIN is to prevent the kind of stupidity you seem bent on arguing about at every turn. Frankly, I'm getting tired of your battleground mentality. If I see you bring this up again, I'm going to start blocking your IP for longer and longer periods of time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked for a civil discussion on the matter and you threaten a ban? Seriously? And as for Yamato being in BrEng, surely that shows that we need some policy change, as as far as I'm away, American is predominately used in Japan, so that article should be in American. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What you asked for was to enforce your linguistic imperialism, regardless of the specific verbiage you employed. And I'm tired of your behavior. Comments like these barely rise above the level of trolling while edits like these two are little more than petty vandalism. To be blunt, you do not appear to be here to help build an encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All of those comments are 100% correct. Stop the witchhunt. People like you is why people are driven away from wiki in droves. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think any of those comments/edits are acceptable is why you have no business here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the point of the matter. I think this comes down to interpretation of TIES with respect to the difference between "English-speaking nation" and "the version of English spoken as a foreign language in a nation". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that TIES makes no mention of varieties of English spoken as a second language. And that idea has been repeatedly raised and shot down (in the context of this area of Wikipedia, in the argument that since Ship A only ever engaged combatants of English-speaking nation B, it should use that variety of English&mdash;and you can see evidence of the acceptance of that argument in the fact that, as I said above, JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Yamato is written in British English). As per the MOS, if an article has a strong national tie to a specific English-speaking language, use that variety, but in the absence of strong ties, anything goes. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy's post above is also my understanding. When there isn't a 'natural' English variant to use, it's first come first served. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I was saying. I was just trying to steer back to the point in a non-confrontational manner. Should I give up on the idea of a job at the FO?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox for the H-41 design?
The H-41 is the final detailed design by the OKM Construction Office and was approved by Admiral Raeder, unlike the subsequent H-42 to 44. Should we have a separate infobox on that? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've attached a draft of the H-41 infobox above. Figures are from Garzke & Dulin. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a side note, should this infobox be kept separate as it is currently, or merged with the main infobox? Steve7c8 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"H-45" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H-45. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Aboood
When h class battleship laid down and launch? 94.128.164.153 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)