Talk:NMS Amiral Murgescu

An extra picture would be appreciated
The picture, although in color and of high quality for the time, only shows the ship's aft pretty much. A picture to show at least some of her broadside would be appreciated and I believe it would significantly improve the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.232.144 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cruiser?
While I personally appreciate enthusiasm, personally such kind of speculation with poor knowledge of the backhistory of a ship are somewhat funny. The ship was designed by a German-Dutch company and based upon the Dutch Jan van Brakel-class: a minelayer. Obviously lots of classes in naval warfare can be used to lay naval mines, but some are specifically designed with that primary function, AND with extra capabilities. While I understand the enthusiasm over using a "big name" (i remind the late Romanian dictator was equally prone to call his nationally-built destroyer a "cruiser"), a touch of realism is needed, while having a relatively strong weaponry for a minelayer, I did not find reference of her having some kind of defensive armor, thus making a comparison with a "Destroyer escort" quite wrong.

I would equally suggest cautious with the "victory claims", because 1) the two German losses can be hardly called "victories" considering it was a friendly-fire event (at the time Romania was allied with Nazi Germany), finally while I am no expert of anti-aircraft operations it is quite clear to me that "12 aircrafts shot-down" is the Romanian-claim (directly reported by Romanian literature), while usually WW-II ships claimed individually this number of aircrafts shot-down, at real the number was far less than claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)