User talk:Getztashida

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Wikist 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

1,000-mile check-up
Hello. I hope that (since my September welcome) you've been finding your way around Wikipedia OK. Feel free to do more experimental vehicles such as T20 Medium Tank if the mood strikes you because those often get neglected. Thank you.Wikist 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

HMS Hood protection
Hello, Getztashida.

Thanks for the excellent work that you've ben doing on Naval history, especially on Battlecruisers. Your edits have done a lot to improve the balance of the article.

I am a little puzzled by your recent [edit] to HMS Hood (51). The sentence you changed is one that I wrote some months ago, and forgot to cite a reference for. My source was Norman Friedman, Battleship Design and Development 1905-1945 (Conway Maritime Press 1978; ISBN 0-85177-135-1). This book includes tables showing the distribution of weights between weapons, protection and powerplabt for battleships and battlecruisers from 1906. THe figures he quotes for the percentage of displacement devoted to protection for battleships and battlecruisers of the 1906-1918 period can be summarised as follows:


 * British battleships - from 27.9% (Dreadnought) to 32.9% (Colossus)
 * British battlecruisers (excluding Hood and the large light cruisers) - 19.9% (Invincible) to 26% (Tiger)
 * German battleships - from 35.2% (Nassau) to 39.1% (Bayern)
 * German battlecruisers (excluding Blucher) - 32.7% (Von der Tann) to 36% (Hindenburg)
 * US battleships - from 28.8% (Utah) to 41.1% (Nevada)
 * Hood - 32.7%

Thus, when I wrote that the Hood's protection accounted for 33% of her displacement was "a high proportion by British standards", I meant "compared to all British warships, including battleships". Unfortunately, this point did not come across, and has now been lost entirely in your emendation. Also, in your edit summary, you appear to reject the view that "British ships were worse protected than US or German". If lighter means "worse", you can see from the figures above that this view is true, at least by 1918 (the Utah was a much older ship). Whether the Germans were over-protected or the British over-gunned is still a bone of contention.

As for the comparison with Bismarck, that was another mistake on my part. It is meaningless to compare the Hood with a warship of an entirely different generation with a vastly more efficient powerplant. I should have compared her to a contemporary such as Hindenburg.

I propose to re-write the sentence as follows:
 * Hood's protection accounted for 33% of her displacement; a high proportion by British standards, although less than was usual in contemporary US and German designs (for example, 36% for the battlecruiser SMS Hindenburg);

giving Friedman's book as the source. However, I thought it best to seek your opinion first.

I have added this page to my watchlist, so you may reply here if you wish.

Regards, John Moore 309 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have no problem with the facts and figures being quoted, but rather with context.  My concern with the comment was more that it compared a WWI battlecruiser (albeit a well armoured one) with a WWII battleship - a comparison in which it would always come out worse off.  Sorry if I destroyed the intent of the original line, your proposed replacement is an improvement over both our efforts, although I'd be inclined to rewrite it thus:


 * Hood's protection accounted for 33% of her displacement; a high proportion by British standards, although less than was usual in contemporary German designs (for example, 36% for the battlecruiser SMS Hindenburg);


 * My alteration being on account of the fact that the only true US contemporary of the Hood would have been the Lexingtons, who would have been both considerably larger and far worse protected. Comparing the Hood with, say, the USS Nevada is to compare an uparmoured Battlecruiser with a traditional slow Battleship - a somewhat misleading comparison...  Getztashida 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken; I have made the change as you suggested. Thanks for your help. Regards, John Moore 309 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)