Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German battleship Tirpitz


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

German battleship Tirpitz

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

After a bit of a hiatus, I'm back. I wrote this article in March, and it has since passed a GA review. I think it's close to our A-class standards, and that any problems identified can be remedied in the course of this review. I look forward to working with reviewers on the article, and welcome all constructive comments. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically a very sound and well structured article based on the well proven layout of many battleship articles here on Wikipedia, however I am inclined to oppose support the nomination for now. I see the following mayor issues with the article right now: Some issues left that I would like to see addressed before this moves on to FAC but I am okay for now: I will continue reviewing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking for information on crew structure (what else) such as how many divisions, what type of divisions, crew size of the main and secondary batteries, etc. All of this information is available from Von Müllenheim-Rechberg. I know that you feel that this info belongs in the battleship class article but currently it is neither in class article nor in this article.
 * The entire radar section needs more explanations. FuMO is the abbreviation for Funkmess-Ortungsgerät. Hohentweil should be Hohentwiel. Wurzburg radar should be Würzburg radar.
 * Can you add an inline explanation or footnote to explain what the abbreviation FuMO means? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discrepancies between Tirpitz and Bismarck should be made clearer. The most visible (to my knowledge) differences are: hoods/covers on the rear rangefinders, the larger upper deck between the rear masts which led to different positions of the cranes, the 2cm anti aircraft guns on turret Bruno and Caesar.
 * Tirpitz was referenced three times in the Wehrmachtbericht (9 July 1942, 4 April 1944 and 14 November 1944). This was a positive military distinction similar to the presidential unit citation which should be mentioned.
 * Regarding the loss of Tirpitz, I think you need to mention the errors made by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe to adequately provide fighter coverage. Heinrich Ehrler, a top scoring and highly decorated fighter pilot, was subsequently singled out and made responsible for the loss. He was put before court and initially sentenced to death for "his" failures.

Minor comments Regarding the Wehrmachtbericht you can use the following
 * Tirpitz daughter was Ilse von Hassell, who had married Ulrich von Hassell, executed for his involvement in the July 20 plot. maybe worth mentioning. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 243.
 * Maybe you could make use of ? It claims to be public domain
 * Inauguration speech was held by Adolf von Trotha and Hitler was present. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 239.
 * "Tirpitz was briefly made the flagship of the squadron" can we add under the command of Otto Ciliax please. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 239.
 * "Tirpitz then moved to the Fættenfjord, just north of Trondheim." The operation was called "Polarnacht" (Polar Night). The operation was supported by the German destroyers Richard Beitzen, Paul Jacobi, Bruno Heinemann and Z-29. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 240.
 * "Tirpitz and Admiral Scheer, along with three destroyers" The destroyers were Friedrich Ihn, Paul Jacobi (was later left behind), Hermann Schoemann and Z-25. The operation was also supported by two Torpedo boats which were also released early. Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 240.
 * "The air strike caused significant damage to the ship and killed 122 men and wounded 316 others" According to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 7, p. 243. 132 men killed; 270 wounded among them the commander KzS Hans Meyer
 * Couple of replies for now: does Von Müllenheim-Rechberg give information for Tirpitz specifically or just Bismarck? The former had a significantly larger crew (particularly in anti-aircraft defense armaments) so information he has for Bismarck wouldn't necessarily apply here.
 * As for the radar info, again, this is something else that should be addressed in more detail in the class article (or ideally in one or several stand-alone article(s)). Regardless, I don't think that deficiencies in another article should hold up this article from promotion - that sets up a precedent for a rather high bar by which we should judge our articles (and more the purpose of things like WP:FT to evaluate - i.e., the completeness of the coverage of an entire topic, as opposed to the quality of a single article in that topic).
 * Do you happen to have the text from the Wehrmachtbericht? I know you've been able to provide that information for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (and I think Bismarck as well). Parsecboy (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the information from Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz has been added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, shouldn't the respective destroyer articles be linked? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had assumed there weren't articles on them (guess I should have checked), though it appears Manxruler has gotten them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * References in the Wehrmachtbericht


 * Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 2, 1. Januar 1942 bis 31. Dezember 1943 (in German). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1985. ISBN 3-423-05944-3.
 * Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 3, 1. Januar 1944 bis 9. Mai 1945 (in German). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1985. ISBN 3-423-05944-3.

Invited to chip in so I will on one point: The Luftwaffe. The failure to defend the ship from the air is an absolute must. Heinrich Ehrler was nearly shot for it. Even if it is only a very slight reference to him and JG 5 it has to be there. If it is added here, I can promise to update the Operation Catechism with some good sources in this regard to tell the whole story. Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (Dapi89)
 * That's a very good point - I'm not sure why I didn't include that when I wrote it. I'll be out of town for a few days starting in about an hour, so it'll have to wait until next week. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks:
 * Sp33dyphil
 * "Kriegsmarine" – italicise.
 * "Named for Admiral..." Perhaps "Named after Admiral"?
 * "Figures for the number of men were killed in the attack" – remove "were".
 * "the repeated, ineffectual bombing attacks" – replace ineffectual with in-effective.
 * 10.5 cm guns – imperial unit? Check through article for similar cases. Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble 11:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only non-common foreign words should be italicized, "Kriegsmarine" is very frequently used in English-language works to describe the wartime German navy (FWIW, Kriegsmarine gets over 2 million ghits).
 * Fixed.
 * Fixed.
 * You usually only convert the first instance of a measurement and leave the rest. I noticed that the first instance wasn't converted and so switched it.
 * Thanks for looking the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

*Comments This is pretty good, but I do have a few suggestions:
 * "As a result of a series of wartime modifications she was some 2,000 metric tons (2,000 LT; 2,200 ST) heavier than Bismarck." - was this upon completion, or at a later stage of her career (the use of 'wartime modifications' is a bit unclear here as Bismarck was also completed well into the war)
 * Almost entirely before the deployment to Norway, but some modifications were made there (note, for instance, the radar sets were updated and augmented as late as 1944). Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How did the loss of Bismarck affect the way in which Tirpitz was used? - I think I remember reading that Hitler ordered an end to long range raids by major warships after Bismarck was sunk.
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The coverage of Convoy PQ 17 should note that the convoy 'scattered' due to reports of the German capital ships approaching, and that this was a major factor in it suffering such heavy losses.
 * How does it look now? (Here is the change I made). Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article would benefit from an assessment of the effectiveness of Tirpitz, especially during her last couple of years (the claim that she tied down British ships is disputed by H.P. Wilmott in his book Battleship in which he argues, from memory, that the British regarded her as being fairly ineffective and deployed their best battleships to the Med and the carrier attacks against her were used to prepare aircrew for more serious combat elsewhere - particularly for service with the British Pacific Fleet).
 * I'm having a bit of trouble tracking the book down - according to worldcat, the Columbus public library has a copy of the book, but I can't find it in their catalog. I am also temporarily unable to use OSU's library system. You don't happen to have a copy, do you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, though I should be able to borrow a copy this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the book, but this wasn't in it (other than the material on the carrier attacks). I have read this viewpoint, but can't remember where... Oh well. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always disappointing to be unable to locate something you read. I haven't seen it expressed in any of the books I've read on the ship, but will see what I can find. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anything at all be said about the ship's crew? Presumably they spent most of their time bored silly.
 * Added a bit on this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What the Wehrmachtbericht is isn't explained and I don't see the need for verbatim transcripts it in German. No context is provided for this, and the Wehrmachtbericht article says that it was a Nazi propaganda program, though units named in its broadcasts apparently regarded this as being an honour. I'd suggest removing the transcripts and describing mentions (along with the notability of these) in the body of the article.
 * I agree that the Wehrmachtbericht needs motivation in context of the facts. Please note that the German text is the "original wording" the English text is the transcript (my very personal translation as a matter of fact). I would not recommend to derive facts from it, however simplifying the Wehrmachtbericht to just propaganda is doing it unjust. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a line on the Wehrmachtbericht along with a note explaining the broadcasts aren't necessarily factually accurate. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement, though the material needs a citation. I still don't think that the transcripts are necessary, and if they're included they should be in the body of the article rather than a crufty table at the end. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This photo of the ship camouflaged in 1942 on the Australian War Memorial's website might be useful Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the image. It is certainly not an Australian image (AFAIK no RAAF units were involved in operations against Tirpitz), so it's either British or German. It's more likely the former, but we don't know for certain. If we could prove it's British, we can use it, because Crown copyright expires 50 years after the work was created. But if it's German, it's still under copyright protection, no matter what the AWM says. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thousands of RAAF airmen served with the RAF during the war (under the Empire Air Training Scheme and related arrangements), so it was probably created by an Australian government employee in 1942. The AWM clearly marks the images on its database to which it doesn't own the rights to (which are mainly images of recent conflicts). Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's probably fine then. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support My above comments have now been addressed. I think that the Wehrmachtbericht material, as it's currently presented, would be a barrier to FA class, but it's OK for A class. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments Since this appears not to be AmEng (armour, criticise), per my new standard disclaimer, I'll just make a few comments:
 * "Tirpitz acted as a fleet in being and forced the British Royal Navy to retain significant naval forces in the area to contain the battleship.": My understanding is that this is more or less the definition of a fleet in being. On that assumption, I substituted "a fleet in being, forcing the British ...".
 * "in anger": I linked it to fire in anger.
 * "with work lasting from 1948 until 1957": Correct, but doesn't sound idiomatic to me. This isn't AmEng, so I'm not sure.  Assuming the work was intermittent, I'd probably use "off and on" in AmEng.
 * "Figures for the number of men killed in the attack vary, with estimates ranging from 950 to 1,204.": I changed "vary, with estimates ranging" to "range".
 * "G." (with quote marks): "G". (For writers more interested in complying with Chicago than MOS, I recommend you follow WP:LQ on Wikipedia, and when  you want to show your work to academics or others who are following American style guides, just search-and-replace instances of ". (except "...) with ." Works every time.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That all looks fine to me. Thanks for lending a hand, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - this looks good to me, just some minor points:
 * no dabs, external links check out and the citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required);
 * Images lack alt text, so you might consider adding (suggestion only as not an ACR requirement);
 * The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (see ) (no action required);
 * Images look appropriate and all seem to be PD (no action required);
 * Overlink of Adolf Hitler;
 * Grammer here: "and the Germans sank 21 of the 34 isolated", IMO this should be "and the Germans sunk 21 of the 34 isolated";
 * Inconsistent hypthenation of "anti-aircraft", sometimes you write "antiaircraft" and others "anti-aircraft". Not sure which it should be in AmEng but should be consistent at least;
 * "On 21 February, Captain Topp" should be "On 21 February, Topp". Rank to be rm at second mention per WP:SURNAME;
 * Likewise "who had replaced Admiral Raeder in" should just be "who had replaced Raeder in" per WP:SURNAME;
 * Inconsistent presentation of names of operations. For instance you write Operation Source and in others Operation "Tungsten". IMO the former style is more correct and should probably be used through out;
 * "Admiral Dönitz ordered the ship be repaired" should only be "Dönitz ordered the ship be repaired" per WP:SURNAME;
 * "despite the fact that Dönitz understood Tirpitz could" might be reworded as "despite the fact that he understood Tirpitz could" to avoid using "Dönitz" twice in the same sentence";
 * some inconsistency in presentation of short citations with some using "&" and others "and" between authors names. I believe either is acceptable but again consistency is probably best; and
 * isbns are inconsistently treated (in some you use hypthens and in others you do not). Anotherclown (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed most of these, with the exception of "sank/sunk" - I don't think sunk would be right. Thanks for reviewing the article and finding these. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Too easy. I'm not sure about this anymore either, so I reached for my dictionary which was no help. Apparently "sank" is past tense for "sink" and "sunk" is a past participle. No idea what a participle is though! To me a ship "sinks", a ship "sank" (past tense), or a ship was "sunk" (again past tense); also ships (pluaral) "sink" or were "sunk" (past tense again), and the ships "sank". Where does this leave us though? No idea... so I'm happy to leave it as is. Good work on the article BTW. Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The past participle requires a helping verb (like you have there with "was sunk"). You could change it to "the Germans had sunk..." and while that would be grammatically fine, I don't think it sounds right to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Co-ord comment: This review will be due for closing in about three days. As it now has enough support to promote and I will probably have a bit of time tomorrow night (Sunday, Australian Central Time), I am intending to close it a little bit early (if I don't get to it tomorrow, I probably won't get a chance until the following Saturday). Does anyone have any objections to this course of action? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As no one has objected, I have closed this now. If there are any further comments/suggestions, please add them to the article's talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.