Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of heavy cruisers of Germany


 * 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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

List of heavy cruisers of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another list article, this one for the heavy cruisers built or planned by the German Navy in the 1930s-40s. This list is the capstone for this topic, which is complete with the exception of the list, which will need to go to FLC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Spelling of Panzerschiffe in 2nd para
 * Panzeschiffe is plural; you wouldn't say "plans for an improved heavy cruisers..." Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Better phrasing for Prinz Eugen would be scuttled, rather than expended. Lemme give it another read through before I make a final judgement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sources and citations ok Fifelfoo (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no plural s on Reichsmark. It is 1 Reichsmark, 2 Reichsmark or a million Reichsmark. In English you also don't say 1 hair and 2 hairs. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I had overlooked this on "List of ironclad warships of Germany". It is also 1 Gold Mark, 2 Gold Mark a million Gold Mark. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks MisterBee - fixed in both. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have another look please, I found one more MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting "Several innovations were incorporated into the design, including extensive use of welding and all-diesel propulsion, which saved weight and allowed for the heavier main armament and armor." When you say "all-diesel propulsion", is it clear to the English speaking community that you are referring to a diesel powered engine with cylinders and pistons? I mean a turbine could also be diesel fueled or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be clear (I don't think diesel has ever been used in a naval turbine propulsion system), but just in case, I have added a link to diesel engine. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I am only suggesting this, add the name Lützow in brackets to the table. It may make it easier to the casual reader MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: how about creating a template for the "See also" section? A see also gives the impression that the article is not yet finished. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I am being picky here "The German Kriegsmarine built or planned a series of heavy cruisers". How about "The German Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine built or planned a series of heavy cruisers" MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times did we talk about this with the Deutschland class articles, and I still messed this up? Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that this is not your problem but I want to mention it anyhow. The conversion template does a funny line break. Example: "20,000 long tons (20,000 t)[19][Note 2]" introduces a line break between 20,000 and t, for tons. Looks very strange. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why they coded the template without using a non-breaking space for the output. I'll raise the question over on the template talk page and see what can be done. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems as though they just discussed this issue here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like hard coding is the way to go MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardcoded it is. I'm on a different computer today, and all of them appear fine to me - are there any others that need to be hardcoded? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed one more myself, looks much better! Merci bien MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, the dates in column "Laid down" need no breaking spaces too. In column "Fate" you may want to introduce them between day and month, where applicable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * References follows the "Major publishing city" rule for locations, but strangely not for Barnsley (Barnsley, UK?); similarly Windsor, England => Windsor, UK, unless devolution occurs
 * Inconsistency about language indication: "Hümmelchen, Gerhard (1976). Die Deutschen Seeflieger 1935–1945." but yet "Prager, Hans Georg (2002) (in German). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit." ?
 * Should all be fixed now, thanks Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments This is pretty good, but I've got a few comments:
 * The lead section is really a 'background' section and should probably be labeled as such. In particular, the first paragraph is full of relatively obscure background information which will probably confuse non-expert readers given that it doesn't introduce the topic of the article (which is a list of ships).
 * This is essentially how I've written all of the other lists (forex List of battleships of Germany) - I don't know what exactly you want me to change. Moving it into a background section would require a new lead; I don't know what would go in it apart from what's already there. You can't really talk about the Deutschlands without talking about Versailles, which is essentially the reason the Germans built ships of this type. They were also particularly notable as the first major warships of all-welded construction and diesel propulsion. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead (and especially the first para) doesn't really introduce the topic of the article at the moment - a summary of the number of classes and ships built and proposed would be useful, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that the lead para is suitable. I'm happy for this to be counted as 'neutral' or similar. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should note that the 'Reichsmarine' and 'Kriegsmarine' were the German Navy for readers unfamiliar with these German words.
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the term 'pocket battleships' doesn't appear anywhere in relation to the Deutschland class. While this might not be the 'correct' term, it remains a very common one for these ships, and should be noted as an alternative - I imagine that some readers will be surprised to see ships popularly called 'pocket battleships' in a list of 'heavy cruisers' with no explanation given for why the ships are classed as CAs in most modern works.
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What 'Operation Weserübung' was should be noted in the text (eg, "Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Denmark and Norway" or similar)
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Both ships ultimately returned to German waters by the end of the war, where they were both sunk by British bombers" - this sentence is a bit confusing: aside from using 'both' twice, the two ships had returned to German waters by the end of 1943, well before the end of the war
 * How does it read now? Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The entry in the table for Deutschland should note that she was re-named Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Nick-D's points are good, especially on mentioning the term pocket battleships. Can you add File:D class line drawing.JPG to the list? Otto Tanaka (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The section headings of this list aren't consistent with other lists, and it's confusing to put the majority of the content under the "key" section.
 * "The treaty limited large German warships to a displacement of 10,000 tons" - is there a suitable convert template for this unit of measurement?
 * P class section: "They were an improved design over the preceding planned D class cruisers, which had been canceled in 1934.[23]" - how was this class an improvement? While I understand it was a paper design, it does seem rather vague as to how these ships were supposed to be different.
 * The biggest improvement was propulsion; the P design was significantly faster than the D design, despite a 25% increase in displacement on essentially the same size hull. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P class section: "A revised version reduced the number of ships to eight, and another revision removed them entirely before work began, replacing them with the three O class battlecruisers, which were also not built.[25]" - why were these ships canceled, and what about the O class was more favorable? Just needs a sentence or two of explanation.
 * Added a line to explain the O-class ships were larger, faster, and more powerfully armed.
 * More a comment from me than a proposed fix: As a non-naval person reading an article like this, it strikes me that I want to know more about German naval doctrine with regard to its heavy cruisers. How were German designs unique? How were these ships used? Particularly given Germany's large military force, the heavy cruisers seem somewhat under appreciated in favor of heaver ships and U-boats. Why? I understand most of this discussion should take place in the Kriegsmarine article, but I wish some larger context about German ships with regard to other navies and wars were here to give a better sense of global perspective. I hate to rock the boat (I know the other lists have made it to FL with essentially this format) and this isn't a criticism, I just wanted to hear your thoughts. — Ed! (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the first two points, but I've got 70 or so finals to grade so it might be a day or two before I get to the others. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As for your last point, there are a couple of issues. The main one is that there aren't really any books that discuss what you're looking for in any detail. Comparisons between different navies ships are usually highly problematic for a number of reasons, including different strategic outlooks, different doctrines, etc. Another thing to consider is most European countries stopped building heavy cruisers by the time Germany started, so comparing ships built 10 years apart is problematic (especially in a period of rapid technological change). In addition, reliable references rarely do such things; critiques of specific designs (see for instance Preston's The World's Worst Warships) usually focus on the class by itself, not in comparison to other ships. The other issue has more to do with my long-term plans for the topic; eventually, once the light and protected cruisers are done, I plan on replacing List of cruisers of Germany with an article, Cruisers of Germany, that acts as a summary of the lists (without reproducing the lists of ships). I hope to address some of your questions there (why the Germans built various types of cruisers at certain points, for example). This list does talk briefly about the use of the ships during WWII (primarily as commerce raiders). Oh, and no worries on rocking the boat - it seems we ship article writers rarely get opinions that help us think outside of the box :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for your thoughts. I look forward to seeing these articles as they improve, both as a reviewer and as a curious bystander. — Ed! (talk) 21:33, 10 December 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.