Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Edit war of 2-17-2014

Is there (another) administrator who can step in here, please? The situation (a complete tempest in a teapot) is completely out of control. Thanks in advance. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need another administrator, what we need is for you to stop edit-warring to try to force your change. The accepted routine is WP:BRD - you make a change, I revert it, and then we discuss, not you repeatedly attempt to force your way. The burden is on you to demonstrate why your proposed change is superior to what is already in the article, and in a dispute like this, the status quo should be maintained before any consensus is reached. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

...but since both of you are at 4RR, at least, I've put full protection on the article for now lest someone else see this and block both of you, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation (which I'm expressly not going to comment upon as the protecting admin). Both of you - present your sources and reasoning for your preferred wording. Bencherlite^Talk 17:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bencherlite. Welcome. I have to say I'm dumbfounded as I made now *three* edits to this page and none have appeared here, one additional one after my original and one explaining that I hadn't duplicated Parseboy's comment, that there had been some system malfunction. Which evidently occurred again with that edit. I hope this one takes and I can get back to doing what I've already done (as you requested above afterwards). Thanks. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Presumably a server error, but who knows. The only edit I saw was this one where my comment was copied.

Nevertheless, in terms of displacement of European battleships, Tirpitz is undeniably first (especially if using her 1944 displacement), followed by Vanguard, with Bismarck third. In terms of dimensions, Bismarck and Tirpitz are longer and wider than Vanguard. Depending on how you look at it, Bismarck is either tied for 1st place or 3rd, which is why the current wording is superior, as the proposed change assumes that Vanguard was larger than both ships (which is simply not correct by any meaningful metric). Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the above, I'm at a disadvantage here as my several replies have disappeared down a black hole following a notice that someone else has already made a change to this page before I saved mine, even when that did not appear to have been the case. Regardless, all my content is gone. Let me try to recreate it.

So far I have made factual reinforcements of my edit in my edit descriptions at the Bismark page, on user Parseboy's page, on my own Talk page, and here (though they were lost). I am truly flummoxed at his intransigence, as by his own logic (which includes discounting of the Vanguard) my statement is correct: the Bismark and Tirpitz were the largest battleships built by any European power during WWII. Discounting the Vanguard, then "ever". Thus the statement could read that they were "the largest ever built by any European power". Where is the "among" if they are the two largest, during the war or after? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to restrict the statement to ships built during WWII. The reason for "among" is because there are some metrics by which Vanguard is larger than Bismarck and so a definitive affirmative is not possible. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to be "restrictive", I'm eliminating the vague "Maybe some post-war launched British battleship was bigger, or maybe not, depends on how you measure it" dilution. Quoting here from your own Talk page:

Well, that's great, except that Bismarck and Tirpitz are both longer and have a wider beam than Vanguard. And Vanguard was only heavier at design displacement, which is a nearly meaningless distinction. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And:

The statement is neither factual nor germane. Your edit waters the statement down to the point of being incorrect - the implication is that Vanguard is definitively larger, which is not the case.

Twice you indicated there the possibility of the Vanguard being larger is something of a red herring, and twice you discounted it so. My wording - which puts the German pair's size in relevant context, of any European warship they may have faced in combat, of any European military capable and willing to build anything to rival them, of any European national treasury able to bear that burden during the war - simply says they were the largest battleships ever built through the war.

Discounting Vanguard (as you do), it should read "the largest battleships ever built by any European power". Not "among", ever. I simply chose the more conservative and defensible wording, as made on the Bismark page.

By your own logic my "during WWII" can be deleted in favor of the more strongly couched "ever", the "among" stricken. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, I am not the only person whose assessment matters. There are plenty of people who will say that since Vanguard displaced more than Bismarck that she is "larger". I of course would say that makes Vanguard "heavier" rather than "larger", but the point is that others would disagree with my assessment. And since we are an encyclopedia that values neutrality, we cannot take the opinion of one pair of authors (in this case Garzke & Dulin) as gospel fact when there are others who disagree. Hence the need to be somewhat vague. Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

True, you're not the only person whose assessment matters, but it was under your own authority you kept reverting my edit and your own logic I cite undermining your reverts. I hold that the relevant measure of the Bismark and Tirpitz's sizes in the context of what is being said (whether there were any bigger European battleships, since the Bismark being focused on was sunk before the US entered the war, which hadn't any till several years later anyway) is that they were indeed the largest such of the war. Which is the point, not whether Britain later launched some short-lived possibly larger battlewagon after the war was over that never saw combat action.

It's not dilution to state they were the largest built by any European power through WWII, when the two roamed, inspired fear, fought, and were sunk; it is to have to add "among" when including "ever" simply to accommodate something that maybe was, maybe wasn't, and wasn't relevant regardless. Yours, 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think my logic undermines my revert then you clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What do you think is the implication of restricting the characterization of the ships' size to the WWII years? That some battleship(s) that came afterward were larger. And given that only one new battleship was completed in the postwar era (besides Jean Bart, which doesn't really count), the only assumption that can be made is that we are implying that Vanguard was unquestionably larger than both ships.

I'll use the Petronas Towers article to illustrate my point. It states that "they were the tallest buildings in the world from 1998 to 2004 until surpassed by Taipei 101". The subtext of a definitive range (in this case, 1998 to 2004)is that they are no longer the tallest buildings in the world. One doesn't need the "until surpassed by Taipei 101" bit to make that deduction. In much the same way, stating that Bismarck and Tirpitz were the largest "through World War II" (which is equally as definitive as the "1998 to 2004" range) would lead the reader to conclude that some larger battleship came along after the war. That is why your proposed change is problematic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Problematic, but less so than your wording. What's most relevant is that they were the largest of the War deployed by European powers (Not my proscription, "European powers", I accepted it regardless.). If my proposed wording opens the possibility something larger was built after, saying "among the largest ever" states it flat out. Better to me to make the more relevant point and leave ambiguity whether some maybe bigger/maybe not ship that not only never could have engaged them but never engaged anyone ever was launched than to remove all uncertainty and make it clear a size rival indeed was later built.

Potato/potahto. I think my wording is stronger, you yours. Who is going to make the call? My edit is in good faith and factually accurate. It's only your opinion that your wording is superior. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but again you miss the point. There is a size rival, depending on your point of view, and it is better to leave the issue somewhat vague than to choose a side.

It seems to me that you don't have much expertise in this area. To those of us who know something about naval history, wording it your way gives the implication that Vanguard was indeed larger than both ships, since we are familiar with the ships that are in question. That's the logical conclusion from the statement as you word it.

Perhaps it would be best to add a note with the competing claims and the various statistics so the situation is clearer to non-experts. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this table illustrates (data taken from infobox of respective article) what Parsecboy is trying to say. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison

Ship	Length	Beam	Displacement
Bismarck	251 m (823 ft) overall	36 m (118 ft)	41,700 t (41,000 long tons; 46,000 short tons) standard
Tirpitz	251 m (823 ft) overall	36 m (118 ft)	42,900 t (42,200 long tons; 47,300 short tons) standard
Vanguard	814 ft 4 in (248.2 m)	108 ft (32.9 m)	44,500 long tons (45,200 t) (standard)

Thank you MisterBee1966 for the above table. If you look at the article's edit history you will see I initially consulted and cited a list of the largest battleships of WWII to support the 1st change I made in the passage at issue. I knew the German battleships had no European rivals for size during the war. But the prior qualified "two of the largest built by any European power" wording nagged and in a moment the postwar HMS Vanguard came to me, so I duly consulted its page and the above measurements, assessed them as problematic versus the German ships, and amended my original edit with the qualifier "during World War II".

I don't know where anybody gets the ideas I don't know WWII naval history or understand the complications of measuring displacement: I am quite fluent in both of them, and in English.

The way it's currently worded the relevant passage diminishes the significance of the Bismarck and Tirpitz being the two largest battleships in their theatre throughout the course of that war. That is what is relevant, not that the British built in fits and stops a maybe bigger/maybe not ship that wasn't deployed in that conflict, never fired its guns in anger, and served only briefly as a chiefly ceremonial totem for the waning British Empire.

The issue is one of emphasis, not problematic "facts". That is why I have elected the wording I have, recognizing that it seems beyond any of us to come up with an alternative that is accurate yet does not tip off that another maybe was/maybe wasn't battleship was built some time by some European power between the Mary Rose and 2014. My wording makes it clear it didn't happen during World War II, and hence had no bearing on the clashes and fates of either German ship. The current wording leaves that wholly ambiguous: "Gee, when was another bigger battleship built? I wonder if it ever faced the German warships, or if it influenced either their design and construction or strategy in their deployment? Did it have anything to do with the Bismarck's famous sinking, or the Channel Dash and fjord hide-and-seek the Tirpitz was reduced to...?"

Which, friends, is exactly what I found myself second-guessing reading the article as written. Criminy, I’ve read several books on the ‘’Bismarck’’ alone, know the length, displacement, gun size, shell weight, etc., of the Yamato and Musashi (and the history of a third ship of their class converted to an aircraft carrier, the Shinano, and sunk by a US submarine); ditto the entire US Iowa class, right down to where they're berthed as museum ships (and so on and so forth down the line by class and country). “What European power had anything to rival the German duo in sheer size and (by logical extension) fighting power?” I found myself asking. None, of course, not during the war. Only after, when that ambiguous Vanguard was commissioned in mid-May of 1946.

That's why I made the edit I did, to make it clear in the most relevant context that they were the largest of their time and had no rivals; once they were gone maybe a larger ship was built, maybe not. Whether one - or a bunch, the implication as written doesn't proscribe - was or wasn’t, it's subsidiary, subordinate, and incidental in importance in the context being considered.

For a final time, I feel the text should be changed as I edited it, for all the above reasons. I'm not "missing" anything in the discussion, thank you very much. Certainly I hope the helpful MisterBee1966 has an open mind on the proposed edit in light of the above affirmations. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest we word it as follows:

Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and were the largest operated by any European power during WWII.

If we want to get into broader comparisons, we need to say:

Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and were the largest operated by any European power during WWII. (However the USA xx and the Japanese zzzz. The HMS Vanguard, which was only launched after the war and never saw combat, was smaller but may have eventually been heavier.)

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You have high hopes in me; the last thing my beloved wife would say of me is that I have an open mind. Joke aside let’s dissect the issue. First, already the factual data has multiple dimensions.

1. physical size
2. time
3. geographical locations

Any kind of superlative statement about Bismarck and Tirpitz fails without taking all three factors into consideration. Both discussed statements are technically and logically valid

1. "Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and two of the largest built by any European power."
2. "Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships built by any European power through World War II"

Statement 1 is time independent, bound to a geographical location and ranks Bismarck and Tirpitz among the top in Europe. Statement 2 is time dependent, bound to a geographical location and the superlative statement that Bismarck and Tirpitz are at the top in Europe is valid for the World War II timeframe only. So it boils down to the question of what aspect to emphasize. What I like about statement 1, is that it is time independent. What I like about statement 2 is that it makes clear that there was nothing larger around during World War II in Europe. Can't we strike a combo of both?

• "Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships built in Europe throughup to the end of World War II, and two of the largest built by any European power."

Just an idea. Now beat me MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a little problem with "through World War II", is "up to" or "up to and including" meant? Would "up to the end of WWII" be a better phrase? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

good point MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, gentlemen, what about a compromise that achieves both objectives: the wording "the largest built by any European power through World War II", immediately followed by a superscript link to a brief note on the Vanguard, its essentials, and date of commissioning. That way the issue of the German duo's dominance in their theatre during the relevant timeframe of WWII is made plain, yet the possibility of their being later surpassed is immediately addressed using Wikipedia's note function. Afterall, that's what the latter is there for, the article presently having five such clarifications (here).

Sample text for the note to be improved by others could be:

"HMS Vanguard, commissioned 12 May, 1946, was 1.8m shorter than the Bismarck and Tirpitz, 3.1m narrower in beam, but 2,800 tons greater in standard displacement than Bismarck and 1,600 greater than Tirpitz"

Or whatever the group feels is essential. Thanks, everyone, for your contributions. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes is a great idea! How about this then: Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships operated by any European power during WWII. {{{Footnote A – HMS Vanguard, commissioned only after the end of the war on 12 May, 1946, was 1.8m shorter than the Bismarck and Tirpitz, and 3.1m narrower in beam, but 2,800 tons heavier in standard displacement than Bismarck and 1,600 heavier than Tirpitz}}} {{{Footnote B - the largest US battleship was xxx and the largest Japanese battleship was zzz}}} Wdford (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In deference to the article's FA quality I would recommend keeping any changes/additions as succinct as possible. The intent is not to open up a larger discussion of battleship size by nation in WWII, merely minimize a specific ambiguity we seem unable to wholly eliminate through a simple copyedit.

The fewer words changed and the bare minimum #s in a note the better, the moreso considering it's a proposed change of the lede.

It's clear Parsecboy (who evidently shepherded the article to recent FA placement on the Wikipedia main page) and I are staying out of final wording. I hope a consensus can yet be reached and appropriate changes made. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, it is evident naval history, Irish whiskey, and Wikipedia Talk pages don't entirely mix in the order administered the other night. Of course it was the Sharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen that completed the Channel Dash. The Tirpitz was in and out of the Fættenfjord north of Trondheim. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On the lead section

The introduction of an article should summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD, not just the points you or I decide to be "most important". The two sections on the discovery of the wreck and subsequent expeditions are substantial parts of the article, and deserve to be adequately summarized in the article. Simply stating that the wreck was discovered in 1986 does not adequately summarize those sections. Ballard is a famous marine explorer and deserves to be mentioned, as do the several subsequent expeditions, especially since they were critical in determining (as best we can know) what happened to the ship in her final moments afloat. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Would "Robert Ballard in June 1989 located the wreck, which has since been surveyed by several other expeditions." work for both sides? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How about "The wreck was located in June 1989 by Robert Ballard, and has since been further surveyed by several other expeditions." There is no real need to mention the Titanic here - the bluelink to Ballard will surely suffice? Wdford (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me - I don't really know why Titanic was included in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why "antiquated" Fairey Swordfish torpedo bomber?

I find the use of the word "antiquated" to describe the Swordfish enlightening and wrong. When discussing aircraft the usual expression is obsolete not antiquated. Therefore I suspect that the word antiquated has been added so as to try and belittle the vessel. The Swordfish could be described as slow in 1941 compared to land based aircraft or the Japanese Kate, but in the context of the Battle for the Atlantic in 1941 it was as adequate. As it was unopposed there is no comparative with which to judge the aircraft, thus "antiquated" becomes merely a subjective description. It was not "antiquated" by comparison to the Albacore. The Swordfish was certainly more successful that the US torpedo bombers of the same time frame. Therefore I suggest to the wider audience that the word "antiquated" be removed. It adds nothing to the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionist99 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Miriam-Webster, "antiquated" means "outmoded…by reason of age: being out of style". The Swordfish was a fabric-covered biplane capable of less than 140 knots in an era of all-metal monoplanes capable of more than 200 knots (and far greater in the case of the B5N2). The Swordfish was certainly outmoded technology in 1941, thus "antiquated" is a perfectly acceptable way to describe it. It has nothing to do with denigrating the aircraft, it's a simple (and widely accepted) fact.

In case you're not convinced, here are some reliable sources that refer to the Swordfish as antiquated:

• "antiquated frame-and-fabric Fairey Swordfish..."
• "...five antiquated Swordfish."
• Fairey Swordfish, antiquated, open-cockpit biplanes..."
• "...slow and antiquated by 1940 terms, the Swordfish..."
• "antiquated fabric-covered biplanes". Does that allay your concerns? Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Antiquated is the adjective derived from "antique". "..attacked by ANTIQUE biplanes" OR "attacked by obsolete biplanes". Generally technical reviews would use the latter. However my concern is that in a theatre of war where the KM had no relevant aircraft (we may exclude the floatplanes of Bismarck) the air power of the RN carriers was not obsolete as they were faced by no Nazi aircraft. In an article about the Channel Dash where Swordfish were faced by state of the art fighters they were obsolete. I consider the word adds nothing to the otherwise excellent article.Revisionist99 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is with regard to the origin of the word "antiquated" or its classification. It is, as you point out, an adjective, which, as I have pointed out, has been used quite frequently to describe the Swordfish in 1941.

Your concern is unfounded, since we are talking about the "modernity" of the aircraft, not its combat utility. Just because a weapon is outdated does not mean it cannot be used effectively in certain circumstances. And perhaps more to the point, the modernity of a given design is determined by its contemporaries (in this case the Devastator and the Kate, among others), not by its opponents (the Bf 109s over the Channel, as you suggest, though by 1942 the 109 was by no means "state of the art", given that the design was by then 7 years old). Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word "antiquated" to describe the Swordfish dates from the era of Purnells History of the Second World War. It was used in publications of that era to imply how old fashioned and out of date was the design of the Bismarck. You are correct it has been repeated many times subsequently; as have the opinions that Bismarck was specifically not scuttled and that Bismarck was only a revamp of the Baden design. Simply because an expression has been used repeatedly does not make it correct. Bismarck was not a revamp of the Baden being an example we should be able to agree on. The Swordfish was designed circa 1934 and entered service 1935 the same time frame as the Bismarck design (years up to 1936) we could equally describe Bismarck's FlaK directors as antique as they would date from a similar time frame. When was the RN air launched torpedo developed? before or after the Swordfish, might that also be antique? Its performance was below that of the Japanese equivalent? Outdated is the more common term for units that are no longer modern. My concern is to move forward the information available not repeat the errors/omissions/obfuscations of previous historians. Our knowledge is greater now than it was circa 1968 so I contend we are no longer bound to use expressions, contentious expressions from that era. Revisionist99 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good. "Antiquated" is not the only word that can be used. But, you removed it altogether, without replacing it with a synonym, which is primarily what I objected to. The Swordfish was by no means a modern aircraft design in 1941, and the reader should be made aware of this fact, because it has obvious implications for the narrative.

As an aside, Bismarck's secondary battery was decidedly antiquated, given that it relied on a mix of low-angle and high-angle guns, as opposed to the dual-purpose weapons adopted by the Americans, French, and British. But that's another story. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Of course I know nothing about naval gunnery, but I know a little bit about naval aviation. And apparently (according to the Wikipedia article on the plane) the problem with the secondary battery of the Bismarck was not elevation but depression. Now that sounds odd, as both the 10,5 cm SK C/33 and the 15 cm SK C/28 could be lowered enough to engage a low-flying Swordfish in the final approach (-3 and -10 degrees resp.). Admittedly, the 15 cm SK C/28 was a bit slow but nevertheless should have been able to do at least some damage. That said, I think the Swordfish was about as 'antiquated' in 1941 as the Me 109 was in 1942, both aircraft models were less than seven years in service. They may however be described as obsolete or obsolecent, simply because there were better planes - and monoplanes at that - around. But of course, if reliable sources use 'antiquated' that should be fine with me. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point I was making re: Bismarck's secondary battery was that a considerable savings in weight could have been achieved by scrapping the 15cm and 10.5cm guns and adopting a dual-purpose gun, but that is neither here nor there.

The Swordfish was obsolescent when it entered service, owing in large part to the ridiculous design requirements issued by the FAA (not least of which was the need to launch them from a battleship's catapults) that greatly reduced the aircraft's performance. That it managed to exploit the abject failure of the Italians and Germans to provide even a modicum of aerial protection for their capital ships should not give one the mistaken impression that the Swordfish was a top-of-the-line aircraft, ever. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering what happened to Force Z six months later, I don't think dual-purpose guns would have saved the day for Bismarck. Her problem seems to have been a too modern fire control system that couldn't deal with the slow-moving, low-flying Swordfish (A.Konstam, The Bismarck 1941, 2011, pp. 69,73). Operating in a Force 8 gale didn't help either. I guess, Bismarck and Prince of Wales themselves were obsolete by 1941. The battleship was simply too good a target for submarines and aircraft, especially when unescorted. That lesson came at a high price though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't my point in mentioning the DP guns (though in fairness, there were far more Nells and Bettys for Prince of Wales to deal with than Swordfishes for Bismarck). My point was that using a DP secondary battery would have saved weight that could have been used elsewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither Bismarck nor Prince of Wales needed more AAA. What they needed was fighter cover. Bismarck got none of the attacking Swordfishes, and Prince of Wales and Repulse only got 3 out of 88 or so Nells and Betties (1 in 30 is simply not good enough - especially in fair weather conditions). The sad truth is, that even an outdated model like the Swordfish was superior to a state-of-the-art battleship, if unprotected by fighter aircraft. And a Swordfish is much more easily replaced than a battleship, isn't it? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the outdatedness of the aircraft is relevant actually. A wooden club is very "antiquated" compared to a modern assault rifle, but if your rifle is out of bullets and you are attacked by 20 club-wielding bandits, those clubs are going to be a problem for you. If the RN had attacked a USN carrier task group equipped with modern fighter-planes those Swordfish would have been slaughtered, but the Bismarck had no air cover at all and so was vulnerable even to the Swordfish - as events have shown. The age of the design alone does not make it useless, its a matter of what you are facing on the day - the Colt .45 1911 Model automatic is over a hundred years old, but is still fully effective, and will be found wanting only in highly-specific instances. The Me109 was upgraded regularly, and would be able to compete with any Allied aircraft at any time save the most advanced Mustangs. They were always deadly against British bombers, and would have made a meal of a Swordfish on any day. Its all relative. The Swordfish could lift a torpedo off a carrier, it could lumber off after a battleship, it could drop its torpedo and 1% of those torpedo's would hit something - in the circumstances, with the Bismarck outnumbered 20-1 and with no air cover, that was good enough on the day. Wdford (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the outdatedness of the Swordfish is twofold. One: the average reader won't know that, and so should be told, since one would normally expect a modern battleship with an extensive—for the time—antiaircraft battery to be able to handle them with ease. Thus, when not a single Swordfish is shot down, the reader should be somewhat surprised. Two: as ÄDA pointed out above, Bismarck's problem with engaging the Swordfish stemmed primarily from the fact that they were so slow. And so the datedness of the design becomes very important to the narrative (and indeed the fate) of the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Gentlemen. I have not abandoned this discussion, I have been trying to read the references given for the repeated use of the adjective "antiquated" - without any great success. I accept that all of the references make clear that the Swordfish was slow. I have no issues with making clear in the narrative of the Chase that Bismarck's AA guns failed to protect the ship from slow moving Swordfish and failed twice to shoot down any planes. It is the hangover from the 1960s that I object to: the emotive word antiquated. "Obsolete" / "outdated" OK but we have moved on from the emotive writings of the 1960s where Bismarck was a poor ship that didn't even sink HMS Hood because Prinz-E did that etc etc. "Antiquated Swordfish" dates from that era and having it repeated is maintaining that period. The real antiques in the Bismarck story are the 3.7cm SK/30 FlaK guns: single shot weapons dating from circa 1930 - earlier than the Swordfish. Revisionist99 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I am not following the argument. How can a slower aircraft be safer than a fast-moving aircraft because the AA guns were only capable of single-shot? Second, if you want to say that "the gunners were unable to hit the slow bombers because the AA guns were inadequate", then let's rather say that. The subliminal message about "antiquated" bombers is much too subtle. Wdford (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If Konstam is correct in his description of events, the German fire control system resulted in the fuzes to be set incorrectly so they exploded the shells above and beyond the target. My guess is, the minimum setting allowed by the system was so, that it made any hits virtually impossible. Now, the Swordfish was slow, but had a considerable range. Unopposed by enemy fighters, the slowness actually worked for the Swordfish as it made targeting (and ultimately hitting) difficult at best. I would also argue, that the fact that this was a bi-plane was more of an advantage in the conditions that night. Airspeed was not a problem and range permitted an attack from the most promissing angle - and being equipped with RADAR helped, too. If anything, conditions for the Swordfish were nearly perfect that day. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

With rapidly evolving wartime technology I think we can agree that we do need to indicate that Swordfish should have been ineffective, so an adjective is required. However, 'antiquated' is the wrong word to use. Technically it might mean the same thing as 'obsolete' or 'outdated', but the root word 'antique' implies it comes from the distant past rather than that it just happens to have become outdated because something better was developed recently. Incidentally, for comparision, while checking the definitions I noticed that antique road vehicles are those older than 25 years, and in the US antique furniture is that which was created more than 100 years before the purchase date. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, "obsolete" would be the best choice. However, since the Kriegsmarine could not provide effective fighter cover for Bismarck, it should be made clear that the Swordfishes's obsoletness was only relative to other available aircraft of the time. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also agree with the above two comments - "obsolete" is a better description of the airplane. Revisionist99 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it is now two weeks since anyone else has contributed to this discussion so may I suggest that either this matter be referred to arbitration or we agree to substitute the word obsolete for antiquated.

I further consider that the correct place to refer to the obsolete nature of the Fairey Swordfish aircraft is in relation to the initial attack from HMS Victorious which in the time line is the first occasion the plane and its performance enter the narrative. I would suggest this is written along the lines of ... Bismarck's AA battery proved inadequate to defend the vessel from this attack by a small number of slow, obsolete aircraft. Perhaps this would be a point in the narrative to briefly discuss the inadequacy of Bismarck's AA battery: the slow firing 37mm SC30s (compare with the contemporary Italian 37mm Breda guns with a RoF of 120rpm: not 30rpm), the older 2 FlaK directors at the stern of the ship not being stabilized in 3D, overall the lack of volume of AA fire.

I would not begin a debate about the "lack of a Dual Purpose secondary armament". Against such an attack HMS Prince of Wales would deploy 8 x 5.25inch barrels = approx. 80rmp plus 16 x 40mm barrels = approx. 1600rpm. Bismarck did deploy 8 x 4.2inch barrels = approx. 120rpm plus 16 x 37mm barrels = approx. 480rpm. It was a lack of volume of AA fire Bismarck lacked. (The 5inch / 38 cal guns carried by the USN battleships was developed directly from the 5inch 25 cal AA guns to be an AA gun with more punch in the anti destroyer role - see N Friedman's article in Warship 1 iirc).

I would like to invite Parsecboy to contribute this addition to the narrative. Revisionist99 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You of course are free to make the change. Though if you add material, please do so with a reliable source and if possible, adhere to the citation style in use in the article. If you need help with formatting, I can do that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The trick will be to make the minimum size of change necessary to enhance the already first class narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionist99 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First I agree that "obsolete" is the best word. However I disagree that we should speculate about the Bismarck's AA battery. Perhaps a DP gun battery would have helped here, or perhaps not - Prince of Wales vs Japan seems to suggest that it makes little difference, and how many Japanese battleships went down to air attacks? Perhaps a cluster of 20mm auto's would have done a better job? I'm not buying that the fuses were incapable of being set correctly - that is beyond bizarre. Its more likely that the issue was a heaving deck in bad weather, or poor visibility, or even some other issue like a damaged control cable or something. I don't think we can insert a paragraph discussing the AA battery unless we have good info, rather than speculation. Wdford (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced antiquated with obsolete. I refer to the failure of Bismarck's AA battery to deter or shoot down any Swordfish which allows one plane to torpedo the ship. I hope that meets with broad approval. Hi WDford I saw your note above only after I completed my edit. As I wrote above if you substiture HMS Prince of Wales DP battery for Bismarck you do not gain many extra large calibre shells but you do gain many many more 40/37mm calibre shells. The 5.25 inch being slower firing that Bismarck's dedicated 4.1 inch AA guns. The wiki page on the 5.25 inch implies that it was a good mounting however slower rate of fire and from writings about the sinking of PoW slower firing and slow in traverse. Where there can be no disagreement is that the subsequent British capital ships equipped with DP battery (rebuilt) had 10 x 4.5 inch guns per side, akin to the US battleships. The 4.5 was considered the best AA gun introduced by the RN. As I said above the US 5 inch 38 cal was developed from the 5"/25 cal AA gun to be an AA gun with a better anti destroyer capability. (it was not a shortened 5"/ 51 anti destroyer gun reworked to be an AA gun). The point I wish to make is the Bismarck and the PoW both and secondary batteries that were designed without a suitable appreciation of the threat of aircraft, subsequent RN ships had more barrels as did the US ships. These were more AA that anti destroyer batteries. The Kreigsmarine in the 1930s was concerned with the large French super-destroyers so kept the 5.9inch anti destroyer weapons. The 37mm SK/30 rate of fire is shown on wiki, the Bofors & 40mm pom-pom too. The Breda 37mm as used by the Italians is sourced from an article on the Vittorio Vennito in Warship 1 (annual compendium). That the 2 aft Flak directors were older models stabilised in 2 axis of movement rather than 3 axis as per the 2 forward directors (either side) I believe is referenced in Ballard's book. We all have come to accept the concept of the Dual Purpose battery from reading those 1960s & 1970s style books. We really should now be talking about the US ships having AA batteries able to engage destroyers and the KGVs having anti destroyer batteries able to fire at aircraft. Revisionist99 (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a featured article, it's important that all material be supported by references to reliable sources. As you did not provide such references, I've removed the material you just added. I think that what you've added is essentially correct (though hitting very low-flying aircraft manned by competent pilots would have been a challenge for any ship throughout the war, and crew training and readiness as well as the quality of fire direction would have also influenced the performance of Bismark's AA battery), but it needs to be referenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly needs referencing? Nick-D. Here is a synopsis of what I added: Swordfish were obsolete (not antiquated)- SEE THE ABOVE agreement achieved. Bismarck was too far from France for the luftwaffe to support it -see cordinates of the wreck references unnecessary. Bismarck's AA battery inadeqate to defend ship against 9 obsolete swordfish - this is referenced by the original text. No planes were shot down & the strike flew close enought to score a torpedo hit - again referenced by the original text. It seems you are edit waring. Revisionist99 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In a featured article - according to the Featured article criteria "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". And "where appropriate" is "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Your edit has been challenged. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine let us proceed to arbitration over your objections.Revisionist99 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In the mean while the item AGREED above (see post by wike-edit) we can agree on replacing the word antiquated with obsolete.Revisionist99 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the phrase 'obsolete' applied to the Swordfish. My dictionary defines obsolete as "no longer produced or used; out of date ", and considering that Swordfish sunk one battleship and severely damaged two other battleships AFTER damaging the Bismarck, and that they were produced until 1944 to me means they were not obsolete. 24.144.121.123 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating dated-ness of a design with its effectiveness. The two are not the same. One can render a man just as dead with a flintlock musket as one can with a modern semi-automatic rifle; that does not mean the flintlock is not obsolete. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Historians of the RN in this period generally argue that the fact that its carriers were operating outdated designs like the Swordfish in 1941 was little short of scandalous given that these designs were unable to operate in the face of serious opposition. The Swordfish proved a successful design during World War II (mainly in the anti-submarine role), but this was surprising given its slow speed and generally limited performance compared to more recent designs, and it shouldn't have been on the flight decks of the RN's fleet carriers. The RN was quick to replace them with American types such as the Avenger for fleet work as soon as they became available. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find the correct word is obsolescent, as that implies that the thing is still in use despite being of a design from an earlier age. Given the rate of progress of aircraft design in the thirties and forties and the realities of the procurement process that does not seem like an insult. Greglocock (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Swordfish was retained for so long because it was the best aircraft for the purposes that it was later used for, which was flying off small escort carriers in foul weather and delivering any type of store to it's target. True it was not of much use against fighter aircraft but then again Germany had no aircraft carriers - as the Admiralty well knew - and so that was less of a problem. They didn't do too badly at the Battle of Taranto either.

BTW, if there was a 30 kt headwind to fly into then a Swordfish at 90 kt might only be doing a ground speed of 60 kt, so that may have been the speed needed for any AA predictor, and may have been too slow for it - few aircraft in 1941 would have been flying that slowly relative to the ship and so it is possible the predictor and fuze designers may have incorporated a lower speed figure setting that was too high for use against the Swordfish.

The state of British naval aviation in 1939 was due in a large part to the disarmament movements in the 1930s that Britain was constantly being nagged by other countries to comply with - such as the Washington Treaty and London Naval Treaty and Second London Naval Treaty - nagging that was to a large extent, coming from the US, so blaming the UK for failing to procure suitable aircraft in time is hardly appropriate when they have been reducing their defence spending at the request of others, while in the same period, Germany - and Japan - had vastly increased theirs, a form of "c******g on one's friends" that later came back to haunt the US in December 1941, and which they then repeated in 1956, and which again came back to haunt them in the Vietnam War period.

So, Germany and Japan knew there was a war coming, as they were the ones who were going to start it, and had been planning for it for a considerable number of years - Bismarck was a brand new ship. Britain OTOH had been disarming and was doing its best to keep out of any war, as can be seen by its pre-war policy of Appeasement. That's one of the reasons they had to make do with 'antiquated' Swordfish, although for 'antiquated' aircraft, they did do rather well. Oh, and in the North Atlantic the Martlet was obsolete too, at least it couldn't hope to fight a Bf 109E or later and come out if it in one peace. But the FAA still used them off escort carriers too.

BTW, Germany didn't sign up to any of the above treaties. The only country the treaties hurt was Britain, who had the largest navy in the world. But then Britain had the best excuse for it, having the global British Empire to protect. None of the other countries - except possibly Japan - needed a large navy. They had next-to-nothing to protect, apart from their coastlines. Their navies were just status symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.88 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Britain was the country pushing disarmament - they didn't have the money to keep up with an arms race that, in the postwar era, they had no hope of winning. The British were the ones pushing for even further reductions in the size and armament of new battleships at London in 1930. See for instance the article on the Littorio-class battleships, which references a British attempt to make France and Italy limit their new designs to 25,000 LT and 12" guns. If the naval limitations hurt anyone in the 1920s, it hurt the United States, as they were the only country with the money and industrial capacity to win an arms race.

The reason they stuck with the Swordfish for so long was because it had a very low stall speed, which meant it could be catapulted off a battleship - have a look at American & British Aircraft Carrier Development, 1919-1941. And as for whether an antiquated object can still be useful in very limited contexts, that argument is a red herring as I pointed out above. One could very easily kill someone with a sword in certain situations, but I don't see any militaries throwing away their firearms for cold steel. Your Martlet example is also inapt - the Wildcat could go toe to toe with the Zero provided the proper tactics were used; it wasn't so much obsolete as it emphasized different characteristics (ruggedness and armor versus speed, maneuverability, and extreme range).

Appeasement is better explained by a British failure to accurately perceive the threat posed by Germany than a pure desire to avoid war - there's an interesting graph in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period that charts British perceptions of Luftwaffe strength compared to its actual strength. 1938 is the critical year where Britain realized it's previous assumptions about the strength of the Luftwaffe were ridiculously high, and also the year when the Luftwaffe dramatically did increase in power, which led Britain to significantly underestimate it when war did come the next year.

And as for needing to protect anything, you're forgetting that France and a colonial empire as large and far flung as Britain's, and the US also had significant Pacific holdings (and of course were the counterweight to Japanese expansion). Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Star-Sprangled Bismarck.

There will be another Bismarck. Press reports the US Navy is naming one FY2016 USNS-operated hydrofoil as Bismarck, named after the capital city. Thereby, Bismarck_(ship) article may soon need a disambiguation page for Wikipedia! 82.131.219.55 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely - this ship will still be far more famous, and 99% of the time, when someone types in "Bismarck ship" to the search bar, they'll be looking for this one. A hatnote here will more than suffice. Parsecboy (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stern

To continue from this edit summary, Ballard goes on to outline the evidence that suggests the stern detached at the surface (basically what's covered in that paragraph in this article), and concludes that "These facts suggest strongly that a structural failure occurred before the ship sank and that the stern broke off at the surface." Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Garzke and Dulin: "Our examination of the wreck of Bismarck does not permit us to conclusively determine exactly when the battered stern end fell away - it had almost certainly failed structurally during the capsizing process. Prior to the capsizing, the stern no longer contributed any buoyancy to the stability and survivability of the battleship. We do know from the testimony of Mr. Statz that Bismarck's stern was in place when he was carried past it by the prevailing seas around 1035. Mr. Statz was within 50 meters of the ship when she capsized and sank. There is the possibility that as the ship sank and righted herself, the hydrodynamic forces caused the stern to fail completely underwater." Thus an eyewitness saw that the stern was still attached to the hull when the ship finally sank. It probably broke off quite soon thereafter, thus it landed on the bottom far from the main hull, but it was still attached while the ship was on the surface. Wdford (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend not to place a lot of faith in the testimony of an eyewitness who was in all likelihood in shock. Nevertheless, Ballard suggests the stern separated when the ship capsized, and Statz's account does not contradict that. This seems quite likely, especially when one considers the general weakness of the sterns of other German warships (particularly Deutschland and Prinz Eugen) and there was no structural support to hold the stern in place upside down. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Messages decoded by Jane Fawcett (nee Hughes)?

The main article mentions intercepted messages that helped lead to the sinking of the Bismarck. The decryption of these messages (or message?) was probably done by the recently deceased Jane Fawcett when she was working at Bletchley Park. She isn't even mentioned in that article, though she has her own Wikipedia article (that isn't very visible from external searches). There was once a time when I would have worked on this myself and spent the time to add the appropriate links to the main article (and probably the secondary articles), but mostly lost my motivation to support Wikipedia more actively... Shanen (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

She's now mentioned Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Main belt obsession in wreck expeditions

The obsession reflected in the wreck expedition treatment on the lack of penetration of the main belt armour (mentioned repeatedly in the text) should be moderated. It gives the misleading impression that (a) the Bismarck had amazingly effective armour, or (b) the British 16 in and 14 in armour-piercing shells were not effective. Neither of which impressions are based on fact. The main belt of Bismarck reached a maximum thickness of 12.6 inches, whereas the conning tower had 14 inch-thick armour. The conning tower on the wreck of the Bismarck is said to resemble a "Swiss cheese".Brown (2006), pp. 31, 35. Brown, D K (2006). Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 1923–1945. Chatham Publishing. I can think of reasons for this discrepancy: Bismarck had a very low freeboard and a remarkably wide beam, therefore plunging fire from a distance would have had a much higher probability of hitting the deck or superstructure than the main belt: very close range fire, especially after Bismarck had settled in the water due to flooding, would also have tended to pass over the main belt. Inclusion of a reference to the many penetrations of the conning tower would help to give the reader a more balanced impression of the effectiveness of the armour protection of this battleship. The main belt armour of the ship, intact or not, proved to be an irrelevance. It did nothing to prevent Bismarck from being reduced to a burnt-out, sinking (albeit slowly) wreck. Urselius (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any specific changes to the article which you'd like to suggest? Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, within the 'second wreck section' a reference to the state of the conning tower could be made using the reference given above, or in the earlier description of the final battle the following might be referred to, with reference that this structure had the thickest armour (along with the main turret faces) on the ship: Bismarck survivor Josef Statz stated that several shells had penetrated the port wall of the conning tower and had destroyed everything within. William H. Garzke, Robert O. Dulin (1985) Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, p. 491. This would effectively balance the descriptions of intact main belt armour in the text of the article, and correct the potential misapprehensions a reader might conceive concerning the relative effectiveness of armour and armour-piercing shells during the action. Urselius (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What you're proposing is synthetic and inappropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not synthetic by any means, and is entirely appropriate. No novel conclusion is reached. It also does two very useful things, it gives the reader a more balanced account, as discussed above, and introduces an eyewitness account of the state of the battleship following the cannonade. In the article it states: "Bismarck had been reduced to a shambles, aflame from stem to stern", but there is no detail describing this. The addition of an eyewitness anecdote would rectify this omission. The addition of a description of the ruined state of the most heavily armoured part of the battleship's superstructure is an eloquent testimony concerning the shambles the rest had been reduced to. Urselius (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's not backpedal now. Your point in wanting to include it, as you said in your first post, was to disprove the supposed implication that Rodney was unable to penetrate the belt. The archaeologists who examined the wreck were focused on finding penetrations in the belt (i.e., below the waterline), since those would settle the sunk vs. scuttled debate. You want to add mention of the fact that the conning tower was badly damaged, because if Rodney's 16-inch guns could penetrate the conning tower armor, they could surely penetrate the belt. In essence, you are using A, which says B, to disprove C, when A does not reference C - that is the definition of a synthetic argument.

In any event, the article does mention the fact that the superstructure was riddled with holes - try reading further in the subsequent expeditions section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not back-pedalling, I am arguing a case and bringing in further supporting material. As you are undoubtedly aware, there is an element of "fan-boy" adulation of this ship out there. This includes the idea that the ship was scuttled with hardly its paint scratched, because its "super-special-unbeatable-armour" made it unsinkable. Being encyclopaedic and hopefully factual, Wikipedia editors should not pander to this view - even subconsciously. At present, the view that the armour on the Bismarck was "super-special-unbeatable" is supported indirectly by the text. Why did the Bismarck not sink due to gunfire as easily as some other ships did? Well, that had everything to do with its excellent magazine isolation, low freeboard and massive beam, together giving it great stability, and its watertight subdivisioning. It had nothing to do with the thickness, positioning or steel-composition of its armour. Indeed the conning tower armour, designed to withstand 15 inch shells from moderate range, seems to have been breached by 8 inch shells from HMS Dorsetshire. Thus the armour on the Bismarck was not only not "super-special-unbeatable", it did not even achieve its design specifications. Your objections to this proposed addition - fully supported by respected secondary sources and designed to balance an imbalance in the text - seem to rely entirely on sophistry. Urselius (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Read whatever you like into the text, synthesis will not be tolerated. The problem with your "respected secondary sources" is that you're putting words into their mouths, which is as I said, inappropriate. That you've been editing here as long as you have and do not understand that is appalling.

I've never seen any evidence that Dorsetshire's 8" guns were capable of penetrating 14" of armor, and frankly, it's a laughable suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find the reference I was thinking of for the 8-inch penetration for the moment, it was a survivor account, mentioning an officer being killed in the conning tower by splinters from an 8-inch shell, but perhaps a director was meant? I have found another reference for the conning tower being breached by an 8-inch shell, but I do not think it is from a publication of sufficient quality. Just found this: Mr. Statz recalls he was momentarily stunned by the shell's explosion and subsequently received a wound some 8-inches long in his left shoulder from a shell from Dorsetshire which passed into the conning tower through the open starboard door. Open door - but my memory about it exploding in the conning tower was correct. The available photos of the wreck show a number of holes in the conning tower.

Like I said your objections are mere sophistry and 'Wiki-legalism', no synthesis exists except in your mind. The text as it stands is unbalanced - this is a fact - the repeated mentions about the intact main belt armour are wide open to misinterpretation - the misinterpretation I have outlined in detail above. Your strange 'A-B algebra' is the mental equivalent of 'the shell game'. Please try to follow the logical progression. I am not seeking to prove that the main belt was breached or that it could be breached. What I am seeking to show to the reader is that the armour employed on the Bismarck in general could be penetrated, and was in fact penetrated, by the British armour piercing rounds used against it. This is very useful information that is lacking in the article as it stands. There is no synthesis! You have no legitimate grounds for objection on this count. The mere assertion that the superstructure was riddled with holes is not equivalent, as most of the superstructure would have had splinter-protection at best. Urselius (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) An 8" shell cannot penetrate 14" of steel under any circumstances, at any range. Even the super-heavy shells used in the American 8"/55 could penetrate at most 10", and the British Mk VIII fired a significantly lighter shell. And a fragment would be even less capable of penetrating that much steel.

If you think the prohibition on synthesis is "Wiki-legalism", that's fine, but you ought to find somewhere else to spend your time, since it's policy. You are trying to prove that the belt could be breached - did you forget what you typed earlier? "It gives the misleading impression that (a) the Bismarck had amazingly effective armour, or (b) the British 16 in and 14 in armour-piercing shells were not effective." - obviously, your point is the inverse, or in other words, to demonstrate that (a) the armor was ineffective, or (b) that the 16" and 14" shells were effective.

There's no synthesis? That's all you're doing! You infer that since the article mentions the fact that the belt was not penetrated, that means the belt couldn't be penetrated, when the article in no way makes that claim. You therefore have decided that pointing out that the conning tower was penetrated (A), that the belt could also be penetrated (B), when your source for (A) does not speak to (B). Do you really not see this?

I find it amusing that you call my "A-B algebra" a "shell game", when it comes almost directly from the prohibition on synthetic arguments, which you apparently have not bothered to read. I don't link these things for my health. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You really have a problem with logic. No, I do not bother with wikilegalism at all.

I quote yourself: "You infer that since the article mentions the fact that the belt was not penetrated, that means the belt couldn't be penetrated, when the article in no way makes that claim. You therefore have decided that pointing out that the conning tower was penetrated (A), that the belt could also be penetrated (B), when your source for (A) does not speak to (B). Do you really not see this?"

Erm, No! No! No! I am inferring nothing, nothing at all - I know a number of cogent reasons why the main belt was not breached, none of them connected with the thickness or composition of the armour. What I am saying is that we owe it to the reader, who may know little about naval warfare or ship design, not to take away the impression that the armour of Bismarck was impervious. At present there is nothing in the article to prevent this, and indeed there is plenty to support such a misinterpretation. There is no synthetic component to what I am suggesting. In order to be synthetic a novel conclusion not evident in any single source would have to be elaborated. Merely saying that the armoured conning tower was penetrated by shellfire is not novel. I can use a single source to say this, therefore no synthesis is possible.

1) There is a widespread idea that the Bismarck class had unusually effective "special composition" steel armour.

2) This article, as it stands, does not counteract this fallacy. Indeed, it unintentionally supports it by some of its wording.

3) All informed Wikipedia editors should be eager to present a balanced picture to potentially uninformed readers.

4) There is a simple way of dispelling this fallacy by mentioning the penetration of the extremely well-armoured control tower. This also has the added bonus of introducing an extra eye-witness account to the text, and highlights the importance of control systems, control personnel and communications in the functioning of a naval vessel in action.

See this online: Bismarck's Final Battle by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr. Illustrations by Thomas G. Webb, Part 3 - which says "Command and control spaces are always key targets for enemy fire. During the battleship era, relatively heavily-armored conning towers were normally provided to protect key personnel. Bismarck's conning tower was shielded by 350mm armor, which was riddled by close-range British battleship gunfire."

This is what I intend adding (in bold):

By 10:00, Tovey's two battleships had fired over 700 main battery shells, many at very close range; Bismarck had been reduced to a shambles, aflame from stem to stern. Even the well-armoured control tower, according to survivor Josef Statz, had been penetrated by several shells, destroying everything inside. ref William H. Garzke, Robert O. Dulin (1985) Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, p. 491. ref She suffered from a 20° list to port and was low in the water by the stern.

I really do not see how any objection to this scheme is editorially, logically or ethically valid. Urselius (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to grow tired of this nonsense - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you have trouble with the definition of "inference". Do you have any evidence that readers will interpret the article in the same biased manner that you did? No? Then you're inferring that they will (and that there is a problem with the article).

You want objections? The world is filled with morons and crackpots - it's not Wikipedia's job to refute them. The Apollo 11 article does not address the widely-known fringe theory that the landing was a hoax, for good reason. And even then, this article already makes clear that the ship was reduced to a shambles, that its heaviest armor (i.e., the main battery turrets) was repeatedly defeated. You are swinging at phantoms. Anyone who is currently under any misapprehension about the ability of Bismarck'S (or any ship's) armor to defeat very large projectiles won't be swayed by additional evidence to the contrary.

Do you know why the archaeologists (and thus, this article) focuses on the belt? Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, we are getting somewhere, slowly. We have at least disposed of the "synthesis" red herring. Hurrah! Good for you. The archaeologists are heavily concerned with the intactness of the belt armour because they are pursuing a similarly moronic and crackpot thesis as the "special steel". To whit, "Did the British sink the Bismarck or was she scuttled by her crew?" The importance of this question is based on the fallacious relevance of sinking a warship. It matters not at all if a functionless wreck floats for days or sinks in minutes. The Bismarck had been rendered a burnt out hulk long before it slipped beneath the waves; it was unable to manoeuvre or effectively raise steam, it had lost its power, communications and ability to lay or fire its armament. There was no chance of it making meaningful repairs and it had no chance of reaching any port, friendly or otherwise. It is a part of the 'unsinkable' fallacy, just like the "special steel".

Your real dislike of me adding an entirely relevant single sentence, with an entirely respectable citation, is that you have argued yourself into a logically indefensible position. And, yes, we owe it even to crackpot readers to present a balanced viewpoint in any article, especially one as surrounded by disinformation. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the point of what you're trying to accomplish here is still synthesis. I've just stopped bothering to try to explain it to you, since you apparently have your fingers in your ears.

Bingo! But the difference between the two issues is really rather simple. Reliable sources have spent quite a bit of time debating the issue, unlike your "special steel" nonsense. That is why the article covers that debate and the state of the hull.

I don't know what's more amusing - your inept condescension or your atrocious grasp of policy (and logic, apparently). Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You must have a very 'special' concept of synthesis. How in the world of reason can a bare statement of a simple fact, drawn from a single secondary source, constitute a synthesis? Given that the definition of synthesis is "the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole", I cannot be engaged in synthesis as I only have one component (I have some knowledge of synthetic chemistry BTW). Please explain to me how I could synthesise anything. You hide behind terms because your logic walks on crutches. You do not come across as being amused. :)

Why am I only conversing with you? Are no other editors interested? Or have you cowed them all with your grinding and misplaced zeal?

As an aside, did you know that the separation of the stern of the ship was witnessed, about a minute before it sank? Urselius (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. And I'll use small words, so I can't "hide" behind anything, and so we can be sure you'll understand (fingers crossed!). Your entire point in coming here is to disprove the apparent theory (which I have never seen in a reliable source, by the way) that Bismarck had some kind of special steel armor. We'll call that your conclusion C. You have a quote from Statz, we'll call that source A, that says the conning tower was penetrated by gunfire, which we'll call B. Of course, the other half of your argument is the basic logic that 350mm > 320mm (which we'll call D) You, by your first statement here, came to prove C by combining A and D, which is the definition of synthesis.

See, the thing is, if all you wanted to do was improve the coverage of battle damage (which I'd argue is not within the scope of the article, but that's beside the point), that would be fine. But you came here with an ax to grind, and you (rather foolishly) admitted it in your first post.

It's been, what, all of 11 hours that we've been discussing this? I have no idea why no one else has joined the debate yet - perhaps they have lives.

It might be interesting to you that according to Herr Statz, the stern was still attached when the ship sank - do you trust your eye-witness or not?

I take it you have conceded my second point above? Assuming that's the case, since you have not addressed it, we can drop all this nonsense and move on with our lives. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Another popular fallacy is that Bismarck had an armour belt made from a special nickel-chrome steel alloy" from British Battleships of World War Two: The Development and Technical History of the Royal Navy's Battleships and Battlecruisers from 1911 to 1946, Alan Raven, John Roberts, Arms and Armour Press, 1976.

Anthony Preston, formerly of the National Maritime Museum, author of numerous books on ship design etc. and sometime co-author with DK Brown, also alludes to the special nickel-steel armour myth in Sea Power, Exeter Books 1979, p. 113

Thus the matter is definitely out there, it matters not what you consider a “reputable source” either, because any such myth, from whatever source, should be addressed here.

However, the whole discussion above pales into insignificance next to the selective sourcing of evidence and avoidance of direct description that I have just recognised in this article.

At some stage in the discussion you said that the article describes how the armoured turrets were penetrated, and therefore mention of the conning tower is superfluous. This is untrue; the use of periphrasis is employed within the article to avoid saying this in a suitably direct manner. In the article the after turrets are “put out of action”, which suggests some form of gentle euthanasia. The forward turrets are rendered inoperable by a single shell hit to the superstructure! This suggests that two heavily armoured barbettes ceased to function out of sympathy!

The smoking gun:

DK Brown (2012), p. 163 "It is often suggested that Bismarck was much more resistant to damage than RN ships [i.e. the fallacy I have been expounding on], but examination of the wreck shows that this was not so. …. Fire was opened at 0847hrs and by 0900hrs B turret was out of action when a shell (probably 14in) went through the 340mm barbette armour and burst, blowing the back plate off [this is one of the turrets that apparently died of sympathy]…” “The belt [main belt of Bismarck wreck] is largely buried in silt but several penetrations can be seen.”

This is an eminently respectable source and should be used to balance – my whole argument here has been for a more balanced text, not to create any synthetic construct – the biased text that stands at present.

Use of the above description of the turret being blown apart by a direct AP round hit would be sufficient for addressing the ‘special armour’, the conning tower would indeed then be superfluous. The destruction of turret B (and A at much the same time - the barrels of this turret ended up resting on the gunwale) so early in the action is a very significant episode and is worthy of greater emphasis in any case. The description of penetration of the belt should also be included to balance the claims to the contrary. If there are two conflicting claims about any matter of importance, both should be mentioned in any encyclopaedic treatment. Urselius (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are your smoking guns? Have you ever, in your life, read a page that starts with "Wikipedia:"? In all seriousness, I shudder to think of the articles you've written with the absurd understanding of our core content policies you apparently have. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, we do not cover fringe/nonsense theories just because they've been mentioned in passing a reliable source. We address them only in the context of the notable nutjob advancing them (for example, we don't mention the asinine birther garbage on Barack Obama, but we do mention it on Orly Taitz's bio) - we do not reflect the noise of the internet. Since you obviously cannot be bothered to click the little blue links, I'll give you some direct quotes.

From FRINGE:

"A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position." - that means, if no one reputable is advancing a particular theory, we don't discuss it. Do you happen to have any?

From DUE:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" - that means, we treat controversial issues in accordance with their prominence in the field of study. We do not address hydrinos anywhere, even though many reputable, prominent scientists have derided the idea. The idea that Bismarck had special steel armor (no doubt a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wotan Hart [which does in fact use nickel and chome, as do all contemporary armors]) is no different.

You, uh, may not know this, but barbettes are part of the superstructure, as they are, you know, structures built atop (i.e., superposed) the hull. And if you have a problem with phrases like "put out of action", then perhaps you need to do a bit more reading, as the phrase is a very common one.

It seems you have an odd definition of "encyclopedic" - this article is written in a summary style. If you want to include more information on the last battle, there is Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, which given its poor state of development, would be an excellent place for improvement. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice, I did as I am a scientist, that the subject of the article in question is not scientific - it is a battleship? A battleship is the product of technology, which in turn is dependant on scientific principles, but a battleship is not a scientific subject as such. I have had work published in 'Nature', written many peer-reviewed scientific papers and chapters for scientific textbooks: I have even had historical monographs published, born out of my 'spare-time' interests. So my intellectual credentials are fairly sound.

The problem with you is, that when you and those like you (unfortunately not rare) have an article made into a 'Featured Article' (FA), it becomes in your mind a 'Sacred Object' (SO). No one, whatever the merits or minor nature of their desired changes, no matter what level of supporting evidence is brought to bear, can change the FA/SO if it does not suit your whim. Trying to influence a 'SO-guardian' is almost always futile, however, should a dispassionate third party see the talk page of a SO like this, the mere fact of it being filled with well-argued text may be beneficial in the long term.

Pinning down the 'SO-guardian' is always difficult, they are strong in their tenacity, however, they occasionally make indisputable errors of fact:

"Superstructure consists of the parts of the ship or a boat, including sailboats, fishing boats, passenger ships, and submarines, that project above her main deck. This does not usually include its masts or any armament turrets." Wikipedia

"A superstructure is an extended construction of any building or platform that rises above the rest of the building or platform in a distinct manner. The word comes from a combination of two Latin words, the Latin prefix ‘super’ means in addition or above or in excess of, whereas the stem word ‘structure’ means to build or to heap up. Thus, superstructure means to add a construction to an already existing structure. In ships this is the name given to the part of the ship that emerges from the deck. However any mast, sails, any armaments or arsenal are not included in this category". Marine World

Your view of naval terminology is, at best uncanonical and at worst just plain wrong. In either case the misleading wording of the events leading to the 'putting out of action' of turrets 'Anton' and 'Bruno' needs to be amended. Urselius (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure you have - oh, and didn't I tell you that I'm Robert Ballard?

Do you know the difference between a barbette and a gun turret? I would submit that, expert as you claim to be in other areas, you are quite out of your depth here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert. Change the incorrect statement.

The difference between the turret and barbette is essentially historical. In the early ironclad warships, such as USS Monitor, the turret was a revolving armoured structure enclosing heavy artillery at deck level. Being very heavy they caused stability problems. The result was to place guns in a lower position in open-roofed mounts within an armoured "parapet" called a barbette. Later still the open barbette was considered as very vulnerable, due to the increasing range of heavy guns allowing plunging fire. An armoured 'hood' was placed over the barbette as a remedy for this fault. This created as sort of pseudo-turret; later common-usage just referred to such a fully traversing mount for a gun as a turret once more. Technically the barbette was the non-rotational cylinder on which the guns in their pseudo-turret rotated.

Change the demonstrably incorrect statement, or allow me to do it. A hit on the superstructure, as it is defined, above, would not prevent a single, never mind two, main armament turrets from functioning. Even should some authorities define a gun turret as part of the superstructure the statement is still too open to misinterpretation to stand. Urselius (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good, you do know how to read! Now that we know that turrets are barbettes are different things (although you are quite wrong about plunging fire, but that's another, minor point), shall we go back to that definition of "superstructure" you posted earlier? The non-rotating tube (eg., see here) is part of the ship and it extends above the upper deck, quite unlike the turret structure (eg., the blue parts here), which is not part of the ship, since they are generally held in place only by gravity. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did not look at your links or any other information at all, the turret/barbette stuff was all "out of me head". I missed your meaning initially. Ah! You are trying a case of special pleading that the barbette is not part of the armament and is therefore superstructure. This sort of sophistry is typical of the FA 'article owner' pushed onto the defensive, unfortunately. No, the almost universal definition of ship's superstructure does not include barbettes. See the definition above: "any armaments or arsenal are not included in this category". The barbette is an integral part of the "armaments or arsenal". Besides, the major part of any WWII era ship's barbettes were below the upper deck. A structure cannot, from first principles of logic, be part of a superstructure if it's major component is sub-structural. The description of the rebuild of HMS Renown 1936-1939 - "the superstructure was razed to upper deck level" and the "15in turrets were removed" etc. etc. but the barbettes were not touched. The Royal Navy did not consider the barbettes as constituting part of the superstructure (Burt pp. 228-233, 2013 reprint). I know a lieutenant in the Royal Australian Navy who is a marine engineer and a former Lloyds marine insurance inspector, would you accept his opinion on this matter? It would have to be binding on both parties of course. Urselius (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at Bercuson & Herwig, the source of the information, for what exactly they say:

"...a 16-inch shell from Rodney slammed into the Bismarck's upper deck forward. Sheets of fire engulfed her superstructure. Hundreds of men died at their battle stations. The forward turrets were reduced to 'shambles of riven metal'."

Tell me why they would be referring to the damage this shell inflicted on the superstructure? Did a shell hit in the vicinity of the turrets cause a fire a hundred feet away? In any event, they don't feel the need to give the kinds of details on specific hits as you requested earlier, and theirs is a monograph, not an encyclopedia article.

The other sources used in the article are less helpful. Garzke & Dulin simply state that "At 0902, a 406-mm shell from the Rodney heavily damaged turrets Anton and Bruno." Zetterling & Tamerlander are even less detailed: "During the following minutes, the fore fire control was also hit and both main turrets silenced" - hey, there's one of those words you have such a problem with! What, are we to assume that the British merely muffled the guns? And von Mullenheim-Rechberg states "...and around 0902, [Rodney] observed a spectacular hit on the forward part of the Bismarck."

What is it exactly that you want to change at this point? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs)

That did not answer my question from nearly a year ago. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It says that the main belt was penetrated. There is a difference of opinion on the subject in the secondary sources. This should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs)

So does this article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Where? Please quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs)

Do I really need to hold your hand?

"Ballard's survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully armoured citadel. Eight holes were found in the hull, one on the starboard side and seven on the port side, all above the waterline. One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates the shell that created the hole was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain. The anchor chain has disappeared down this hole.[138] Six holes are amidships, three shell fragments pierced the upper splinter belt, and one made a hole in the main armour belt.[139]"

Do please sign your posts, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hood deck armor

In all likelihood, Hood was not penetrated in the deck, rather in the main belt or by a lucky hit **below** the main belt. At 13 km, the Bismarck's shells were coming in nearly flat - less than 10 degree angle of fall. See also this paper; page 2 is the most relevant. This misconception (probably originated because Royal Navy command was preoccupied with battlecruiser deck armor after Jutland) isn't present in other articles about Hood's sinking, why here? 66.214.105.178 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pity that the article repeats the old 'thin deck armour' canard. The HMS Hood article at present is not much better, claiming that Hood took a fatal 'hit on the boat deck' and falsely sourcing this to Bill Jurens, who says no such thing. The RN board of inquiry found that a hit from Bismarck could never have breached the Hood's excellent deck armour at that range because of the shallow angle of incidence -- and the RN were overestimating the muzzle velocity of Bismarck's guns. Bill Jurens, in 1987, using German tables, showed that such a hit was indeed impossible -- it would have been deflected. If there was a hit, as observers on Prince of Wales thought, and if the Hood didn't self-detonate due to a failure in those complex anti-flash interlocks, it was a hit through the thinner upper layers of the side armour, or else below the main 300mm armour belt. Although Bismarck's gunnery, with brand-new gadgets, was good (shame that didn't apply to anti-aircraft fire a couple of days later, and sadly the whole system went to pot a day after that), it was a flukey hit, only possible because of the turn to port. A few seconds earlier, Hood's side armour might have deflected the shot.

The actual range is not known, because Bismarck's log mysteriously went missing a few days later, along with most of the crew and, indeed, the Bismarck herself, in circumstances that the article does its very best not to make clear. ('That stern just fell off by itself! Invincible Nazi Superships are invincible! The crew just scuttled her because they were so sick of winning!') But the range may have been from 13km to 18km, and the angle of incidence may have been from 11 degrees to 14 degrees. Not a 'plunging shot'. There is no possibility that the Bismarck could have breached the Hood's deck armour. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Poorly worded sentence

"Thereafter, Bismarck's gunnery became increasingly difficult as the ship moved erratically in the heavy seas, unable to steer, depriving Schneider of a predictable course for range calculations."

The emboldened phrase in the sentence is rather imprecise and poorly worded. What is intended by this phrase is either: Bismarck's gunnery became increasingly inaccurate', 'Bismarck's ability to accurately lay her guns became increasingly difficult', 'Bismarck's gunnery accuracy was increasingly compromised' or 'the ability of Bismarck to target her fire was increasingly difficult'.

The guns were at this point fully able to fire, the turrets and ordnance were not compromised, gunnery as such was not "difficult", but the ability of the ship to accurately direct its fire was. This should be made more obvious. Urselius (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)