Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle off Texel
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle off Texel edit
- Not promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because i believe it fufills the requirements to pass an A class review, any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated XavierGreen (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am concerned about how reliable the Naval Review might be, given that the people in charge of it appear to be current UK Navy officers, and the fact that the UK were involved in this battle and the article was published only 2 years later, especially as sources that are 90 years old may have been debunked. In general, olden-day books from all countries tend to be very xenophobic compared to nowadays. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although i am aware of the yellow journalism some older publications have inherantly i do not find the Naval Review to have such qualities. The Naval Review account of the battle is alike to all the others i have read of the action, including the few german accounts that are available and modern texts as well. The Naval Review was not intended to be a news publication, nor a history text, instead it mainly focuses on Naval tactics, so any Xenophobic propaganda would not be in the interest of the publication. If one takes a look at the other articles in the issue cited, it will become more apparent as there is criticism of both british and german actions alike. XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although i am aware of the yellow journalism some older publications have inherantly i do not find the Naval Review to have such qualities. The Naval Review account of the battle is alike to all the others i have read of the action, including the few german accounts that are available and modern texts as well. The Naval Review was not intended to be a news publication, nor a history text, instead it mainly focuses on Naval tactics, so any Xenophobic propaganda would not be in the interest of the publication. If one takes a look at the other articles in the issue cited, it will become more apparent as there is criticism of both british and german actions alike. XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No problems reported with external links. According to alt text tool your images are in need of alt text, please check and verify this. Seven disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the alt text, but it does not appear in the toolbox on this page for some reason.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed all but one of the disambiguation links.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems reported with external links. According to alt text tool your images are in need of alt text, please check and verify this. Seven disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good! Now for the rest:
- Mind your italics; ship names and class name are always in italics. I think I got them all for you but a second pass to check wouldn't hurt.
- Can we find a picture of a torpedo boat for the article? I have a rough idea of what they look like but a better picture would help the article alot, IMO.
- I added a close up of a Torpedo-Boat of the same class as those used at the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I am concerned about the writing style, it seems to be written informally and often changes ideas mid-paragraph and mentions topics, then switches to other ones before the original one is fully explained.
- Many of the events occuring in the battle happened concurrently, with the squadron spit into two divisions but ships moving back and forth between those divisions as needed. However i understand your concern and have attempted to smooth out some of the confusing parts. If you have any additional suggestions or ideas please feel free to leave them here or on the talk page. Thanks!
XavierGreen (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, several times the "remaining" vessels in the German flotilla are mentioned, but you make no mention of why this term is used.
- I added a footnote explaining this.XavierGreen (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of saying that Undaunted gave orders, please say that Bob Smith, the squadron commander aboard the Undaunted, gave orders.
- FixedXavierGreen (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interesting article, but it really needs a copy-edit before it's ready for A-Class. – Joe N 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Nice article, but really needs a copyedit. I did a little, but I must say that your habit of putting the book citations right in the middle of the paragraphs makes it incredibly hard to copy-edit efficiently. The writing style is also rather informal.
- I copy edited the page, and fixed all spelling mistakes.XavierGreen (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
I think too few information about the German side is given. This "battle" was more of a massacre (but no war crime). It's essentially missing why the Germans didn't surrender earlier. With torpedos gone and heavily outgunned would have been an appropriate moment. Still, they could also have let one ship go and escape. Why did the squadron fight? If you could provide more background on these issues I would be able to understand this event. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in the article, the Seventh Half flotilla attempted to flee, but the British vessels were faster and so the Germans had no choice but to fight. When the Germans split up, the British simply split their forces with each half engaging each german division. The boats all went down fighting since they could not flee. XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer why the Germans didn't surrender. The war ended with a revolt of the German navy because the soldiers considered they were sent on a suicide mission. That's exactly what fighting in this context meant. So again, why didn't the Germans surrender? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mutiney occured late in the war on capital ships after the navy's moral had dropped signifigantly, and even during the mutiney most of the capital ships remained loyal. Early in the war many German officers often decided to fight to the end instead of surrendering. At the Battle of the Falklands German vessels refused to surrender and fought until destroyed even though some of the vessels were asked to surrender. At the Battle of Mas a Tierra the German commander decided to fight and then scuttle when he could fight no more rather than surrender. At the Battle of Noordhinder Bank the squadron commander decided to fight to the end when cornered, dying and losing both his boats in the process. Similarly at the Battle of Rio de Oro the commander fought when cornered, scuttled, than took up a defensive position on the beach with his remaining sailors. To surrender fully funcional warships to the enemy provides them with weaponry to be used against your own forces. At Texel, 30 sailors did indeed surrender (all but one were plucked from the water), and S 115 was briefly captured but it was a bridgeless burning hulk with only one German (who surrendered) to be found onboard and so was sunk by the British as it was of no use as a prize in its condition when taken. Virtually no surface warships (except for some auxiliaries) were captured by either side during world war one, intead ships were sunk and destroyed. No major naval action fought in world war one saw a surface warship captured, so Texel fits the pattern and is no exception. XavierGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well researched, but please incorporate it into the article because you explicitly state that despite the odds the Germans didn't strike colours. It helps the reader to understand the nature of naval combat. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it, it shouldn't be too difficult to leave a military vessel and have it sinking(like at Scapa Flow) or blowing up since it's full of explosives, so the argument that all surrendered equipment falls into enemy hands is questionable. At least in WWII tanks and at least one u-boat did surrender and in modern German tanks there's a mechanism for self-destruction. I also read about French ships surrendering to the British in the Age of Sail, so this fighting to death without a chance to harm the enemy seems more like an episode in naval combat and needs to be highlighted with whatever means seem appropriate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tanks and submarines often did surrender in world war one as well. The age of sail focused on capturing vessels rather than destroying them, but after the Battle of Tsushima naval ships rarely surrendered. All major modern fleet engagements after Tsushima have been without captures Heligoland Bight, Jutland, Midway, Leyte Gulf, Praying Mantis all lack them. Another problem would have occured on two of the boats if they wanted to strike colours, would be that their officers were dead and bridges blown away, leaving no one to order the colours to be struck, and likely no colours to strike down. But i will put your first suggestion in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mutiney occured late in the war on capital ships after the navy's moral had dropped signifigantly, and even during the mutiney most of the capital ships remained loyal. Early in the war many German officers often decided to fight to the end instead of surrendering. At the Battle of the Falklands German vessels refused to surrender and fought until destroyed even though some of the vessels were asked to surrender. At the Battle of Mas a Tierra the German commander decided to fight and then scuttle when he could fight no more rather than surrender. At the Battle of Noordhinder Bank the squadron commander decided to fight to the end when cornered, dying and losing both his boats in the process. Similarly at the Battle of Rio de Oro the commander fought when cornered, scuttled, than took up a defensive position on the beach with his remaining sailors. To surrender fully funcional warships to the enemy provides them with weaponry to be used against your own forces. At Texel, 30 sailors did indeed surrender (all but one were plucked from the water), and S 115 was briefly captured but it was a bridgeless burning hulk with only one German (who surrendered) to be found onboard and so was sunk by the British as it was of no use as a prize in its condition when taken. Virtually no surface warships (except for some auxiliaries) were captured by either side during world war one, intead ships were sunk and destroyed. No major naval action fought in world war one saw a surface warship captured, so Texel fits the pattern and is no exception. XavierGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer why the Germans didn't surrender. The war ended with a revolt of the German navy because the soldiers considered they were sent on a suicide mission. That's exactly what fighting in this context meant. So again, why didn't the Germans surrender? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in the article, the Seventh Half flotilla attempted to flee, but the British vessels were faster and so the Germans had no choice but to fight. When the Germans split up, the British simply split their forces with each half engaging each german division. The boats all went down fighting since they could not flee. XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions:
- What's the source for the number of German casualties in the infobox? Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 gives a total figure of 218 dead; 55 from S-115, 64 dead from S-117, 52 dead from S-118, and 47 from S-119.
- I don't know if the source for the German torpedo boats is correct; Gröner indicates that these boats were only armed with three of the 5 cm SK L/40 guns; later versions of the type had increased armament, but he makes no mention of the older boats of the class having been retrofitted with the more powerful guns. Parsecboy (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input! You are most likely correct. I could not find exact casualty figures, but found a source that cited the number of crew and number captured i took the number of dead from those numbers. Is there any copy of German Warships 1815-1945 online? Id like to cite it for this article if i could. Casualty figures for often forgotten battles such as this are quite hard to come by. There is also very little information regarding WW1 German destroyers on the web, most of the material i have found deals with the later torpedoboat classes, and the reconfigured armements of older ships like you referred to. I would imagine due to the early date of this battle that these boats were armed with the older weapons, since nearly all sources i have read state they were extremely inferior in armament (german gunfire did almost no damage to the british vessels). XavierGreen (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.