Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Design 1047 battlecruiser

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.

Design 1047 battlecruiser edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)}

Featured article candidates/Design 1047 battlecruiser/archive1

Hi everyone. This is one of the more interesting articles I have contributed to: a class of battlecruisers intended for the Royal Netherlands Navy that would have been designed by the Germans if not for the beginning of the Second World War. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a great article on a fascinating design, and I think that it easily meets the criteria. My suggestions for further development are:
- The lead is a bit short, and could probably be expanded
- "their colonies [emphasis added] in the East Indies" seems to be an over-statement given that the NEI was the only Dutch colony
  - Fixed. That was me being dumb.
- The first sentence in the 'background' section is a bit awkward - do you need to mention the Japanese occupation of Manchuria?
  - Cut down a bit. I think that I have to mention the invasion, but not the pacification.
- When was the design described in the article completed?
  - I have no idea; none of the sources give a date.
- Can you provide more detail on why work on the ships was suspended and when exactly this occurred? - given that the ships' were authorised in February 1940, it can't have been long before the Netherlands was invaded (there seems to be a conflict between the date of authorisation at the statement that work was largely ceased at the start of the war)
  - Work on the ships was suspended by the Netherlands when they were invaded, but work on the turrets by German firms was continued for a little bit thereafter is my guess. No one is really concrete on this.
- Were/have there been there any criticisms of the concept behind these ships? In retrospect, they seem old fashioned given the effectiveness of aircraft against battleships in the war (the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya suggest that these ships would have been highly vulnerable when the Japanese moved south). Given that the Alaska class are generally considered to have been white elephants, the same could apply to these similar battlecruisers. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Alaska's were "white elephants" because the Japanese cruisers they were supposed to hunt and kill were almost extinct by the time they were commissioned; similar to these ships, they would have been put to better use if Japan had actually had cruisers left or if Germany had active surface commerce raiders. Also, keep in mind that the most powerful ships Japan sent to the East Indies were the Kongo's, although I suppose that the IJN might have sent carriers if the battlecruisers were there.
  - In a related point, I added a little info on the AA armament for the ships. What is interesting about it is that A) they would have used the more effective dual-purpose system used on US and UK ships, and B) the ship would have had a sophisticated fire-control system (probably an upgraded version of De Ruyter's, but that is a guess). Assuming that guess is right, they would have probably been the most effective AA ships in the world—I mean, who else even had a decent FCS at that time? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for those responses. It's worth noting that the Japanese did send four of their six large carriers to support the invasion of the NEI in 1942 (this was the force which bombed Darwin to protect the invasion of Java and later caused havoc in the Indian Ocean). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Germans had a special philosophy for warships at that time: "Outgun anything faster, outrun anything with more firepower." I know it from the German Museum in Munich, but it's likely mentioned in any sources about the German navy of Third Reich and the Weimar Republic.Wandalstouring (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed here, I don't think. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but expand the lead. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will work on. I've got a couple exams comging up, but I will get to expanding it by Friday at the latest. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments:

I expanded the intro, but I was wondering, when did German participation in the design of the ships end, with the beginning of World War II in 1939, or when Germany overran the Netherlands in 1940? Was the German portion of the designs completed before September 1939?

When they overran the Netherlands. I tried to clarify this in the text.

How much work on the ships was accomplished before the program was canceled? Anything past the design stage?

Not entirely sure. I'd assume so, considering that orders went out, but...

You might consider summarizing what actually happened in the Dutch East Indies (DEI) when the Japanese attacked. The Dutch were correct that the Japanese did not employ their battleships in that campaign, but wrong in their assumption that the Japanese wouldn't use their fleet carriers. In fact, since the DEI was the primary strategic objective for the Japanese in the Pacific, Japan employed a strong force of carrier and land-based aircraft forces which presumably would have made the 1047s very vulnerable to air attack unless the Dutch and their Allies had compensated by deploying additional land-based fighter aircraft to the DEI.

I added a bit; would appreciate it if you would check it out. :) And no, I don't like the 7 cites for one sentence, but I did use all seven in crafting the sentence. I can't believe the lack of coverage on the fall of the NEI!

Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - studies and work are taking a lot more of my time than I thought they would, but I'll be able to address concerns tomorrow after all of my exams are done. Sorry, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just replaced the multiple refs to Combinedfleet.com with a single ref to the US semi-official history. As far as I'm aware, the Australian, British and US official histories are still the only comprehensive English-language accounts of the loss of the NEI. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be why I couldn't find anything online. I'll take a look in my library on campus tomorrow before leaving for spring break and see if I can find something. Thanks Nick! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of books that cover the fall of the NEI if your library has them:

Willmott, H. P. (1982). Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-535-3.
Dull, Paul S. (1978). A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-097-1. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full-text of the Australian histories are also online at: http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/volume.asp?conflict=2 Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:O My library has a milhist book that I am looking for! :) No luck on Dull, but they do have a few books by Willmott that discuss the Far East. Thanks Cla!
And thanks to you too, Nick! That should help greatly as well! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Bloody Shambles three-volume set by Brian Cull I believe also covers the NEI campaign, although I think it concentrates more heavily on Malaya and Singapore. Cla68 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh...looks like I'm going to have to make do - the library is closed on snow days, and we are leaving for spring break today. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condiditional support - I did a copy edit of the article. I wrote a few comments using the  tags. Could you please resolve those? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:45, 1 March 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.