Talk:Battle of the North Cape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor edit[edit]

Changed the name of one of the combatants to Germany. "Nazi Germany" never existed as an official name. --Vosselmans 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Classification[edit]

Scharnhorst seems to listed under 'Light Battleship'. Shouldn't that be 'Battlecruiser', to be more accurate? Darkmind1970 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real can of worms! British convention is to call Gneisenau and Scharnhorst (G&S) "battlecruisers". German practice is to call them "sclachtschiff", which translates to battleship. There was a long debate about this and I recall that the consensus/ truce was to use the term battlecruiser and refer to the German usage when appropriate. Please advise if you intend to reopen this debate, so I can retire to a safe distance and cover my head. Folks at 137 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since one person seems intent on reclassifying Scharnhorst a battleship and will not allow alternatives (contrary to RN nomenclature) I have disambiguated the text because we now have two 'battleships' on the scene and confusion could creep in unless care is taken. The RN battleship had a weight of broadside over five times greater than the German battlecruiser (oops . . 'battleship'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to call this class of ship was actually the result of extensive discussion between many editors at Talk:Scharnhorst class battleship. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Scharnhorst as a "battleship" is optimistic to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.194.137 (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the Royal Navy had no ships that were directly comparable and so the choice was to either class the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as 'battleships' or as 'battlecruisers'. As neither ship was as well-armed as contemporary RN battleships, they settled on calling them both 'battlecruisers', but that was really just for convenience's sake, and was not really an accurate descriptive term. To the RN they 'fell between two stools', meaning they were neither.
The RN naming was meant to signify what type of British ship was needed for taking-on the two German ones - they thought that a 'battlecruiser' would be able to fight on equal terms with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. This is also why sending Hood up against the Bismarck had not been thought wise by some within the RN high command at the time - one was a battlecruiser, the other a battleship. It's like boxers - one is a middleweight, the other a heavyweight. Not really comparable.
Back then, in the age of the Big Gun, you tried not to send ships up against opponents that outgunned or had better protection than your own ships. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were therefore classed by the RN as 'batttlecruisers'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two navies differed in their classification of these ships. The RN called them 'battlecruisers', implying that they would not survive an encounter with a 'battleship'. The Germans' propaganda machine, aimed at the populace, wished to talk up the capacity of the Kriegsmarine, and called them 'battleships'. History relates that battlecruisers like Hood and Scharnhorst failed to stand up to true battleships like Bismarck and Duke of York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern battle[edit]

Battle of russian armed icebreaker Sibiryakov with german pocket battleship Admiral Scheer was most nothern naval battle AFAIK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.192.193 (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct inasmuch as it was further north and Scheer sank the iceberaker with no problems. To call it a "battle", though, is stretching things! bigpad (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German Naval Warfare website reckoned it was a battle, so we can too. It states the Sibiryakov was "sunk after a valiant resistance" (der nach tapferer Gegenwehr versenkt wird). And the ship page here states it was an unequal fight lasting an hour that saw most of Sibiryakov's crew dead. So the sniffy comment is uncalled for Xyl 54 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were only two ships involved then it wasn't a battle - just an engagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence leading to sinking.[edit]

This obituary of Richard Pendered credits him with precise location of Sharnhorst.
Then, on Boxing Day that year, Pendered deciphered a message which located the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst off Lopphavet in Norway. She was surrounded and sunk later that day.
The Telegraph sometimes gets its facts wrong, it confused Colleville-Montgomery and Colleville-sur-Mer the last time I used it but does this make sense? Boxing day seems far too late to allow the ships to be positioned.JRPG (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

I've trimmed the lists of the warships with JW 55B and RA 55A in the "Background" section. They are un-necessary, as the convoy themselves weren't attacked; the ones that were involved (the four destroyers from RA 55A which joined Fraser) I've listed in the "Battle" section. The details are on the convoy pages now anyway, so it'd be duplication to have them repeated here.
Also, the lists were inaccurate; there were nine warships listed for JW 55B (in fact there were thirteen) and nine for RA 55A (there were fourteen).Xyl 54 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

differences german wiki[edit]

the info box in the german wiki says 1 battleship AND 5 destroyer on the german site - 1 battleship, 8 destroyer and 4 battle cruiser! So something is here or there terribly wrong...!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.199.160 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German wiki is correct, insofar as the Germans, somewhat exaggerating, called it a "battleship". Histories are however written by the victors, and the Royal Navy, most English sources, and indeed common sense, indicates that in the English speaking world, battlecruiser is a more accurate designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.236.245 (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might just be translation, because battlecruisers are completely different to cruisers, they are probably double the size. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

After a huge amount of discussion a few years ago it was decided that "battleship" was the most common term which has been used to describe Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and this was used in the articles on the class and ships. As such, it seems sensible to also use it here (I preferred "battlecruiser", but the consensus for "battleship" was clear, and this was supported by heaps of sources). Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The weather was appalling with heavy seas and snow flurries and the German destroyers fell back and were left behind by the Scharnhorst and so took very little part in the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Campaignbox[edit]

Ok, so I replaced the Atlantic Ocean campaignbox with a new Arctic Ocean one, because this battle did not take place in the Atlantic. If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert and discuss. Howicus (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the North Cape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Commander Hitchens[edit]

The quote on the page is incorrectly attributed to Commander Hitchens; it was said by his son and many years after the fact. It doesn't even make sense in context because Commander Hitches was present at the battle and so it's his "day's work" that's being alluded to here as being more heroic than Christopher Hitchens' (his sons) whole career as a writer. I am going to fix this to correctly attribute it and move it to the aftermath section where it fits better but there's certainly an argument that the quote just shouldn't be on the page at all. It's a nice quote so I'm not just going to remove it but I can see the argument that it's just not notable. 109.148.23.136 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U-Boats[edit]

Shouldn't the article also include the Eisenbart wolf-pack in the German strength

8 U-boats with whom the Scharnhorsts group were attempting to coordinate with in the strike on JW 55B. VSTAMPv (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_North_Cape&oldid=1205683079"