Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Orjen-class torpedo boat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Orjen-class torpedo boat[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

This class of eight German-built motor torpedo boats was produced for Yugoslavia in the late 1930s. Two escaped during the Axis invasion of that country in April 1941 and saw service with the Allies, but the rest were captured and put into service by the Italians. They were used as the basis for another class of 60 tonne Italian MTBs. Four were captured by the Germans in September 1943 and served for over a year before being sunk or scuttled in Greece during the German withdrawal. All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

I'm not so sure about the copyright status of the photo, or at least the specific licensing tag - I don't think it passes the second bullet point in the US tag.
- There isn't a specific copyright notice for the photograph in Jane's, so I think it meets the requirement?
  - The copy I have (Jane's Fighting Warships of World War II - a reprint from 1989) includes the caption "1939, Official". Presumably that indicates it's a Yugoslav government photo - what were the copyright laws then and were there any relevant changes under the postwar government? Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have always assumed that meant a Royal Navy official photograph, not a Yugoslav one. The RN visited Yugoslavia regularly during the interwar period and I'm sure they took plenty of photographs of Yugoslav vessels. Yugoslav vessels also visited British possessions like Malta, and again, it is likely they took photographs then too. I think it is a reasonable assumption that "1939, Official" in Jane's means it is a British government photograph. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's probably a fair assumption. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why translate Regia Marina but not Kriegsmarine?
- Done.
I might clarify that Stukas were dive-bombers - they're fairly well known aircraft, but I don't think we can assume readers will know what they are.
- Thanks, I usually call them Ju 87s, so did that as well.
I'd remove conversions from figures the second time they're used (eg: 40mm converted twice in the first para of the Axis section).
- Good point, fixed.
"Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfire fighter-bombers" - I seem to think the MoS discourages multiple adjacent links - you might rephrase it to "Supermarine Spitfire fighter-bombers of the Royal Air Force" to break up the links a bit.
- Done.
I'd like to see some context on why Germany scuttled the boats in Oct. 1944. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine it was because the Germans were withdrawing from Greece and the passage northwest wasn't safe from air interdiction, but I haven't seen a source that explicitly says that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think you're going to find a source that explicitly states that, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to add a line that mentions German forces withdrawing from Greece due to Soviet advances on the Eastern Front. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, on the basis it is unlikely to be challenged. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comments~~ Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1; para 1; It is mentioned that "A Maybach cruising engine rated at 100 hp (75 kW) was also installed", can why was this engine installed be explained? Does this add anything to the original speed of "3,300 hp"?
Section 1; para 1; There is a consistency error with the armament. In the prose it reads "550 mm (22 in)", in the Infobox it is "550 mm (21.7 in)". Also in the Infobox, instead of just gun, it would be good if it is specified as anti-aircraft gun.
Section 3.1; para 1; It is said that "seven of the eight Orjen-class" were assigned. It is better to mention the ship that was not assigned the same sentence than in the next sentence.

I think it reads better as it stands. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3.1; para 1; A comma (,) is needed after "By 17 April".
Section 3.1; para 2; It is mentioned that Kern sailed out with Durmitor and Kajmakčalan, but in the last sentences of para 1, it is mentioned that the idea was rejected by their commanding officers. Did these both sail out without their COs, or any other exception. If so I prefer mentioning it with a footnote to avoid confusion.
Section 3.1; para 3; A comma (,) is needed after "Once in Alexandria".
Section 3.2; para 1; Information about the new guns from this para, can also be added to the Infobox. Also the crew strength was mentioned directly as 16–22 in the Infobox, but that is not the case. Initially it was 16, and then to 22 by the Italians, I prefer this is should be made clear using the years of change or some other parameter.
Section 3.2; para 2; Mention what is "Kriegsmarine", perhaps in a parenthesis, as it is for Regia Marina, in para 1.
Section 3.2; para 2; Consistency error; In most cases the service number is "S 601", but in one case, it is "S601". Also in one case, for "S 601", "S" is in one line and "601" is in the next (In "Soon after their acquisition by the Germans, S 601 and S 603 were travelling"). May be non-breakable space could be used for all of them.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Krishna. I've made all the changes you suggested, except that there isn't any more detail available about the exact makeup of the crews that Kern took with him. The infobox should have had the "as built" crew of 16, so I've fixed that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: once again, great job, PM. The article looks quite good to me, although I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the Service history section, I wonder if a short sentence should be added about the brief period of service before the war?
"On MS 41—44" (and similar ranges) shouldn't this be an endash, not an emdash?
in the References, "Durham Divine" --> is this a hyphenated surname, or is Durham actually a middle name?
"harbor" should be "harbour", for consistency of English variation

Thanks for the review, Rupert. There isn't anything I can find about their service before the war, but I have fixed all the other points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.