Talk:SMS Nassau

Names

The three sisterships of Nassau were named after Prussian provinces: Rheinland, Westfalen, Posen; ergo, we can be boldly presumptuous that SMS Nassau as the lead ship was named after a region or province rather than a very small town. Nassau is shown as a Prussian province or sub-province of Hessen-Nassau in Hammond’s Historical Atlas (today the Nassau region straddles areas of the modern German federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hessen [e.g., in National Geographic Atlas of the World]). Further, suggest reinsertion of the previous infobox image of Nassau at Wilhelmshaven despite implied "questionable copyright status." This postcard is almost a century old; the Czech, German and Spanish language wikis are sufficiently certain of its status to use it.–Gamahler (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are both bad reasons to use an image; yes, most probably the postcard was published before 1923 (seeing as the ship was scrapped in 1920, and the Germans didn't want a reminder of their defeat and a ship that was no more). Our inclusion policies limit our content to that which is verifiable, not necessarily what is true. We'd need a publisher and publication date to use it in this article. The tag that's currently on the article is also probably wrong; the photo was most likely taken by a private firm, which falls under different copyright restrictions in the US than those taken by individuals (i.e., 120 years for unpublished works and 95 years for published works). Therefore, we'd need to know when it was published to know if it meets the 95-year rule. And as for what other wikis are doing, that's totally irrelevant. That they're using an image that violates our image use policy doesn't make it alright for us to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Parsec, you torpedoed my suggestion. There seems to be a lot of wiki-lawyering over an old postcard. As you pointed out, Nassau was transformed into Dutch or English nails; the photographer is dead; the printer no longer exists; the intellectual property was probably assumed by some public entity of the victorious allied powers via the Treaty of Versailles – and we fret over all this in 2009? Go ahead, for heaven’s sake, put the blasted postcard where you had it before to make your good article a better one with an image of the ship.–Gamahler (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the image reviewing process at FACs more than 10 times now, and I know the objections that postcard would raise. It's precisely the reason that image isn't in Nassau class battleship, which is an FA. Yes, I personally think worrying about whether an image over 90 years old is still under copyright is not really worth our time, but Wikipedia still has policies governing the issue, and we have to abide by them. Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Torpedo tubes

According to the German Wikipedia the ships of the Nassau-class had 6 torpedo tubes, not 5. 1-1 each in the bow and in the rear and 4 on broadside (2-2 on each side obviously). This data might be right, because the austro-hungarian naval calendar ("Das Jahr 1913") mentions also 6 tubes (pages 351 and 526). --Andreas P 15 (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, that must've been a typo, as the text had it right. Thanks for finding that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I read it later on. In the text it was written the right way. Andreas P 15 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

response to dreadnought

the german wikipedia as well as literature refuses to call the SMS Nassau a response to the dreadnought. the reasons are the SMS Nassau's plans where drawn up in 1904, she doesn't use a turbine and has powerful, armoured and equal in numbers "secondary" armament 6 inch guns. which makes her not a dreadnaught in all measures but rather part of the german navy building program, which considered new developments and tactics, but didn't respond to the dreadnought as some english publications want us to believe. the SMS Nassau is a classical ship of the line and was a result of continuous developments of earlier ships. no revolution, no response, certainly no copy of the dreadnought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.143.95 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The design process for Nassau began in 1904, but her design wasn't completed until after Dreadnought (and in fact was radically different from the initial proposals). Tirpitz's thoughts on the matter are well known, even in English. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

yes Tirpitz's thoughts are well known. Namely that he wanted the hexagonal placements of the guns because he thought melees would still be a possibility. He also wanted a large number of 6inch guns for the same reason.

The only explanation given for why the Dreadnoughts are supposably revolutionary are the use of a turbine instead of triple expansion engines and the "all big guns" idea. of course that idea was not new and everyone including Tirpitz and the Kaiser

agreed, not to mention the reality check of some modern engagements at the time. But those are the reasons given for why the Dreadnought's were revolutionary in english publications and propaganda, not only at the time but still today. all the pre-

Dreadnought and post-Dreadnought talk relies on that. So the simple fact is the SMS Nassau doesn't tick any of those particular boxes. PS I can find no radical change in design for the SMS Nassau. First drafts are always first drafts and development

starts from there. But the principle design idea didn't change even after the Dreadnoughts launched. So what is it now? 1. Are Dreadnoughts not the revolution and influence as english language publications want us to believe or 2. is the Dreadnought

revolutionary and therefore the SMS Nassau class simply is not a post-Dreadnought and not a response to it. Can only be the 1. or 2. not both.

No, I'm referring to the fact that Tirpitz initially did not want dreadnought type vessels, that it wrecked his plans because of the rapid increase in costs, of the ships themselves, and of the work that would be needed to enlarge harbors, widen the Kaiser Wilhlem Canal, etc.

The rest of your logic does not follow - you've set up a false dichotomy. Nassau WAS an all-big-gun ship, and turbine power is not a requirement for a vessel to be referred to as a dreadnought. Several of the early US dreadnoughts retained reciprocating machinery as well.

And what it all comes down to, is the fact that you haven't provided a single reliable source for your claim. Until you do (and you won't be able to, because you're simply wrong), we're done here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason Nassau didn't have turbines is because the only firm that could make turbines was making them for Von Der Tann Wandavianempire (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not accurate or relevant. Please stop posting nonsensical comments in ancient threads. This is not a forum. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)