Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Type 1934-class destroyer

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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Type 1934-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series of articles that I am working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox, the AA gun redlink should be re-pointed towards Anti-aircraft gun or Anti-aircraft warfare
Done
"each drivinga single": typo
Done
"two steam-driven 200 kilowatts (270 hp) turbogenerators": add "|adj=on" to the conversion template
Done
"In mid-1941, Z4 Richard Beitzen was fitted with a FuMO 24/25 and a FuMO 63 Hohentwiel": suggest specifying if these are radars or some other sensor
Done
there is some inconsistency in spelling variation, for example "harbour" (British English), but also "draft" (US)
Done
"On 27 August 1939, just days before the outbreak of World War II,": remove the link to World War II as it is overlinked
Done
other overlinked terms: Swinemunde, blockade
Done
"when the surviving warships were divided" --> "when the surviving German warships were divided"
Done
in the References, Haarr has a state location for Annapolis, but Groner, Roher and Whitley do not
Done
in the References, is there a location of publication for Koop?
Done
in the References, suggest adding a page range for the Hervieux chapter in Roberts
Don't quite understand what this is asking. The only cite with Hervieux already has a page range. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I mean adding a page range for the entire chapter. There is an example in the Australian Army during World War II article (see the Hancock entry in the References section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @AustralianRupert: I do not personally own the Hervieux book, so I cannot add the page range. @Sturmvogel 66: Any chance you own the book? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got it; added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the Further reading section, suggest adding translations for the German titles. This can be done using the "trans-title=" parameter
Done
@AustralianRupert: I believe I have done all you have asked; except for the one above where I am unsure as to what you are requesting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Suggest a tweak to the first sentence to avoid repetition. "The '''Type 1934 class''' of [[destroyer]]s consisted of four ships built for..."
Done
suggest "The ships were engaged in training for most of the period between their commissioning and the outbreak of war"
Done
perhaps mention at Memel was in Lithuania as most people wouldn't know that?
Done
perhaps mention in the lead the basis for the naming of the ships, German torpedo boat officers killed in WWI, I assume?
Done
I am not sure about the way the ships are titled or referred to. WP:SHIPNAME seems to guide us towards article titles in this situation in the following format "German destroyer Leberecht Maass (Z1)" with the pennant or hull number in parentheses after the name. I am also not sure about the use of pennant or hull numbers before the name when referring to them, we would usually only use a hull or pennant number to differentiate one ship of a name from another of the same name eg USS Missouri (BB-11) and USS Missouri (BB-63). Perhaps Parsecboy can advise?
- This case isn't analogous, since those aren't pennant numbers, but part of the ships' names. All German destroyers had a numerical designation, and the prewar destroyers also received the name of a past naval hero - for some reason, they didn't carry that forward once the war started, but you can see, for example, German destroyer Z23. Maybe they decided it was too convoluted and dropped it? Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that clears it up for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
drop the initial cap on Invasion in the lead
Done
suggest "In February 1941, while enroute to attack British fishing boats as part of Operation Wikinger,..."
Done
Operation Weserübung isn't a well-known operational name, and is a bit easter-eggy, I suggest piping it to invasion of Norway in both places
Done
the cost in the infobox isn't covered in the body (and cited there)
Done
link Bow (ship)
Done
I think we would usually refer to the gun arrangement as being in superfiring pairs fore and aft.
Both work, just have to be consistent, see also Gun turret. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
were the AA guns all in single mounts?
Done
where were the TT located?
Done
link Transom (nautical)
Done
link Strake
Done
link Stern
Done
suggest "and the destroyer Z9 Wolfgang Zenker"
I don't think it's necessary, given how the destroyers are shown as having Z pennant numbers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that hasn't been established in this article, it is assumed knowledge and should be spelt out IMO. And Parsecboy said they aren't pennant numbers but are part of the ship name? Bit confused now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was me getting lazy; I've restored the Z# for all ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, can we just add somewhere early on that all German destroyers had the Z# prefix? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Can't find a source for that. Do you have any other questions/comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then can we revisit my original point? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I've changed it to "and her fellow destroyer", since it fits more naturally, but I've put it in. Anything else? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest introducing Operation Wikinger under Z1 Leberecht Maass
Done
"surprised them" who? what other ships were with Georg Thiele when the Brits surprised them?
Done
worth mentioning the names of the two British destroyers that were sunk
Done
drop the quotation marks around "Operation Wikinger" (two occasions)
Done
per WP:ELNO, I think the EL is a personal web page, so delete it
Done
you could crimp a bit more whitespace in the Footnotes section by making it 20em
Done

That's me done, a great effort with this article! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Question from Parsecboy[edit]

How did the designers get around the 800t limit? IIRC, the Germans hadn't actually repudiated the military clauses of Versailles until 1935. Even a skillful designer has trouble hiding a thousand tons on a 10,000-ton cruiser (i.e., it was an open secret that the Deutschlands were all significantly overweight) - you just can't hide a thousand tons on an 800-ton destroyer.
According to OKM's declaration in 1932, the Destroyers were to be 1,625 tons, moving the difference to about 600 tons. It appears Germany said "ok I'm just going to double the limit", then actually tripled it. Somehow they got away with it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and fix the built year range. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done
@Parsecboy: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the three main sources have a satisfactory history of how these ships were developed, especially how they intended to evade Versailles limitation without penalty. So I've cobbled things together as best I could.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm - HRS usually has some design info in their history of the lead ship of a given class - let me have a look and see if they discuss that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do, I've been surprised that the accounts in Koop & Schmolke and Whitley have been so haphazard for such moderately important ships. Although now I'm wondering if the original design docs didn't survive the war, which might explain the lack of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hildebrand et. al. state:
        "Die Beschränkungen des Versailler Diktats hatten Deutschland nur ermöglicht, die Raubvogel- und Raubtierklasse als Ersatz für veraltete Torpedoboote zu bauen. Diese Bauten waren größenmäßig Zerstören in fremden Marinen weit unterlegen. Die Marinefuehrung drang deshalb auf den Bau moderner Zerstörer, zumal dieser Schiffstyp auch als leichter Aufklärer zu verwenden war, um so die durch die wenigen vorhandenen Kreuzer bestehende Schwäche etwas ausgleichen zu können. Im November 1932 war im sog. "Umbauplan" erstmals der Bau einer größeren Anzahl Zerstörer vorgesehen. Nach den noch immer gültigen Bestimmungen des Versailler Diktats hätte Deutschland sich auf Fahrzeuge bis 800ts beschränkten müssen. Da die Siegermächte sich selbst seit längerem nicht mehr an dieses Vertragswerk hielten und auch ihr Abrüstungsversprechen zum großen Teil nicht einhielten, hatte auch das Deutsche Reich keine Bedenken, sich hinsichtlich der Zerstörertonnage und -bewaffnung über diese diktierten Einschränkungen hinwegzusetzen und Zerstörer in der zu diesem Zeitpunkt üblichen Größe zu entwerfen. 1934 wurde der Bau von 16 dieser Zerstörer genehmigt. Den Bauauftrag für die ersten vier Zerstörer erhielten am 7. 4. 1934 die Deutschen Werke in Kiel, die am 10. 10. 1934 für Z1 den Kiel im Baudock streckten. Legalisiert wurden die Zerstörerbauten noch vor dem Stapellauf des ersten Zerstörers durch das deutsch-britische Flottenabkommen von 1935."
      - That's on pages 193-194 in Vol. 5 (you can crib the citation from SMS Lothringen). In essence, Germany decided that since France and Britain weren't disarming, they were going to ignore the restrictions, since an 800t destroyer would have been hopelessly outclassed by the destroyers being built by foreign navies. And by the time the rubber met the road, they had already signed the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, legalizing the ships. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Great stuff and thanks for looking it up for us. I've added it, but am not sure how well it reads. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One dupe link for bow (ship) has crept in. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The license for the image used in the article seems...questionable. I'd think we would need an OTRS ticket to verify that the editor is the heir of Kössler and can legally release the photo (note that the uploader is not the editor claiming to be Kössler's heir). I know @HJ Mitchell: works at OTRS - perhaps he can give us some advice? Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've substituted a different picture with a better license. It always suprises me that these ships are better documented pictorially.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. You might consider adding File:Z1Zerstörer1934modifiedDraw.svg. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (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.