Talk:German battleship Tirpitz

On July 5th, 1942 the Russian submarine K-21 located the German escort of Operation Rösselsprung and claimed to have hit Tirpitz with two torpedoes. However, the ship's war logs report no such incident, and she reportedly wasn't damaged. One Russian theory dictates that the Tirpitz was indeed damaged, but was quietly brought in to berth and repaired to avoid the Führer's wrath. This seems somewhat far-fetched, however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.157.4 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 March 2005 (UTC) Reply

Western historians tryed to prove that K-21 missed. How they did it ? Look in the book of David Irving "The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17" http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/PQ17/2009edition.pdf at this map http://zhurnal.lib.ru/img/t/tonina_o_i/tirpitz-lunin-01shtml/002.jpg Mr.Irving so aspired to pull a CONDOM on an ELEFANT that HAS crossed out ALL GEOGRAPHICS! At this map the point 23°40′E is to the west from the point 23°10′E. That is mr.Irving, in struggle against Russians, has decided to change ALL GRID of GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES ON MOTHER EARTH!195.26.84.250 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)ArthurReply

There's simply no evidence that the torpedoes hit - the Germans would have recorded the maintenance done to repair the alleged damage, as they did in every other instance. I don't know what you're trying to prove with the link to Irving's book. Can you be more specific? Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_class_battleship wrote the Tirpitz after the operation "Knight's Move" about : "a large caisson was built to allow the rudders to be replaced.[52] Naval historians William Garzke and Robert Dulin stated that "the repairs to this ship were one of the most difficult naval engineering feats of World War II." The replace of the rudders was finished in jan.1943. And at what here K-21? The rudders were cracked itself.:)

You may not be aware, but ships require periodic maintenance to keep them operational. As for the refit for Tirpitz, it happened in October, the K-21 attack occurred in June. How do you explain the 4 month gap? And do you mean to tell me the two alleged hits forced the replacement of the water tubes in the boilers as well? Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The current whereabouts of the Tirpitz was being constantly monitored by RAF PRU squadrons and so any such event as a successful torpedo attack putting the ship out of action would have been known in the UK at high levels and possibly announced in the UK Press as a triumph of Soviet arms.

In addition, the removal, however temporarily, of the threat to the Arctic Convoys posed by Tirpitz would have removed the necessity of including a British battleship within the convoy escort.

So, while any such attack could possibly have been kept secret within Germany or the Soviet Union, it couldn't have gone unnoticed in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be some confusion over the units and notation. For example "Length: 253,6 m overall". Shouldn't this read "2,536 m" (two kilometers long) or should it read "253.6 m"? There are similar problems else where, for example speed is given as "30,8 knots" rather than "30.8". Curioulsy the crews complement is listed as "2.608,", in other words just over two and a half men! But others areas appear correct such as "3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 m ". This needs sortign out as the article looses credibility. --ManInStone 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The continental system has now bene changed to the English notation. GraemeLeggett 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, German switches the . and the , like 203,8 (203.8) and 2.123.234 (2,123,234) Cyborg999 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg999 (talk • contribs)

the picture needs to be decreased in size, it's quality is WAY to low for it to be displayed at that size.

I have added descriptions (some minor) of various attacks on the Tirpitz. It arguable that these should be described individually in separate articles. Could do this, but some are very minor and being together they show the progression and linkage between the attempts. Or should I expand the major ones into articles? Folks at 137 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Stated dimensions are: 251m x 36m x 8.7m

251m is length, 36m is probably height, and 8.7 - width?

Judgin by this picture, the width should be at least 4 times that.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/battleships/tirpitz/22_kaafjord_mar_1943.jpg

Please verify.

36 m is width, 8.7m is draft. But draft should be 10m or more, see Bismarch article for data. --Denniss 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This site [1] has these dimensions:

Length (Total): 251,0 m

Length (Waterline):241,6 m

Beam: 36,0 m

Draft: 10,6 m

This site [2] gives 9.9m for "designed draft" and 10.61m as "maximum draft", and compares Bismarck & Tirpitz.

Hope this helps. Folks at 137 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[2]
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.^[3]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[4] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[5]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[6]
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some�?, “a variety/number/majority of�?, “several�?, “a few�?, “many�?, “any�?, and “all�?. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.�?
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References�? or “Footnotes�?, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[7]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This:-
"She is also the biggest warship ever built in Europe"
Has been changed and reverted a couple of times; whats the thinking, here?
She was one of a pair, so there can't be much in it; and I thought the Hood and the Littorio's were about the same size, and that Vanguard was bigger (though that page says 48,000 tons, which seems too big). Any thoughts? Xyl 54 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

48,000 t is probably the full load displacement of Vanguard she is described as marginally heavier than Hood but Hood was longer. GraemeLeggett 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've checked Conway for this; unhelpfully, they don't give a standard displacement for Hood, but full load was 48,360t in 1940; Littorio was 40,724t standard, 45,236t full load. So they're a bit smaller. Vanguard was 44,500t standard, 51,429t full load; so, make of that what you will. A bit bigger when empty, a bit smaller when full. (Conway gives the same displacements as this page for Tirpitz). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've re-written this section;
This : “On 4 July 1942 Tirpitz and her escorts left port to sail to a new base.�? Is misleading;
And this : “but due to the efficiency of the U-boats and aircraft in dealing with the convoy the sortie was aborted�? is plain wrong.
So I’ve corrected it.
(There is a discussion here if anyone is interested).
Xyl 54 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the general CN tag. I don't think it applies as a whole to the article. I may add individual tags as are required. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With proper referencing and inline citations, this article would easily qualify as B class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits have imposed US spellings and terms on what is, primarily a British or European topic. I've added the "British English" banner to alert future editors and I'll revert the changes, keeping any substantive new info. No offence intended (note spelling!) Folks at 137 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added "Verification needed" to two comments in this section. First, regarding the sentence, "However, a large portion of the bow remains where it sank in 1944." At least one photo exists that shows the tip of the bow being removed, and can be found (among other photos) at http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/gallthemetirscrapping.html. Also, regarding the comment, "the ship's electrical generators were used for a temporary power station", I question whether any of the ship's equipment would have been usable after the attack. I think these two sentences are rather important, and as such should be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

While I realise that the fanbois need a way to justify this ship's career, I'd be interested to know how many additional RN units were deployed to the NE of the UK because of Tirpitz's existence. Somehow I suspect the answer is rather small. Any ideas for a reference? Greglocock (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

For example: Operation Tungsten. Your recent edits regarding removal of the fleet-in-being information (stated by numerous authors btw) is not supported, either in this article or in the Bismarck class article. Would you kindly restore the previous consensus view? Yours truely, a 'fanboi' (please refrain from incivility in the future). Kurfürst (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope, that is a task force that was raised for a specific mission. A fleet in being succeeds if it locks up units on a continuous basis, otherwise it is merely an intermittent nuisance that you attempt to eliminate when you have spare capacity. So, I repeat, how any additional units were stationed off the NE of the UK specifically to suppress Tirpitz over the long term? A reference would be nice. Greglocock (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to say what your (or my opinion) on the matter is rather irrevelant, as it would be OR, but you seem to wielding a hatchet against the so-called 'fanbois' rather than constructively editing. In any case, I have added the reference to Tirpitz role's as 'fleet-in-being', and hopefully, this is where it ends. Kurfürst (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dunlin and Garzke say nothing about "huge naval and air forces" so this source has been falsified. Dapi89 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, so the clue would be that anything that sounds like fanboi exaggeration (we actually have a different word) probably is. Well, K, you have two choices, if you wish to improve your rep then make sure the refs support the wording you use, or else leave me to clean up your mess. If the latter do not expect to enjoy the result.Greglocock (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this as well. As can be seen from google books Garzke and Dunlin don't say either. More falsifications! Dapi89 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems this is merely much hair being lost and some undue excitement shown over basically nothing, with the basic statement - Tirpitz's role as a 'fleet in being' - remaining essentially unchanged. Kurfürst (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're not kidding anybody Kurfurst. We know what you're about. Dapi89 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dapi89, not sure what you're message above is about, but it is perfectly reasonable to consider the Tirpitz as a 'fleet-in-being'. I have added a reference. Split Decision (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to change the sentence, "The main part of the hull (less the decking) is clearly visible". First, I just looked on Google Earth and a ship's hull is not visible anywhere in the area. Not only that, but the given coordinates are incorrect; Tirpitz was actually much closer to shore. At coords 60 38'49.80"N 18 48'26.21"E is a large rectangular shape, which may have been mistaken for the hull. But it's actually a work platform from the scrapping. Elsquared (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

APOLOGIES. Google Earth was apparently experiencing some difficulty tonight. Inputting the original coords did not send me to the correct spot. They are correct, but I understand the object at that spot to be a work platform. Possible corroboration is found at http://www.bobhenneman.info/Tirpitzwreck.htm, where an image shows what's left, but underwater. I'm going to research this further to hopefully find a definitive answer. Elsquared (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE. A forum thread at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84544 shows a good photo from the surface of this large object, which it indicates is, quote, "The remains of the dock on the photo is just were the Tirpitz was sunk. It was used when they scrap[p]ed the ship after the war." Elsquared (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the link (for the second time!) to a photoshopped image of Tirpitz, as its hardly encyclopaedic.
OTOH the website has some useful views, so I've replaced it with another image from the same source.
If anyone wants to replace the original image, perhaps they should say first what on earth the point of it would be. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is it accurate to describe the Tirpitz as having been "sunk" in Operation Catechism? As I understand the sources, Tirpitz was moored on a sand bar and had only a few feet of water under her keel so as to make her incapable of sinking in the traditional use of the word. I assumed that she capsized belly up and THEN sunk a few feet, leaving it resting on the sea bed with her crew trapped inside and most of her hull above the water line. Can someone enlighten me? Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Generally a ship is regarded as 'sunk' if water is over her main deck, when she ceases to be of any usefulness as a ship. If settled in the water on a shallow bottom then provided water is not present in the gun areas the ship may still be able to be used as a gun platform, albeit an immobile one.

The lack of water over the main decks is why HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth were not regarded as having been sunk when they were mined in Alexandria Harbour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

To anyone who's interested, I've started a new draft of the article here with the goal of bringing the article eventually to FA. If you want to help with the project, feel free to do so, but only add material if you have a reliable source to back it up. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've now moved the draft over to the article space. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:German battleship Tirpitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:  

   A couple of tags to resolve.

   I only saw one - let me know if my change resolved it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

   Need publisher location for the Norwegian book.

     Done: It's Oslo. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:  

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   Link standard and full load displacement as well as waterline and overall length in the infobox. What electronics did she have when built? What about her armor? Why do the figures for shp differ between the infobox and the main body differ?

   Links and armor added, shp in the infobox was for Bismarck, not Tirpitz, radar equipment added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   Disambiguate caisson and add the armor to the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   Done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   B. Focused:  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

"Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed." K-21 fired 4 torpedoes at the Tirpitz. And 2 explosions were fixed. Source: War logbook of K-21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.84.250 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there were torpedo hits on Tirpitz, wouldn't you think it would have been recorded somewhere in german archives? Just hearing an explosion does not indicate a hit on target, it only indicates either a hit on something or they exploded at the end of their run after exhausting their fuel (if they were equiped with a timed fuze for self-destruction or having a similar installation). --Denniss (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to Garzke & Dulin, the sub fired only two torpedoes, both of which missed. Wartime first person accounts are notoriously unreliable and should not be given as much credence as the research of reputable historians. Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. "According to Garzke & Dulin, the sub fired only two torpedoes" - I'm very interesting about the source of their opinion! The Germans "had not heard" about K-21 and torpedoes attack, but the authors are absolutely sure about torpedoes count! The single (original) source of the attack's info is the K-21 war log. And there are 4 torpedoes in the salvo according to it (one by one with 4 sec delay). A primitive lie? So, what's about Garzke & Dulin historians' reputation? --Zh.Mike (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

2. "Just hearing an explosion does not indicate a hit on target" - I'm so sorry, but what's the cause of torpedoes' explosions at 2min 15sec after salvo? The torpedoes' (type 53-38 with Lunin's installation) max range was 4 km (~3 min) at 82 km/h, but explosions have been heard after 3 km. What "exhausting their fuel", what "self-destruction"? What ship(s) had torpedoes at 2.15? --Zh.Mike (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Numerous sources disagree with the Soviet claim, for instance Polmar's & Noot's Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, Zetterling's & Tamelander's Tirpitz, and Blair's Hitler's U-Boats. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

1) Polmar's & Noot (thanks for the links!): "Lunin fired a spread of four torpedoes". (Regards to Garzke & Dulin with their two trps!) "The sub. hydrophone op. reported the explosion of two torpedoes after run of 2 min and 15 sec". The same question about the explosions: why not 4 min (after exhausting their fuel after 3 min + time of sinking to the seabed)? Not just hydrophone operator, but all crew aboard have heard the explosions through the hull according to memories. There is no answer in the book what object(s) took the torpedoes at 2:15. And a little remarks about authors: "Lunin was made a Hero... for his feat of attacking and supposedly damaging of Tirpitz" Nonsense! Feb. 28, 1942 is the date of Linin's award, before the attack. Yes, it is a trustworthy source!

2) The next one (Zetterling & Tamelander) just said that nobody on the ships observed the attack. Nice, but there is "Lunin... fired four torpedos". So, the authors have seen the K-21 war log, but have said nothing about the moment of explosion: "Probably, he had fired the torpedoes at too great of a range". Is 2.15 "too great" in comparison with full range time (4 min)!?

3) Blair also just said, that the Germans have not noticed the attack and nothing else.

So there are no other sources except K-21 warlog and Tirpitz' one (because no one of the authors had not investigated this event really). Therefore Lunin or Tirpitz' command hasn't wrote truth fully. I have a typewritten Tirpitz' log (for high command? Has anybody seen on-line an original handwritten version?): page 1, page 2 and page 3. At 15:06 the speed was 24 knots (as Lunin said), at 18:58 it was 24 knots too, but at 18.16 as Murmansk radio said the speed was 10 knots and there is a remark in the log that it is true! Why!? And there are no any other initial records about 10 knots speed by the Tirpitz' officers! This means that the Germans had cut several records off the log (or just hadn't entered). So why all the authors stubbornly wrote that K-21 has missed, while her log is fully complete in contrast to the Tirpitz' one? The Tirpitz' belt was able to withstand hit of torpedoes, so the ship with non-critical damage could continue the operation. (about the overhaul I will write in the first K-21 section of the page) --Zh.Mike (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think the germans would have removed something from their logs? If they were hit by something they would have to repair this in a floating dock (torpedo usually causes extensive hull damage) and you wouldn't be able to hide this from others. BTW it would not be the first time the soviets faked documents or forced people to tell fake stories, it may also have been a project to raise national morale. --Denniss (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You do realize what Blair and Zetterling & Tamelander mean when they say no one observed the attack? That means the torpedoes did not hit the ship. Do you understand what the sailors aboard would have felt if the torpedoes hit?

Regardless, these authors are respected naval historians, unless you can provide equally respected sources (read: the war diary from the submarine is not one), nothing will be changed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let's come to to agreement: "respected naval historians" have noticed the explosions, but "the soviets faked documents"!

1. Why do you think the germans would have removed something from their logs? Just read the Germans log I placed above: at 15.06 the speed was 24 knots, at 18:58 it was 24 too, but at 18.16 the speed was 10 (by the log's record at 20.10!) knots without any entered records before 18.16! So, who had faked up the Germans docs taken by the British? Soviets? And there are no remarks about incompleteness the log in the article. Do You know smth about another version of the log? If no, that means this only version is incomplete or cut.

2. The "respected naval historians" did not claim that the K-21 log is faked up to now. And there are no contradictions in it.

3. They would have to repair this in a floating dock Sure! And they did it: Parsecboy said that it was "periodic maintenance". Gneisenau during trials (14 Nov - 19 Dec, 1940) had a unsatisfactory work of acoustics. Had Tirpitz better one? She could not spot K-21 and HMS Unshaken. "Raise national morale"?

4. This "periodic maintenance" requires the rudders replacement. After the Rösselsprung op there weren't any incidents causing the rudders' damage. So what was the reason to full replace the rudders of the ship commissioned at 25 Feb 1941?

5. it happened in October, the K-21 attack occurred in June. How do you explain the 4 month gap?. The same question: how do you explain the 4 month gap before "periodic maintenance" start? There weren't operations, trials etc. I thinks the spare, Huascaran, caisson, technical stuff, new rudders etc have been required.

6. The overhaul time after midgets attack was 4 month. It consisted not only the rudders' replacement, but many many other tasks including largest turret's mechanism repairing. The periodic maintenance" time was 3 month. Just for rudders?

7. Regardless, these authors are respected naval historians, unless you can provide equally respected sources, nothing will be changed. I can provide facts of discrepancy in the books and lack of their own analysis. (Garzke & Dulin with their two torpedoes get the Grand Prix) Only Zetterling & Tamelander tried to discover the cause of this discrepancy (explosions & no damage), but had a timing problem with hits' moments and torpedoes range. So all of them are not the independent sources with independent investigations, but just repeat the Germans' version.

8. Do you understand what the sailors aboard would have felt if the torpedoes hit? Of course! But where can I read about sailors' feeling while the log is incomplete?!

9. equally respected sources... a) Edgar Philip Young, Royal Navy, historian; b) Edward Russell, The Scourge of the Swastika, with a story about SS Athenia and U-30 under ObLt Lemp, and the Germans cut pages off the war log (maybe, they were soviets?); с) Samuel Eliot Morison said that the logs of most Kriegsmarine ships filled after the return to bases, therefore the navy command did not trust sailors' testimony and checked it according to the neutral press and BBC radio, because the officers were under the influence of the current political situation.

10. On the basis of above I propose: a) to fix Garzke & Dulin's "two torpedoes" as a rubbish; b) to replace "both of which missed" to smth like "and two explosions took place" (Zetterling & Tamelander). The facts noticed by your respected historians, not by mine. --Zh.Mike (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1 is irrelevant, there are many reasons speed could have been reduced at 18:16. Did you happen to notice the weather report in the entry mentions fog? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hurdle through fog in a 52,000-ton battleship.

2 is also irrelevant; the historians don't have to claim the Soviet logbook is falsified, because it probably isn't. Wartime reports, especially those made under combat conditions, are notoriously unreliable. Beatty was more than a little embarrassed when several of the German battlecruisers he claimed to have sunk at Jutland steamed into Scapa Flow at the end of the war.

3. Where were the floating docks in Norway at this time? Oh right, there weren't any. Read the section on the repair done via repair ships following the British attacks in 1943.

4. Rudders are frequently replaced for mechanical problems. Nevertheless, without a source, all you have is speculation, which is irrelevant.

5. Irrelevant speculation

6. No, it was a standard overhaul, which included replacing the rudders.

7. Zetterling & Tamelander do not mention any explosions, where are you getting this? The rest is irrelevant - you don't get to determine whether respected naval historians are right or not based on your own amateur analysis.

8. Irrelevant

9. Irrelevant

10. No, there is no mention of explosions in Zetterling & Tamelander, nor in any other source. Allow me to reproduce the passage in question: "The Soviet Submarine K-21 was patrolling off Altafjord, and soon after the Tirpitz left the estuary, she was seen through the periscope. The commander of the submarine, Ranga Lunin, decided to attack and fired four torpedoes. Nobody on the German warships observed either the submarine or the torpedoes. Schniewind's vessels sailed at 24 knots and soon left Lunin's range, but at least the Germans had been revealed." Explain to me where the two explosions are.

Since you remain unconvinced, here are some more sources on the action: Jurgen Rohwer's respected Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945 describes it as an "unsuccessful attack", Evans' Great World War II Battles in the Arctic actually makes the claim that K-21 never actually penetrated the escort screen, let alone hit the ship with a torpedo, and Compton-Hall's Submarines at War 1939-45 note that the Germans never even noticed the attack, and that "No amount of evidence has since convinced the Soviet Union that the attempt failed..." You have yet to provide one reliable, secondary source to support even the possibility that the torpedoes hit. I have given you seven that all agree that the attack failed. Let me make this perfectly clear: I don't care a tiny bit about what you think happened, or who you think falsified records. Numerous reliable sources disagree with your opinion, and nothing is going to change in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. I do not talk about reasons of speed reducing at all, but about presence/absence of entered records about it! There are no records, this means any other event may have not be entered too. (And the weather report has been entered after the speed had been reduced.)

2. The historians don't have to claim the Soviet logbook is falsified, because it probably isn't. I fully agreed! But no historians from your list above is hurry to explain the apparent contradiction (2 hits according K-21 log vs. nothing happened at all according T. log)! Are they really historians or am I too amateur with my opinion that contradictions like this must be explained (or mentioned at least)?

3. It was for Denniss - I was talking about repair, not about docks. (I know what Huascaran means)

4. I've never heard about similar occurrences with other Kriegsmarine ships for the first years since commissioning. If you have respected sources (about requiring the rudders replacement every 1-2 years), please publish links, and it will be important.

7, 10. No, there is no mention of explosions in Zetterling & Tamelander, nor in any other source. It was my copy-paste mistake, I'm sorry. Not Zetterling & Tamelander, but Polmar & Noot. They is one reliable, secondary source to support even the possibility that the torpedoes hit to smth at 2.15. And this source is yours.

10-2. The commander of the submarine, Ranga Lunin, decided to attack (Zetterling & Tamelander). These historians are respected even more than Garzke & Dulin are! Lunin's name is Nikolai. He was commander, russian equivalent is captain of the second rank (rus. kapitan 2 ranga). Ranga is a part of his rank, not the first name. It's smth like writing about Groß Dönitz or Vice Fletcher. I hope not all the historians are so competent. (Although Evans with his NKVD psycho is funny too.)

11. I have given you seven that all agree that the attack failed Read: there is no opinion about results of attack. I have to repeat the proposal: a) to fix Garzke & Dulin's "two torpedoes"; b) to replace "both of which missed" to smth like "and two explosions took place" (both points based on Polmar & Noot). And the source is from your list (maybe it will be more reliable for you?). --Zh.Mike (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Again, irrelevant speculation. Drop the log book.

2. Not going to dignify that with a response.

4. Rudders can be damaged by all manner of things, without documentation of why the rudder was replaced, you only have irrelevant speculation. Drop it.

7. Polmar and Noot are only repeating the Soviet claim, which is no different from what is already in the article, that they claimed two hits. Polmar and Noot go on to say that the attack failed. To use them to support the claim that the Soviets did hit the ship is the definition of falsification of evidence.

10. Re: Evans, the word is "psyche", not "psycho", there's a difference.

11 How can you misconstrue seven references that claim that the attack failed as not confirming the results of the attack? Do you understand that this is a binary relationship? The torpedoes could have: A: hit the ship, or B:, missed the ship. Option A is a success, option B is a failure. Seven different books have said the attack resulted in option B, which means that the torpedoes did not hit the ship. To change the sentence to read "K-21 fired four torpedoes and two explosions took place" gives the impression that most historians believe she hit Tirpitz with two torpedoes, which is patently false. Again, see point #7. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

4. "without documentation of why the rudder was replaced..." What about "the Germans would have recorded the maintenance done to repair the alleged damage, as they did in every other instance"? Lützow and 2 destroyers have been damaged at that moment with the proper documentation. So, that is speculation and it was not ordinary collision.

7. Speculation: Polmar and Noot have said that the attack failed according to the Germans' claim, but in accordance to the Soviets there were two explosions (read: not "attack succeeded"). They have not make their own conclusions - this is I propose to add in the article.

10. Orly?! Do I have to hold up a sarcasm sign every time I write smth like this?

11. "How can you misconstrue seven references that claim that the attack failed as not confirming the results of the attack?" 'Cause all of them do not claim but "are only repeating the German claim" and are not confirming: they have not make their own analysis.

"The torpedoes could have: A: hit the ship, or B:, missed the ship" It's incomplete: the torpedoes could have: A: hit the ship and exploded, or B:, missed the ship and did not explode (within the range time). It's impossible to miss all the ships and explode. But your "references" (not seven, except of Polmar and Noot) "have said the attack resulted in option B" with the torpedoes' behaviour as in options A! Read: it's nonsense! And just Polmar and Noot (not other historians) have tried to coordinate the facts: a) explosions; b) blank docs. Polmar and Noot do not claim that Tirpitz took hits (and I have not changed the sentence), but they have neutral point of view in contrary to You and your respected historians: the facts are there were explosions and the ship's rudders have been replaced without any other collisions and proper documenting of the reason - it must be placed to the article. --Zh.Mike (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

4. Do you know what speculation means? If so, please stop doing it.

7. That much is already in the article: "Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed.[36] The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship.[37]" That's as good as you're going to get, since the preponderance of reliable sources (in fact all of those examined so far) support the fact that the torpedoes missed. 11: You are free to continue the mental gymnastics all you want, but all you're doing is reading meanings into things that aren't actually there. Let me be clear: what you are trying to string together from fragments of several sources (which do not support what you're saying) and your own interpretations are strictly forbidden. Since you seem opposed to providing actual sources to support your claims, this will be my last comment here. Suffice it to say, your requested changes will not be made to the article based on your current line of argumentation. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

7. Do You know what arithmetic mean? If so, please use it! Yes, I've read the article and have seen a pair of torpedoes. How many years must elapse before correction of this trash? Example: anyone can not be named as historian after saying that Ohio is a territory of Canada. 'Cause the state authorities say that it's a state of USA. So only <put the right epithet> are able to talk in theirs articles, books etc about pair torpedoes after Soviets' sole claim of four! So cut this crap off (and the other Your reliable sources confirm the claim about four trps).

7-2. There are no hits on the battleship in Soviets' Navy initial documents, just explosions (but I'm sure You will say that it's not respected). So, please stop post Garzke & Dulin's (only) version and just read another books mentioned by You.

11. I'm trying to string together from fragments of several sources posted by You, 'cause there are no sources with complete consideration of the accident in the Your list above. If You have, please give us the links and continue the discussion with adequate sources. (Maybe You prefer to draw the K-21 attack scheme and to investigate the incident by yourself? Or historians' role is to copy-paste from one source to other with logic switch off? I really don't know - I'm a physicist.)

11-2. Are You kidding?! I'm using Your (read: Y-O-U-R) sources to avoid charges in bad sources' usage and have found confirmations (not my interpretation!) that there are at least one blunder in the article (2/4 trps) and the other strange moment with explosions.

11-3. Read once more: my claims dial with a) 4 torpedoes; b) two explosions - not with results of attack, drop it! My line of argumentation is clear: use sources posted by You - all of them, not the single book [36-37].

11-4. Stop discussion about my brain's sport life and focus Your attention on a specific purpose: explain [36-37] claim' primary source about torpedoes' count. The question is: how many torpedoes have been fired by K-21? --Zh.Mike (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I am currently looking at the SKL war diary copy in the US National Archives, and the report dated 6 July notes that Luetzow and three destroyers were damaged during the operation, and nothing on Tirpitz. The 9 July entry noted that Tirpitz was on 12-hour alert, hardly a status for a ship damaged by two torpedoes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

i see there are some coalition here . First of all this user parsecboy ,started to edit this topic on 8 march 2011. And he started to edit characteristic,changing everything there, and NO ONE FROM HERE SAYING NOTHING ABOUT THIS.

And i edited photo which was before coming this user to edit here,and also edited characteristic like it was. parsecboy ,i would not allow you to mode this page like you want ,coming with stuff you take from who knows where ,if you have a problem go change americans war ships ,not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

All of my edits are sourced to reliable and highly regarded naval historians. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly attempted to insert uncited material. This is simply unacceptable. It doesn't matter what you will and will not allow. I'll be blunt: I'm an administrator, I've been here for 5 years, and am very experienced with Wikipedia, both in writing articles and the rules we must all follow as editors. I can assure you that if you continue to behave as you are currently behaving, you will be blocked indefinitely in a rather short period of time. The choice is up to you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with you on the statistics, but the photo is in the public domain and comes from the US Navy Historical Section[3]; it has been cropped to remove the NH number, and it probably could be cropped more and make a decent photo for the article. I am going to revert back to your version based on sources, but give some thought to the image. Regards Seaphoto^Talk 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Altafjord image is fine copyright-wise (I used it lower in the article, FWIW) - this image is the one that does not demonstrate that it is either PD in the US or otherwise suitably licensed. The reason I didn't use the Altafjord photo is because it's low resolution and very grainy - it's not at all a good lead image. I also considered this image, but this is even worse, in my opinion, as it also suffers from low resolution and graininess, but it is also badly warped on either side. I actually gave it a great deal of thought when I started the rewrite, and I wasn't initially thrilled with using the recognition drawing. That being said, I think it's the best image to use in the infobox, especially considering the poor quality of the alternatives. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Might I suggest that the higher displacement figures be placed in a footnote, with an explanation that it was common for ships to add weight over time? Both sets of displacement figures are probably correct. Battleships of the Bismarck class, Koop and schmolke, p.18: Tirpitz= full load 1944 = 53500 mt, length overall = 253.6m, beam = 241.72m. Now having said this it seems to me that repeated changes with no sources by BogdaNz is not acceptable behaviour, and should have consequences.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

No harm in including both sets of figures. I have changed the heading to a more neutral one. --John (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see this guy instead to talk to us about all the changes that he did wrong, he go reports every person who wants to correct,probably his problem is mental. First of all ,does this guy understeand that we (readers)dont want to see a machete made by american in ww2 ,exactly in info box? Why?Because this machete dont ilustrate tirpitz and bismarck class.Is very poor image ,and there are mistakes that dont ilustrate bismarck class.in front behind the second turret,housing has a shape that is not listed in the design of bismarck class ,have a unusualy form ,not like tirpitz which is more like a triangle..... and there a some other issue. Even so,why on all warship from british and american side there are real photo on infobox ,and here is some toy illustrate picture?

On General characteristic ,i cant find a better source than the book made by Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen "Tirpitz" which had over 386 page ,about the story of Tirpitz and the many attacks against her,contains camouflage schemes and 3-D images, information about life on board, based on many interviews, technical details, casualty list and many other things. It is the biggest book ever made of Tirpitz ,and it's highly accurated ,especialy on technical details,because Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen had acces on Kriegsmarine documents ,and they did research for years ----It is not something they have made for them. In this are follows:

Displacement:-standard 43.900 tonnes

            -maximum 53.500 tonnes (1944) 

Length Overall:253,6 m

      waterline:241,72 m

Maximum draught:10,61 m (1944)

Speed:official recorded 30,8 knots

Sensor :FuMO 30 Hohentwiel was installed in 1944

971 men lost we should then added both displesment in 1941 and 1944 ,the speed is official recorded ,length same — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why we're still having this discussion - I won't waste the time to respond to your personal attacks. Erich Gröner, a German who had wartime access to the Kriegsmarine archives states 42,900t displacement as designed and 52,600t at full load. Conway's All the World's Battleships (the chapter on Germany was written by John Campbell, a highly regarded naval historian) reports the same figures. Siegfried Breyer gives the same figures in Battleship "Tirpitz". The same holds for the length figure (though Conway's gives a slightly different length: 241.1m lwl and 248m loa).

As for the speed and radars, the infobox should give the design of the ship as built. For instance, Tirpitz had the FuMO 30 for less than a year of her operational life, and did not carry it on a single operation. And trial speed rarely matches operational speed, especially when the former is conducted in the calm waters of the Baltic and the latter is the stormy North Sea and even more inclement Arctic. The ship would be hard-pressed to reach even design speeds in those conditions. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

you really have problem boy,you seem that you dont want to discuss with nobody.ch iYou dont understeand that the speed design is just theoretical,which do not apply on seas,the official speed of tirpitz was 30.8 knots,was achieved in autumn of 1941 ,when autumn and winter of 1941 were brutal of the century in point of view of tempertature.You dont interest subject,you only want to edit a subject that you didnt read a book about it. What to trust more: the biggest book about Tirpitz or a citations in a chapter of a book?You must understeand that there are designed displesment which are wrong,is 43,900 mt not 42,900 and full load was 53,500 mt For those who want to see some samples about book made by Kjetil Åkra and John Asmussen : http://www.bismarck-class.dk/miscellaneous/book_reviews/mtm/mtm_tirpitz_book_review.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll be blunt. If you read any article on a German battleship or battlecruiser on Wikipedia (with the exception of German battleship Bismarck), you are reading my work. There is no one on Wikipedia who knows more about German capital ships than I do. I have in all likelihood read far more books on this subject than anyone else on Wikipedia. If you do not even know who Erich Gröner or Siegfried Breyer are and the weight their scholarly work carries, you frankly aren't informed enough on the subject to be having a serious debate on it. What you must understand is that these two, published, highly respected German naval historians disagree with the pair of Norwegians who run that website. John Campbell's work is highly regarded as well; for example, his Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting is essentially the gold standard on accounts of the battle. The information reported by these historians is much more reliable than what the men who run that website state. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, I would urge that contradictory figures from competing sources be placed in a footnote and I am certain that both sets of displacement figures are correct, as Tirpitz was certainly heavier in 1944 than in 1941. G&D also gives displacement and dimension figures similar to Koop. Regarding speed, again this is not a static value and Tirpitz at full load will certainly be slower than on trials, and 29 knots seems a reasonable figure for full load, full power, while 30.8 knots seems quite unlikely except at an unrealistically low displacement and Koop does comment on this and states a speed on 29kn for Bismarck @ 138k MSHP at 43000 tonnes (note the unrealistically low displacement) and also gives a speed for Tirpitz as 29 knots at 138K MSHP but with no displacement noted. OTOH, he does give a speed of 30.1 knots for Bismarck at 150170 mshp and 30.8 knots for Tirpitz at 163000 mshp (all data from Koop, p.28-29.) but with no displacement given. It was common practise for the Continental European navies (Germany, France, Italy) to run trials at very low displacements with the engines producing overload powers, which could not be sustained for very long, to produce very unrealistic speeds that were not at all related to potential speeds during combat. For example HMAS Sydney was able to run down a RM cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni which on paper was at least 5 knots faster.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

To avoid another editwar parsecboy knowing very little about hms vanguard i will make a comparation for him: Hms vanguard:displacement 42.500 tons standard

                           52,245 tons full load 

Tipitz displacement : 43.900 t stanbdard ,even parsecboy disc. of 42.900 beat

                     53.500 t full load 

tirpitz launched in 1939,vanguard 1944 as others measurements ,tirpitz is bigger in all sections

As speed of Tirpitz,was official noted when she was fully loaded ,and true tirpitz was alot heavier in 1944 . AS the speed of 29 knots ,this was designed at 138.000 shp when the engine are not fully pushed speed of 30,8 knots are with 163.026 shp when the engine is at maximum — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vanguard's standard displacement was 44,500 metric tons, full load was 51,420mt, according to Conway's All the World's Battleships, p. 99. That's higher than even your asserted standard displacement. I don't know where you are finding your figures. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

G&D (p.301-302)state Vanguard's standard displacement as 46,842 mt in 1946. Raven and Roberts (p335) give standard displacement as 44614lt or 45330mt and full load is given as 51537lt or 52364mt, but the table of weights suggests that 46102lt and thus 46842mt is the actual standard displacement (according to the WNT definition) since liquid weights subtracted from deep should equal standard. Regarding Tirpitz and Bismarck speeds, the only official speed trial data known to exist states:

"Speed 28.374 knots. Footnote 2. Data from the protocol of the speed trials on 2 November 1940. The speed data are based on an average output of 39170 shaft HP (WPS =Wellenpferdestärke)) per screw and 249.5 RPM per screw at a load addition of 75% and a draft of approx. 8.50 m. Other documents are not available. (Authors note. The document does not say if this concerns "AK Fahrt" (Äußerste Kraft), i.e. extreme full-power speed. The source of the speeds of 30.4 kn, 30.6 kn or 30.8 kn given in the current literature, is puzzling. Blohm & Voss states 30.1 kn." (From: Schlachtschiff Bismarck: Das Original im Detail, Simon Frey Verlag, 2004, p.8.)" Photos of Bismarck prove that she was not yet completed (no main armament directors) when the Nov 2 1940 trials were run, and a very low displacement is likely. Groner's data regarding speeds seems to me to be reasonable based upon the available sources, but again the debate can be summarized in a footnote and the competing sources given there, so I would suggest that we use Groner's data for the article and summarize the other data in a footnote.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's perfectly fine with me. I don't want to include Asmussen and Åkra's book though, it's essentially a self-published source (some small non-notable museum doesn't exactly count as an academic publisher). Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I've added a footnote with Koop & Schmolke's displacement figure. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

One note:tirptiz was a lot heavy in disceplement as it's sister also was slightly bigger in length Bismarck length overall 251 and waterline 241,5 tirpitz:length overall 253,6 and waterline 241,7 and the same as draught 9,9 is tirpitz and bismarck 9,33 and maximum tirpitz 10,61 and bismarck 10,3 and damwiki1 you citaded there a source about bismarck ,and there are big difference from 39170 shaft HP and 163026 shaft hp — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Presumably the 39k figure is the horsepower per shaft while the 16k figure is the total horsepower from all four shafts combined. And can you please figure out how to sign your posts. It's four tildes (Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)). Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tirpitz had 3 shafts, so 3 x 39170 = 117.5K mshp but a draft of 8.5m indicates a very light ship, probably about 43K mt. So we have 117.5K mshp = 28.374 kn at ~43K tons, 138k mshp = 29 knots at 43k mt, and this shows a very steeply rising power curve. The power required to drive a ship rises roughly in proportion to the loading, so if Tirpitz required 117.5K mshp to do 28.374 knots at 43k tons, then she would need about 144.8k mshp to do the same speed at 53k mt, and if Tirpitz required 138k mshp to do 29 knots at 43k mt then she would need about 170k mshp to do 29 knots at 53k mt! This data indicates that the claims for 30.1 or 30.8 knots for Bismarck and Tirpitz can only be achieved at very light displacements, and that at typical combat displacements a maximum speed of 29knots or less in very likely just as Groner states.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since I know that area of the Norway well I know 100% sure that this

image is Bogen in Ofotfjord in Evenes municipality near Narvik, and not Altafjord. I will give some sources. This source give some more images from Bogen/Ofotfjord: [here]. Better images here, as it provides images from Bogen then and now so it is easy to see this is the same fjord branch with the same hills and mountains. You can se the same image position in the first image as the image used in article. This is not Altafjord, not even close. It is Bogen in Evenes, near Narvik. Orcaborealis (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The image provider (the US Navy archives) captions the image as having been taken in Altafjord. That this is apparently incorrect needs to be supported by a reliable source, not what you know about the area or what either of us can tell from other pictures. One possibility is to contact the Navy archives department with the information you have, which should prompt them to correct the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The link provided, showing Bogen then and now, with and without Tirpitz, is a good source. The article should be as correct as possible, and thus take this into account. If anyone know who to contact in US Navy, then this should be done as well. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Read the links I provided above - those websites are self published sources, which are generally not acceptable, especially for an article being evaluated for Featured status. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am dubious about this: "Many veterans of his unit regard him as having been a convenient scapegoat for his superiors' failures. " Even if referenced, this seems unsuitable for the article. What does the source say? --John (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm away for Christmas, but I should be able to provide you with the exact quotation in a couple of days. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I am familiar with the story, and I accept the truth and verifiability of the statement I quoted. However, I think there is a problem with NPOV here. It is a fact that the Norway-based arm of the Luftwaffe underperformed miserably. Whether it was Ehrler's fault seems to be under debate but I don't think what we have covers the complexity of the situation adequately. Let me also have a look for sources over the next days. --John (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have edited this section with an online source I found. I hope it is acceptable; it seems more NPOV to me. --John (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

That looks fine to me. Thanks for working on this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I reverted a move of this article to Tirpitz (battleship) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) that states "For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name):" as Germany did not use a prefix in WWII. Courcelles 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed, that seems like the better name. --John (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, this is the correct title per the naming conventions you linked, Courcelles. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Operation Source, second para, second-last line cites historians "Robert Garzke and Robert Dulin" — but Operation Tungsten, second para, first line mentions "William Garzke and Robert Dulin"! 121.44.5.138 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Que?Reply

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I split the section on "Operations against Allied convoys" into sub-sections, to make it a bit more manageable and to balance the section/sub-section arrangement of the following "British attacks on Tirpitz. This has just been reverted as being "a bit excessive". Really? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Subsections should generally have at least two paragraphs in them – 1-paragraph sections is excessive compartmentalization and tends to split up the narrative too much. And in terms of balance between this section and the one on British attacks, the latter is far longer (10 paragraphs compared to 5), and therefore needs more subdivision to break up the "wall-o-text". Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, generally I probably wouldn’t disagree with you on either point (and, as a Brit, giving the impression that Tirpitz’s main function was to provide target practice for the RAF doesn’t sadden me overmuch) but in this case I had thought (it being a ship article) it should emphasize what the ship did rather than what others did to her. And it would restore the format the article had for several years of its history. Also, one-paragraph sections don't have to stay at one paragraph.

But I’m not looking to fall out over the matter; I made the edit, and am making the suggestion, in the hope you (or anyone) might see some merit in it; do as you think best. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I notice the article states (about the Spitzbergen operation) "in a ruse de guerre, Tirpitz flew a white flag on the approach to the island". I’m pretty sure flying a white flag is not a (legitimate) ruse of war, but an instance of perfidy; does anyone know what Sweetman (the source given) actually says? Did he describe it thus, or is it a piece of spin? But even if it is a direct quote, it is incorrect, and needs amending in some way. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to Sweetman [4] Tirpitz was flying a white ensign, not a white flag. Somebody must have missed the difference. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, the quote is "Late on 7 September, with Tirpitz flying a white ensign as a ruse de guerre, the force reached..." Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ahh! Well, that clears it up nicely; I dunno where the slip came from; it seem to have been like that for a couple of years now. Anyway, I’ve fixed it in the text. Thanks for the replies, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German battleship Tirpitz. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611072431/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23512 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23512

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

"A Model 30 radar, known as the Hohentwiel, was mounted in 1944 in her topmast, and a Model 213 Würzburg fire-control radar was added on her stern 10.5 cm (4.1 in) Flak rangefinders."

According to Erwin F. Sieche this equipment was fitted only to the third AA director, just abaft the mainmast. This Wackeltopf was raised by 2 m for this reason. Not both the after rangefinders received each one, as the text suggests.--Andreas (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another excellent source of infrmation worth including in the bibliography and further reading is Daniel Knowles, (2018) Tirpitz: The Life and Death of Germany's Last Great Battleship, Stroud: Fonthill Media. Geordie2405 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can we not agree that units of measurement should be expressed in BOTH English and SI units? I can do the conversions, but many cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbxstr (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

One wonders where you see units that have not been converted. If you're referring to subsequent uses of a given unit (i.e., the examples of "38 cm" later in the article), those shouldn't be converted every time. Standard practice is to convert on the first use and then not thereafter. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Having read this article and Operation Catechism it strikes me that much of the the Commemoration section of Catechism would be better suited to this article. Particularly much of the following information would be worthwhile in this article:

The Tirpitz Museum at Kaafjord houses items and photographs associated with the battleship.^[1] Other items removed from the wreck are on display at a museum in Tromsø as well as other museums around the world.^[2] Some of the battleship's armour plates were sold to the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, which still uses them to cover excavations on roads in the Oslo region.^[3] The remnants of the battleship that remain in the water off Håkøya have been registered as a protected area, and are treated as a war grave.^[4]

Is it worth expanding this article slightly with some of this information? Woody (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Operation Source - 22.09.1943 - "The ship's two Arado Ar 196 floatplanes were completely destroyed."
Operation Tungsten - 03.04.1944 - " … both Ar 196 floatplanes were destroyed."
If both floatplanes were completely destroyed in Sept. '43, how could they again be completely destroyed in Apr. '44? There's no indication that the planes were replaced; and "completely destroyed" suggests that they were irreparable.
Was the Operation Source paragraph copied and pasted for Operation Tungsten, but not properly modified?
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parsecboy, are you still editing/updating this article? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was more than half a year later; why wouldn't you think the aircraft were replaced? The article isn't explicit because the sources aren't. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be mostly of US Artillery in action, perhaps in France.

Did you watch the first minute and 15 seconds or so? Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I feel an actual picture of the Tirpitz is more appropriate for the infobox. I think the following two images should switch places in the article. Thoughts? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Part of the reason I chose the illustration as the infobox image was because there aren't any particularly good photos of the ship that I'm aware of that are also free to use. Many, like the two you've suggested, are low quality, grainy, low-resolution, or don't compress particularly well; your preferred photo has some particularly bad blurring at both ends of the ship. Bismarck, on the other hand, has some decent photos (like it's current lead image). The illustration is, in my opinion, the least bad of a set of bad options. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hood was longer and Vanguard was heavier at standard displacement. Tirpitz was only heavier at a theoretical full-load. By 2 out of 3 measures then she wasn't the largest and this section should be removed. VSTAMPv (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but full load is kinda what matters. And further, we have a respected source that makes the claim, so it doesn’t matter what you think about the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes it does matter. Full load is a theoretical maximum displacement as determined by a local authority.

Standard displacement was the internationally recognised meaaure, as set out by the Washington Naval Treaty.

Vanguard was bigger by standard displacement.

International rules as set out and agreed upon by treaty, trump local authority and personal opinion. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you even know what the difference between full and standard displacement is?

Show me the spot Germany signed the WNT. Your own legalistic argument doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

Here on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources state. And how many years have you been harping on about this, but you haven't provided a single source to contradict Garzke & Dulin? Please, go waste someone else's time. Parsecboy (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article claims Tirpitz was the heaviest 'built' battleship in Europe ever.

Obviously this is incorrect, the only internationally recognised rules of measurement at the time were governed by the Washington Naval Treaty. This establishment 'standard displacement'.

By standard displacement Vanguard is the 'heaviest' battleship ever built in Europe.

I'm removing this section. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Find a source or stop wasting our time. It really is that simple. Wikipedia doesn't care what you think, we care what reliable sources state. And Garzke & Dulin, both respected naval historians, have made the claim, not me or anyone else here. Parsecboy (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply