Talk:H-class battleship proposals

	H-class battleship proposals has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	H-class battleship proposals is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 25, 2011 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the H-class battleship proposals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Metric vs. Standard

How about using metric system units in an article about a European ship? How about using the metric systems in all of the articles since most of the civilized world uses the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.191 (talk • contribs)

• I'm just following form, seeing as this is an English article, and all English-speaking countries have a basic knowlegde of Imperial measurements. You want to convert them, do it, but I'm going by the original documents. HawkerTyphoon 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Power 52050 hp ? , that is wrong. H-44 has 5 srew turbine/+Diesel mix. It needs 240.000 hp for 30 kn. max. speed. 217.9.49.3 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It was left over from where I copied the infobox from - I've removed it ! HawkerTyphoon 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but what you have here is not the H Class as it was originally designed. You have the stats for the "H-44 design", which was re-tooled from the original "H-39 design". Balin42632003 8:47 16 August 2006 (UTC) If you'd like to look it up here are my sources: (History from Battleships, Axis and Neutral Battleships in world War II, 1985, by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr.)

Questions about armament

I think we're going to need some compromise language in this article. You've got a source, apparently (in Groener), that claims a 48 cm main battery for H-42 and H-43. However, Breyer asserts 42 cm bored-out heavy artillery for H-42 and 50.8 cm weapons for H-43 and H-44. Garzke and Dulin, who use plenty of primary source material themselves, come up with the same figures. So, there should probably be something about the figures being disputed. Sacxpert (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gröner's book is based entirely on archival documents, whereas it's unclear what exactly Garzke & Dulin examined. I don't have Breyer handy, but I do know he's made mistakes - see this, for example. How's this for a compromise solution? The note will need the relevant page citations for Breyer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know G&D used a lot of source material: extensive documents from Oberkommando der Marine, Die Geschichte der Detuscher Schiffartillerie, etc. It's in the bibliography of each volume. I think that this discussion should be inline, not a footnote. Something like this: "Sources differ on the primary armament of the H-42 and H-43 designs. Several sources [insert the ref tags there] have asserted a 42 cm main battery for the H-42, and a 50.8 cm main battery for H-43. However, a recent book by Groener posits a 48 cm armament for both designs.[ref tag]" There's no shame in admitting that sources are in dispute, but that should be explained, up front, to the reader, not buried in a footnote that most people (let's be honest) won't read. Again, I know Breyer made mistakes, and also worked from inferior information (especially as regards the S. Soyuz class). I just don't think that makes all of his work and citations invalid, or inherently more suspect than anyone else's. This solution makes clear that multiple sources use the 42 cm/50.8 cm progression, while acknowledging that a recent source disputes this. Sacxpert (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This article easily meets the GA criteria - great work. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The lead should (briefly) identify what Plan Z was
• "The ship's radius of action was to be at least equal that of the Deutschland-class cruisers" - it would be best to specify what that was in this article to save people from having to follow the link
• Assessments by historians on the merits of the various designs would probably be worth including
• It would be interesting to discuss the ships' planned aviation capabilities, as these seem unusually large