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.
Operation Berlin was a successful raid into the North Atlantic conducted by the two German Scharnhorst-class battleships in early 1941. It was everything the much better-known raid by the Bismarck was supposed to be. The two battleships sank or captured 22 Allied merchant vessels, but had to abandon two attacks on convoys that were escorted by British battleships. Despite a massive effort the British failed to bring the German force to battle, and both battleships docked in France. This success proved illusionary, however, as the British badly damaged the battleships in French ports and Bismarck had worse luck and was sunk.
I developed this article to keep myself amused while on two weeks leave during a COVID-19 lockdown in August. It was assessed as a GA in late August, and has since been expanded and improved. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met and hope to develop the article further to FA class. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A nice and tidy article, only a couple of nitpicks:
Opposing plans section: these ships to focus attacks made during raids on Allied merchant vessels for succinctness, suggest: "these ships to focus their attacks on Allied merchant vessels
I've tweaked this, but left in the bit about the raiders avoiding Allied warships. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
German surface raids section: with the resulting extensive damage also requiring lengthy repairs in Germany.?
Oops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: Sorry for my slow response here, and thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. As an aside, I am impressed by the German capacity for replenishment at sea, which neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy could have matched in 1941. Just a few comments:
Link Grand Admiral, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Kapitänleutnant, gross register tonnage (the convert template will do this one for you)
Their main armament was nine 11-inch (280 mm) guns, which was inferior to the 15-inch (380 mm) guns that armed most British battleships. Suggest "were inferior"
They sank five of the vessels totalling 25,784 gross register tons (73,010 m3) displacement. Link Also, GRT is not displacement; it is is the ship's internal volume. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. I have to confess to being a bit clueless about how this measurement system works, so please let me know if this is still wrong. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still wrong. Roskill is indeed using gross register tons (grt), not long tons. A grt is 100 cubic feet (2.83 cubic metres). It is not displacement; it represented the total permanently enclosed capacity of the vessel ie including machinery spaces, crew quarters etc. It should read: "sank five of the vessels totalling 25,784 gross register tons (73,010 m3)." Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The battleships Rodney and HMS King George V I would reverse the order here so the two have the same formatting
The captured tanker Polykarp When did this happen? This is the first mention of it.
She was one of the tankers captured on 15 March - I've named them to clarify this (it was kind of wild that German battleships were capturing tankers on the high seas in 1941!). Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a combined displacement of 115,622 gross register tons see the point above.
Also fixed, I think Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should read: "a combined total of 115,622 gross register tons (327,410 m3)" Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for this review - I think that I may now have responded to your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look at this one soon. Hog FarmTalk 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They were well armoured and faster than the Royal Navy's battlecruisers" - we are told the comparison in speed, and later in armament. Do sources provide a comparison in armor?
Not really. As the armour quality of British capital ships varied widely (e.g. HMS Hood was a deathtrap and the Nelson and King George V classes were very well protected), it would be a tricky comparison to make in aggregate
"The battleships refuelled from Schlettstadt and Esso Hamburg " - ship type for Esso Hamburg?
A tanker - added Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"King George V was dispatched from Halifax to patrol the area the ships had been sunk" - where the ships had been sunk?
Yep - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"115,622 grains (7,492.2 g)" - link for grains? The most familiar usages of grains as a measurement are for very small items, not ships. Is this a convert template error for gross register tons?
It's a typo, and if you ever apply for a job in the State Department I'd be happy to give you a reference where I cite this comment as an example of your diplomatic skills! Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Boulder: Westview Press." - add the state for Boulder. I'm assuming Boulder, Colorado, but the other US locations include the state
Yep, added. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend consistency in title/sentence case for source titles. Konstam in largely in sentence case, O'Hara is a mix, and the others are largely title case
I've used the capitalisation the books use themselves. Konstam's approach is particularly eccentric! Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing looks reliable enough
Good work here, anticipate supporting. Hog FarmTalk 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All references appear uniformly properly formatted
All ISBNs link properly
The JSTOR reference links properly
Found nothing objectionable in this respect, so supporting in sources department--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (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.