Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Fürst Bismarck

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This is another very old article of mine (created way back in September 2007!) that has undergone a series of major expansions as new sources have come to light (the most recent being an article in Warship International published in the current issue). After much work, I think the article is ready for ACR/FAC, though I'm sure there are things that need to be fixed. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I hope to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 23:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguments between Hollmann and Admiral Max von der Goltz (the head of the Oberkommando der Marine, the Navy High Command) over particular aspects of the new ship. " - missing a word or two?
- Good catch - I think I forgot how I started the sentence by the time I got past the titles!
"four were submerged on the broadside," - two on each side, or all four on one side?
- Clarified
"The initial testing revealed the need for alterations to the ship" - is it known what sort of alterations?
- No, unfortunately
"nd attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur in a surprise nighttime attack on 8/9 February without having declared war" - worth a link to Battle of Port Arthur?
- Good idea
"along with the obsolete 3.7 cm guns." - this seems to be the only reference to her being armed with 3.7 cm guns in the entire article
- I'll need to double-check this when I have my references handy
  - Now updated to include the 3.7 cm guns in the Armament section. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" and four of the six 15 cm guns were removed. [...] From 4 to 6 September, the remaining eight 15 cm guns were removed." - the first part here implies that there were only 6 15 cm guns remaining in the ship, but the second half suggests that the full complement of 12 guns had been present when the first 4 were removed? But then that doesn't square well with two of the 15 cm gun turrets having been removed in 1910? And I thought the 15 cm guns were in casemates, rather than turrets?
- Clarified that some of the guns were in turrets, but I'll have to check again later today
  - It seems there's a disagreement between HRS and Nottelmann as to when those two guns were removed, though I'm inclined to go with Nottelmann, since he addresses the issue explicitly. I've moved it to a note. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"She was then transferred to what was now the Reichswerft in Kiel " - this implies that the predecessor of the Reichswerft has already been mentioned in the article, but what that was isn't clear
- Fixed

I think that is all from me for now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm! Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klutserke

Hoi just one small remark from me : 'Drh.L. C/98 turrets' seems a bilingual tautology to me. Drh.L. is the abbreviation for DrehscheibenLafette which means turret. Klutserke (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, removed. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

1891–1893 design competition

Frustrated by Hollmann's preference for smaller, cheaper 2nd- and 3rd-class cruisers, Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Hans von Koester wrote him a letter in January 1891 outlining the weaknesses of these vessels, singling out the recently completed Irene class of protected cruisers, which were too slow to serve as fleet scouts and too weakly armed to take part in a fleet battle.

2nd- and -> close space

Not sure what you're saying here

<>2nd- and to 2nd-and Pendright (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure that when you're listing multiple compound adjectives like this, you do need a space here - in other words, we're not using it in the same way as "fore-and-aft-rigged ship" where the "and" is a critical component of the term, but as a sort of abbreviation of "2nd-class cruisers and 3rd-class cruisers".

A long sentence?

Split

By that time, opinions in the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), which had historically been against naval spending, had begun to warm.

By this time

"that" is also fine grammatically

<>This is typically used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced - Pendright (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but arguably events that happened more than 100 years ago are not close at hand ;)

The defeat gave Dietrich and the design department more time to work out details in the design, however.

Typically, however is used to introduce a contrasting idea

Removed

Design

Tirpitz's plan included prescriptions for an armored cruiser that emphasized the ship's role as a scout for the battle fleet, and thus called for top speed 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) and a large number of 15 cm (5.9 in) quick-firing guns.

and thus called for a top speed of 20 knots

Good catch, fixed

On 29 April 1895, Hollmann convened a meeting of the relevant departments within the naval command to settle on the final characteristics of the new cruiser.

design characteristics

I don't think that's necessary to say

<>Okay then, let's look at this another way. Since Bismarck was still in the design stages, grammatically then it's not the cruiser but a cruiser, a ship, or a vessel. Typically, it becomes the cruiser, ship, or vessel after its design is approved and construction is underway - Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's splitting hairs, but that's also not exactly what you're asking to add - if you wanted to change "new" to "projected" (or something along those lines) then that would make sense. But I don't think adding "design" to "characteristics" offers anything beyond redundancy - of course it's the design's characteristics we're talking about, what else would it be?

The new ship, to be named Fürst Bismarck, was more than a knot faster than her battleship counterparts, which was accomplished by a 5-meter (16 ft) longer hull, a propulsion system rated 510 metric horsepower (500 ihp) higher, and reduced armor protection to save weight.[17]

The proposed ship or The future ship

I don't think those offer any additional meaning beyond "new" that's worth extra wordiness.

<>Same as above Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

would be more than a knot...

Done

Hollmann's faction insisted on it, since they sought to use the cruiser on foreign stations where frequent hull cleaning was impossible.

proposed or future cruiser

I think that's redundant here

<>Same aas above Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that time, the Reichstag had approved construction of the ship, which had already begun on 1 April.[19]

By thistime

Same as above, both are fine

<> ditto Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new ship was significantly larger than the Victoria Louise-class cruisers, but like those vessels, Fürst Bismarck was intended to serve abroad in the colonial empire.[17]

The new ship was designed

I don't think that needs to be changed - it was the intent of the naval command that mattered

<>Same as above

but like these vessels

Those is also grammatically correct there

<>These is the plural form of this. You use these to refer to multiple things that are close to you. Those is the plural form of that. You use those to refer to multiple things that are far away from you. Pendright (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I don't think one can argue that ships that haven't existed for more than 100 years are close to me

Fürst Bismarck marked a significant advance in German cruiser power, and this was reflected in her designation as a 1st-class cruiser, the first vessel of the type to be built for the German fleet.[20]

Consider starting the sentence with The construction or building of the Fürst Bismarck marked...

I don't think that's right, since that would change the subject of the sentence from the ship itself to the act of building it. That would be correct if construction of the ship was a major event in the Germany shipbuilding industry, but that's not what we're talking about

The ship was intended for overseas use, particularly in support of German colonies in Asia and the Pacific.

The ship was designed for...

Removed the sentence entirely as it's redundant to the previous one

<>Okay Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion system

Fürst Bismarck was propelled by three vertical four-cylinder, triple-expansion engines, which drove three three-bladed screw propellers. The center propeller was 4.40 m (14.4 ft) in diameter, while the two outer screws were slightly larger, at 4.80 m (15.7 ft) in diameter. Steam for the engines was provided by twelve coal-fired boilers.

The logical and functioning order of such propulsion system was: Boilers -> Engines -> Propeller shafts, rather than in the sequence stated

I don't think the sentence order matters all that much, in that it does not imply a specific order of operations

<>I'm not grasping your meaning here - could you help me out? Pendright (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no implied sequence in the order of the sentence as it is, which means there's no reason to mention the boilers first.

Boxer

In November, Fürst Bismarck went to Nagasaki, Japan for engine maintenance, temporarily transferring Bendemann to Kaiserin Augusta while she was away for repairs

Add a comma after Japan

Good catch

1906-1908

By that time, the ship was in poor condition, though her inadequacy and deteriorating state had already been reported home in late 1906, but there was a shortage of armored cruisers with which to replace her.

By this time

As above

<>ditto - Pendright (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Later career

Over the following months, while work on the ship was ongoing, Fürst Bismarck made frequent, short voyages into the Bay of Kiel for training exercises, including shooting practice.

including gunnery practice

Done

This it for now - Pendright (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always! Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<>I've left some responses to yours and look forward to your replies. Pendright (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]