Talk:Design 1047 battlecruiser

Completion

"Worth speculates that had the ships been completed, commissioned and deployed to the East Indies by 1942, they could have "transformed the strategic picture" because the Imperial Japanese Navy's cruisers could not match these ships."

Though referenced, the sentence does not make much sense to me since in 1942 Netherlands was occcupied by Germany, which was in alliance with Japan since 1940. --Georgius (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Dutch government, headed by Queen Wilhelmina, fled the Netherlands during the German invasion and joined the Allies, putting the Royal Netherlands Navy and the sizable Dutch Merchant fleet at their disposal, as well as other resources. Although the Dutch Armed forces in the Netherlands surrendered on May 15th 1940, this did not include those units overseas, nor even the troops in the province of Zeeland, where troops had joined up with Belgian and French units. During the Battle of the Java Sea, in 1942, the combined Allied force was commanded by Dutch Rear Admiral Doorman. The action was unsuccesful in repelling the Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies, but had these battlecruisers been present, perhaps they could have made a difference. Considering the strategic importance of the Dutch East Indies as a major source of oil and other resources, this would have been a huge setback for the Japanese war effort. However, all of this is, of course, speculation and battlecruisers never really did well when confronted with battleships, as the Battle of Jutland and the fate of HMS Hood have illustrated. Nevertheless, they would have been hard-pressed -not- to use these units, due to their large calibre weapons being so valuable, despite the disadvantages.

Btw, see also: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/NV_Ingenieurskantoor_voor_Scheepsbouw. In addition, the book mentioned there, Teitler, Prof. Dr. G De strijd om de slagkruisers 1938–1940 De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1984, deals exclusively with the political and technical issues surrounding these ships and deserves to be mentioned in this article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting (did not even know that article existed! :). I'll add it into a "See also" section...thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The section that you call "Notes" I usually call "Citations". Is there a MOS guideline for the naming of this section? Flaviusvulso (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope :) I think the relevant page is WP:LAYOUT.

I normally call my explanatory notes "Notes", my citations "References" and my books "Bibliography". —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: User:the_ed17/Rename Notes. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

December of 1939 also saw real doubts start to creep over the project.

From whom? This sentence seems pretty textbook-ish. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an intro sentence to the para; read the second sentence. :) "December of 1939 also saw real doubts start to creep over the project. A new Navy Minister had been put in, and he favored armored cruisers instead of battlecruisers." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking in microdetail. :) Who doubted the project? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

....oh. I get what you are asking now... I'm trying to say that it was not certain that the ships would be built any more with the different Navy Minister. Any idea on how to reword it? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, since I don't know who doubts it. I need facts, hon. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fate section

I think that this section has become over-long. Only the first two paras are directly relevant to the topic of the article, and the other three are a (very good) general history of the invasion of the NEI which would be better placed in the Dutch East Indies campaign article. It seems enough to state that the Dutch were probably wrong about the scale and form of attack and leave it at that. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...good point. I'll merge them into that and the ABDA article. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note - we note that "work was almost halted" (presumably in Sept. 1939) but that contracts were awarded; did anyone actually start construction, and if so, what happened to the hardware? I'm assuming the answer is "nothing had been constructed, no hulls were laid down, and then it got shelved under the occupation", but it'd be nice to say so - it seems to be the obvious question a reader would ask themselves! Shimgray | talk | 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WHOOPS. That is not what I intended the word "work" to mean; I meant work on the design. Thanks! the_ed17 :  Chat  00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

In the design section, we have the comment "...the only assistance available was open-source books and Jane's Fighting Ships." I understand what this is trying to say, but "open source" is both a bit awkward and very much an anachronism - the term didn't exist until several decades later!

It definitely needs reworking, but I'm not quite sure what to say. "Public domain" is right-ish, but has the confusing implication that it sounds as though we're talking about copyright... "unclassified"? Shimgray | talk | 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will work on this also; I'm going to eat very soon. the_ed17 :  Chat  00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source used "open source literature"...I can't think of a better way to word it. :/ the_ed17 :  Chat  01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've hacked it around a bit, & noted that Janes was itself "open" information - it was a bit ambiguous on this. Feel free to find a better wording, though! Shimgray | talk | 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that your version is leaps and bounds better than anything I could think up. :-) the_ed17 :  Chat  16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Flawed?

i think you are using to much hindsight when you say tyhe concept of these ships was flawed. the dutch were planning under the conventional doctrine of the day, which did not forsee a few key events, which were what led to the japanese invasion and the overwhelming forces assigned to it. first, they assumed that they would, as in ww1, be neutral and not attacked by either side. second, that france would fight more effectively and not fall. and third, that nothing like the pearl harbor attack was forseen, and that the japanese would have to contend with the u.s. pacific fleet and the large fleet(4+ capital ships, a carrier and supporting ships) that the british were planning to send to singapore, before the fall of france. as such, the plan for these battlecruisers was logical and well concieved under the circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.233.109 (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't say that the design of the ships was flawed; it says that Dutch's prediction was. However, re-reading it now (awhile after I originally wrote it), the entire paragraph seems out of place for this article. I'll remove it. Thanks for the comment! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m wondering still

Where is Holland? Why did it have colonies in the East Indies, and if the East Indies had a government. Was Holland an ally of Germany during WWII? Also, where is the Netherlands and why did Germany stop helping Holland build it’s battle ship? Was Germany too busy or had it become an enemy of Holland. Also, maybe who actually wrote this article should come foreward on the talk page, because the contributors list only tells edits which may have been bots. I guess you went to a library.--Rhbsihvi (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I am the author of this article, although I don't know why I would need to "come forward" here. If I gave all the context in which this occurred, the article would be extremely long and very unfocused on the intended subject (the battlecruisers). This is why I have included links to other articles like Dutch East Indies and, in the lead, Netherlands (linked from "Dutch"). I added a link to Dutch Empire in the "See also" section; do you have any other suggestions for improving the article? Thanks for your comments! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

None ever built

The lead says drawings were produced on 19 April 1940 and later says that the plans were never completed. I infer that the 1940 drawings were drafts or otherwise incomplete and that no ships were ever built or even commissioned. It would improve things if this were clarified and article explicitly stated that no ships were ever built. --Kvng (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I added "Final" to plans and added an explicit statement – thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lead should summarize the article so I added a copy of the statement to the Fate section. --Kvng (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Soerabaya

My late father was a pre WW2 far east veteran who did visit Soerabaya naval base in the Dutch East Indies. I quote his words.

"There was a lot of work going on not only clearing the area but extending the yard itself. They were obviously expecting some thing big"

This must have been the three new battlecruisers.AT Kunene (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Considered for Polish service

This website[1] probably doesn't qualify as a valid source (though the author has a PhD in history), but it does make an interesting proposition: that Poland wished to use the 1047 design as the basis for 3 Polish capital warships. This is interesting, since in Breyer's Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905-1970, the specifications of the Polish battleships would be pretty similar to the 1047 design. Does anyone have better sources for this? Sacxpert (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article actually uses another one of Bennighoff's pages, but I think I could easily get rid of it if I broke out my sources again, and I agree it isn't reliable. I have found him to be very accurate, though. I've never seen anything regarding Polish 1047s. I know they had an insane naval building plan in the 1920s, and building three battlecruisers while not being able to defend their ports seems like a very silly idea, but as I said, Bennighoff has been accurate in the past. I'll do a little digging, but I don't know if I'll find anything. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruisers of this calibre would have obviously have been unsuited for Polish needs (especially as this design was optimised to operate in high temperatures and over long distances in the tropics - neither of which is really an issue in the Baltic!), but something like the rather good Swedish Sverige class coastal defence ships would have been useful. Though not as useful as a modern army or air force. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deck armour in preliminary design

The section Design_1047_battlecruiser#Preliminary_designs states "In particular, its armor scheme was utterly obsolete, as it lacked any substantial amount of deck armor ...". However, Footnote A9 in the preceeding sentence gives a main armoured deck of 125 mm, which is quite substantial, particularly for a ship of that size. I think some clarification would be helpful in this regard. --Marinebanker (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Design 1047 battlecruiser. 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/20090206200953/http://american.edu/TED/ice/japan-oil.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/japan-oil.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206200953/http://american.edu/TED/ice/japan-oil.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/japan-oil.htm

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) 10:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with Scharnhorst

the article notes torpedo protection is thicker in 1047 but the Scharnhorst has a thicker (torpedo bulkhead 45mm vs 40mm) and much deeper system. 78.150.86.84 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft?

I'm wondering, did the final design of the 1047 class offer any scout planes? The drawing seem to depict a catapult amidships but theres no mention of it in the final design that you put. If possible is there a link to the April or February 1940 drawing that you stated? Just a curious fella. 2001:FD8:2010:10C8:2032:8DFA:FD68:D921 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, on the twitter blueprints you added the amidships part has a word saying "vliegtuigkraan" or Aircraft Crane in English, there's a video on yt by drachinifel about the 1047 and in it he's said that on the final design of the BC the aircraft were remove, but why would the crane stay and be labeled as Aircraft Crane even after the aircraft was removed? maybe the blueprints were an earlier design? Hope you can clear this up. 2001:FD8:2010:10C8:2032:8DFA:FD68:D921 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)