This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the North Cape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 26, 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changed the name of one of the combatants to Germany. "Nazi Germany" never existed as an official name. -- Vosselmans 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Scharnhorst seems to listed under 'Light Battleship'. Shouldn't that be 'Battlecruiser', to be more accurate? Darkmind1970 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since one person seems intent on reclassifying Scharnhorst a battleship and will not allow alternatives (contrary to RN nomenclature) I have disambiguated the text because we now have two 'battleships' on the scene and confusion could creep in unless care is taken. The RN battleship had a weight of broadside over five times greater than the German battlecruiser (oops . . 'battleship'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Battle of russian armed icebreaker Sibiryakov with german pocket battleship Admiral Scheer was most nothern naval battle AFAIK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.192.193 ( talk) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That is correct inasmuch as it was further north and Scheer sank the iceberaker with no problems. To call it a "battle", though, is stretching things! bigpad ( talk) 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The German Naval Warfare website reckoned it was a battle, so we can too. It states the Sibiryakov was "sunk after a valiant resistance" (der nach tapferer Gegenwehr versenkt wird). And the ship page here states it was an unequal fight lasting an hour that saw most of Sibiryakov's crew dead. So the sniffy comment is uncalled for Xyl 54 ( talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This obituary of Richard Pendered credits him with precise location of Sharnhorst.
Then, on Boxing Day that year, Pendered deciphered a message which located the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst off Lopphavet in Norway. She was surrounded and sunk later that day.
The Telegraph sometimes gets its facts wrong, it confused Colleville-Montgomery and Colleville-sur-Mer the last time I used it but does this make sense? Boxing day seems far too late to allow the ships to be positioned.
JRPG (
talk)
13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed the lists of the warships with JW 55B and RA 55A in the "Background" section. They are un-necessary, as the convoy themselves weren't attacked; the ones that were involved (the four destroyers from RA 55A which joined Fraser) I've listed in the "Battle" section. The details are on the convoy pages now anyway, so it'd be duplication to have them repeated here.
Also, the lists were inaccurate; there were nine warships listed for JW 55B (in fact there were thirteen) and nine for RA 55A (there were fourteen).
Xyl 54 (
talk)
03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
the info box in the german wiki says 1 battleship AND 5 destroyer on the german site - 1 battleship, 8 destroyer and 4 battle cruiser! So something is here or there terribly wrong...!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.199.160 ( talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it might just be translation, because battlecruisers are completely different to cruisers, they are probably double the size. ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 16:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
Ok, so I replaced the Atlantic Ocean campaignbox with a new Arctic Ocean one, because this battle did not take place in the Atlantic. If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert and discuss. Howicus ( talk) 23:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the North Cape. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The quote on the page is incorrectly attributed to Commander Hitchens; it was said by his son and many years after the fact. It doesn't even make sense in context because Commander Hitches was present at the battle and so it's his "day's work" that's being alluded to here as being more heroic than Christopher Hitchens' (his sons) whole career as a writer. I am going to fix this to correctly attribute it and move it to the aftermath section where it fits better but there's certainly an argument that the quote just shouldn't be on the page at all. It's a nice quote so I'm not just going to remove it but I can see the argument that it's just not notable. 109.148.23.136 ( talk) 08:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article also include the Eisenbart wolf-pack in the German strength
8 U-boats with whom the Scharnhorsts group were attempting to coordinate with in the strike on JW 55B. VSTAMPv ( talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Scharnhorst wasn't a battleship; she was a lightly-armored battle cruiser. Other Choices ( talk) 17:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)