This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see this page was moved from Pantserschip. This is not any less "bizarre" since the first title was Dutch and this one derived from German. Better title would be in English. Armoured ship (direct English translation) or Coastal defence ship (more descriptive name). In my opinion armoured is too generic since almost all naval ships have armour. I also contest the factual accuracy of this article. It omits quite a lot of information and in its current status it's basically just a selective list of ships with everyone adding their "favourite" ones. About a month ago I added the see also to Pocket battleship since those ships share some conceptual similarity. That doesn't mean these ships are battleships. If you do a google search on the Swedish ships you'll find a lot of hits calling them "coastal battleships", but that is a translation error. I find it hard to edit this article without bordering on original research. -- Laisak 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Laisak's suggestion Coastal defence ship seems quite reasonable. Support move & redirect and such. Scoo 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Battleship#Swedish_battleships.3F, Talk:Pansarskepp, Talk:List of battleships by country
There would seem to be alot of confusion regarding this class (or rather niche) of vessels. This is not helped by a lack of a proper name for these vessels in English. Last year's proposal of naming the article per their role might be better technically, while there is no proper equivalent to the ships denotation in their respective languages (be it de:Küstenpanzerschiff vs. panzerschiff, pantschership, pansarskepp, panssarilaiva etc.). The census seems to be that while sometimes used, Coastal battleship or Coastal defence battleship might mislead English speakers.
My suggestion is to initiate a discussion (and possibly dig up more references regarding the subject) in order to reach census on the issue and ultimately expand this article and direct (possibly with pipered links, á la Ilmarinen was a Finnish [[Coastal defence ship|Panssarilaiva]]) users to this article when looking for pansarskepp and so on. This rather than having stubs on various vessel classes named after their respecive language (such as Pansarskepp). Scoo 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The German ship class "Panzerschiff" from the 1920th has no connection with the German ship class "Küstenpanzerschiff" form the 1890th and has also nothing to to with a translation from Swedish but with a french term in the Versailles Treaty used in the German translation. So I corrected that passage in the article. -- Rakell ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This is in discussion in the Battleship talk section as well. My take on the situation is that these ships are mostly NOT battleships. There were some "inexpensive" battleships built (the American second class types), however those had a different function. This type of ship was meant for shallow water operation - and was specialized for that. They had no common mission requirements with a Pocket battleship or Panzerschiff and should not be confused with them. My current thought is to insert a "Coast Defense Ship" page, with "Coast Defense Battleship" forwarded to it, and on that page discuss the general commonalities, and then link to each of the specific types, as the various national navies built vessels that had very different design considerations. I think that: Panssarilaiva Pansarskepp Pantserschip Should each have their own page. BTW, Pansarskepp is Swedish - does anyone know the Danish and Norwegian terms? UrbanTerrorist 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There was an "Operation Polarfox" (although that name also had previously been used for an operation to conquer Murmansk), which were plans for invading Sweden. I saw the plans yesterday in a book in the lockal university library, when searching for something entirely different. I can go back to the library and check the book data. The only landing sequence would have been about 100 km north of Stockholm (if I remember the map correctly), the rest of the invasion forces would have come from Norway where they would have swept through middle Sweden. MoRsE 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The article Cerberus class battleship claims that they are battleships, while this article claims that they are coastal defence ships. This inconsistency should be solved but since I know very little about this subject I ask for some input. Jeltz talk 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Link goes to the Galleon Wasa from the 17th Century and not to the Armoured Ship built at the turn of the previous century, unfortunantley there is no article for the Ship in the english Wikipedia but there is in the Swedish version. I don't know how to link in this regard, especially since the old Wasa is such a famed ship whule the later remains in historys obscurity. Darkwand ( talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Habsburg empire (KuK fleet), everybody called these vessels "defended by coast battleships" unofficially, in a realistic assessment of their might or lack, thereof. The same was true for tsarist Russian Navy. 82.131.134.66 ( talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This section has grown longer than the article, as lists not only the navies but also the ships. I'm redoing it in a more concise way, without losing information; will take a couple days to finish. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 00:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Since we have some confusion about what is and is not a coastal defense ship, let's look at a standard source on warships: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships.
Parsecboy ( talk) 00:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think we can rely on just one book series for our definition of Coastal Defence Ships. As the article mentions, the definition of what is and is not a Coastal Defense Ship varies. Some sources list ships as Coastal Defence Ships, while others list them as something else. As someone who studies Naval History for a living, and who has actually worked on historic American ships, I can tell you that the Onondaga is not a Coastal Defence Ship. It is a river monitor. Anasaitis ( talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Here’s one: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/onondaga.htm
I’ll post some more shortly.
My source clearly classifies it as a Monitor. Furthermore, if you think Ironclads don’t qualify as Coastal Defence Ships,,then you are clearly contradicting yourself, because that was clearly an ironclad. Also, I don’t appreciate your insults, and don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed that we never needed sources. Here is another that reflects the confusion associated with the classification of the Zhongshan and her sisters. This source calls it a cruiser: http://en.people.cn/90001/90783/91300/6419815.html Anasaitis ( talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, virtually all of your sources date back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Your source calls it a battleship, when it clearly pre-dates the earliest pre-dreadnought. As I’m sure you are aware, the definition of battleship, and the classification of naval vessels in general, has changed significantly over time. Anasaitis ( talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Every single one of those sources call it a monitor. If you cannot see where it calls it a battleship, then you obviously don’t read your own sources. Speaking of which, are you not the one that changed the name of the the article SS Zhongshan to Chinese coastal defense ship Zhongshan? You clearly haven’t read your own work. Anasaitis ( talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is where you stated that: 00:29, 8 March 2020 Parsecboy talk contribs 18,053 bytes -275 no they aren't - Rudolf and Stephanie are ironclads (go read their articles), as is Vasco de Gama - and a 700-ton vessel with a single 4-inch gun is a gunboat, not a CDS - the phrase is a term of art that means more than just vessels used to defend a coastline Anasaitis ( talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This article clearly states that coastal defense ships DIFFER from monitors. Monitors have their own page. Anasaitis ( talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It’s called having a job. I can’t spend all day on Wikipedia, nor would I want to considering the way you have treated me. Yes, I mentioned I studied history and worked on ships, but I did not say that we don’t need sources and can rely on my word alone. Stop putting words in my mouth. That is I known you would accuse me of such things, I would not have mentioned it. If that is how my comment sounded, I apologize. I honestly didn’t mean to give the impression that I was saying that my opinion matters more than others. Still, that is no reason to accuse me of being a troll. I was actually going to start posting sources after the initial post, but you started posting before I could, which triggered an edit conflict.
Here’s more sources referring to the Onondaga as a Monitor: https://books.google.com/books?id=i9-0ZuKsMvIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=French+Monitor+Onondaga&source=bl&ots=pFTBYwKDaB&sig=ACfU3U3wUwbT0OgnuIrsLVMcxyBwlFHIvw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5NScuo7oAhVGnuAKHcBvBV84ChDoATAFegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=French%20Monitor%20Onondaga&f=false
I can list more.
How have I lied? The article’s history clearly says that you were the one who changed the name to Chinese coastal defense ship Zhongshan, and that you changed the name to Chinese gunboat Zhongshan today. You also changed Yongfeng-class coastal defense ship to Yongfeng-class gunboat, and you also changed the USS Onondaga’s page, all within a short period of time. Monitors were often used for coastal defense purposes, but coastal defense ships are a specific type of warship that differs from earlier Monitors, as described in this article. If no one truly “gives a crap” about the difference, as you say, then what is the point of this article? Anasaitis ( talk) 04:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems you didn’t even bother reading my responses thoroughly. I already mentioned that Monitors could be used for coastal defense. There is a difference, however, between the earlier Monitors and subsequent Coastal Defense Vessels of the late nineteenth and twentieth century. As for the South American ironclads, I never said that I didn’t have a problem with them. I would have discussed that had you not started calling me a troll and a liar. Speaking of the latter accusations, let’s address those:
1. While I did mention that I studied naval history for a living, I did not specify the exact nature of my job. You simply jumped to the assumption that I was claiming to be some big-shot naval historian whose word was better than any source, yet historians are not the only people whose job requires the study of naval history. I would assume someone as passionate about naval history as you claim to be would know that there are a number of jobs that require knowledge of the history of the world’s navies. So that’s not a lie.
2. I am starting to suspect that you stopped reading your sources the moment you saw the words “coastal defense”, because virtually all of those sources call the Onondaga a monitor or a “monitor-type” vessel. The Monitor and the Navy Under Steam, for example, refers to it as a “double-turreted monitor”. That’s not a lie.
3. DANFS does call it a coast defense battleship. You assumed I was talking about another source. I will admit that is partially my fault for not specifying which source I was referring to. My comment on the changing history of the battleship over time certainly didn’t help matters, as it makes it seem like I was referring to one of the older sources. That was a mistake, but not a lie.
4. I was also mistaken when I said that you were primarily using nineteenth and early twentieth century sources. I mistook them for something else. I was mistaken, but I did not lie.
Do not insult me by accusing me of lying. Now, can we still have a civil conversation on the matter of coastal defense ships, or is this going to devolve into an exchange of insults? Anasaitis ( talk) 20:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, I was going to cite sources, but you posted as I was trying to post them, which triggered an edit conflict. Perhaps I could have worded that initial comment better, but that is my fault. It was not my intention to imply that my word alone was sufficient to prove my point. Furthermore, how have I not done the math? There is a clear difference between the monitors and the other vessels labeled coastal defence ship here. It is also clear from the sources that vessels like the Onondaga were designed for shallow water operations, especially rivers. If further evidence of the difference is needed, page 38 of this book clearly states that coastal defence ships are those designed specifically for the defence of the sea near the coasts of a nation’s coasts, as opposed to the rivers and harbors that the Onondaga would have operated in:
It also explains the difference between the American made ironclads and coastal defence ships. Even the New Ironsides would have had difficulty in any conditions other than calm waters in the sea near the coast, and the ocean going monitors, the monitors which it cites as the closest to the definition of a coastal defence ship, would not have operated their guns outside of the waters in or around harbors, where the majority of the naval battles of American Civil War were fought. Such ships would have required modification to operate in coastal waters away from harbors and the mouths of rivers, modifications which were not made to the Onondaga by the French, who merely replaced the guns in the turrets, as stated in the sources on that ship’s article. Breastwork monitors like those listed in this article would have to been able to operate further out to see thanks to the elevated positions of the guns and armored superstructure, but none of the Civil War era monitors built in the United States were breastwork monitors. The so-called “new navy” ironclads of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century also discussed in the book are closer to the definition of the coastal defence ironclad/battleship, but even these were different from the coastal defence ships of Europe and Asia. Anasaitis ( talk) 16:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Onondaga would better fit the definition of a guard ship, since it would have operated in and around French harbors and ports. Anasaitis ( talk) 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to perpetuates a small but noticeable modern issue regarding nomenclature of this type of ship, seemingly more apparent since about 2010.
The article is at present titled 'Coastal defence ship', but the subject under discussion were actually known as 'coast defence ships'.
If this seems like a subtle distinction, it is not.
These ships were built as a part of the discipline of 'coastal defence'; that is, defence which is coastal in nature - considering or relating to the coast. This is the strategic overview. The mission of these ships was 'coast defence' - defending the coast^. This would be very much a tactical or operational level of assessment.
When referring to these ships, it is as common to refer to them as diminutive battleships, in which case they are frequently referred to in contemporary & modern works as 'coastal battleships'; that is, a 'battleship' only in terms of the kind of craft liable to be encountered in the coastal environment & discipline - and not to be confused with a true blue-water fleet unit of that type name. The term 'coastal battleship' is, therefore, somewhat metaphorical. It is the least commonly-used of the three main terms for these ships.
More usually, both contemporary sources and secondary academic works refer to these units by more mission-specific terms; either "coast defence battleships" (ie; 'battleships' reassigned to or designed for the coast defence mission, being battleships mainly in the sense of their weight of armament & armour to size but otherwise not / no longer to be considered as true ocean-going battleships); the similar "coast defence ironclad", "coast defence monitor" and "coast defence turret ship"; or most commonly as "coast defence ships" (which is unequivocally a ship tasked with defending the coast). Notably, the USN adopted the classification of Coast Battleship (no.#) for the early numbered battleships when they were demoted from fleet duties - as far as can be told, the USN is unique in this regard.
The terms "coastal defence ship" and "coastal defence battleship" were never used in contemporary or secondary sources of any repute or worth, and are incorrect.
Bottom line: The adjective 'coastal' followed by a specific warship type (battleship, monitor, ironclad) is perfectly commonplace & acceptable; the term 'coast defence' followed similarly is the usual form and totally acceptable; the term 'coastal defence' followed by a specific ship type is not the normal or correct form.
I move to rename this article to the correct term 'Coast defence ship'.
(I would just as readily suggest 'Coastal battleship' but that is more specific in that it eliminates from consideration many weaker or lower-ranking coast defence vessels, whereas 'Coast defence ship' is a broader church, encompassing many different sizes and design concepts.)
(References: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships series exclusively use the three terms "coast defence ship"*, "coast defence battleship/ironclad/turret ship"** and "coastal battleship"***; *1860-1905 vol - pp.272, 298, 353, 361, 369, 374-375; 1906-1921 vol - pp.142, 192, 226, 330, 365-366, 372; 1922-1946 vol - pp.365, 386, 396, 404, 406, 410; **1860-1905 vol - pp.174-177, 360, 365, 369, 372, 378, 390, 401-402, 405-407;1906-1921 vol - p.295; ***1906-1921 vol - pp.348-349, 351-352, 356, 359; 1922-1946 vol - pp.368, 378, 382; Jane's Fighting Ships in its very first edition (1897) uses the terms "sea-going 'coast defence' ships", "coast defence ironclads" and "coast defence gunboats" - p.15; Jane's WW1 reprint edition also use 'coast defence ship'. Ironclads at War, by Greene & Massignani, quotes R Adm Roger Morris discussing the Dutch navy in Warships - "Between 1867 and 1875 they had built two large and four smaller seagoing armored turret ships, and thirteen low-freeboard coast defence turret ships." - p.156; ^"By 1880, J.W. King, Chief Engineer of the United States navy, said of the Dutch navy, "It is strong, however, chiefly for the purposes of coast defence"" - Greene & Massignani, p.156.)
Hard to pin down where the error originates - it's a very easy one to happen, but possibly since the publication in 2010 of a series of titles (presently unavailable and seemingly of limited merit) which use 'coastal defence ship' in the title: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781156059135/Coastal-Defence-Ships-Navy-Bjorgvin-1156059135/plp 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F525:54D7:4585:B9C5 ( talk) 01:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead mentions Greece as a country which used coastal defence ships as its flagship, but Greece isn't mentioned in the operators. Are we talking about Georgios Averof here, and does anyone know enough to add a bit on the Greek navy? UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 12:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)