Talk:Mackensen-class battlecruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Featured articleMackensen-class battlecruiser is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starMackensen-class battlecruiser is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Germany series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 15, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
October 31, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
April 19, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 14, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 3, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the four Mackensen-class battlecruisers were canceled according to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919?
Current status: Featured article

Accuracy of the horsepower figure[edit]

I do not know what the correct horsepower is. However the number shown (85,000) is too low. The Farragut class destroyer leaders (DLG-6) of the US Navy produced 87,000 in a ship of only 5,800 tons for 32 knots. The battle cruiser would require far more than that.

KevinInMfrg (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Groner's German Warships 1815-1945, I'll check it later tonight. It's probably correct though; SMS Seydlitz had 63,000 shaft horsepower, for comparison. Parsecboy (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to reply here. Groner's does indeed give the figures as 90,000 shaft horsepower. The thing is, there were 4 shafts, so 90,000 on each shaft is quite a lot of horses. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, you require exponential increases in horsepower to achieve quite small increases in speed. The Iowas needed twice the horsepower of the South Dakotas (and a much finer hull) in order to realise a five knot increase in speed. 85,000 shp is about right for 28 knots in a 30,000 ton, four shaft ship. Getztashida (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Armament[edit]

The article states that the Mackensen class ships had a secondary battery of twelve 15 cm guns however the accompanying illustration clearly shows that there are seven 15 cm guns mounted along the starboard side. Since there would have been an equal number of secondary guns on the opposite side it would appear that these ships actually mounted a secondary armament of fourteen guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.84.169 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just a typo in the infobox - the text has the correct number. Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

New vector scetch with the latest changes in project (from Commons)[edit]

Mackensen class battlecruisers scetch.svg

Created for Russian good article. Based on original scetch printed in:

  • Gröner, Erich. Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 Band 1: Panzerschiffe, Linienschiffe, Schlachschiffe, Flugzeugträger, Kreuzer, Kanonenboote. — Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1982. — 180 p. — ISBN 978-3763748006 (main)
  • Breyer, Siegfried. Battleships of the world, 1905-1970. — Mayflower Books, 1980. — P. 400. — ISBN 978-0831707054 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN. (boat)
  • Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke Die Großen Kreuzer Von der Tann bis Hindenburg. — Bernard & Graefe, 1997. — 190 s. — ISBN 978-3763759729 (last changes in project)

--Maxrossomachin (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks great, thanks for posting this here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC link broken[edit]

And I really don't see how... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Somehow when the article history was updated, the DYK line got spliced. Should be good now. Thanks for catching this Adam. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Was setting up the Signpost Featured content report. Makes it pretty obvious when your method of doing so is "open all articles in the weekly list, click to talk page of each, go back to start, click to FAC to get needed information." (That's simplified slightly - I also check for good images and such. MUST be something good. Give me the dates of major engagements. I'll check that book I have. I mean, I know it has Scharnhorst. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fluid drive[edit]

Under "Machinery" we've got this: "The turbines mounted in Fürst Bismarck were equipped with Föttinger fluid transmission, while those on the other three ships were two sets of direct-coupled turbines with geared transmissions." Then this: "The ships' turbines were equipped with Föttinger gears..." Assuming "Föttinger gears" means fluid drive, these seem contradictory. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at Hildebrand et. al. later today and get some clarification. Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)