This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
It would be best titled SMS Schleswig-Holstein, like her sisters SMS Pommern and SMS Hannover are. I suppose the argument for keeping the article as it's titled now is that the Schleswig-Holstein (as well as her sister Schlesien) also served in the Kriegsmarine, so they did not have the SMS prefix (DKM, contrary to popular opinion, was never used), so it isn't entirely correct to name the article SMS Schleswig-Holstein. Parsecboy16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
The account of the shelling of Westerplatte in September 1939 mentions 15cm guns. However, the table of armament in 1939 does not mention this caliber. I suppose the table is inexact.
The corresponding Wikipedia page in German says the ship had fourteen 15cm guns in 1939. The Polish version mentions twelve such guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.223.33 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to read that the Soviet Navy commissioned Schleswig-Holstein as a battleship — under her original name, no less. Can this be correct? I would have thought she was badly damaged by bombing and scuttling, and would have been raised only for scrap. It just seems unlikely, particularly since she was by then old and obsolete. Sca (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The German Wiki entry says: Es wurde nach Tallinn geschleppt und dort zum Zielschiff umgebaut — "It was towed to Tallinn and there converted into a target ship." Sca (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno how good your German is, but there a book dedicated to this ship: Linienschiffe Schleswig-Holstein. Maybe it has some good info on her fate because Nauck quotes several sources as saying that she was scuttled on 21 March '45.
There are actually several books on this ship (1, 2, 3), but no US library appears to have a copy of them, or at least according to Worldcat anyway.
There's a copy of Linienschiff Schleswig-Holstein : Flottendienst in drei Marinen at Vanderbilt under 75350253. Gotta check every edition, that's one of the PitA's with OCLC. I won't hold things up at this level, but I'd strongly suggest that you get it before the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B. Focused:
Is there a typo in the dates in the second para of the WWI section? The first para of the Interwar years has a bunch of extraneous material on her sisters as well as some clumsy phrasing. Add conversions for the armor in the infobox. Add engine and boiler info to the infobox.
Yes, it should be 1915, not 16. I added conversions and engine info to the infobox. Does the Interwar section look better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the infobox for a ship article should be as complete as the class article. I just copy over the latter and adjust for the individual ship. And it does read better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Any pictures available from WWI, before her rebuilds?
None that I've seen that could be proved to be PD. All of the Bundesarchiv photos on Commons are Reichsmarine or after. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was apparently sunk in 1944 so that makes me wonder how it was scuttled in 1945, or maybe what is meant by scuttled. Was it somehow raised out of the water or was the water so shallow that it simply grounded the ship but not cause it to sink below the water surface. Was it used for anything in between these times if it had been salvageable in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the "World War 2" chapter I found some mistakes:
Westerplatte wasn't any "fortress" - this is tipical German interpretation.
The battle of Westerplatte ended on September 7, not 8; in my opinion huge mistake.
Gotenhaven - what should be explained - was Nazi's name of Gdynia, Polish sea port turned into the safe Kriegsmarine base.
Schleswig Holstein was bombed by the allied aircraft at the Bay of Gdańsk, that's why its crew could be send to nearby located Marienburg, and that's why the ship was taken after the war by Soviets.
I have just modified one external link on SMS Schleswig-Holstein. 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, 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.
I've changed at to around. I am now improving the battle of Westerplatte article, and sources vary - 0445 is very common, 0447 and 0048 less. I did find a source on this, but it is in Polish and I've only a snippet view, sufficient however to write that "Polish historian Jarosław Tuliszka in his monograph on the battle discusses this discrepancy, noting that 0445 was the planned time of the attack, 0447 was the minute the order to open fire was given by Kleikamp, and 0448 was the minute the guns actually fired.". I think this a bit too much detail here, through if anyone wants to reuse it (maybe as a footnote) go ahead. Proper cite is given in the boW article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's of little importance but I've checked a primary source - the captured War Diaries (German Naval Staff Operations War Diary - 15 Aug to 30 Sept 1939 ) and on 1 September 1939, the very first entry of the day is thus: "0545 - Report from Commanding Admiral, Baltic: The SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN carried out surprise fire; assault detachment broke into the Westerplatte and is fighting there". I think the time difference is based on GMT, not local time - so 0445 would be accurate.DarkLight753 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLight753 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]