Talk:German cruiser Blücher

Gun calibers and other measurements

I came to think of the following: it is (historically) important that we use the original measurement units when specifying gun calibers and other measurements of the ship and its technical systems (e.g. using inches and feet where that is appropriate, but be very mindful of continental Europe's preference for metric units when specifying some calibers and most other measurements (giving the equivalent corresponding measurements in parentheses is OK in most places, of course). I'll look into this in more detail if no one else beats me to it. :-) --Wernher 17:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for giving the info in metric where it's avilable - after all, it was a german ship, and germans used/use the metric system. WegianWarrior 14:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The units are ok, but the information isn't. Regarding length the main text differs from the infobox. Main text: 202.8 meters at launch, and modified to 205.9 meters during sea tests. Infobox states that length is 203.2 m. Apparently 202.8 meter was the length at lauch of Admiral Hipper and Blücher was 203.2. Both ships were modified during sea tests and Blücher was 205.9 when it entered service. I belive this should be the value listed in the infobox. It was a permanent modifications of the ship. Check the numbers with the Admilar Hippe Class article, and preferably reference sources. There are conflicting numbers, and Wikipedia shouldn't contrubute to confusion. Hstyri (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More on ship's early operational history

My primary source, Binder & Schlünz, contains detailed info on the ship's life from its launch till its final minutes. I'll try to include some of this in the op. hist. section, but will be happy for help by anyone having good sources and 'feeling the urge'. --Wernher 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wish I had a good source... I'm sure I have a pamplet from Oscarsborg around somewhere relating the events from the 9th April in detail, but can't seem to find it thought. It ticks me off, since it had lots of details about not just the early history of the ship (and the fortress), but also on what has happened to the ship after it went down. WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pictures and such?

Does anyone have, or be able to get access to, some decent pictures to include? I sort of imagined three pics.. a picture of the ship in all her splendour, a map of the area just around Oscarsborg showing where she was first hit, where she was torpedoes and where she sank, and (if possible) pictures from the sunken ship.WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Armament

Blücher did not carry any 40 mm AA (Source: Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz: Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe Vol. 2; Whitley: Kreuzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg). I guess german ships received them much later in the war. Also, Whitley lists only 8 single 20 mm and no mines for Blücher (the latter only for Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen). I do not want to mess up the box, furthermore I am not a registered english user (only german), so could somebody please correct? --172.177.34.147 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes made, using Whitley's Cruisers of WWII (1995 edition). Collin's Warships of WWII records the class as having capacity for 160 mines. Also extended the ship box and deleted some duplicated info. Folks at 137 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Which time reference to be used here?

The article refere to the first shot at 05.21 and the sinking at 07.22. This is German (summer)time or GMT. Norwegian time is 04.21 and 06.22. What time reference should be used? KjellG 08:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First (Second) hit

The article state this to be at the base of one of the 20,3 cm turrets. How come that Stückmeister im Türme A und B both abandoned their turrets in full combat order? The first (some say the second) 28 cm hit was in the battle mast above the bridge, doing little damage besides killing AO II and some of his staff. The top of the mast, with battle station for AO I, got out of alignment rendering the top long distance, range finder useless, but Blücher had 4 other large range finders and a number of smaller ones. The 20.3 cm batteries was all i full combat order until after the second torpedo hit and the turret crew ordered to take part in fire fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.65.18 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German cruiser Blücher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got this review. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1

• In Note 1, a period should go at the end of the second sentence.
• In the Construction section, why was the ship "to have" the other guns? Was her anti-aircraft battery not installed before she sank? If so (or if not), the this reason should be clarified in this section.
• I remember being told in previous GA reviews that wikilinks do not need to be repeated. If this is true, then you can/should de-wikilink Oslo, Oslofjord, Oscarsborg Fortress, and Oskar Kummetz.
  • Should all be fixed - I wrote this one after doing German cruiser Seydlitz and German cruiser Lützow (1939), both of which were unfinished - must have had that still on my mind :) As for links, I like to link in the lead and the first time in the body, which I think is fine per WP:REPEATLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright! Thank you also for clarifying that section of MOS for me. I'll keep it in mind. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 2

As always, this is all set, from what I can see. The article is well-referenced, and inline citations/a separate ref section is used. Because the sources are offline and inaccessible to me, I will accept 2c (NOR) in good faith.

Criterion 3

Article is both broad and well-focused.

Criterion 4

The article is written in a neutral tone. There are no sides to whom you can really give due weight.

Criterion 5

All quiet in the edit history.

Criterion 6

• Can "Recognition drawing" (second picture) be wikilinked?
• In the third image's caption, replace "Norway, from" with "Norway as seen from"
• In the last image caption, Oscarsborg is misspelled.
  • Thanks for catching those. As for "recognition drawing", I seem to think someone asked the same question at a recent FAC (maybe one of Ed's?) and the conclusion was that there isn't an article that would make a good link for the term. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall comments

This was a pretty fun read. I've seldom imagine World War II like this, and it feels like someone could make the story of the Blücher into some sort of movie. :P

In any case, Parsecboy, I hope your transition to World War II-era ships continues to go smoothly. This is pretty much already a good article, and I'll pass it as such once the remaining comments are addressed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Starstriker7. And as for editing articles on WWII-era ships, I've been all over the board over the last couple of years, the ironclads were sort of a diversion for me :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you remain so dedicated to writing all these ship articles? I feel burned out after writing only about fifty planet articles.

If you're gonna answer that, do it on my talk page, because this article's all set to pass. I will do so in a moment. As always, good work. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The following is completely anecdotal, but I'm wondering if some corroboration can be had anywhere. My grandfather served on the Blücher and related that most of the soldiers on board were mountaineers. He believed that many of them hadn't ever seen the ocean, and that few could even swim. When the ship went down, a great many of them apparently abandoned ship with their life vests, but also with all their gear and tackle. Most went under and never came back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.245.176 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, Moses and Aaron

I believe the old guns that got the first hits on Blucher were called Joshua and Moses (Aaron was not manned). Moses was dropped in the ocean when being installed, hence the name. And Aaron was named after the name-sakes brother. ref http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/bluecher/miscellaneous/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today.html

JP Axelsson jpaxelsson@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCED:C7B0:21CB:3EF3:B702:8A7D (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

An interesting detail, but I don't know that it's particularly relevant for this article, which should focus on the ship. It would probably be more relevant at the Oscarsborg Fortress article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The name bit is supported by reliable sources. I'll add it to the Oscarsborg article when I have time. One thing, though, the guns were of course not called Moses, Aaron and Joshua. Being nicknamed by Norwegians, not English-speakers, they were called Moses, Aron and Josva. As far as I recall, it is not entirely clear which two of the three guns were fired on 9 April 1940, will check with reliable book sources. Manxruler (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Blucher (1939 German criser)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blucher (1939 German criser). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Blucher (1939 German criser) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ GB fan 09:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How much did this baby cost?

Must have stung - basically just out of port and a total loss w/o scoring against any enemy. 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)