Talk:Channel Dash

Sources used for section "Norway hypothesis"

I have concerns about the sources used for the section titled "Norway hypothesis". These consist of:
* Martienssen, Anthony K. (1949). Hitler and his Admirals. New York: E. P. Dutton.
* Richards, Denis (1974) [1953]. "VI The Struggle at Sea: The First Battle of the Convoy Routes, the Anti-Shipping Offensive and the Escape of the 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau'" (used twice)
* Roskill, S. W. (1962) [1957]. The War at Sea 1939–1945: The Period of Balance. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. II (3rd impr. ed.). London: HMSO.
All of these are particularly dated sources, written in, respectively, 1949, 1953 and 1957. A lot of additional historical study has been done in the 60+ years since these books were written, and historians have also had the advantage of knowing the Enigma code-breaking side of the story since then to assist in their interpretation of events. These sources also pre-date Raeder's autobiography, written in 1960.

One more recent source, written in 2012, is Hellwinkel, Lars (2014 - that's the English language version date). Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940–1945 Seaforth Publishing. Here you find that the German Naval staff had come to the conclusion that Brest was untenable as a base for the 3 heavy ships. This coincided with Hitler's ambition to have his naval forces defending Norway. So the need to remove the ships from Brest was, according to this source, not totally Hitler's idea.

What other recent sources are there out there to help improve this part of the article?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the new section and I hope that it "sticks" here. Before someone 'reverts' it, I hope this potential action is discussed on here on this Talk Page. In some respects, older sources that pre-date the reveal of Enigma are better for understanding the German decision making in this period.Seki1949 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the remark about the "new section" - it has been in the article in (broadly) this form since before July 2018 (the date I went back to for a side-by-side comparison). I would also point out WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:HISTRH. Particularly relevant when the questioned sources were written before Raeder's memoirs were published. Also Hellwinkel had access to a lot of records that no historian had looked at seriously before - his work is properly referenced.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake referring to the section as "New". As to the use of new vs old historical sources, opinions vary based on a number of editorial judgements. Seki1949 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at what is cited to older sources you'll find that most of it is narrative of events. In the analysis the verdicts are chronological which can bring out changes due to the later analyses you mention (and crass regurgitations of the older sources). Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The point about Hellwinkel as a source is that this author has done a lot of work in German archives. This seems to have found material not accessed by others (on the basis that other writers have not mentioned it). That is why newer sources can be preferred – because they usually capture a broader spread of material, including information which has recently come to light. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not as often as we'd like. Newer publications can be new in a chronological sense and old in the sense of being unambitious commercial pot-boilers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940-1945 Reporting from the Front: War Reporters during the Great War" the subtitle implies that the data comes from censored wartime sources, is this true? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the Reporting from the front.... bit. Looks like some stray text from somewhere. Hellwinkel's book is an expansion of a PhD thesis on the Kriegsmarine base at Brest. The introduction explains the problems in finding sources for any subject on the Kriegsmarine, not least of which is the destruction of so much of their records in the bombing of Berlin. What Hellwinkel has done is take the few German records and accounts that are available and add to that the records of the French Navy dockyards, which were not destroyed. The key thing we learn from the whole book is the extent to which Germany relied on French workers to carry out essential work. That is everything from the fire brigades who put out fires caused by RAF raids, to the skilled dockyard workers who made and fitted Scharnhorst's troublesome superheater tubes to a standard "better than anything that the yards at Kiel and Wilhelmshaven could have been able to do at this time." (p. 63, quoting Kurt-Caesar Hoffmann) Whilst the Germans did import some workers with the necessary skills from Germany, they were in very short supply and the Atlantic coast bases would have ceased to function without French workers making up the very substantial gaps in the workforce. In addition to this central point of the book, there is a lot of material from German sources that we do not seem to see elsewhere (with the possible exception of Koop and Schmolke). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Order of battle

I note the infobox gives a brief list of total numbers of unit types involved in the episode, but that the article does not have an easy-to-find orbat for either side. I understand that the composition of the German convoy may have changed during the course of its transit, while the British forces were arrayed along the route of transit, but I am unclear on which units were involved overall, without having to read the full narrative. This is a rather long article (appropriately, as one would expect this for a significant episode); does anyone feel that it perhaps deserves a clearly-marked orbat section? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It won't do any harm but the data will be hard to find. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is linking to a fully referenced article OR

Looking at this edit, I wonder how linking to a fully referenced article can be considered OR if that article explains exactly the relevance of the link? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You decided that it was notable here not a RS. Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

(1) The issue of notability is dealt with by the existence of an article on the pilot of the aircraft that dropped the torpedo in question. If the pilot or his VC were not notable, there would be no article on him.
(2) Linking is actively encouraged in Wikipedia – see, for instance, MOS:LINK which starts with Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole.
(3) It is relatively easy to find sources on this torpedo attack that support the idea that the link is notable. For instance Garzke and Dulin put some detail on the raid by 4 Beauforts, saying that the aircraft that obtained the hit was shot down. (pg 143). General histories of WW2 cover this: Early in April the Gneisenau was hit by a Coastal Command torpedo bomber in Brest harbour (a daring attack for which the British pilot was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross). (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II (p. 193).) Note that this is a source that covers all of naval warfare in WW2, yet within the confines of the space available, the noted WW2 historian takes the trouble to mention the VC. There are, of course, other references available on this point, not least in the article on Kenneth Campbell. There is a full account of the attack in Ralph Barker's Ship Busters. This also explains why Gneisenau was not protected by torpedo nets (again, something that is touched on in other sources).
(4) There is a relatively obvious question in the mind of the encyclopaedia user if there is no link: how did this torpedo attack get through?

Will you reinstate the link or shall I? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired, please have a look at WP:EASTEREGG. I can't say as Keith-264 did that this is OR, since I've only just looked at this edit, but it is certainly the kind of link we'd like to avoid. It's best to rework a sentence to add the link in this case, or to put the relevant article title in parentheses with a link if that's appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I later added the full story of this raid. Guessing at the route by which you came here, the minimalist start to adding this material was an attempt to get some relevant material into the article without it being regarded as irrelevant by the predominant editor. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't looked into the broader dispute and don't have any comment on that as yet. Just wanted to point out the relevant guidance on linking. The revert may well have been done for the wrong reasons, but the reversion of the edit itself was appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

inadvertent plagiarism

I find the edit summary I can't plagiarise a source I don't have and working up is a common phrase in this context to be quite strange. The issue is whether or not the Wikipedia article plagiarises Hellwinkel's book. The article cites Hellwinkel, so it is clear that the sentence is based on his work.

Given that much of the problem sentence is the names of ships, there is not much else that we can rephrase so as to avoid excessive similarity to the cited source. When one editor has gone to the trouble to paraphrase the source, with an edit summary that explains what is going on, it is particularly unhelpful to have it reverted back to the original problem.

I have therefore reverted back to the paraphrased version.

I have also reinstated the separate paragraph for this part. This shorter paragraph content is a summary of the whole situation at this point in the bombing campaign. It is beyond belief that this was not crystal clear to the Kriegsmarine and to Hitler (though, of course, we do not need to say as much in the article.) It is not helpful to the reader to have this tagged onto an already long paragraph when it is much clearer on its own. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You really need to stop accusing me of plagiarism, keep your OR to yourself and stop leaving dangling sentences. Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal that you do not understand or choose not to understand. This is all about the article (not you personally) using the same words as appear in a cited source. Wikipedia editors are expected to use their own words. You have had pointed out to you that your copy edit of the original article text inadvertently changed the it to something that copied the source's precise words. I can only presume that it is just sheer obstinacy on your part that keeps you changing the article back to an unacceptable form. You admit that you do not have the source to hand. Therefore it would be wise to be guided by an editor who does have it available.

This sort of obstinacy does not appear to be unusual behaviour for you. Look at . You appear to be completely unaware that the word is one that exists in the English language (). Yes, it is a loan word, but in French its use is much more closely related to the verb, so is much more likely to refer to the break-up of ice on a river. You seem to reject the advice of another editor without hesitation – even though a bit of research would show that they are right.
Similarly, you have reverted another correction with this, so leaving a spelling error in the article. See for the OED entry.
You also rebuffed an improvement of the lead by User:Thomas Blomberg with this edit. Their version seemed better to me.
Overall this behaviour is unhelpful for the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism can't be inadvertent you fatuous ignoramus. Associate me with that term again and I will take steps to have you barred from editing. Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that you would see sense in the cold light of dawn and remove the playground name-calling. If you choose to deliberately misunderstand the situation, that is entirely down to you. All I am trying to do is make sure that Wikipedia does not have text where an independent reader, armed with this article and the source in question, will not see a large similarity in word choice in describing this point. You admit that you have not read the source. Therefore a reasonable editor would take the advice of an editor who does have access to it.

I note that you have no reply to the other cases where you have altered the work of other editors to the detriment of the article. Just take a moment to consider what this looks like. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Judge and jury in your own cause? very poor but I grant you the last word. Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Tonnage question

Garzke and Dulin state the Gneisenau sank 22 ships totalling 115,622 tons and Scharnhorst sank 11 ships, of which one was 6,000 tons and seven totalled 27,277 tons. pp. 143, 158. Alternatively, Koop and Schmolke say that the two Scharnhorst class ships sank 22 ships totalling 115,622 tons, with Gneisenau's score 14 ships totalling 66,300 tons and Scharnhorst's 8 ships totalling 49,300 tons. (Yes, there appears to be some rounding error in there.) pp 51, 110. Neither of these conflicting sources assign this tonnage to Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper.|date=October 2024}}

• This should be on the talk page for greater visibility and be signed. Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

debacle

I have altered this to the unaccented English word for the following reasons:

• The OED shows that this is an English word which is a loan-word from French. We have plenty of loan-words in English and these do not need to be referred back to the language from which they originate, as we have dictionary entries in English. Note that meanings may shift somewhat when a loan word is adopted.
• The wiktionary entry for debacle states "The older spelling with accents is no longer listed at all or only mentioned as an alternative in the online versions of most major British and American dictionaries."
• According to Wiktionary, the primary meaning of this word in English is "fiasco" whilst in French the primary meaning is a break-up of ice or some other natural dam. This fits with my understanding that the French noun is more closely related to the verb, which only refers to the "natural dam" meaning. There is no corresponding related verb in English, so allowing the meaning to shift to more commonly refer to a fiasco, rather than the geographical phenomenon.

ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your latest addition rather overdoes things, it needs to be pruned severely. Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly does User:Keith-264 think that readers are so ignorant as to need a dictionary link to understand a common English word? If you genuinely don't think people can understand a word without help, then use a better word. 87.242.222.53 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

problem sentence

There has been a bit of to-and-froing over the sentence:
Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, that severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet.

What are the problems? (a) It fits some peoples' definition of a run-on sentence. (b) It repeats "that", with the word being used in different senses in each instance. (c) Is "that" referring to the adjacent noun ("caution")? If so, that makes everything after "that" a restrictive clause. The correct punctuation in that case would be to omit the comma. Alternatively, "that" may be referring to the verb "ordered", yet it would normally point to a noun. In context, either might not appear to be very different in meaning, but it is still not a helpful construction. At a minimum, the reader has some momentary doubt as to what the writer means, even if that is rapidly resolved.

Possible solutions:
(1) "Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, thereby severely limiting the freedom of action of the German surface fleet."
The adverb "thereby" makes clear that the clause refers to the order ("Hitler ordered"). It also makes clear that the second part of the sentence is a subordinate clause, which appears to be the writer's intention.

(2) "Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, which severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet."
The word repetition is resolved, the "which" usage matches the punctuation but does get us into the argument over "which" versus "that".

(3) "Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution. This severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet."
Using shorter sentences is often the solution to any argument over grammar. It can also provide some emphasis – which may or may not be helpful here. The substitution of "that" with "this" avoids word repetition.

(4) "Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution; this severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet."
As per (3), but using a semicolon to put this into one sentence if you don't like short sentences. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

A quick reply as I'm busy is to note that I prefer to avoid adverbs and adjectives. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, that severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet."

Hmm, "Hitler gave orders for capital ships to operate with greater caution, limiting further their freedom of action." How now? Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Surprise attack" bombing raid

The edit summary in does not explain what makes this a "surprise attack" when compared with other bombing raids. If this raid did have a differentiating feature, then it is surely worth saying what that is in the article. The three sources that I have to hand ((Garzke and Dulin, Koop and Schmolke, and Hellwinkel) do not characterise this as a surprise attack; rather they make clear that this was a time of repeated raids by the RAF. It may be that you intend to say that it was the first daylight raid (as stated by Hellwinkel). If so, that is the point to make in the article, but since that source is strong on German and French sources, but less sure-footed with others, it might be wise to see that confirmed in another source. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I refer you to Webster and Frankland, the official historians. My edit summary was intended to help you understand the bleeding obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Webster and Frankland use the phrase "surprise daylight attack", thereby explaining what was surprising about the attack. The article does not do that. The mention in a footnote that the raid was carried out in daylight does not clearly give that as the reason for it being a surprise. To simply repeat Webster and Frankland's phrase would go against Wikipedia's practice of paraphrasing. A rewrite of this part of the article could usefully avoid the word "forestalling", with its inherent ambiguity. (See OED meaning 6 . The ambiguity is because we do not know if "...often with the additional sense of rendering ineffective, nugatory, or useless" is intended.)

The edit summary that you gave has nothing to do with the issues. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

'Forestalling' is inherently ambiguous? OR and mistaken OR at that. Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You know full well the WP:OR applies to article content, not discussions on a talk page. This is an issue of choosing the best word to put in an article (to convey facts found in RSs), and that choice is in the hands of the editor. I presume that you have read the link to the OED and looked at other dictionary definitions. Surely you can work out from those sources that there is a degree of inherent ambiguity with "forestalling", given the explanation above. Just in case this is not clear to you, the OED definition says

"To be beforehand with in action; to anticipate the action of, or simply, to anticipate; often with the additional sense of rendering ineffective, nugatory, or useless. (The chief current sense.)" [bold added]

Does the usage in the article intend for the part of the definition in bold to apply? Whichever the answer to the foregoing, how does the encyclopedia user discover which is intended? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Your pedantry is of no help to the readers of the article, try to put your energy into writing, rather than carping. Keith-264 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh and both. Keith-264 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a track record of this sort of thing (see, for instance, Talk:Kenneth Widmerpool/Archive 1), but would you please engage with the discussion in a helpful manner. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Digging dirt that doesn't exist? Three illiterates refused to accept constructive edits, as you can see if you look further. Even if those bimbos had a point, once in 18 years? Hardly a track record, who made you the judge anyway? "To be beforehand with in action; to anticipate the action of, or simply, to anticipate; often with the additional sense of rendering ineffective, nugatory, or useless." Which of these senses is inconsistent with the others? Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you write here the edits that you want, to achieve consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggested replacement text

....The sortie by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen into the North Atlantic went ahead. Bismarck was sunk; Prinz Eugen arrived at Brest on 1 June with engine problems. Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, that severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet. On the night of 1/2 July, Prinz Eugen was hit by a bomb from a raid by 52 Wellingtons. It killed 60 of the ship's crew, destroyed the gunnery switching centre and damaged the bridge, compass compartment and radio equipment.

The sortie by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen into the North Atlantic went ahead and Bismarck was sunk; Prinz Eugen arrived at Brest on 1 June, with engine-trouble. Hitler ordered that capital ships must operate with much greater caution, that severely limited the freedom of action of the German surface fleet. On the night of 1/2 July, 52 Wellingtons raided Brest and Prinz Eugen was hit by one bomb. Sixty crewmen were killed, the gunnery switching centre was destroyed and the bridge, compass compartment and radio equipment were damaged.

In late July, the RAF's new four-engined heavy bombers were included in raids against Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst. A daylight raid on Brest was planned – previous Bomber Command raids on Brest had all been at night. It included a diversionary raid to Cherbourg, partial fighter escort coverage from the five squadrons of long-range Spitfires that were available, and use of three Flying Fortresses operating at high altitude. This had to be modified when photo-reconnaissance showed that Scharnhorst had left. The Kriegsmarine Naval Group West had decided to reduce the number of heavy units in Brest to limit exposure to air raids. With Scharnhorst's repairs complete, they wanted the ship based at St Nazaire, but in the short term, it went to La Pallice for gunnery practice and other work-up activity. It sailed on 21 July. By 23 July, the RAF had found it at La Pallice and an immediate raid was made that evening by six Stirlings, with one aircraft shot down by German fighters.. The more complex daytime raid went ahead the next day, with the modification that an unescorted formation of fifteen Halifaxes went separately to La Pallice. This achieved five hits on Scharnhorst, three of which were armour-piercing bombs which went right through the ship without exploding, leaving the holes in the hull through which they passed, causing flooding. Two high-explosive bombs detonated at the level of the armoured deck. Scharnhorst sailed back to Brest with a heavy list. The damage took four months to repair. RAF losses were significant. The raid on Brest cost twelve bombers; La Pallice, five – together representing 11.3 per cent of the aircraft employed.

During the summer the new RAF heavy bombers attacked Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst. The sailing on 21 July of Scharnhorst to La Pallice inadvertently forestalled a surprise day attack by Bomber Command. Scharnhorst was attacked by six Stirling bombers on the evening of 23 July and German fighters shot down one bomber. The attack on Brest took place in daylight on 24 July, with a loss of 13 bombers; La Pallice was bombed again by fifteen Halifaxes, the formation was met by 12 to 18 Bf 109 fighters and anti-aircraft fire (Flak) five bombers being shot down, five seriously damaged and Scharnhorst hit five times.

{{efn|The plan had been to make a surprise attack on the ships at Brest in daylight, escorted by five long-range Spitfire squadrons, which by then had been fitted with external fuel tanks. Only {{nowrap|30 single-engined}} and nine twin-engined German day fighters were thought to be based near Brest, with another {{nowrap|60 at}} Cherbourg and the Channel Islands. Bomber Command planners thought that {{nowrap|140–150 bombers}} would be needed. The bomber pilots were inexperienced in formation flying and the number of long-range Spitfires was insufficient to escort a loose formation. [[Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress|Fortress Is]] were to attack first at height, followed by 18 [[Handley Page Hampden|Hampden]]s, with Spitfire escorts, to attract German fighters and leave them short of fuel and ammunition. The main force of {{nowrap|120 [[Vickers Wellington|Wellington]]}} bombers and heavy bombers were to attack for {{nowrap|45 minutes,}} with the last two Spitfire squadrons in the vicinity for any German fighters that managed to make second sorties. The fighters near Cherbourg were to be diverted by [[Bristol Blenheim|Blenheim]] bombers covered by Spitfires. The Hampden crews trained for a month but the plan was upset when ''Scharnhorst'' was found to have sailed to La Pallice, beyond the reach of the long-range Spitfires. The heavy bombers were taken out of the Brest attack and [[Avro Manchester|Manchester]] bombers were withdrawn due to mechanical defects, reducing the main force to {{nowrap|78 bombers.}} The rest of the bombers attacked Brest on 24 July; the Fortress crews saw a few German fighters and the Hampdens reported about {{nowrap|24 more}} but the main force was too small to swamp the German ground defences. Eleven bombers were shot down and two more bombers crashed on their return flights.{{sfn|Webster|Frankland|2006|pp=240–241}}}}

While returning to Brest containing 3,000 long tons (3,000 t) of seawater, Scharnhorst was attacked by a Beaufort but shot it down before it could drop its torpedo.

By late July 1941, the bombing had left the three large ships in Brest undergoing extensive repairs. Elsewhere, Lützow had been seriously damaged by a torpedo on 13 June; Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper were undergoing maintenance in German shipyards, Tirpitz was still working up and Bismarck had been sunk. British code-breaking resulted in the destruction of the German supply-ship network in the Atlantic that supported surface ship actions against Allied convoys. These were essential for the operation of any heavy surface warship in the Atlantic.

By late July 1941, the bombing left the three large ships in Brest undergoing extensive repairs. Lützow had been seriously damaged by a torpedo on 13 June; Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper were undergoing maintenance in German shipyards, Tirpitz was still working up and Bismarck had been sunk. British code breakers had contributed to the destruction of the German supply-ship network in the Atlantic that supported surface ship actions against Allied convoys.

End of suggested text.

This is just a first go at the text. My normal method of editing is to revisit new text 24 or 48 hours later, as you can spot issues more easily at a later point.

The logic of these changes includes:

• Put the 1/2 July hit on Prinz Eugen in the previous paragraph. This completes the story of that ship from its arrival in Brest. The air raid did not include the new four-engined heavy bombers, so it was muddled to have them in the (revised) next paragraph.
• Prinz Eugen did not "return" to Brest, as it had never been there before.
• Sources mention the July 1941 change for Bomber Command in what they meant by a "heavy bomber". Before that summer, the term applied to the Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens. With the arrival of the four-engined aircraft, the term was applied to those, and the previous heavy bombers became medium bombers. Consequently, the article needs to be clear on what it means by a "heavy bomber" – adding "four-engined" seems to do the trick (and is used in sources).
• Explain that the 24 July raid was a daylight raid and that these had not happened on Brest before. Calling it a "first" daylight raid would be cumbersome to say accurately, as frequent daytime raids were being made on coastal regions elsewhere.
• Omit the unsuccessful torpedo attack by an aircraft on the returning Scharnhorst. The aircraft was shot down before it could get close enough to attack. There was a lot else going on that day, and I don't know why this part deserves telling.
• The amount of seawater that got into Scharnhorst varies between sources. The exact amount is not critical to the story. More important is how long it all took to repair. So the quantum of the flooding is omitted.
• The summary of the strategic position of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet at the end of July 1941 is put into a separate paragraph. The prior paragraph was getting a little long, and logically, the summary works better in its own paragraph. The significance of the rolling up of the supply ship network needs to be stated – it was not an inconvenience, it was a deal-breaker.
• I have not touched anything in the large footnote that explains the planning of the big daylight raid: one step at a time. This may well need attention.

ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

References

I have added the article text to make it easier to see the changes you suggest and will think it over later as we have a poorly cat to nurse. Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

No rush. I am unlikely to be on Wikipedia much today due to other commitments. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)