Talk:Sverige-class coastal defence ship

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sweden Start‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime 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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Ships 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

I moved this article from

Im actually not sure what to label this ship as, in swedish its a pansarskepp. --Dahlis 18:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and I moved the article to Sverige class coastal defence ships, as they are not battleships or cruisers per definition. The correctly translated term would be armoured ship, but since this means something entirely different in English maritimes terminology, the term "coastal defence ship" is closest to the truth. --MoRsE 12:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world are the Swedish ships on wikipedia prefixed with HMS? As far as I know that prefix is reserved for Royal Navy vessels. Shouldn't the correct term be HSMS? Manxruler 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article His Majesty's Ship gives an answer why. MoRsE 12:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British sometimes uses the term HswMS about Swedish men of war but it's illogical for Sweden to do so it's not like we have ships loyial to the British Queen Darkwand (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they are sufficiently large (122 metres) and well-armed (4 x 28 cm) to be considered to be battleships? Sorry I don't have the exact page number, but they are listed in Anthony Preston's "Battleships of World War I". 188.221.129.72 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to often be called "Coastal Battleships" (Conway's) or "Coastal Defence Battleship" (Jane's) although they seem to have officially been designated Pansarskepp by the Swedish Navy, which the 1934 Jane's translates as Ironclads. Overall size doesn't seem to be that definative as at 7125 t standard, they were lighter than most Heavy cruisers or Armoured cruisers.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use exclusive naval terms (those used but by a single navy) to describe a ship class, prefering to see them with a more universal outlook, and in accordance to the terms major naval powers uniformly use in milestone treaties. IMO, about all Coastal Defense Ships could either be catalogued as cruisers or battleships, according to the era, weight and gun bore size. In this case, the ships' weight is cruiser-like, but its gunnery, built and function are those of a bona fide battleship - except that it is mean to be exerced in shallow, coastal waters, and in this sense, the term "coastal battleship" seems to be the most apt. If the "Sverige" were over 10 000t, and able to sail the blue sea for some lenght, people would call them "pocket battleships" like the 30's "Deutschlands". So, IMHO, the "De Zeven Provicien" are coastal defense ships (that is, "coastal cruisers") whereas the "Sveriges" are coastal battleships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image changed to vintage drawing of Sverige 1912-1914, maybe not best image. "Brassey's" plan moved next to "Specifications" (sort of). Image of "firing" moved next to "armament" (sort of). Gallery under "Apperance" shows typical appearance before reconstruction, individual ships after. ReTeam (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to change numbers to "metric source(conv to English)" when possible. No displacement changes. Objections? ReTeam (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything about what happened to them after WWII other than "in commission: 1915-1947" in the infobox. Thank you. ReTeam (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The class were not disposed of en masse so that data is in the individual ship's article. Individual fates of the Sverige-class armored warships:

HSwMS Sverige

• Decommissioned: 30 Jan 1953
• Scrapped: 1958

HSwMS Drottning Victoria

• Decommissioned: 22 Mar 1957
• Scrapped: 1959

HSwMS Gustav V

• Decommissioned: 22 Mar 1957
• Scrapped: 1970

--Naaman Brown (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ships has order and build years, should it also have decommission and scrap years? Would modification year go here?

HSwMS Sverige has a good Background, should someone who understands it put it here with Tactical doctrine and effectiveness, combine the two?

The infobox has one set of displacements, the text two others. Ton and tonne are not clear. Is Displacement different than Dimensions, or should it be in it? Someone who knows displacement?

I made Armament sub-sections, I don't like the title "Modernizations".

I changed the images around. Thank you. ReTeam (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I finally got around to adding the planned refit to Drottning Victoria from the mid 40s. The primary documents for this edit are found in the references and are viewable via Google Drive due to a research trip from 2015. Awhalen0601 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]