Talk:Cerberus-class monitor

Overstatement?

I think listing these ships under an article title including battleship is a gross over-statement of the design, role, and capabilities of these ships. For example, in No Pleasure Cruise, by Tom Frame, HMVS Cerberus is consistently referred to as a monitor (pgs 55, 60, 70). The only time the term "battleship" is used in this overall page range is to refer to a ship by the name of HMS Brunswick. The only other times I can find reference to Cerberus and battleships is in documents saying something along the lines of "As the first ships to be constructed entirely from metal, breastwork monitors like Cerberus were an important evolutionary step between the 19th century ship-of-the-line and the 20th century battleship."[1][2].

What do others think on the matter? -- saberwyn

Following the silence here, I raised the issue at WikiProject Military History - Australian military history and cross-posted the matter at the Britsh and Maritime task forces, and at WikiProject Ships, because I want to make sure I am not over-reacting.

Unless evidence is presented otherwise that these ships are officially classified as battleships, I want to rename this article and the associated template to Cerberus class monitor (which is the only ship-type description I've seen attached to HMVS Cerberus), and edit the article, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870) accordingly. If there is no opposition, I will do this approximately a week from now: somewhere in the vicinity of Monday 1/Tuesday 2 December. -- saberwyn 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to check sources to see how such vessels were classified when built, so that we do not let later developments influence a choice of terminology. (I will check my sources in the next few days.) Monitor may not be the best term, as that typically refers to a design, rather than a ship type. See Breastwork monitor. There were a number of similar vessels which were not called "monitors". Really these vessels, built by a number of navies for home and colonial defence, are coast defence ships-- they are small, slow, and not particularly suited for operations in a seaway, yet have larger guns and heavier armour than other contemporary ships. Sweden, the Netherlands, and Imperial Germany were some of the other navies with such ships. Coast defence ship might be a better name, but for some reason that redirects to Patrol boat. Perhaps Coast defence battleship? Kablammo (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked further; here is the relevant article: Coastal defence ship (which is a different article from Coast defence ship). I question however whether breastwork monitors should be excluded from this classification-- there could be a little original research. As mentioned above, we need sources to see how the Victorian era treated them. (We also need to sort out the redirects.) Kablammo (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions as to where we might find such sources? -- saberwyn

Some of the UK editors have access to Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. I do not.

I will look in Archibald, E.H.H. (1971). The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1860-1970. New York: Arco Publishing Co. ISBN 0-6680-2509-3.

An early version of Jane's Fighting Ships could also be helpful. But the World War I Jane's only lists Cerberus, which by then was a depot ship. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. calls Cerberus a "Turret ship (Australian)" (p.64) and Magdala an "Iron turret ship (Indian)" (p.211). Manxruler (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archibald has line drawings of Cerberus and Magdala on p. 21, and terms them "monitors". On p. 27 he calls Cerberus a "breastwork monitor", and states that her design was the model for HMS Devastation (1871). On p. 35 he calls them "coast-defence ships". It looks like you can take your pick. As you suggest, battleship might not be the best term (although there is a clear lineage from them to battleships). They were breastwork monitors (and monitors were turret ships), which were a type of coast defence ship. While I would choose coast defence ship, I also have no objection to Saberwyn's proposal. (But we should rationalize the redirects.) Kablammo (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archibald calls the Cyclops class of 1871 "coast-defence turret ships". Id., p. 37. They were similar to Cerberus but with higher freeboard at the breastworks.

Lyon, David (1980), "Steam, Steel and Torpedoes", The Ship, vol. 8, London: National Maritime Museum/W.S.Cowell Ltd. for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ISBN 0-1129-0318-5 says the colonial "breastwork monitors" were the prototypes of later battleships, implying that they were not actually classified as battleships. Id., p. 29. Kablammo (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Once we work out what we're going to do with the name, is there any chance you two fine people could dredge some content from these sources and add it to the article? -- saberwyn 05:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do so. There also is some material which will assist in adding cites for the content already in the article. Kablammo (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through The Times archive to see what they were known as. Cerberus at any rate is described variously as an ironclad or an iron armour-plated turret-ship, shortened to turret-ship in the years 1870-1880. Later she is described as an ironclad turret-ship, or once again simply turret-ship. Until 1900 the classification of the ship isn't mentioned at all. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

It looks like there is pretty solid consensus that battleship is not what these are. However, exactly what these ships are is up to debate. Monitor or variations thereof appear to be the more common, but the other terms should be listed (and created as redirects). I propose the article be renamed Cerberus class monitor, and the first paragraphs rewritten as

Cerberus class monitors were a class of monitor warships constructed in the late 19th century for the Royal Navy. Also referred to as "coastal defence ships", "breastwork monitors", and "turret ships", the Cerberus class was designed by Sir Edward Reed following requests by several dominions and colonies of the British Empire for warships to be used for local harbour defence. The class consisted of two ships: HMS Cerberus, which was operated by the colony of Victoria, and HMS Magdala, which spent her life operating in Bombay Harbour. A third ship, HMS Abyssinia, was built to a scaled-down version of the design, and may be consided a half-sister.

Actually, now that I think about it, rewriting the first two paragraphs and moving the page to the new name are the only changes that need to be made to the article itself.

Any thoughts/comments? -- saberwyn 05:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this looks good. I suggest a slight change to the opening, viz.:

Cerberus class monitors were a class of monitor warships constructed in the late 19th century for the Royal Navy. Also referred to as "breastwork monitors" and "turret ships", the ships of the Cerberus class were designed by Sir Edward Reed following requests by several dominions and colonies of the British Empire for warships to be used as coastal defence ships.

I will add a few cites, and some text at the end on her importance in the history of naval design. The vessel was an intermediate stage between monitors used in sheltered waters and later battleships; in the RN the lineage runs from Cerberus through Devastation and the Dreadnought of 1875, to the final form of pre-dreadnought battleships. There several other designs tried (broadside, central battery, box battery, turrets in echelon) but the Cerberus design was in the mainstream and the basis for the Devastation. I will use the sources mentioned above; these could also be helpful, if anyone has access to them:

• D. K. Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought, Warship Development 1860-1906, ISBN 1-84067-529-2
• Roger Chesneau and Eugene M. Kolesnik, ed., Conway's All The Worlds Fighting Ships, 1860-1905, (Conway Maritime Press, London, 1979), ISBN 0-85177-133-5

Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

D. K. Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought p. 56, calls Cerberus a breastwork monitor. Breastwork monitor was the official term used by Sir Edward Reed, the naval architect responsible for both the concept and design of Cerberus (see Reed's Our Iron-clad Ships, 1869). Turret ship seems to have been the navy's official usage for the ship in practice (Do a Google books search and you'll see.) --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is another interesting source on the genesis of her design. Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Basen on Harlsbottom's edits above demonstrating "breastwork" monitor as the designer's official designation and that The Times regularly referred to them as "ironclads" or variations thereon, I'm proposing this.

Cerberus class monitors were a class of breastwork monitors constructed in the late 19th century for the Royal Navy. Also referred to as "ironclads" and "turret ships", the ships of the Cerberus class were designed by Sir Edward Reed following requests by several dominions and colonies of the British Empire for warships to be used as coastal defence ships. The class consisted of two ships: HMS Cerberus, which was operated by the colony of Victoria, and HMS Magdala, which spent her life operating in Bombay Harbour. A third ship, HMS Abyssinia, was built to a scaled-down version of the design, and may be consided a half-sister.

I'm still aiming for the move to be to "monitor", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), which says not to be overly specific with ship type. If there are no objections, I'll make the appropriate edits this afternoon local (about 0500 UTC), then start on the subarticles. -- saberwyn 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai?

The ship was not used at Mumbai as Mumbai did not exist then. The name of Bombay was not changed to Mumbai until 1996, therefore the article should use the old name, not the modern one. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cerberus-class breastwork monitor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723113754/http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume4_number3_dec05/dec05%20PDFs/Fuller%20article.pdf to http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume4_number3_dec05/dec05%20PDFs/Fuller%20article.pdf

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)