Jump to content

Talk:Courageous-class battlecruiser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCourageous-class battlecruiser is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starCourageous-class battlecruiser is the main article in the Courageous class battlecruisers series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2012.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 13, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
August 13, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
December 16, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
December 17, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
October 31, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 17, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the British Courageous class battlecruiser HMS Courageous (pictured after aircraft carrier conversion) was damaged when her forecastle deck buckled during her sea trials while running at full speed in a rough head sea?
Current status: Featured article

Referencing Brooks

[edit]

I have two separate editions of Brooks, with two difference sets of pagination. In neither edition, on page 170, is there anything to actually confirm,

"Data from a 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinder in the armoured hood was input into a Mk IV* Dreyer Fire Control Table located in the Transmitting Station (TS) where it was converted into range and deflection data for use by the guns."

I would suggest a closer reading of the pages involved. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is now almost a year old without action, I have removed it. Someone with access to the book should re-draft and insert if necessary. [[User::|DrKiernan]] (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

[edit]

In the interests of clarity:

There is a sentence in the Design and description section:

The Baltic Project was only one justification for the ships; Admiral Fisher wrote in a letter to the DNC on 16 March 1915: "I've told the First Lord.....

The statement that the the Baltic Project was only one justification for the ships needs to be followed, not by a lengthy statement that your reader needs to analyse to wok out why you are merely implying but not actually stating that there was more than one "justification", but by a clear statement (referenced, of course) that there were two (or more) "reasons" (rather than justifications) for the design and building of the ships.

If the Baltic Project wasn't the only justification, what precisely was the other?

Was that justification that the Admiral saw a need in the navy for faster cruisers? If this is the reason, then it needs to be stated as a clear fact, and supported by the quote.

Whichever way it goes, the Statement that " the Baltic Project was only one justification for the ships" ought not be linked by a semi-colon to that quotation. If it is going to be that closely linked to anything, the the other side of the semi-colon needs to state: "another reason [justification] was the [perceived] need to have faster ships [or ships of shallower draught] in the fleet. This was outlined by Fisher......."

You similarly imply in the introduction that there was more than one reason for the building. If you are going to make an implication, it needs to be followed through in the intro as well. If "speed" was a reason for the building then state it. If shallow draught was a reason and not simply a design choice, then state that as well.

Amandajm (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only it was that clear cut or easy. Fisher never explictly justified these ships for anything. He was entranced with speed and thought that it was the beat-all, end-all, but none of my sources explicitly say that. Instead they provide quotations which I've reproduced in the article. Readers will have to figure it out for themselves, to do otherwise is beyond my purview.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't have to "figure it out". Cut the word "justification" and you no longer have a problem with the expression. Amandajm (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecruiser ?

[edit]

Why does this article refer to it as a battlecruiser ? The Brits didn't. They called it a large light cruiser. A shallow-draft unarmoured cruiser with really big guns. This was more of a fast monitor. British battlecruisers were intended as open-ocean long-range hunter-killers, as exemplified at the Battle of the Falkland Islands, which this wasn't. It is nothing like the Invincibles, Indefatigables or "splendid cats". Rcbutcher (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Brits did indeed refer to them as light battlecruisers as well as large light cruisers; as stated in the article, the latter name was Fisher's way of avoiding wartime limits on construction. And most secondary sources call them battlecruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]