Talk:J-, K- and N-class destroyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

I've made a correction to the displacement figure, as I found in a book on HMS Jervis (J class leader) that the flotilla leaders were a bit heavier. I don't know if anyone can confirm it? Xyl 54 11:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Completion[edit]

Some sources, like Uboat.net and Russian book of WWII British destroyers give other completion dates:

  • Kipling - 12.12.39 instead of 22.12.39
  • Kimberley - 21.12.39 instead of 21.2.40 (two months).
  • Jervis - these sources and even our article HMS Jervis (F00) give 5.8.39 instead of 12.5.1939
  • Juno - 24 instead of 25.08.39 (not much difference, anyway)
  • Jackal - 13.4.39 instead of 31.3.39.
  • Nerissa - 5.11.40 (also Polish sources) instaed of 12.2.41
  • Nizam - 8.1.41 (also HMAS Nizam (G38)), not 19.12.40
  • Jersey - sunk on 1.5.41, not 2.5.41, then wreck scuttled on 4.5.41.

I think these should be checked. Pibwl ←« 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) PS - as for Jersey, 1.5.41 seems a mistake. Pibwl ←« 10:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought I could help but I can't. Conway's Fighting Ships for 1922-46 only has launch dates for destroyers, though if it's any help all the launch dates agree with the article text. Xyl 54 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information. I've just looked at the u-boat.net pages; they refer to commisioning dates, while the article here gives completion dates. I've checked the dates for Jervis against the source book for that article; Jervis commissioned on 8th May (not 5th August; I've corrected that) and completed sea and acceptance trails on 12th May. That might explain the discepancies somewhat. On a related issue, as this is about RN ships shouldn't we have British style dating in the table? Xyl 54 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dates are taken from the H T Lenton reference, which is a very respectable source, which I would hold above Conways, and well above uboat.net, which like WP is only as good as its sources. I have double checked and there are no typos, and the limited dates available in Conways and Janes seem to concur, as a random test. If we have good, reliable sources that disagree, I think we should put footnotes to this effect - going with whichever date most references agree with. As for the disagreements over sinking dates, these seem to be from different interpretation of when the ship was mortally damaged, and when it actually sank / was scuttled etc. For the date format, it uses the ISO 8601 / WP standard format, which is much easier to input manually as it can be done numerically within a single internal link. When wikilinking dates in WP, it renders them depending on the settings you have in your user preferences. For me, for instance, the ISO 8601 dates appear on screen in British form. Emoscopes Talk 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that British books on British destroyers should be more reliable, than others, but on the other hand: there must be some basis for these dates, since they are found in several different sources... The mentioned Russian book is here (Eskadrennye minonoscy Anglii vo Vtoroy Mirovoy Voynye 1925-1945) (dates are given there as "commissioning", although many authors may not see this difference). BTW, it gives, as for Nerissa 4.11.40, while Polish sources claim, that the Polish flag was raised on 5.11.40. Other Russian book ([1]) gives only month dates, but they are the same: "Jervis" 8.1939, "Jackal" 4.1939, "Kimberley" 12.1939, "Nizam" 1.1941, "Nerissa" 11.1940. As for "Jersey", there seems to be a confusion, when it struck a mine (1 or 2 May), what should be a clear issue (but when?)... Pibwl ←« 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JFS of World War II (reprint of JFS 1946/47) also says, that Jervis was completed on 5/8/39 (it's a source of a very limited value, though) Pibwl ←« 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start making footnotes of these differences where we find them, it's an important enough class to justify this. Emoscopes Talk 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to [2], which seems quite reliable, Juno was completed on 24 August. Pibwl ←« 10:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to [3], KIMBERLEY was completed on 21. 12. 1939 and joined the 5th Destroyer Flotilla on 21 January 1940. Pibwl ←« 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conception[edit]

It would be interesting, and potentially useful, to know more abt what went on before the launching of each of the 3 classes. I'm describing J class as "1930s - 1949" in a Dab, but i'd rather be able to cite the point when the need for J became a consensus, or the PM was informed that they were committing the yards to building the first one.
--Jerzy•t 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Jubilee[edit]

I find HMS Jubilee not on this list, while mentioned here. The ship is rumoured to be involved in a sighting of the Flying Dutchman in 1942 (see [4]). Can someone clarify? --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singular or plural?[edit]

Should this article be here or at J, K and N class destroyers ? After all, it is meant to be about a number of classes of ships, not a vessel on its own. At the very least, there should be a re-direct, but I don't know how. RASAM (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singular is fine, all the articles on classes of ships (as opposed to lists of classes) take the singular form. The current redirects of J class destroyer, K class destroyer and N class destroyer serve most instances.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J-,_K-_and_N-class_destroyer&oldid=1212844512"