Talk:Royal Navy

Archives (Index)
up to July 2006 August 2006 to November 2006 December 2006 to November 2007 Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 4

Scottish navy?

The history section discusses the English navy before 1707, and the British navy after 1707, but says nothing about a Scotish navy. Did Scotland had a navy as well? If so, what happened to it after the Union of the Crowns, and the Act of Union? The acticle needs to say somethign about this.Wardog (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wardog, this point has been addressed before (see Archive 4). User MilborneOne put it like this, "...the Royal Navy has been the British Navy since 1707 and the union with Scotland, before that the Royal Navy was the Navy of England. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC). So the only issue for this article is that the 'Royal Scots Navy' was subsumed into the Royal Navy in 1707. However, this led to the addition of a grand total of two frigates, less than 2% of the strength at that time, and so this is barely relevant for the main Royal Navy article, which in my view already has far too much history (the main article is supposed to be "History of the Royal Navy" Thom2002 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I would also suggest an edit, to the comment that the RN was considerably weaker than the USN at the end of the second world-war. According to David Wragg's book - Royal Navy Handbook 1939-1945 - at the end of the war, there were 863,000 men, 61 battleships and cruisers, 59 aircraft carriers and 864 destroyers. When submarines, frigates, corvettes etc. are added in the RN exceeded 1,000 ships and was larger than the combined numbers of every other navy in the world. Ragebe (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar.

So the relative sizes depends on what is counted as a 'ship'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: 'This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar...'

I am quite sure the RN considered its Destroyers to be ships, even if they were less than 2,000 tons displacement. And a 'boat' would be a submarine. However, my question is with regard to the statement in the main article, that the USN was larger than the RN in August 1945; Wraggs book contradicts such a statement. 984 ships that were classed as Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Battlecruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers. These are not MTBs/MGBs/Corvettes/Sloops/Mine Hunters/Landing Craft or even Submarines and Frigates.

Blue water navy

Needs a good modern source which uses these words to describe the RN, else it will have to come out. --John (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Such statements should be sourced. That sentence also contains the factually accurate but almost painfully self-aggrandising part about "an aircraft carrier (though without fixed-wing aircraft)" Thom2002 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "blue water navy" is American and inst used by the navy in the United Kingdom, the British use terms like "global force", expeditionary navy and such. Most likely the reason for this being that the Royal Navy established its self as a global navy from the late 1600/early 1700s. Whereas the Americans during the early 1900s felt the need to display their newly found maritime prowess in the form of the Great White Fleet - thus born the relatively modern term Blue Water Navy. Personally I prefer the British terminology, it is more descriptive and easy to define - Blue Water Navy is becoming rather vague and even the article here on Wikipedia seams unsure about its self! The Asian adoption (and consequent abuse thereafter) of the term blue water navy has caused an even greater dilution to the meaning. Over the years reading different documentation from the Royal Navy and US Navy - a common phrase in RN documentation is "Maritime Expeditionary Capabilities", in the United States "Blue-Water Capabilities".

It is clearly evident that the Royal Navy IS a global expeditionary navy, just as it always has been. Sure its not the Royal Navy of 1780 - 1941, nor is it even the navy of the past decade but it is still aside from the United States and France the only navy in the world with true global reach. Whats more the Royal Navy and the British government still thinks it is a global navy too.

Anyway, I dislike the term blue water navy, and the British don't use it so I think I shall edit the introduction paragraph that uses is.Osama is Obama (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether we use "Blue Water Navy" or "Global Force", the assertion certainly requires a decent cite from a reliable secondary source, not a self-published source. I think even the revised statement is 'at risk' unless a modern reliable source that isn't the Royal Navy can be found. Thom2002 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Royal Navy does operate around the globe does it not? Is there now policy that states we cannot use a self published source (in this case the Royal Navy) that states the obvious?! Or are all those Royal Navy vessels deployed around the globe actually phantom ships :o

The intro to the US Navy article has absolutely no citation to support these claims, "the United States Navy maintains a sizable global presence... It is a blue-water navy.." However, we all know this to be true, even without a citation. Similarly we know it to be true too that the Royal Navy does indeed maintain a global presence. In-fact The Royal Navy maintains continual deployments in almost every major body of water except the Pacific, what is significant is that no other navy on earth operates as far reaching! with only exceptions being the USA and France.

There is allot of prejudice against the Royal Navy which is sad, but I will back the British on this one.Osama is Obama (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everything needs citing, the sky is blue etc. Does anyone really believe the RN is not a global force/blue water navy? The self published source if from HM Government, is there any evidence its unreliable? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that the RN was certainly considered a 'BWN' before the loss of fixed-wing carrier capability. The other two 'undeniable' blue water navies has this capability. Now, I'm not arguing that the loss of fixed wing carrier avaiation means that the RN is not a BWN, only that the loss of that capability creates some doubt. Therefore, it would be much better if a a source post the loss of that capability defined the RN as still a BWN. I think that HMG is a very reliable source for facts and figures, but perhaps less so in value statements because of the obligation to present government policy 'in the best possible light'. A secondary source would be far preferable. As to the sky being blue, I can find plenty of reliable sources to support that assertion! Thom2002 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source is essential for us to state anything in Wikipedia's voice. --John (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source is not essential when stating the obvious. The Royal Navy maintains commitments around the globe, we do not need a secondary source to support this, it is government policy and fact. RN fact sheet. Had this article been trying to state the Royal Navy was a 1st rank blue-water navy with the capability of operating independently in the littoral zones of China, then there would be an issue, but a primary source stating fact is within Wikipedia's guidelines.Osama is Obama (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me. Please find a valid third-party source if you would like it to remain in the article. --John (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the Royal Navy considers its self to be a global force - published material from the Royal Navy supporting this is a reliable source. Also I think it is a relevant piece of information regarding how the Royal Navy views itself! Secondly' the Royal Navy is deployed around the globe, this is fact and government policy (regarding defence) - so published material from the Royal Navy supporting this is a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with my edit of ... "The Royal Navy considers itself to be a global force and operates around the globe." Osama is Obama (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps reaching a consensus is the best way forward from here, there is no policy against the current revision, it is merely a content dispute.Osama is Obama (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow or encourage self-promotion, which is what this is. --John (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however I do not feel it qualifies as self-promotion as we have revised the sentence to read that the Royal Navy only "considers" itself to be a global force. The article no-longer suggests that the Royal Navy most definitely is a global force/BWN or that it is internationally recognized as a global force/BWN. How the Royal Navy views itself is in my opinion important and adds a certain depth and understanding to the UKs maritime policies. As far as the Royal Navy actually deploying and operating around the globe, this is undeniable fact. A self published source reporting on current deployments around the world is most definitely a reliable source and not self-promotion.Osama is Obama (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

John, your problem seems to be that the sources provided are British government or Royal Navy sources or that they don't contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy'. Firstly, I don't see what's wrong with British government or Royal Navy sources. Can you prove that they are unreliable sources? There are plenty of United States government sources used on Wikipedia. One example would be the CIA World Fact Book. Do you think that the CIA World Fact Book is an unreliable source? Most others don't seem to. Secondly, sources are provided supporting the claims that the Royal Navy operates globally and it is acknowledged as a blue water navy on the Blue water navy article. Now, some of those sources may not contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy' if they are British sources because it is a United States Navy phrase. The British equivalent is 'expeditionary' or 'global', which the sources contain. I cannot help but feel that you are nitpicking in order to have mention of the Royal Navy either being a blue water navy or a globally operating navy removed. The article has always over the years stated that the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. If you believe however that this has changed and it is no longer a blue water navy then it is you who should be providing the sources supporting this claim. Quite vivid blur (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a double-standard operating here. The article United States Navy makes the uncited claim that the US Navy is a blue water navy. The definition given in the article Blue-water navy comes from the Defense Security Service, part of the United States Department of Defense. If the US Navy can make the claim based on its own definition, then why should the Royal Navy not be allowed to make its own statements? Dabbler (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Quite Vivid Blur, that's a number of quite reasonable arguments. The one I will take issue with is the cross-reference to another Wikipedia article - that definitely doesn't stand up as a valid citation under Wikipedia rules, especially as the cited Wikipedia article does not cite a recent source to say that RN is a BNW. Thom2002 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

The article's lead currently references, "19 commissioned ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA)." Are there 19 commissioned ships in the RFA? For example, can the six PFI ships be considered to have been"commissioned"? I can find no evidence of their commissioning date, details of their commissioning ceremony or other supporting evidence, and the RFA article does not reference their commissioning, but I have made only a cursory internet search. Thom2002 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Every vessel put to sea has a commissioning ceremony, but they were most certainly not commissioned as RFA vessels! They are Merchant Navy.Osama is Obama (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the edits. Thom2002 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships

There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)