Talk:Courageous-class battlecruiser

Referencing Brooks

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)

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)

Justification

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)

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)

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)

Battlecruiser ?

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)

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)