Talk:HMS Lion (1910)

Odd photo caption ?

The caption for the photo at top of infobox reads "HMS Lion after her rebuild in 1912". There's nothing in the text about any rebuild.. seems unlikely so soon after launch. The caption is also ambiguous : is the photo dated 1912, or is it referring to a rebuild in 1912 ? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

user Sturmvogel has now tidied this up here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Lion_(1910)&diff=339862893&oldid=339855763 & explained the caption here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sturmvogel_66&diff=339862455&oldid=339861475 Rcbutcher (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in Turrets designations?

The Armament section mentions the ". . . four twin hydraulically powered BII turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'Y' from front to rear." The Wartime Modification section mentions ". . . flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'Q' and 'X' turrets." Presumably either "X" or "Y" is a mistake? 90.197.66.72 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The correction went the wrong way, LION had A, B, Q and 'X' turrets. I can scan the relevant part of her plan if you'd like? 82.42.41.249 (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I've fixed it (the right way this time). Do you happen to have plans showing how Agincourt's turrets were designated? I have contradictory reports.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agincourt? Weren't her turrets designated by the days of the week? (battleships aren't generally my area) Thru-a-hoop (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's one story, but there are others. I'd like to get that resolved one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a answer regards Agincourts nomenclature of her main armament turrets: Janes WW1 'Studio Edition' shows a simple line drawing 'plan' of Agincourt. This portrays the turrets as being named A, B, P, Q, X, Y, Z. Is that helpful? Thru-a-hoop (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

70% increase in size?

There's a few other things that don't gel: Lion class weren't 70% 'larger' (what way? length? displacment? engine power? Armaments?) than the preceding Indefatigables. Thru-a-hoop (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's 65% larger in displacement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

70% larger is almost 3/4 (3 qtrs) as large again. 65% is 2/3rds as large again. I get the difference between 'indefatigables' (as planned @ 18750tns) and the Lion class (as planned @ 26,350tns) is just over 40% larger in displacment. It might be my maths? Thru-a-hoop (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reduction of the secondary armament

Re "The starboard forward group of four-inch guns was removed after April 1917."

She lost 1 gun, the foremost 4in, on the starboard side, of the aft group (of 4). It's usually termed the 'S5' mount. I'm not sure you'd call 1 mount 'a group'. Thru-a-hoop (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not what Burt says. He credits starboard after gun removed to Princess Royal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, don't let a textual error by R Burt carry on. It's a 'gun', not 'group of guns'. I stopped by to fix 1 or 2 sllight mistakes, not chop the article down. Thru-a-hoop (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't tell what exactly happened. Roberts just says that the secondary armament was reduced to 15 guns in 1917. Parkes and Campbell says port aftermost gun was removed. Find me something in print that confirms S5 and I'll amend the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.modelwarships.com/features/current/alaska_genesis/lion.jpg

Look to the (lack of) foremost gun in the aft structure, there should be 4x4in, in each 'structure', each side. This is the starboard side.

Yes, it's generally creditted that the 4in removed from Lion was put aboard P Royal and along the similar 4in they removed from her, went to form a pair of 4in AA guns by the small boats area. [The 4in taken from P Royal was a different gun, it looks to be S8]

Thru-a-hoop (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Harvey and Grant

I see this article leads on the VC given to Major harvey for saving the ship. Its some time since I looked at this, but when I did before there was long discussion on whether in reality harvey did anything of the sort, though he certainly did get the official credit, and being dead certainly didnt complain. However, ammunition handling on Lion was vastly improved by Grant not long before the battle, and it seems likely this was what saved the ship, as compared to the loss of the three other battlecruisers at Jutland. As I recall, even the question of whether Harvey would have been able to flood the magazine without additional orders was under question. In many ways grant only insisted that ammo be handled as the ship's designers had intended, rather than had become practice amongst the battlecruisers in their search for fast loading.

I note the importance of wording here: the body text does not claim that harvey saved the ship, merely that he ordered magazine flooded and got a vc. the intro claims he saved the ship.

Aside from this, i also seem to remember reading that the turret face plate at least was removed after the battle rather than being blown off? I also dont know whether the shell removed the top plate, or the subsequent ammunition explosion, ?Sandpiper (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Review

• Hey Sturm I just read this article and I saw some little issues. Most of them just need some updates. It shouldn't surprise me this article is like almost 10 years old so I think it needs some updates here. Shall we start? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up a bunch of stuff just now. If you see any trailing 0s or issues with the links, go ahead and deal with them yourself. If you see anything more significant or wish to remove links that aren't duplicates, ping me and we can discuss them. In the future, you can do much the same with any other FAs. I hope that you realize that this would be the first step leading to writing your very own ship articles! Next thing you'll start collecting reference books and thinking about what interesting ships lack decent articles ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Sturm, yeah probably if I ever stop being lazy and buy some books. Before I almost non-stop review nominations, I write articles too. I even made drafts with as goal creating an article which I immediately could drop for GANs. Most drafts became articles but they never reached GAN because I didn't know what an article should have in B-class criteria and later a GAN criteria. Now I do but I'm too lazy to rewrite and expand those articles I made. There was one draft I really would like to get at least GA-class. It was about a conflict in Bhutan between the government forces and Communist rebels. But I lost my eye on the draft. I found later out that you guys were stuck with those articles about ships for were sometimes stuck for like almost a (sometimes two) month(s) waiting for getting promoted. So I thought "why not giving a try" so I tried and failed, of course, if you are a guy who barely has the knowledge how to review a nomination. But every day we all learn something new on Wikipedia. So I guess it works and now these days I do have some good comments for you guys. I realised I had eagle eyes and could spot some little issues. This didn't surprise me 'cause at school back then I was good at searching I even could help some teachers with some little typos. Before I started to review nominations I was embarrassed because of my English (I am not good in any language). Same with nominating an article for GAN or even reviewing one. There's a Dutch colourful idiom "Altijd je grenzen verlengen." which means "Always extend your limits." which means you always have to go further than you can. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that I'd figured out that you were a non-native speaker until you mentioned something about being Belgian or Dutch a while back, so your English is probably better than you might think, especially after reading the deathless prose used by me and Parsecboy ;-) Now, I don't know who long it took you to compose the above, nor how much editing work it needed, but I think that you could write at the GA level if you wanted to. If you'd like, we could probably collaborate on an article on something of mutual interest. I might have some Dutch-language stuff; I'll have to look. I've collected material on military-related things in a lot of different languages for years in the expectation that I'll someday want to devote time to translating it via Google. Let me know what you think. And I'll try to finish off Type 39 torpedo boat tonight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting deal you have. You know, I never thought you have some Dutch-language stuff. Because Dutch isn't a global language like English, French or Spanish. Personally, I don't trust Google Translate, the only real translator are the native people. I'd love to collaborate with someone, especially if I have to translate some texts from Dutch. If you'd like then sure. Why not? I'd love to collaborate with you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I know that I had some Dutch material on their airfields during WW2, but I'm not sure if it survived the fire I had about 5 years ago. Well, a quick look through my computer shows that the one book I have on the Dutch Navy in WW2 is in English, but it was written by a Dutchman. I have it as a .pdf file and if you'll email me, I can send it to you so you can see if you can find some of the sources that he used. Coverage of their wartime activities is pretty easy to find, but their prewar activities is pretty much a mystery to me and to English-language authors. Alternatively there are a bunch of Dutch ironclads at User:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads for which I don't have any Dutch-language sources. You'd be the lead on expanding them, with me cross referencing your material with the little that I can find on them in English. I'd also help you tweak your prose so that it can pass GA for sure and maybe even higher. If you can find some good sources and are interested, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we might be able to eventually do a GA-level article on every steam-powered ship bigger than a torpedo boat up to 1945, rather like how Parsecboy's done for most of the Imperial Germany Navy. I'm fine either way and we don't have to stick to ships; my sources on Dutch aircraft are far scantier now than they were before the fire, but with some time and money we could likely get them up to GA-quality as well. See what intrigues you. And if you find that you really don't enjoy doing this sort of thing, that's fine too, I won't mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Damn that's sad I know how you feel when a natural disaster takes your stuff. Thanks, I'll remember your tips and I'll search for sources both in Dutch nor English tomorrow. Same with emailing you because you know it's late so I should go sleep. Also because it's so late here, happy Fourth of July. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, it sucked, but I wasn't hurt and managed to get my iMac and one backpack of books out before it went up in flames, so it could have been much worse. There's no rush with any of this stuff, so take your time. Thanks for the good wishes, but it's already rained this evening and it's got a 50% chance of happening again tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I did send an e-mail to you, Sturm. I do not know or you saw it or not. Also, do you have Conway's serie? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I got it and I had to buy new copies of Conways after the fire.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)