|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Home Fleet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The WWI section needs a lot of help. I'm too lazy, and American to fix it. However, the whole thing about "they remained in the harbour thereafter" makes no sense. I don't know the history. What harbor are we talking about? What was the significance of it? --drew1718 11:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the caption to the photgraph. The dreadnoughts on the right are easily identified as belonging to the 'Bellerophon' and 'St Vincent' classes by the twin tripod masts . Since there are four ships visible, the photograph was taken subsequent to the completion of HMS St Vincent in June 1909; and almost certainly at the Spithead Review of July 1909 (Fleet Review, Royal Navy). John Moore 309 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
WWII - Hood and Royal York
- Removed the little blurb about the destruction of the hood, mostly becuase it read like it was poorly written. Feel free to add this in the future...22.214.171.124 03:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
HMS Hood is referred to as the 'pride of the navy' here but this term is not found on the wikipedia page for the HMS Hood. The wikipedia page for HMS Hood seems to indicate that HMS Hood was old, in poor condition, and out of date by the second world war. I would have thought the King George V class battleships were the pride of the navy at the time of the sinking of HMS Hood since they were quite new (although the term 'pride of the navy' is also not found in the article for the King George V class battleships). However, the King George V class article does not have the lengthy discussion of faults that can be found on the page for HMS Hood. Mattbondy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC).
- The Hood was twenty years old but had been the longest warship in the world for her entire life, so she was quite famous, symbolising the Royal Navy worldwide. Her nickname had been the Mighty Hood as she was as well armed as any battleship of the 1920s and 1930s but with a longer range and higher speed, but by 1940 she had actually been due for retirement as she was by then comparatively old. The outbreak of war prevented that, and she was pressed into use in what was really an inappropriate role, i.e., as a battleship. The capitulation of France in 1940 threw out the British naval force dispositions, as they had originally planned on having the French Navy to share the burdens but the French surrender left the Royal Navy short of ships for the tasks it had planned-for previously. The French surrender was one of the reasons for the difficult times in the early years of the Battle of the Atlantic as British pre-war shipbuilding plans had been based on the assumption that France would be fighting alongside and so the French Navy would be taking a share of the tasks. After 1940 that no longer applied and so Britain then had to find or build the number of ships needed for the multiplicity of tasks they were called upon to perform. This factor almost certainly had an influence on the subsequent events at Mers-el-Kebir.
- As a battlecruiser the Hood was really designed for hunting down and sinking the German commerce raiders such as was later typified by the Graf Spee. The problem with battlecruisers was that non-naval people kept wanting to use them as battleships, which they weren't. They didn't have the armour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)