Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class battleship

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

Italics

I think "Queen Elizabeths" looks ugly and would be better if the whole was italicised (i.e. Queen Elizabeths). Anyone agree/disagree? -- Cabalamat 16:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I made the change because I thought it was an improvement, but change them back if you wish. But the '-s's shouldn't be italicized, since they aren't part of the name.
—wwoods 17:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

"they forced the Germans to alter the armament of the Bayern class armament from its original 12 inch (305 mm) guns to 15 inch (381 mm)"

I have removed the following sentence from the introduction as it is fatually incorrect. Most sources suggest that the Germans started developing their 15 inch gun prior the Royal Navy, but could not get the gun into service nearly as fast as the British. I have replaced the sentence with a Quote from the 1919 edition of Janes. Getztashida 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "sinking" of QE and Valiant in Alexandria Harbour, 1941

I've gone around the QE class articles updating the details of this famous incident. Up 'til now, they have all claimed that both ships were "sunk", but there were never any citations. Reading through Stephen Roskill's official history and John Winton's biography of Andrew Cunningham reveals that neither ship was "sunk" by any standards - QE was seriously damaged, suffering loss of power, and eventually grounded on the harbour bottom after counter-flooding to correct her list. Valiant was in a far less serious state, at the damaged section her hull bottom was quite extensively stoved in (but critically not holed, save for started rivets), and she remained clear of the bottom with power, propulsion and armament intact. The damage was still very serious for both ships - and I've made sure that the articles still reflect this - but neither ship could have been said to be "sunk" by any means.

There don't appear to be any good online sources, but see the following discussion:

Warships1 board

Paddyboot (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a ship is not classed as 'sunk' unless there is water over the main deck, or if the ship is in shallow water and has capsized etc., so as to render salvage necessary. i.e., the ship is effectively lost unless an inordinate amount of effort is expended to recover her.
The best term to use would be 'were put out of action' or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name

HMS Malay, not Malaya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.21.84 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, HMS Malaya, not Malay. (Colledge, p.213; Janes, p. 35; Massie, p. 586; here, here and here).
Benea (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Propulsion

Queen Elizabeth class battleship: 75,000 shp with 27,500 tons standard and 24 knots Revenge class battleship: 26,500 shp with 29,150 tons standard and 21 knots I think 75,000 shp can not be correct. 188.23.86.150 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot of power to get relatively small increases in speed. The numbers are about right195.217.166.8 (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number struck me as a bit excessive, too. Speed goes very roughly as the cube root of shaft horsepower, assuming similar hull form. By that (admittedly rough) formula, the speed ratio 24/21 requires a power ratio of not quite 1.5, considerably less than the nearly 3 to 1 ratio in these numbers. Looking around the Web, I find at http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/battleship/hms-queen-elizabeth.html that the 75,000 shp figure is maximum overload while the normal maximum is 56,000 -- still considerably greater than the cube law would suggest, but it makes me wonder if the problem is an oranges/apples comparison. Yaush (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revenge design legend was 31,000 shp on 25,500 tons 2.100.193.184 (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for 21 knots 2.100.193.184 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material from Warspite article for User-Sturmvogel to play with

Design and description

The Queen Elizabeth-class ships were designed to form a fast

battleline. This required maximum offensive power and a speed several knots faster than any other battleship to allow them to defeat any type of ship.[1][2]

Warspite had a

deep load. She was powered by two sets of Brown-Curtis steam turbines, each driving two shafts, using steam from 24 Yarrow boilers. The turbines were rated at 75,000 shp (56,000 kW) and intended to reach a maximum speed of 24 knots (44.4 km/h; 27.6 mph). Warspite had a range of 5,000 nautical miles (9,260 km; 5,754 mi) at a cruising speed of 12 knots (22.2 km/h; 13.8 mph). Her crew numbered 1,025 officers and ratings in 1915 and 1,220 in 1920 while serving as a flagship.[3]

The Queen Elizabeth class was equipped with eight

3-inch (76 mm) 20 cwt Mk I[Note 1] guns. The ships were fitted with four submerged 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes, two on each broadside.[4]

Warspite was completed with two

foremast. Each turret was also fitted with a 15-foot rangefinder. The main armament could be controlled by 'B' turret as well. The secondary armament was primarily controlled by directors mounted on each side of the compass platform on the foremast once they were fitted in July 1917.[5]

The

high-tensile steel was added to the main deck over the magazines and additional anti-flash equipment was added in the magazines.[6]

References

  1. ^ Burt 1986, p. 251.
  2. ^ Parkes 1990, pp. 560–61.
  3. ^ Burt 1986, pp. 255, 257–58, 261.
  4. ^ Burt 1986, pp. 252–53, 256–57.
  5. ^ Raven & Roberts, 1976, p. 20–21, 30.
  6. ^ Raven & Roberts, 1976, pp. 21, 26.

Secondary Armament

HMS Queen Elizabeth did have 16 6" guns. If the remainder of the vessels did not have 16 6" guns then shouldn't the table say 12- 16 6" guns? Wandavianempire (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put names up front

When I, and probably many other readers, link to the page about a class of ships, it is usually to find out which ships were in that class. Therefore I suggest putting the names in the introduction. Granted, that might not be possible for ships with many examples. I considered making this edit myself, but I suspect some sort of standard exists. So I won’t meddle. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how many ships she sank

there's no real number but you can find archives in the british navy museum.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Elizabeth-class_battleship&oldid=1213145977"