# Talk:HMS Duke of Edinburgh

Here's the stuff from Campbell:

"The 1st and 3rd LCS and Jellicoe's wing armoured cruisers the Black Prince and Duke of Edinburgh, seem to have been dimly made out ahead of, and beyond, the Lion, and some shells were fired in their direction without result." - page 109, referring to the German BCs between 1742 and 1816
"The Duke of Edinburgh opened fire at 1808 on the Wiesbaden, but was prevented from following the Defence by the approach of Beatty's battlecruisers. Her report only mentions two salvos from her port 9.2in, but her returns give an expenditure of 20 rounds. - page 122
[After the destruction of Defence and the withdrawal of Warrior] "The Duke of Edinburgh steamed up the engaged side of the battlefleet and reached a position on the King George V's starboard bow at about 18:30." - page 150
"In addition to the passage of Beatty's battlecruisers and the 1st Flotilla, the Duke of Edinburgh's dense funnel smoke obscured the range for the leading ships of the 2nd BS." - page 152
"The Duke of Edinburgh, astern of the battlecruisers, had to turn sharply to starboard at 1847 to avoid a torpedo which missed astern by 50yds..." - page 161
"...and at 1901 the Duke of Edinburgh, then about a mile ahead of King George V, signaled by flags that a submarine was 23° on her own port bow. - page 164, on an imaginary submarine sighting
"The 2nd CS with the Chester were at first on the port beam of the 1st Division, but by 1930 the Minotaur and Cochrane had cut across the leading battleships and were on the battlecruisers' port quarter, while the rest, which had been joined by Duke of Edinburgh, were on the King George V's port bow. - page 203
"There were the usual sightings of imaginary submarines between 1945 and 2015, the Hampshire, Shannon, and Duke of Edinburgh firing at one of these supposed targets." - page 250
Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"The ship spotted the disabled German light cruiser SMS Wiesbaden at 6:08 and fired twenty rounds at her."
I'm not too impressed with this sentence (which appears in para 4 of the 'History' section), for two reasons:
1) 'The ship spotted..." gives the impression of a 13,000 ton vessel looking for targets;(did it have any binoculars, I wonder?) when I suspect that the original intention was that the crew were doing the spotting.
2) Is there any record of the effect of these twenty rounds? Did they miss? If they hit the target, did they cause any damage? Whatever the outcome, this gap in the information record, should be filled.
At the very least, I would say that a re-write is in order; if nothing can be added, why keep this bit in it's present form?

I added 'Wales' after 'Pembroke' - although on reflection, maybe it should say south Wales.
I removed the American-English 'through' (in this context) and substituted a more neutral 'until'.
I added 'Northumberland' after 'Blyth':
I would still say that this article could benefit from the presence of a map (like most other milhist articles). Trying to follow the story without one is rather difficult; and I speak as a UK native! What it's like for an American or an Australian, I can only imagine. 
What do other editors think?  RASAM (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)