# Talk:Formidable-class battleship

Janes Fighting Ships 1919 lists 7 out of 8 of these ships as Formidable-class (exception is HMS Bulwark, unclassifised).  www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk says only Formidable, Implacable and Irresistible are Formidable-class, the rest are London-class.  Any idea which is right? Geoff 21:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My Naval Annual 1913 doesn't have a lot to say, lists all eight together, with five including London getting a footnote noting a change in the bow armor. So I think the Londons could be considered a "subclass", which would explain the confusion. I would put them all in the Formidable class, add a redir, and use the article to explain the minor differences - when I get around to uploading the nice diagrams in my book, it will look kind of silly to clone the one diagram into two purportedly-different articles. Stan 22:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
MacDougall (Chatham built warships since 1860 - ISBN 0 907771 07 6) gives the following details for Venerable and Prince of Wales which differ from the values already present here.
Displacement 15,000 tons, Length 400 ft, Draught 29 ft. Complement 740 (Venerable), 750 (Prince of Wales)
And for Irresistible 
Displacement 15,000 tons, length 430 ft, Draught 27 ft, Speed 18.5 knots.
He also comments against Venerable "Little difference externally from Irresistible, but the Venerable had a longer belt of armour amidships". This would lead one to expect a larger displacement from the Londons unless the difference in deck armour thickness was very significant or there were other differences.
While some of the difference could arise from one source using waterline measurements while the other uses OA (MacDougal states he has used BP lengths), photographs confirm that these all had the straight, vertical stem one would expect from ships of this era (and a fairly low freeboard to boot), so 30' seems decidedly excessive. This suggests the London's did have shorter hulls which would significantly compensate for a thicker belt.
More sources needed I think. 13:30 BST 20 Set 04

The Japanese battleship Mikasa was built as a modification of the Formidable-class, yet there's no mention of this on the article.  Any suggestions as how to proceed? ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - was about to add a new topic but see it's been expressed before...how do you propose readers might learn that an preserved Formidable sister-ship still exists for anyone interested in researching further without any mention of the fact that it's out there?(399scout (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC))
Mikasa wasn’t a member of this class, but her design was based on it. There’s no need to include anything beyond what’s now in the article. Ship design being an inherently iterative process, we should note where those connections exist, but we should keep articles as focused on the subject as we can.
In other words, further information on Mikasa, particularly the link to the virtual tour, would be excessive since that ship is not the subject of this article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
ah, i see what you did in the design section. agree the tour might be excesive, thanks. {399scout (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)}

Just a note in case anyone watches this article, but I'm planning on chopping it up in the next few days to bring it in line with how most historians treat the Formidable and London classes (see this discussion here). Gibbons seems to be the only historian who treats all 8 ships to be one class, so it hardly seems justifiable to give his opinion primacy of place. I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections, but in the absence of any, I'll start hacking. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Since it's been a week and there have been no objections, I'm going to start chopping away. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Formidable-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


### Review
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Formidable-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.  This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.   Djmaschek (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are my review comments. Djmaschek (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Design
Paragraph 1: "The Board concluded that repeating the Canopus class, since..." This sentence seems incomplete. Suggest: "The Board decided against repeating the Canopus class, since..."
Good catch, fixed
Paragraph 3: "...though in general they are viewed as a distinct class." Suggest: "...though other historians view them as a distinct class." ("In general" seems too vague.) See my next comment.
Fixed
Paragraph 3: One question that I had when reading the article was WHY the three Formidables are considered a separate class. Do any of the authors address this question? If so, then I think a 1-2 sentence explanation should be included in the article, especially since this issue is brought up in the introduction ("The class formed the basis for the nearly identical London class...").
A good idea - have added a line on this.
General characteristics and machinery:
Complement infobox = 780 is not supported by a citation. Cited text has Complement = 788.
Probably a typo - good catch
Cruising range numbers are slightly different in infobox and text, perhaps due to different conversion parameters. (9,400 km; 5,900 mi) vs (9,450 km; 5,780 mi).
Fixed
Draft = 26 ft (8 m) or 25 ft 11 in (7.90 m) OK, I'm being super picky here!
Fixed
Armament and armor:
Paragraph 1: "per gunThe Formidable" Needs punctuation and space.
Fixed
Paragraph 2: They are already in the infobox, but I would put links to all 3 types of secondary guns in the text. This is up to you however.
Works for me
Paragraph 3: Contradiction? "The Formidable-class ships were the first British battleships to use Krupp armour…" This appears to contradict a statement in the Design section. "...a new ship that incorporated the advances of the Canopus class—namely, Krupp armour and..." Please clarify.
Fixed
Paragraph 3: It says there were 2 armored decks. The first is described, but it's not clear to me what are the characteristics of the second one. Are some words missing?
The second one is the main deck - tweaked a bit to hopefully make the distinction clearer, let me know if that works.
Service history:
Paragraph 2: "In October while Implacable was..." This is a not a sentence. Drop "while" and it becomes a sentence.
Probably something that got rewritten a few too many times
Paragraph 2: "only around 150 were killed..." Suggest: Drop "only". 150 is 20% of the crew which still seems like a lot.
Sounds good. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)