# Talk:HMS X1

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS X1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CrowzRSA 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for all the delay… I've fixed a lot of stuff throughout the page, so now I believe it meets the criteria. So  Pass. CrowzRSA 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The RN gunnery branch enjoyed higher rates of pay and faster promotion than the other branches.With the building of the battleships there must have been a lot of promotion for gunnery officers.
After the debacle of Jutland and these vastly expensive warships having proved far less effective that the u boats the horrified admirals must have looked for other methods of retaining their beloved big guns and comfortable careers.
One possibility was the deadly submarine but equipped for gunnery as the prime weapon. If the steam driven K boats were a disaster perhaps a large diesel engined submarine might answer the problem. If successful there might even be larger gunnery submarines.
Such a submarine had to be built without the politicians, who control the purse strings, becoming aware of such a vesel being built which may explain the need for secrecy. After WW1, money for new warship building was in very short supply. 
An unaswered question seems to be just how much gunnery damage could a submarine sustain without sinking like a stone? AT Kunene (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gunnery and Torpedo officers of the same class of qualification enjoyed the same rates of allowance provided that they were borne for Gunnery and Torpedo duties.  Whoever said that they enjoyed higher rates of pay is simply wrong. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)