# Talk:HMS Audacious (1912)

The sentence "As the quarterdeck flooded, the ship's whaler broke loose and, slithering across the deck, caused further damage to hatches and ventilators, leading to rapid flooding of the stern" was tagged clarification needed. Can anyone clarify what the ship's whaler is and how it would cause damage?Wzrd1 (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've linked the text to articles describing the terms use. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I was under the impression that lifeboats were lowered when the order to abandon ship was given. Still, it clarifies the term, I was unaware that naval vessels called their lifeboats/launches of certain classes whalers. To have an excess, where one can abandon ship safely with all hands, is a good thing to have.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Article claimed it sank 27 October, supported by website. Massie in 'castles of steel' claims it was 28 Oct. Any more views? Sandpiper (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

J. J. Colledge, Ships of the Royal Navy; Dan van der Vat, Standard of Power; Arthur Herman, To Rule the Waves; Hew Strachan The First World War: To Arms and Kenneth Warren, Steel, Ships and Men: Cammell Laird and Company 1824-1993 all say 27 October.  This website, as well as this one, this one and this one all concur. Not for the first time Massie has blundered. Benea (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know the location of the wreck? The coordinates, I mean. It would be a good thing to add to the article. --75.170.41.9 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
link to Lewis Bayly incorrect!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.1.1 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 

Coordinates: 55°32'15"N   7°24'32"W per http://wikimapia.org/7834340/HMS-Audacious-Wreck. The HMS Audacious lays in 216 feet of water, with the top of the wreck at 190 feet, some 15 miles off Malin Head. The wreck's GPS possition is 55 28.291 North by 07 45.101 West per http://www.bobhenneman.info/audaciouswreck.htm, from a quick Google search.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The text of the description of the sinking incidence currently appears to say that they evacuated 2/3 of the crew and then tried to tow the ship.  Yet the two photos attributed to passengers on the Olympic  clearly show Audacious in a far more sunken state during the supposed evacuation  then during the supposed towing which was supposedly later.   How does this happen ?Eregli bob (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Denniss please can you confirm that the text stating 'The explosion occurred 16 feet (4.9 m) under the bottom of the ship' is an accurate reflection of the Brown source as it seems to conflict with the wording higher up 'Audacious ran upon a mine'? My guess is that the wording is an inaccurate paraphrase of the source, to which, as I said in my edit summary, I do not have access. SovalValtos (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to check the Brown source? http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/audacious.htm states "The mine had struck on her port side just forward of the after engine room bulkhead" which is at variance with the Brown cited wording as it says side rather than under the bottom. However worldwar1.co.uk may not be a reliable source as it looks to be self published. SovalValtos (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The wording implies the explosion was not noticed on the bridge or other higher sections which in turn implies it wasn't a port side hit but under the port side. --Denniss (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Audacious (1912)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No DAB links Y
No Copyvio Y
No Dead Links N. Maritimequest HMS Audacious  Photo Gallery and A search link which shows a number of Youtube videos of dives on the wreck are dead.
All updated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it right to say "Destroyers evacuate crewmen". That sounds rather messy. Maybe "Destroyers evacuate HMS Audacious"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.67.189.101 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"King George V class was powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines, " perhaps "ships of the King George V class were powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines," or else simply the King George Vs were powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines.
Excellent idea, too much repetition to close together.
"joining her sister ships in the 2nd Battle Squadron." Perhaps "after which she joined her sister ships in the 2nd Battle Squadron".
No, because your phrasing implies a delay.
"Many Americans on board Olympic were beyond British jurisdiction and discussed the sinking" perhaps "The many Americans on board Olympic were beyond British jurisdiction and discussed the sinking", as the lack of The makes it seem (at least to me) as if some were under the jurisdiction, which if true, is never explained.
Good idea.
That's all my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That claim may not be factually correct, given that the battleship Novorossyirsk (formerly Giulio Cesare), that sank in 1955, was larger both if we consider the displacement or if we consider the sheer dimensions. It would seem that the author of the source ignored or had forgotten this. 78.212.165.71 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

We have to use reliable sources, and we really need one that says that Novorossyisk was the largest sunk by a mine to remove the claim from this article. Donald Albury 14:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)