# Talk:United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)

Rodman's command of British ships in the escort of a Norwegian convoy isn't particularly significant.  On 18 June 1917 Admiral Sims became, for a few days, Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Ireland with command of all British ships in the Western Approaches.  See Sims' The Victory at Sea.  p. 68. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodman commanded British ships four months before Sims (and Sims's command was not seagoing).  Plus, the fact that this was the first time in the 120-year history of the Navy that an American had been in command of British warships is a significant enough event to warrant a brief mention (which is what it has), especially considering the trend to inter-service operations that would characterize WWII. Jrt989 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How is it that Rodman commanded British ships four months before Sims?  By my reckoning it was eight months later.  You had best qualify the sea-going nature of the command at any rate. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I misread it as 1918.  Your comment is thus well-taken. Jrt989 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a major discrepancy here.  Rear Admiral Rodman said of the practice firing on 27 June 1918, "the firing was exceptionally fine, most encouraging and much better than we have ever done previously."  Jones hasn't done his homework on this matter.  The late William Schliehauf reproduced the results of the firing, quoted from Extract of Gunnery Practices in Grand Fleet, 1914 to 1918.  p. 10, on p. 133 in his article on British gunnery: See Schliehauf, William (1998). "A Concentrated Effort: Royal Navy Gunnery Exercises at the End of the Great War". Warship International. 35 (2): pp. 117–139. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).
On that date New York and Wyoming opened fire at 18,600 yards (17,000 m) and ceased fire at 16,950 yards (15,500 m).  Delaware and Florida opened at 17,900 yards (16,400 m) and ceased at 15,900 yards (14,500 m) — not 17,500 yards (16,000 m) to 16,000 yards (15,000 m) as Jones puts it.  Here are the average patterns (spreads) attained by the ships, followed by the average interval between salvoes with the number of salvoes given in (brackets).

New York: 1,043 yards (954 m) 63 seconds (6)
Wyoming: 1,086 yards (993 m) 65 seconds (8)
Florida: 559 yards (511 m) 59 seconds (10)
Delaware: 720 yards (660 m) 69 seconds (9)
The results speak for themselves. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the shooting was that bad it wouldn't appear to qualify as "exceptionally fine," but I don't think Jones can be faulted for reporting Admiral Rodman's opinion.  Furthermore, Jones's citation on the matter references Rodman's letter of June 29, 1918 to the Secretary of the Navy, and so I would imagine any discrepancy as to range figures probably stems from Rodman's report, not from Jones (his book did emerge from a peer-reviewed doctoral thesis).  Perhaps Rodman was merely rounding (or estimating), as the numbers aren't that different. Jrt989 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with Jones quoting Rodman's opinion of the shoot.  It does however make Rodman look like he's exaggerating the standard and it reflects poorly on Jones that he didn't find out the actual results.  It hardly reflects well on the gentlemen who reviewed his dissertation (or Jones) that they blindly accepted Rodman's version of events with no corroborating evidence.  While I see your last point, there is "rounding", and then there are gross generalisations which Rodman seems to think okay to pass on to Daniels.  That said, Daniels doesn't seem to have taken too much interest in the battleships anyway.
I went through most of the book with a tooth comb yesterday and there are so many errors in it I've lost count.  Some are quite serious, and will need addressing in the article when I can get round to it.  Jones seems to totally misunderstood certain things which he's read; in Marder's From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, IV for example he keeps on drawing incorrect inferences from statements of fact concerning the background to all this.  I'm going through some of the Cabinet Papers and Jones appears to have even screwed up the meaning of what the Admiralty requested from the U.S.N. in October, 1917.
He utterly misread the Grand Fleet Battle Instructions and the Grand Fleet Manœuvring Orders (both of which I have) as to the rôle of the Sixth Battle Squadron and its place in it (he even gets the official name wrong on p. 136.  Note 24.  "Division 8" was a division used in certain cruising formations.  "Sixth Battle Squadron" is the official name used in both the G.F.B.I.s and G.F.M.O.s, as well as other Grand Fleet documents (I have a copy of the orders for Operation ZZ).

Humour me on this one, if you all would.  The earliest specific mention of Battleship Division Nine I can find is that of Rodman assuming command on 13 November 1917.  Then after 7 December the force was known operationally as the Sixth Battle Squadron, a designation it retained until it steamed home on 1 December 1918, after which BatDiv9 slips from view somewhat.  A perusal of Google books suggests that, the official title of BatDiv9 not withstanding, Sixth Battle Squadron is the name the force is best known as.
There was also a Battleship Division Nine in the Pacific Fleet during the Second World War.
So unless someone can provide the initial history of BatDiv9, and some actual closure to its service in the First World War, I would suggest that this article be renamed to Sixth Battle Squadron (United States) or with somesuch disambiguator added.  For as it stands this article gives a good background and summary of the force which served with the Royal Navy in a British fleet, and not the force which served in an American fleet. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(A) WHOOPS I did not realize that there was a BatDiv9 in WWII. Someone should probably move it back to the title we had before for now... (B) I'd agree with the above, as long as we remember to put hatnotes on top of the WWII BatDiv9 article and the 6th Battle Squadron (United Kingdom) article. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that I thought about for some time when first writing the article.  I decided not to title it with the British designation because to do so would have required quite a bit of convolutedness.  To wit: (1) Any article referencing the Sixth Battle Squadron needs to make clear that the Squadron referred to is the British (i.e. Grand Fleet) one, hence why there already is a 6th Battle Squadron (United Kingdom) article.  (2) Titling the article Sixth Battle Squadron (United States) isn't right because that was not its American designation.  There has never been (as far as I know) a Sixth Battle Squadron of the U.S.N..  So to include the Sixth Battle Squadron monicker, it would have to be titled something like "Sixth Battle Squadron (United Kingdom) (American re-incarnation)", which I personally think is just plain silly.
Furthermore, as is mentioned in the article, the Division continued throughout the war to maintain its American designation.  It was only known as the Sixth Battle Squadron within the context of the Grand Fleet.
As to the point that there was a Battleship Division Nine in the Pacific Fleet in the Second World War, that is why I originally named the article United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I).  Jrt989 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the name should be kept as is.  As Jrt989 points out, calling the article 6th Battle Squadron (United States) is incorrect, or at least misleading, because that was not the American designation for the formation, and calling it 6th Battle Squadron (United Kingdom) makes no sense given this article's focus (also there was a pre-existing 6th Battle Squadron).  Because the article does focus on the American contribution to the allied battleship fleet in WWI, I think it would be most appropriate for the title to reflect the formation's USN designation - i.e. Battleship Division Nine - which the division maintained throughout the war. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I've remembered, I'll come back to this issue.  As Jones points out in his dissertation and book, "Division Nine" officially became the Sixth Battle Squadron on 14 December 1917 according to their own war diary.  The British regarded it as the Sixth Battle Squadron in the Grand Fleet Battle Instructions and Grand Fleet Manœuvring Orders (which Jones manages to confuse).  This article's focus is completely based on the division's service as the Sixth Battle Squadron of the Grand Fleet.  Ergo it ought to be "Sixth Battle Squadron (Grand Fleet)" or something similar.  And should this article go to ACR or FAC I'll raise the same point because this article simply isn't representative of "Division Nine" of the Atlantic Fleet. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that by that argument British Pacific Fleet should be listed as Task Force 57, because that's what it was known as by the overall Allied commander, but it's not.  Still, my point from above remains.  This is not a national issue.  It's a simple question of what to call it if you want to include Sixth Battle Squadron in the title.  "Sixth Battle Squadron (Grand Fleet)" is no more precise or correct than "Sixth Battle Squadron (United States)".  As you know, for much of World War I, the Sixth Battle Squadron of the Grand Fleet was an entirely different entity than the one described in this article. 
As for Jones pointing out that the Division "officially" became the Sixth Battle Squadron on December 14, 1917, he is clearly referring to the fact that that was its Grand Fleet designation, nothing more.  The note for that statement in his dissertation (Note 22, page 54, the source being, notably, "War Diary, Divison Nine, US Atlantic Fleet") says "In U.S. Naval correspondence, these ships continued to be called Division Nine.  In the Grand Fleet they were officially Division Eight and the Sixth Squadron.  Informally, they were called, 'the American squadron,' and the 'United States squadron.'"  
In any event, if you really feel that this article should be renamed (and again, I think the parallels with the BPF are striking, and no one is seriously suggesting that article be renamed), all I ask is that you first come up with a good title.  We can work from there, but in my opinion at least, "6th Battle Squadron (Grand Fleet)" and "Sixth Battle Squadron (United States)" do not cut it. Jrt989 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had raised this point before, apparently not: Sixth Battle Squadron is the name by which the force is mostly known.  The British Pacific Fleet is the name Task Force 57 is best-known as.  The Royal Navy's Sixth Battle Squadron was gone by the end of 1915  and contrary to what someone has written on the article it was never part of the Grand Fleet but formed part of the Channel Fleet (see Goldrick, The King's Ships were at Sea, pp. 229-231.).
As to the note from the dissertation (which has proven an entertaining read), to my eye it seems ambiguous if not self-contradictory.  If a U.S. naval squadron uses one official designation how can it continue to be called Division Nine "[i]n U.S. Naval correspondence"?  And the following sentence is totally both ambiguous and wrong.  In the aforementioned Grand Fleet official literature the Eighth Division was just one designation in divisional organisations and Sixth Squadron is just incorrect.  So from that note I'd say nothing was clear. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I would have imagined it was clear that Sixth Squadron was short for Sixth Battle Squadron.  And considering you were the one citing Jones in your previous post it's an odd turn to suddenly declare him to be unclear.  Furthermore, I've never been entirely clear as to the authority you've been using to say that Sixth Battle Squadron is the most common name.  Google Books?  I typed in both "Sixth Battle Squadron" and "Battleship Division Nine" and the returns were 1,860 for the former and 10,800 for the latter.  Hardly an overwhelming victory for Sixth Battle Squadron.  But I'm willing to admit that these results are utterly meaningless considering in both cases they contain hits that don't relate to the subject at hand.  So I'm going to propose, (as I, too, thought I had before) that we work first on coming up with an acceptable title involving Sixth Battle Squadron, and then I can make it more clear why I feel the present title is best.  If after that point I haven't changed your mind, I'm willing to let mine be changed.  I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you in return, however. Jrt989 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: the highest hitting book on Google books specifically about the British Pacific Fleet (and using that as the search term) is titled "Task Force 57: The British Pacific Fleet, 1944-1945".  Perhaps British Pacific Fleet is the term it is known as predominantly in Commonwealth countries, but that is clearly not universal.
Thought: if the current article title is technically correct and the easiest way to dab this from Sixth Battle Squadron, maybe we leave it the way it is but put a hatnote on anything starting with "Sixth Battle Squadron" (and redirect the redlink)? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good solution to the problem.  Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds ideal to me, Ed.  And in the interest of consensus I'd say if this doesn't work for you Simon Harley, we can still discuss other possible names.  Jrt989 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To make things more clear (as well as to meet lead-length guidelines) I have re-written and expanded the lead section.  Also included is a bolded reference to the fact that the Division was called Sixth Battle Squadron within the Grand Fleet.  I think that and hatnotes and redirects elsewhere should solve the problem.  Jrt989 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on Operation ZZ leaves the reader with the impression the HSF was interned.  In fact, the fleet was scuttled.  Toby Douglass (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was interned on Thursday, 21 November, 1918.  And then it was scuttled seven months later.  A sentence somewhere mentioning that it was scuttled may well be in order.  --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Good God - you're quite right!  I've always thought (for like, 25 years now!) they were scuttled during their approach to the harbour!  Toby Douglass (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If the High Seas Fleet had scuttled on the way in then the end of this article would be more interesting!  It's not mentioned in the article but every ship in the Grand Fleet was at a high state of readiness to engage the Germans if they tried any funny stuff.  See here for the orders for Operation ZZ.  I've got an actual photocopy of the orders kicking around somewhere so this will have to do. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(moved from hidden comments in article to here)
"Severe storm damage allowed over 250 tons of seawater to flood the forward compartments of New York, nearly causing her to founder, [...]"
Hold the phone. 250 tons of water nearly capsizing a 27,000 ton BB?!? Or is this supposed to mean sink by the bow after water entered lower bow compartments? the_ed17 (talk · contribs)

My understanding is that the water brought the ship down by the bow sufficiently that she was in danger of plunging under the waves and not coming up. (This was a 100-mph-wind storm) One of the discoveries of World War I was that American battleships had far inferior hatch covers compared to the RN, making them liable to sink if too much water came over the deck.  Both Rodman and Sims screamed about it during the war. Jrt989 (talk · contribs)
Oh! That makes much more sense now. Would it be possible to add any of that to the article? Well, it'd be nice to have the first sentence and the 100-mph part added; the rest, as it's not totally relevant to that part in the article (and they didn't realize it until later), would fit very well in a note. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I will add this to the article.  Unfortunately, much of it comes from a book that I returned to the library literally two days ago so it will take me a bit to re-assemble the sources.  Jrt989 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've come across the painting "The 6th Battle Squadron of the Grand Fleet Leaving the Firth of Forth" by Burnell Poole (1884–1933). The title of the painting pretty much tells what it depicts. Because Poole died more than 70 years ago, this image is free use. The U.S. Navy had this painting restored c. 2003 and released a high resolution image at that time. Poole was in the Naval Reserve during WWI and made sketches that formed the basis of his paintings.
Also, note to Ed: Notice the range "clocks" on the US battleships… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see them. Interesting...they are present in many of the U.S. BB photos in Friedman's U.S. Battleships as well. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the title 'United States Battleship Division Nine,' or 'Battleship Division Nine' (Atlantic Fleet understood)? Or was the 'US' a disambiguation? In which case it's not necessary, as BatDiv 9 appears to be a uniquely U.S. appellation. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for putting the "United States" in the title was disambiguation, and to follow naming convention for naval divisions and squadrons on Wikipedia, which (in my experience at least) always include a country identifier in the title.  At the same time, in doing a web search before coming up with the name, I recall finding at least one other "9th Battleship Division" (Italian, World War II), which also influenced the decision to include "United States" in the title.  Hope that helps.  Jrt989 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)