Talk:King George V-class battleship (1939)

message: I think that that the discovery of the wrecks of Hood, Bismarck and PoW have rendered sections of many standard reference books outdated. Doesn't meant that they're unreliable, they just have to be used carefully and with reference to later works that do incorporate the wreck data. I find the frequent slinging around of terms like tendentious, etc. to be very unproductive and wish it would cease as all it does is get people riled up. And making extreme interpretations of Wiki policy to suit one side or another is also unproductive as credibility is lost with such accusations used in pursuance of an agenda can readily be ascertained by neutral parties. 
I would suggest that notes be added describing the differing analyses. Something along the lines of G&D say X, but video from the wreck shows Y and this has been discussed by source Z. You can do it in the text, but that can be a little awkward. I ran into a little bit of this when writing the Szent Istvan article where my primary source said she was torpedoed twice, but current wreck descriptions mention four holes, three of which were similar in size and shape, but the fourth is much smaller and may have happened when the bow hit the seabed. Tentative conclusion is that one torpedo that was claimed to hit Tegetthof by the Italians, although the Austrians reported no damage, actually hit Szent Istvan and that the crew of the other MAS boat didn't confuse their torpedo with the other boat's. 
No one single source can be treated like the revealed word of Ghod, including Okun, Friedman, Roberts, G&D, etc. Part of our job is to synthesize all of the available material and that necessarily involves assessing the evidence presented by various authors and choosing the most likely explanation or account. And when that's controversial then a little more time needs to be spent discussing the various theories and making judgements when later data contradicts the original theory. Forex Hood was lost to a rear 15" magazine explosion, that's pretty indisputable now that the wreck's been found, but we'll never know exactly how that happened. Which makes it easy to rule out some previous theories about the cause of her loss, but time must still be spent discussing exactly how that might have happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated material 

message: I am afraid that G&D do state "Empress of India" on page 230. Yet another mistake on their part. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which edition is it you are working from, there was a revised one I believe. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the only one updated was the United States edition? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  G&D 

message: There is a fair amount written about intended improvements, via refits, in the KGV class, but not much on the specifics for each ship. I will try and track down more info on this topicDamwiki1 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refits 

message: I've been pondering this one. 
this gives a refuel between Alexandria and Sydney. this gives general info that the Anglo-US fleet had to work hard at refuelling to keep up activities. I wonder if these give pointers for sources to check. It strikesme that the refuelling might have been to done to maintain pace rather than wait for a rendezvous with an oiler. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Refueling destroyers and other escort ships from Battleships was a common occurrence and the RN had been doing this from the beginning of the war. A battleship refueling from a frigate is simply unheard of. For the Battleship to take on any useful amount of fuel it would have to drain the frigate almost dry, leaving it in a perilous state should bad weather develop. About 1/2 of USN frigates used diesel engines so their fuel would be unlikely to be useful to a battleship. Le Bailley, in Man around the Engine gives an account of KGV's time with the BPF and he also wrote an article in the Journal of Naval Engineering, where he mentions that they refueled destroyers numerous times, including one USN destroyer:
 The work of the double bottom party increased owing to the large number
 of destroyers fuelled in addition to fuelling ship. At one period the double
 bottom party worked almost continuously for 48 hours. It became p0ssible
 to split this party into two by the substitution of seamen for stokers on two
 damage control sections, Figures for fueling ship and fueling destroyers
 are as follows :-
 Fuelled ship ... ... ... 19 times (28th June 1945 to 27th Aug 1945).
 Total ... ... ... . .. 24,448 tons.
 Fastest fuelling ... ... .. . 1,210 tons pumping rate 1,050 tonslhr.
 Ships fuelled .;. ... . . . 30 destroyers, l cruiser, l U.S. destroyer.
 Fastest fuelling destroyer ... Napier at 185 tons/hr. 
 H.M.S. "KING GEORGE V"
 Steaming of ship, Trincomalee to Tokyo Bay
 January 16th to September 4th, 1945
 REPORT FROM THE ENGINEER OFFICER''
There is no mention of refueling from USN frigates, so clearly it was not KGV that might have refueled from a frigate. It is possible that HMS Howe might have, but again this is extremely improbable. A KGV class battleship had an endurance of 10 to 20 days at typical cruising speeds and it just doesn't make sense that they would refuel from a frigate when they are frequently refueling destroyers themselves. All the KGV class had their fuel capacity increased to over 4000 tons by 1945, which is something for the refit section.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  refuelling at sea from USN 

message: I reverted the recent edits because they removed a lot of well sourced material that provided invaluable information on this class of battleship, and their design history. I think that some discussion is in order before removing such extensive amounts of material. The engineering data on the individual ships, for example, is actually wrong in most cases, and I had to correct it via a footnote; it is hardly appropriate to removed the detailed, and carefully sourced engineering data here with the incorrect data on the individual pages.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, however, I have reinserted the service histories. Thurgate (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the service histories look good.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What were you attempting to do, Thurgate, with the massive remove of text?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I was trying to streamline the article, put looking at my changes I was too heavy handed in removing text. However, I still believe that the main armament section can be reduced slightly. Also Sturm do you think the lead should be enlarged to include the sections on the armour as they take up a fair chunk of text? Furthermore, how far do you think the article is from being GA standard?   Thurgate (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: There are several references to "Chesneau" and "Chesneau (2004). These references are useless as the works are not defined. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed all the Brown references and added Chesneau to the bibliography. This article is actually well referenced, but it expanded rapidly at one point and the reference format suffered.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fixes. An article isn't well-referenced if readers have no way of knowing what the references are to. DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless refs - "Chesneau" and "Chesneau (2004), "Brown" 

message: Also "Friedman" and "Konstam" are undefined and therefore useless. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstam is obviously Konstam 2009. In the format that this article uses, years are only added if there are 2 or more works by the same author, which is not the case for Konstam. Kges1901 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my mistake. We also have "Garzke, Dulin and Denlay", "Garzke & Dulin", "Garzke & Dulin (1980)", "Garzke and Dulin, 1980", "Garzke", and "Garzke (1980)", do all of these refer to the same work? DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are referring to the same 1980 work in the bibliography. Note the similarity in page numbers. Kges1901 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they look like different works. Readers shouldn't have to guess what works references are referring to. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a switch to  would help fix the problem. Also, I see Konstam is already in the ref section, what's the problem with that one? Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As you already know because you read this thread before replying to it, Konstam was a mistake on my part. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More useless refs 

message: I see the articles on this class representing the displacement at 43,000 tons, their deep loaded weight.  However, I rarely see other vessels/classes represented this way.  It seems to distort the comparison among the various combatants. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added light displacement for DoY, standard displacement seems unavailable from the source I have - R.A. Burt, which is considered reliable. Urselius (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  That seems like a very reasonable solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement inconsistent representation? 

message: The propulsion section goes on at length about available horsepower and shaft speeds but does not list the actual speed of the ship at any of given outputs 69.251.47.164 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual speed is not solely dependant on the the output of the engines, it is also highly dependant on the sea conditions, depth of lading, trim and state of the outer surface of the hull (weed, marine growth). Urselius (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common practice to record the speed of the ship when trialing the machinery. 69.251.47.164 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion 

message: These ships had a wide variety of electronic and weapons suites over their lives, too many to cover in the infobox. I propose that we use the data for a single ship at a specific date. I think that Duke of York outfitted as she was completed at the end of 1941 would be a good compromise as she shows some of the changes from the early equipment suites, but not all of what they were equipped with at the end of the war and its easy to pin down what she was equipped with at that time.
I've done some serious trimming of the infobox to cut its length down. Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most important data on the ship(s), not a complete listing. That level of detail is best handled in the main body where it can be covered at length. If you disagree, please make your case here before reverting my changes. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changes. My only thoughts are: 1) we should use the ship note infobox field to note what date and ship we're drawing these details from and 2) we're going to need citations if the infobox figures aren't mentioned in the text. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy enough as I use the infobox header caption field a lot for that exact purpose. That way it's nice and prominent at the top of the ship characteristics portion of the infobox. As far as I'm concerned, the only cite that should be in the infobox is the one for the pennant/hull number as that's trivial enough that I don't feel any urge to document it in the main body, everything else should be referenced in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data for infobox