Talk:Lion-class battleship

message: I am a little unclear on the distinction between construction work being suspended and halted.  Also, assuming work on these 2 ships had continued, how soon would they have been ready for service?  If KGV and POW are a guide, this would have been 1943, so perhaps it might have been worth it? PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

message: :You have twice now given a different complement for crew numbers in the article. Please can you clarify what source you are using? Irondome (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, H. T. Lenton, Greenhill Book. British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II. Garzke, William H., Jr.; Dulin, Robert O., Jr. (1980).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.85.76 (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  user 73.222.85.76 please can you clarify your source re: crew numbers. 

message: Garzke and Dulin gave actual armor thicknesses in Allied Battleships in World War II page 263, 265, and 277. The gist of it is that a nominal thickness of  was actually  because the British ordered armor in pounds per square foot rather than raw thickness. This was given in page 170 of Allied Battleships and in Friedman's The British Battleships page 47. When I tried inserting correct values it kept on getting reverted, so I like to know the reason. If no reason is given then I'll insert the actual armor thickness values, as cited by both Friedman and Garzke & Dulin. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that nobody else does that. If we use their figures, we lose the ability to compare armor thicknesses with all the other battleships that Garzke and Dulin don't cover, like all of the WW1 survivors, etc. Furthermore, their research is outdated in someways as there have been a lot more information released on, forex, the Lions than was available 30-odd years ago when they wrote their books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What new information has contradicted the actual thicknesses given by G&D? Other articles like the KGV uses actual thickness when describing the armor, so I don't know why this should be the exception here. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the only reason why the KGVs have the G&D numbers because you added them. They're not used in Vanguard, the Nelsons, or any of the older battleship or battlecruiser articles that aren't covered by G&D. Feel free to add a note about the British and Americans using armor steel in pounds rather than inches, but G&D are unique in using their figures and I really don't want to have to correct people changing the armor figures back to the numbers used in Conways, Raven & Robers, or Friedman. Better, I think, to use the most commonly available figures with a note about the odd American and British habit of not using inches to explain that they're really not as thick as they seem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominal vs actual armor thickness 

message: Current Warships IFR has a good article on the Lions, in particular it talks more about the politics behind the decisions to stop/start, in particular noting how the suspension in September 1939 coincided with efforts to negotiate a peace (and was followed a few days later by Germany suspending work on the H-class). Might be a useful reference for someone closer to the subject than I am? Le Deluge (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll check it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article