Talk:Flower-class corvette

message: The article currently states that 
:"Properly speaking there are two Flower classes: 52 ships built after 1942 were larger and better armed; this subclass is sometimes called the "revised Flower class"..."
I strongly suspect that the article is currently conflating the Castle class  corvette with Flower class corvettes that have been refitted with the the longer forecastle.  Most Canadian flowers were eventually equipped with the longer forecastle -- that would be more than the 52 odd the article currently claims.  I think all the references to this "revised flower class" need to be corrected.
In 1939 Flowers had a their four inch on the forecastle, a pom-pom AA gun on the bandstand aft, and their depth charges, as their complete armament.  As the war went on further AA was added, haphazardly, to the Canadian Flowers, during their refits.  Some Canadian Flowers ended up mounting as many as an additional four 20mm AA cannons.  So, the better armament the article attributes to the 52 "revised flower class" would really only be the replacement of traditional depth charges by the squid.
*haze gray and underway
*uboat.net lists approximately 52 Castle Class hulls
*battleships-cruisers.co.uk
*explore-boats.com
-- Geo Swan 19:11, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
:No, the article is correct about the existence of the revised Flower class. (Compare for example the specifications of the original Flowers  with the revised Flowers ).  Yes, many of the earlier Flowers were refitted with long forecastles, improved AA, Hedgehog, etc so that the difference was not in the end very significant. That's why the article includes the revised Flowers along with the original.
:However, the number 52 and the date 1942 seem to be wrong (perhaps from confusion with the Castle class as you suggest).  lists 64 ships of the revised class, plus 5 that were cancelled, the first being launched in 1940. I'll fix the article. Gdr 14:08, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
::This may be an old discussion now but if it’s any help, Conway has some information on this.
::Flower class ships had various modifications throughout the building programme; longer foc’s’le, improved bridge, better splinter protection, better crew facilities etc. between 1940 and 1942. In 1942 these improvements were consolidated into a revised design, and these ships were Modified/Revised Flowers.
::However problems at sea associated with their relatively short length led to a new design, basically the same as the modified design but over 20% longer; this was the Castle class.
::Conway lists 132 RN and 80 RCN Flowers (built 1940-42), and 10 RN and 42 RCN Modified Flowers (built 1942-44).
::There were 39 RN Castles, and another 5 completed as rescue ships (all built 1943-44); the RCN Castles (37 orders ) were all cancelled.
::I’ll try to incorporate this into the article.Swanny18 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Flower Class ? 

message: The article states "110 went into commercial use as freighters, smugglers, tugs, weather ships, and whalers". I have a few photographs of whalers built from the corvettes but can't seem to find anything about any freighters or smugglers. Does anyone have any links or photographs? I can easily believe that some were converted to coastal freighters, but "smugglers" seems a little far-fetched. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postwar Flowers

message: It would be a long list, but with a number of these ships having their own articles, would making a list of them be justified?  Andrew647 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a blind fool who doesn't read closely enough.  Andrew647 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of RCN Flower Class Corvettes 

message: Unlike the separate article [List of Flower Class Corvettes], the table in the current article fails to distinguish between the various sub-classes within the "family" of Flower Class. Placing all these vessels into an alphabetical sequence rather than a chronological sequence fails to show the way in which the programmes developed over the War period, and which individual vessels were built under which programme. It would, I suggest, be more helpful to re-sequence these in a chronological order (by date of placing building order with shipyards). In addition, there are a number of errors in the table in this article, e.g. Renfrew is mis-spelled as Renefrew. I have corrected one of two of these minor errors, but there are still a number of gaps in the table of dates which can be filled from the [List of Flower Class Corvettes] article. Also, some of the postwar transfers, especially to Latin American naval forces, need to be listed. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of different sub-classes of Flower Class corvettes 

message: I request a citation for United Stated Coast Guard use of Flower class corvettes or Action class gunboats.  Coast Guard crews manned a number of United States Navy vessels including some destroyer escorts and most of the Tacoma class frigates during the second world war, but relatively few of these ships (designated by a "W" prefix to the hull classification symbol) were actually Coast Guard vessels.  Would it be more appropriate to note parenthetically "(some manned by U.S. Coast Guard)" if that was the case for these corvettes? Thewellman (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct. I had not appreciated the difference between a USCG vessel and a USN vessel manned by USCG.  As they were USN ships I have moved the USCG reference down from the first paragraph to keep it short, since it is really now just an aside, and provided a citation. Jll (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Coast Guard

message: The original 10 Flowers built in the UK were officially Temptress Class vessels. The USS Temptress was the first vessel transfered to the US as the result of an agreement reached at the Arcadia Conference.
The additional 8 Modified Flowers built in Canada were oficially Action Class vessels. The USS Action was assigned pennant number PG86, the first number in the class.
Jayman435 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flower Classes in US Service 

message: It is stated that the RCN ships were incapable of using a gyrocompass.
Surely it would be more accurate to say they weren't fitted with one, as the statement reads like the RCN vessels had some defect or design difference that precluded the use of a gyrocompass.
Oddbodkin (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, there were no manufacturing facilities for gyro-compasses in Canada during the war period, but I suspect that Canadian-built Flowers that crossed the Atlantic to Britain did however have them fitted on arrival in the UK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, Macpherson mentions this in his "Corvettes of the Royal Canadian Navy"; the gyrocompass (also electronic plots, and modern sonar) required a low-power electricity supply, which was not present in the earliest Flowers, and installing them meant an extensive re-wiring. So "unable to use one" would be correct; but "fitted on arrival in the UK" wouldn't be, necessarily. All the early Flowers were affected, I gather, but while the RN ships were generally modified piecemeal, or even while still with the builders, the Canadian vessels tended to be completed per the original design, and pressure of use meant they waited a long time before being re-fitted. There was also a lack of firms producing the equipment, and of shipyards able to do the work. Hence the early design flaws (like the short forecastle, especially,  and the lack of a gyrocompass, here) persisted in the RCN ships far longer than they did in the RN ones. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: I’ve moved the "Kriegsmarine use" section down the page a bit. There didn’t seem much point in it being where it was, and it gave those four vessels a prominence they really didn’t warrant. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  KM use 

message: There is a Merge tag on the Ships section of this article (suggesting a merge of that section with the List of Flower-class corvettes article) but there's been no discussion opened here or on the linked talk page there.</br> 
On that basis I'm inclined to delete it, but (for the record) I think the proposal isn't a good idea. The "List of.." article currently lists all the Flower's by post-war operator, while the Ships section here focuses on WWII service. I think the List of article is a useful stand-alone resource, though it might be worth renaming it "List ... by operator", to clarify the content.</br> 
I assume the reason for the proposal is because of the article size (155Kb to date) which is a good reason to split it up, but moving the Ships section out would just inflate the List article instead. A better remedy (I suggest) would be to divide this article between the original and the modified Flowers, and have a "Modified Flower-class corvette" article as well as this one. Both Conway and Elliott make this distinction, and treat these as separate classes, so it is well-supported by source; and the resulting articles would both be of a more manageable size. Any thoughts on that? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The only issue I can think of is that in RCN service, some of the original corvettes were brought up to the IE standards. Llammakey (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given no support over 2 years.  Klbrain (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flower-class corvette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027055625/http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/august/30Aug.txt to http://www.seawaves.com/newsletters/TDIH/august/30Aug.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that all of the ships that were sunk do not appear in the normal listing for the Navy involved. It only appears in the section for "Vessels lost in action"!??
This seems strange to me, I think that ALL of the Flower-class corvettes used by a particular Navy should be listed under that Navy's banner table, whether they survived the War or not.
The Vessels Lost table can then be broken out at the end as a separate table, where the ships lost can be listed together.
Also, if you list the ships that were lost with their original Navies above, then you can reorganize the Vessels Lost table in pure alphabetical order, and not in its current format, where the table is alphabetized by Navy, with each Navy being then ordered down the list. This seems rather unusual to me, and makes for a difficult process of finding them.
What you might want to do is enter each ship that was lost in the appropriate section in the tables above for each Navy, and give a simple note in the main Navy Table to the effect: "Lost in battle, see table below."
I think that this re-ordering of things would clarify matters greatly for those searching for a particular ship.
All the best,
James
96.30.103.88 (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They already are included in the "Ships" section and tables.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vessels "lost in Action" should also be included in relevant Navy sections above. 

message: Is there  anyone who knows if there was a corvette in 1942 called the Magnolia my email address is absentjusticegmail.com, I would be great to know the name of the captain and the name of any of the crew members
: There was an Acacia-class sloop, which was part of the Flower-class sloops named HMS Magnolia. It was discarded in 1932 though. Llammakey (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for the Magnolia - Corvette