Talk:Francis Harvey

message: Man oh man, what a man!!! Seminumerical 06:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent article.  Joshdboz (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
<DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 01:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination 

message: I believe the page number in these cites should be the number shown on the .pdf of the actual journal page, not the page number shown in the box at the top of the webpage.  See the final two corrected Gazette cites.  Kablammo (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be the original page number shown in the top corner on the page or in the title bar. I have fixed them all now, thanks. Woody (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is an issue of requiring to be regstered to see the pages, but the links don't work for me. Sandpiper (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Gazette cites 

message: Is there a source for the statement that "Harvey turned the ship into one of the best ships for gunnery in the Royal Navy"?
All my reading about Jutland and naval operations in WWI indicates that the gunnery of the Battle Cruiser Force as a whole was notoriously bad, partly because of an obsession with a fast rate of firing as opposed to accuracy.   Indeed, the preoccupation with rate of fire may well have contributed to the loss of 3 battlecruisers by leaving important doors open in the ammunition supply chain in the interests of keeping up the rate of fire.   Lion's chief gunner's mate apparently also noted how out of date and unstable a lot of the cordite was and managed to get it replaced, which may have helped to save his ship from the fate of the others.
This does not, of course, detract from the personal heroism of Major Harvey, but it would be useful to have a reference for the statement.
Ken Garland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.40.171 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the best ships for gunnery? 

message: just a note that there is a further account by private Willons (mentioned above) that the shell room was not flooded untill later.
He says the handling room switchboard, flat and shell room were completely burned out, the crew were lying in all directions, some still hanging on the ladder in a last attempt to get out. On finding that it was impossible to salve  any of the projectiles for use in the other turrets the shell room was flooded. The captain of marines sent for me then to go to the gunhouse to find the major and remove some of the casualties. I got into the the gunhouse through the manhole on top and assisted by another marine got out seven people from the right cabinet. tThe chaplain was one of these. The major was in the rangefinder position close by the voice-pipe. There was a great deal of smoke coming from behind the ready use shell bin and we gave the alarm that four common shell were being roasted and were likely to cause another explosion. With the assistance of several more marines the fire was put out and the remainder of the casualties were removed. They were then taken aft, identified if possible and sewn into hammocks. This carried on most of the night of the 31st May.  
So the shell room wasn't flooded, and indeed had a fire in it. Sandpiper (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part of the quote should read, "The Handing Room, Switchboard, Flat and Shell Room were completely burned out..."  The shell-room wasn't flooded because the likelihood of flash setting off shells was unlikely.  It was flooded afterwards as a precaution.  The ready use shell bin referred to was in the gun house and not in the shell room below. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shell room 

message: As a more modern cut on this, heres a quote from a phd about Jutland by James Yates, p.358, 'The Jutland controversy: a case study in intra service rivalry', hull university,1998 
He also seems to think Grant saved the ship, although if Beatty wasn't aware of this at the time, it might mean other senior people werent and thus made it more likely Harvey would get credit. If I went into conspiracy theory mode, it might even be the case that Harvey was the acceptable explanation of how Lion survived when other ships exploded. If simply handling ammunition  better had saved Lion, then perversely heads might have rolled if it was felt something could have been done to save the other ships and had not been. Sandpiper (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yates 

message: This sentence regarding HMS Queen Mary: "just minutes after that HMS Queen Mary exploded "like a puffball" in one huge column of grey smoke, killing 1,275 sailors". The article about HMS Queen Mary says the following: "1,266 crewmen were lost; eighteen survivors were picked up by the destroyers HMS Laurel, HMS Petard, and HMS Tipperary, and two by the Germans.", so there seems to be a possible mistake regarding how many sailors lost their lives. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible mistake?