Talk:HMS New Zealand (1911)

message: This truly isn't actually the thing that is exercising me most today, (and I don't do LOLs), however.... The article says captains Halsey and Green both wore the lucky piupiu, and also says "The captain's piupiu was returned to New Zealand".
Shouldn't that be "captains' piupiu" because more than one captan wore it?
Or is it be "captain's piupiu" beause only one captain could wear it at a time?
I'll go back to work now.Moriori (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter, I think - the piupiu was assigned to whoever the captain of the ship was and only he was meant to wear it. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: s' or 's?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMS New Zealand (1911). 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/20130722150143/http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/6960/an-historic-piupiu to http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/6960/an-historic-piupiu
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004153451/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67895 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67895
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428083354/http://www.hmsnewzealand.com/ to http://www.hmsnewzealand.com/
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) 09:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No mention is made in the current article of why New Zealand and Australia’s offers was changed. 
Reasons that should be discussed would include the original purpose of battlecruisers, how the fleet units were expected to be used, whether it was expected they would face battleships in the Pacific and how their speed made them a better option for hunting down and destroying at a distance smaller and weaker ships such as the cruisers of the German East Asiatic Squadron and armed merchant cruisers preying on the trade routes.  John Prattley (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was New Zealand’s offer changed from a battleship to a battlecruiser 

message: Given that the Indefatigable class design was known to be inferior to the battlecruisers entering service with the German Navy what was this design chosen by the Admiralty for HMS New Zealand.
By the time that HMS New Zealand was being designed the Admiralty was already working on moving to a 13.5-inch main armament for its battleships and battlecruisers, with the final battlecruiser design of the new type approved on 7 June, with the first, HMS Lion laid down later in that same year and completed before New Zealand. She was faster, better armed and armoured that both New Zealand and Australia and cost £1,965,699, which was within the cap set by the New Zealand government. The new Orion class battleships armed with 13.5-inch guns at £1,855,917 (the first of which was laid down in April 1909 and completed before New Zealand) were also within the cap, which counters a common claim that New Zealand went for a Indefatigable class design as it couldn’t afford a battleship.
Matthew Wright (2021) suggests that possible reasons include that the Admiralty treated them as a pair and were politically not willing to allow Australia and New Zealand to process the latest design, that it would upset the Anglo-Japanese alliance to have such powerful ships stationed in the Pacific, that the 13.5-inch gun was still secret at the time of the public imperial defence conference of 1909 which agreed on the ships deployment and that it eased bottlenecks in the gun making procurement by using the existing 12-inch gun design.
Another argument based on the views expressed in Mathew Seligmann’s ‘The Royal Navy and the German Threat 1901–1914: Admiralty Plans to Protect British Trade in a War against Germany’ is that the Admiralty thought that the design was not only cheaper but also more than adequate for use in the Pacific for hunting down smaller and weaker ships such armed merchant cruisers and thus it was never envisaged that they would be going head to head against capital units in the North Sea. John Prattley (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was New Zealand and Australia offered an older design of battlecruiser 

message: Little information is provided in the article on the construction of the ship.
For instance the Controller of the Admiralty John Jellicoe decided to treat the construction of both dominion’s ships as a pair and issued tenders to that effect early in 1910. Harland and Wolff declined to tender while all of other ship builders were only prepared to tender for one vessel. Australia signalled its acceptance first and for unknown reasons agreed to accept that highest of the two successful tenders leaving New Zealand to accept that of Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering.
No mention of the acceptance tests and sea trials and performance
No mention is made of who launched the ships. She was launched by Lady Theresa Ward, the wife of Sir Joseph Ward before a crowd of 8,000. A full description can be found online in various historic New Zealander newspapers.  John Prattley (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction 

message: While the renaming is discussed in the article on HMS Zealandia there is no mention of the selection of the name of the battlecruiser in this article. There should be.
When it came to naming the new ship the most obvious name was already being used by an existing King Edward VII-class battleship HMS New Zealand.  Consideration was given to renaming the older vessel with the names Arawa, Caledonia, Wellington and Maori (which was already being used by a destroyer, and thus would have required a double renaming) before Zealandia was eventually decided upon.      John Prattley (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the ship 

message: Despite this being a major event in the history of the ship and a massive event in New Zealand it gets little coverage. It was judged of such importance that the captain was given an independent command and judged such a success that he was knighted upon his return.
The figure quoted of an estimated half a million visitors in New Zealand is incorrect. The figure is either 376,086, 378,068 or 368,118 New Zealanders, depending on the source.
Matthew Wright (2021) states that over the entire duration of the voyage 500,151 people visited her. John Prattley (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1913 World Cruise 

message: Given that the ship was funded by New Zealand, there is little mention of what presence New Zealanders had among the crew.
Why are the captains who commanded the ship and the admirals who raised their flags on her, not listed? Is it standard practice with warships articles not to include this information?
Information can be found at:
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._New_Zealand_(1911)
https://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishAdmiraltyCaptains.htm John Prattley (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew 

message: This maybe be of interest.
It was sourced from: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1909-I.2.1.2.1. 
This webpage presents all of the governments correspondence, including the telegram with the formal offer to the British government. 
This paper confirms that New Zealand was offering one first-class battleship and a possible second, that the prime minister though the country could afford it,  that it/they would be controlled by the Admiralty and that it/they were offered well before the Imperial Conference of that year.
Prime Minister's Office, 
Memo, for Cabinet. 
Wellington, 20th March, 1909. 
There is at the present moment a crisis in the affairs of the Empire. The cables recently published regarding the keeping of the British Navy up to a standard that will insure the safety of all parts of the Empire are of a most disquieting nature. So much so that I feel that the time has arrived when New Zealand should do something more than it is now doing to show its practical assistance and support of the British Navy in such a way that the moral effect of New Zealand's co-operation would, quite irrespective of the money value, be of more than ordinary moment. 
We are now under an agreement to pay £100,000 a year as a contribution to the British Navy. This is doubtless in the ordinary sense a large sum, but is comparatively small when the tremendous interests at stake are considered, and is nothing approaching what we are reasonably and fairly expected to contribute to help the old land to maintain that which is essential for their and our welfare also—namely, the supremacy of the sea, and which, in my opinion, can only be insured by her having a greatly superior fleet of battleships to that of any other Power. 
For your consideration I propose that we should offer to the British Government at least one, and, if necessary, two first-class battleships of the Dreadnought or latest types, and that the offer should be on behalf of New Zealand and at our own cost; the battleships to be. controlled both in peace and war time absolutely by the British Admiralty. 
If the offer is accepted by the British Government we must, of course, ask Parliament for authority to raise a special loan, and, in addition, to providing interest upon the amount required for a sinking fund of 1. per cent, for the redemption of the loan At the outside the cost of each of the battleships would be two millions, probably one and three-quarter million each, but in estimating the position I take the former amount as the approximate cost. I have no doubt in my own mind that for such a purpose we could obtain a loan at a rate of 3 per cent, which, with 1 per cent, sinking fund, would amount, if the battleships.cost the full sum of £2,000,000, to £80,000 per annum for one, and if two were obtained, to £160,000 per annum; so that, summed up from the standpoint of the cost to the people of New Zealand, the amount is not large, and if considered as an insurance premium upon the value of the national estate, to say nothing of the value of the private estate of the. people and the keeping open sea routes for the safe conveyance of our produce is anything but a large sum to pay in return for helping to support in a practical way the British Navy, which must be recognised by all as giving us a protection and support against other countries that is really invaluable. 
By following the course I am suggesting we would in a most practical and substantial way demonstrate to any. opposing nation of the British Empire that not only have they to count upon the magnificent work the old land in this respect has done in the past by building and maintaining a powerful and unequalled Navy— and will, I am confident, continue to do so in the future —but will also have to reckon in addition the loyal adherence and the practical assistance of her sons in her oversea dominions, and the moral effect of this undertaking would, in my opinion, have a great and far-reaching influence. It would proclaim to the world that the oversea dominions, gradually growing into nationhood, were prepared to help to preserve the power and greatness of the Empire, which for the best part of a century, at comparatively no cost to us, has given us that protection without which that independence and security to our commerce under the British flag would have been impossible in the absence of the British Navy. 
Whatever is done should be done at once, and if Cabinet agrees to my proposal, I would transmit it through the Governor to the British Government without delay. The responsibility devolving upon the Government in taking this action is a great one, the refusal of Parliament tosanction it involving as it would the retirement of the Government or an appeal to the people; but I feel confident that the loyalty of the people of New Zealand, voicing itself through their representatives in Parliament, will indorse the action of the Government. 
The situation in England to-day is one of tension and serious apprehension, and both in the eyes of England and in the eyes of Europe a prompt and generous assistance would have, in addition to its material value, a moral effect which cannot be over-estimated. 
(Signed) J. G. Ward. 
In Cabinet. 22nd March, 1909. 
The Government to offer to defray the cost of the immediate building and arming of one firstclass battleship of the latest type, and if subsequent events show it to be necessary, will provide the cost of a second warship of the same type. 
(Signed) J. Hislop. Acting-Secretary. John Prattley (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cabinet paper that proposed that New Zealand offer one or necessary two battleships 

message: Page 109 of R. A. Burt’s “British Battleships of World War One”  (2012 edition) states that the cost was £1,684,990 plus another £98,200 for the guns. This gives a total capital cost of £1,783,190.
Page 230 of Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton’s “The Battleship Builders – Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships” (2013) quotes a cost of £1,795,068.
The New Zealand Naval Museum states a cost of £1,706,000 but they don’t state whether it was the capital or total cost. See https://navymuseum.co.nz/explore/by-collections/ships/new-zealand-hms/
Pages 214 and 215 of Matthew Wright's 2021 book "The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire" states the capital cost was £1,698,152, 6 shillings and 2 pence to construct New Zealand.  To this amount was added £64,148, 1 shilling and 11 pence for the cost of raising the loans and £32,867, 19 shillings and 9 pence for the cost of redemptions and conversions, which gave a total cost of £1,795,169, 4 shillings and 11 pence. 
I have corresponded with Matthew and he has confirmed that his figures are sourced from the original files in the New Zealand government archives.
He commented that Burt's purchase figure for the guns is odd, as Archives New Zealand file R3485891 clearly show that the 12-inch guns for HMS New Zealand and HMAS Australia, eight each plus three spares each, 22 in all, were purchased as a contracted job lot for £220,990 split between the two governments.
He doesn't have full details of the costs that the Admiralty absorbed, as these were not stated in the accounts, but they would have been relatively minor in respect to the value of the contract. He also commented that the builders invoiced the Admiralty incrementally for components as construction proceeded and that as a result the accounts held in Archives New Zealand are highly detailed.
Therefore we have to assume that the values stated by Burt, Johnston/Buxton and the museum are either the tendered estimates or incorrect with regards to the capital cost charged to the New Zealand government.
John Prattley (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we just be up front and state that sources differ as to the cost - all these sources are high quality sources that will be looking at primary documents like ship's covers etc - and they all come up with virtually the same number.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of the ship 

message: There are two values given in publications for the the amount of money that the New Zealand Government received from the scrapping of the ship:
£20,000. Stated by Matthew Wright (2021) "The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire".
£21,000. Stated by Aidan Dobson (2022) "Warship Gallery: The Scrapping of HMS Agincourt, New Zealand, Princess Royal at Rosyth, 1923—1925". 
Matthew has been in touch and has sent me a copy of a New Zealand government memo to the Secretary of the Treasury that clearly states that it was £20,000.  Therefore I have revised the article to state only his value.  John Prattley (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the British Navy Estimates for 1923-1924 and Appropriation Account for Navy Services in 1924-1925 specifically state that the New Zealand government was refunded £21,000. It's a pity that Wright didn't use the aforementioned memo as a reference for the claim in his book rather than a yearbook. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue from the scrapping of the ship