Talk:HMS Repulse (1916)

message: The given Repulse statistics given are:
Repulse Statistics: 36,000 tons, 32-knot speed, six 15-inch guns, crew of 69 officers and 1,240 ratings well trained with consistently high marks the ship received on exercise, last Captain is Captain W.G. (Bill) Tennant.
Military Heritage did a feature on the Repulse and its sinking (Joseph M. Horodyski, Military Heritage, Volume 3, No. 3, pp.69 to 77) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.84.111 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different tonnage 

message: The casualty figures in the articles on the Prince of Wales, Repulse and the sinking of both ships do not agree with one-another (Eg. According the article on Repulse more survivors were rescued from the ship than were in its complement, and >300 died). I have no idea what the correct figures are and since there are no in-line citations it's impossible to work out where the data has come from. Does anyone have verifiable information on the complement of each ship and the number that perished in December 41? Wiki-Ed 13:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: I'd heard, in physics problems, that the repulse was fabeled to be unsinkable and was hit in the funnel by a shot from a jap ship ~11km away. Naturally I doubted the facts but thought, after looking here to confirm my skeptisism, that I should leave this here incase someone wants to include it or whatever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fists (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That story doesn't ring true in many ways, maybe the author of your physics problems has deliberately twisted the facts to suit their purpose. The battlecruiser design was acknowledged to be eminently sinkable in certain situations, they were not meant to be used against battleships for instance, which could overwhelm a battlecruiser's thinner armour, as happened at Jutland. Similarly the design proved as susceptible as any capital ship to aircraft. What got Repulse in the end was torpedoes launched from aircraft, not shells from a Japanese ship. Maybe the problem would fit better with a ship like HMS Hood (51), a battlecruiser sunk by a lucky strike from a long range shot from the German battleship Bismarck. Benea (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  myths 

message: WWII: When did Repulse leave India for the Far East and when did she arrive in Singapore? 81.156.125.126 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 29 November (from Colombo that is) and 2 December respectively. Benea (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: There is a serious omission - no mention of Repulse's armour scheme after the 1934-6 conversion. The Land (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should there be? Nothing changed since the 1919 reconstruction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Yes. Good point. :-) - would be a good idea to include the update armour configuration in the 1939 section of the infobx though, an perhaps to remove the "1930s" subhead from the interwar section. The Land (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been meaning to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour after rebuild 

message: None of my numerous references mention any G4M Betty bombers taking part in this attack. All of them refer to only G3M Nells being in the squadrons operating out of Indo-China back then. This should be corrected in the article. I don't have my sources to cite, but they are many.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadillacmike (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my notes, Mihoro and Genzan Air Groups were equipped only with G3Ms, and the majority of G4Ms were in Taiwan for the attack on the Philippines. However, part of Kanoya Air Group was based in Saigon and equipped with G4Ms. From Francillon, Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, page 381: "On the eve of the Pacific War the Japanese Navy transferred twenty-seven G4M1s of the Kanoya Kokutai to bases in Indo-China to strengthen its air striking force poised to attack the battleships of Admiral Sir Tom Phillips, while retaining on Formosan bases ninety-three other Navy Type 1 Attack Bombers for operations against the American forces in the Philippines. Within a week of the initial Japanese attack these aircraft had effectively contributed to the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse and to eliminating American air power in the Philippines." Yaush (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese attack force 

message: In the table at completion time, 5x3 is misprinted in 6x3
In 1940, a further triple mount was deleted (as shown in the photo of the last convoy to singapore).
pietro
151.29.249.152 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  4" guns 

message: Why the term 'consort' is appropriate? BlueD954 (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you help by telling us where this is in the article please? Britmax (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very obvious. Why? BlueD954 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually curious about this as well. Did a search for "consort" but the word doesn't seem to appear in the article. Can you clarify? - wolf 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

text: To me at least, "consort" in this context is one who aids and accompanies but is complementary rather than subservient. Since this conveys the relationship between the two ships here I think it conveys the intended message and works in the article. Britmax (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain use of the word "consort" in the lead