Talk:RMS Carmania (1905)

message: the article notes that the ship was sent to help the Gallipoli campaign in 1916 - however the campaign was over by December 1915.  What was it's mission here?  Perhaps it was sent to Egypt or Greece to help with shifting troops withdrawn from Gallipoli?  But would that be correctly bbe described as part of the campaign?--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

message: This page says that the Carmania was disguised as the German ship she encountered, however the article for that battle says that "It is sometimes incorrectly stated that each ship was disguised as the other." when in actuality it was only the German ship which had been disguised as the Carmania. Clarification needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpfian (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: This ship, RMS Carmania, was scrapped in 1932, so why are there wreck coordinates for her? She doesn't exist anymore. Carmania was only damaged in the battle with SMS Cap Tragalgar. She was not lost. Koplimek (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck Map Coordinates, why?

message: The text states that Carmania did have QF 4.7-inch Mk V naval guns as armament. There is a link for it also, but it says, that this canon was not in use by the Royal Navy, only by the coastal defence. Were these weapons not QF 4.7-inch Mk I – IV naval guns? --Andreas (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the next sentence in that Mk V article you linked. :) From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for answering to the qustion. Sure I did, but it's not clear to me either. Canons from Japan were not at hand at the beginning of the war I think. Or were some other Mk V's present at Liverpool at that time? On one hand Massie writes that the British canons were 20 years old and had only a range of 9000 yards, on the other hand the German claim, that the British fired some salvos after their guns were already out of reach (12200 m). So I can't decide it for sure. --Andreas (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks more like an issue of clarifying dates. The RMS Carmania text currently says, "Following the outbreak of World War I, Carmania was converted into an armed merchant cruiser, equipped with eight 4.7-inch guns, and put under the command of Captain Noel Grant." It does not state when after the declaration that occurred; it may have been in 1914 or it may have been in 1918. This website says the V* was in use from 1915, so that is probably the earliest date that the Carmania was armed with these guns, unless there is a source that shows she was armed at an earlier date. The website also gives a slightly longer range, but that is partially an action of elevation - a ship can fire with the motion of the sea to increase elevation of the gun, although the aim is less certain. The guns could have been 20 years old but it may be that it was just the design that was old; they were already obsolete at the time of installation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Carmania was the ship, that fought with Cap Trafalgar on 14 September 1914 near the island of Trindade. So I'm convinced her guns were not of Japanese production. Since the action was fought mainly at lower distance, 7600 m down to 1500 m, the rate of fire was more interesting. Mk I-IV had a rate of fire with 5-6 shots per minute, Mk V 8-10. --Andreas (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Carmania was converted very early so I agree that Mk V guns were unlikely at that time. Osborne, Spong and Grover say that her guns had a max range of 9,300 yards, which fits the older guns far better than the more modern one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think they were from the early type. There is a footnote in the text two sentences later and it refers to this book: Simpson, Colin (1977). The Ship that Hunted Itself. Penguin Books. I do not have it, but when there is no mention about Mark V, than the Carmania text has to be changed. For me there remains the question, why these weapons had a range of 9000 yds (9300 yds), when officially rated with 10.000-12.000 yards. Were the guns of such a bad shape? --Andreas (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Osborne, etc., mention that the early AMCs had very crappy fire-control, so that may be the reason. Alternatively, it could have been that the guns were installed on old mounts with limited elevation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Armament

message: Old sources including the 1906 International Marine Engineering article clearly state that Carmania had three turbines for forward propulsion. Being built in 1904–05 they would all have been direct drive.
But Lloyd's Register for 1930, 1931 and 1932 all say that her port screw was driven by two turbines with single reduction gearing.
Reduction gearing for marine turbines was not introduced until about 1910–11. This suggests that someone her original port turbine was replaced with two new ones. I have no idea when or why, so I have not included this in the article. If another contributor can find out the full story, please add it!
– Motacilla (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement turbine?