Talk:Revenge-class battleship

message: "This scheme was chosen since, at the time the Revenges were being designed, it was still believed that any major fleet-to-fleet engagement would take place at relatively close ranges and that, as at the Battle of Tsushima, lighter calibre quick-firing guns would be responsible for most of the damage inflicted upon enemy ships"
As best as I'm aware this statement is completely incorrect.  The Battle of Tushima demonstrated that naval battles would be fought at longer ranges than anticipated and that secondary weapons were of no offensive value.  The whole point of Dreadnoughts was that they were designed to fight at the longest possible ranges and their secondary batteries were for defence only.  The Royal Navy adopted the 6 inch gun to provide extra punch against the larger torpedo boats and destroyers of the day, they would not be able to even scratch the belt armour of a contempory battleship.  If no one objects I will remove the offendin sentence.  Getztashida 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to battle of Tsushima 

message: I've altered the link for Ramilles, from the "battle of Cape Teulada" to "the battle of Cape Spartivento"; this is the correct name of the article (Teulada is a link), and Spartivento is the British name for the engagement, which seems appropriate for this article on a British warship on the English wikipaedia. Xyl 54 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramilles 

message: I have reverted the unsourced edit by 24.73.195.198, namely:
...as well as due to the fact that when she was torpedoed by U-47 the Germans had not yet given up on magnetic detonators and the explosions were directly under the ship rather than against the side.
The recent highly detailed survey of Royal Oak by Adus using their side-scan sonar clearly shows all of Prien's torpedoes impacted the side of the hull, not under the keel, with the exception of the first shot which destroyed part of the bow. You can view these images at . Also . --84.71.15.48 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted text on magnetically-detonated torpedoes 

message: I can't believe a battleship in the 1930s and WWII would have only 2 AA guns... What about the ubiquitous 2 pounder pom-poms ? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the Revenge-class had their single 4-inch AA guns replaced by 4 twin QF 4 inch Mk XVI naval guns on dual-purpose Mark XIX mountings. From British Battleships 1939-45 (1): Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign Classes by Angus Konstam. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 2 AA guns?! 

message: Was there not also a Revenge-Class in the 1860s, screw-propelled wooden battleships ships of about 5500 tons with about 90 guns? Cosal (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier Revenge Class 

message: In the "Service" section, it says (without reference): "Moreover, the Revenges were scheduled to be replaced by the new  capital ships as they came into service". My understanding is that the Revenges were due to be replaced by the King George V-class and it was the Queen Elizabeths that were due to be replaced by the Lions. I can't find a reference to support this at the moment - can anybody else help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: I'd like to call attention to the 3rd paragraph of the "Service" section. The 3rd sentence in particular:
"Churchill writes that (WHICH SHIPS? OLDER BATTLESHIPS GENERALLY?) were a constant anxiety, and he witnessed the Admiralty keep as many thousands of miles between them and the enemy as possible" 
The words inside the brackets seem to be... not important, rather distracting and generally not in context. I would like to re-write this as 
"Churchill wrote that they were a constant anxiety, and witnessed the Admiralty keep them as many miles between them and the enmy as possible" 
I don't know where this info comes from anyway, and it isn't sourced, so removing it as well could be a possibility. 
Thoughts?
79.69.198.21 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we delete this?