Talk:HMS Rodney (29)

message: From where is the statement that Rodney actually torpedoed Bismarck successfully derived from? Neither Raven and Roberts' British Battleships or Bercuson and Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck mention it at all, and Ludovic in Pursuit says that Rodney fired 8 torpedoes, none of which hit (p.197-199 of the 1975 Pinnacle Books edition). 
68.20.4.14 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote regarding the number of torpedoes fired and the one that hit and exploded comes from "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" by Rear Admiral  Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN who was the Navigator on the bridge of  Rodney  throughout the Bismarck sinking. He was in fact a Lt. Cmdr. at the time and served as Navigator on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown and Nelson before joining Rodney in 1940-1, leaving in 1942 to become Commander of HMAS Australia and much later Flag Officer Commanding HMA Fleet. The Dart (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Considering that Ludovic Kennedy was a junior Lieutenant in  HMS Tartar, a destroyer which had returned to it's duties escorting the convoy that HMS Rodney had left to pursue 'Bismarck', he was not actually present at the sinking of her. The written words of 'Rodney's' Navigator who was actually there obviously have far more credence than his!The Dart (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And we all know how reliable eyewitnesses are. AFAIK, there's no evidence of any torpedo damage to the hull seen by any of the expeditions to the wreck of the Bismarck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Sturmvogel 66 perhaps you need to see David L. Mearns DVD "The Battle of Hood and Bismarck" of 2009. The claim that the German crew make that 'Bismarck' was scuttled is highly disputed by several Naval historians of high regard, Antony Preston for one.The Dart (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the book that he did on that, although it's inaccessible for the nonce. I was more interested in his comments on Hood at the time, but I'll pull it out and take a look at it whenever I can. Evidence from the wreck, if it's clear enough, will trump everyone's opinion's about the torpedoing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Torpedoing the Bismarck?

message: I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s.  He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington".  --jmb 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherry Tree Class

message: Rodney had her 6 x 4.7 inch guns replaced by 8 x 4 inch guns in twin mounts.  Does anybody know:  which 4.7 inch mounts were replaced, and which were not?  Was it number 1 and 2 on each side (abreast the superstructure) were replaced, and number 3 (on the fantail) left open?  Or was it numbers 1 and 3 replaced, and number 2 left open?  Anybody know?
76.112.65.31 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 inch guns 

message: Both these ships were notorious for bad steering at low speeds. Both ships leaving Portsmouth harbour frequently ran aground on the Hamilton Bank. A standing naval joke was "Nelson on Hamilton again".AT Kunene (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not under the navigation of G.G.O. Gatacre. Besides HMS Warspite did exactly that several times and Ray Burt states in "British Battleships 1919-1945" pg.154 Handling and Manoeuvrability, "it is on record that several of the Royal Sovereigns 'played up' especially at slow speeds". To level such a criticism specifically at the 'Nelson's' as though they were uncommonly difficult to navigate is absurdly unfair! In Burt's book on pg.350 he quotes Capt. T.H. Binney with regard to Nelson's manoeuvrability "In the early stages of the ship's 1st commission, there was a general misconception in 'the service' that the 'Nelson' class were unhandy & difficult to manoeuvre", followed by " both my predecessor & myself, however, very soon discovered that this opinion was ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS"."In calm weather, the ship's manoeuvring capabilities are in no way inferior to those of 'Queen Elizabeth' or 'Revenge'." Also matelots who never served in the 'Nelson's' were always deriding this class of battleship because of jealousy relating to the comfortable accommodation & amenities that Nelson & Rodney's crews enjoyed compared to any other battleship in the RN. The criticisms directed at these two ships is mainly based in ignorance of the radical design concepts they embodied which other navies such as the French and with respect to the all-or-nothing armour, the U.S. were later to emulate.The Dart (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the US invented the concept of all-or-nothing armor back in 1916 with the .--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, what I was refering to in particular was "the length of the armoured citadel was reduced to a minimum in order to maximise armour thickness; this ran counter to accepted practice in other navies, notably the US Navy, which saw the armoured belt as a protector not only of the ships vitals but also of its bouyancy and stability." cite. John Jordan & Robert Dumas, French Battleships 1922-1956,  The Dart (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's entirely different. IIRC, the American concept dropped things like the upper strake of armor and similar thinly-armored places to concentrate most everything except the conning tower protection on thickening the waterline belt and the main deck armor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steering 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Rodney (29). 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://www.webcitation.org/6BCbi4H90?url=http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html to http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html
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) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Above there has been discussion on the replacement of the 4.7 in guns with 4 in ones. I feel that in the photo of the Rodney shelling Caen the stern heavy AA guns are different from those appearing in the photos at earlier times. At least they have been enclosed. Is a computer wizard able to say something? Perhaps the top-quality photo to do this is in www.world-war.co.uk. pietro151.29.86.54 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos are not normally considered reliable sources.SovalValtos (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  a task for a computer wizard 

message: @: Please explain your deletion of the Buxton reference Source Buxton (2019) with the allegation in the summary that the author, Ian Buxton, was a "Spammy Author" in the edit summary.  Additionally this left the article syntax broken in a "good article" with citation to Buxton p. 114 being left with no associated reference source, and I've reverted from that inconsistent broken state for that reason.  Referring to 's thread at Talk:Chichester#"Spammy author" it is possible the gripe is with the book editor MacDougall.  Per that thread, and especially as the citation seems added by  in good faith on 30 November 2021 at  & , albeit temporarily removed by an IP on 9 December 2020, , please explain your actions and allegations.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Djm-leighpark Kindly (and very bluntly) unwatch my talkpage and stay the fuck out of things that do not concern you. If I wanted your opinion I would've asked for it. –Davey2010Talk 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spammy Author" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion