Talk:HMS Victoria (1887)

message: A very interesting and well written article.  However, as a landlubber myself, I don't understand why a 90 degree turn is more dangerous and requires more space than a 180 degree turn (this seems counter intuitive to me!).  Would it be possible to include a diagram showing how this incident occurred? twitter 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not how I read your description of a 90 degree turn to port. It would result in a single column 90 degrees to port, with alternate ships from the original port and starboard column. The danger in the turn would be of the ship of the port column ramming the ship ahead in the starboard column before it had steamed to port by more than the distance between the 2 columns. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 90 degree turn

message: Rusalka and Victoria both sank in the same year, and both ended up in this strange vertical position. Is this coincidence or was there some technical reason that caused ships in this era to sink this way? Mmartins (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, how could the propellers have continued to work after capsize and submergence? Mmartins (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The front of the ship flooded (the hole from the collision was towards the front) while bulkheads kept the water away from the engines and boilers. Thus the engines were still running, and still manned, when the ship sank. The front flooded and pulled the rear down. Sandpiper (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck

message: why so many gold coins on this battle ship, and where did it come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.223 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold coins on Battle Ship? 

message: The reference in this article was uncited, and the reference made on page 304 of The Rules of the Game was also uncited.  It also flies in the face of Alec Guinness, quoted in Brian Lavery's recent book In Which They Served: The Royal Navy Officer Experience in the Second World War as saying that the character of Lord D'Ascoyne was based upon an officer Guinness knew when he was under Royal Navy officer training during the Second World War. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair the article never stated that Guinness based Admiral D'Ascoyne on Tryon, but rather that the incident in the film was based on the ramming and sinking of Victoria. Also try The Summer the Archduke Died by Louis Decimus Rubin. If we have sources saying that the incident was inspired by Camperdown/Victoria, and others that Guinness's portrayal of the admiral was based on someone he knew, the two are hardly incompatible. Benea (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When the source in question (the NMM website) can't even get Tryon as quoted by Lord Gillford correct, then I'd hardly call it reliable. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Kind Hearts and Coronets'' 

message: This person is never introduced to the reader. What was his rank or function? Chris the speller (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Captain Thomas Hawkins Smith (1845 - 1904) was a Staff Commander in the Navigating Branch of the Royal Navy at the time of the disaster and was the Victoria's navigating officer, specially chosen by Tryon for the position. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. I have added the surname, rank and function to the article. Chris the speller (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: at the court martial he kept answering saying he didnt know this or that because he had not been long in the the ship. Sandpiper (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkins-Smith 

message: At the time of the "Victoria" sinking, wages on board HM Ships were paid in the usual currency of gold sovreigns and half sovreigns. Perhaps the Fleet paymaster kept all his currency on board the flagship. If there were gold coins found on the "Victoria" this is the probable explanation.
It was only in 1916 that Winston Churchill stopped the use of gold for regular wage payouts "as a temporary measure only for the duration of the present war".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold coins 

message: Do we know the exact location of the exact location of the burial ground near Tripoli, are there any pictures of it, and does it still exist? DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tended Commonwealth War Grave site, the TRIPOLI (VICTORIA) NAVAL CEMETERY. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, the CWGC page for it is here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial ground near Tripoli 

message: The weight of the guns contributed to instability of the ship and the low forecastle design. Does this mean that the forecastle was designed low to prevent the ship's centre of gravity from rising too high? Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

message: I did read an account somewhere that due to the considerable weight of the 110 ton guns the forecastle had to be lower than ideal to prevent the ship being top heavy. The Naval Constructors department had long demonstrated that they were aware of scientific principles since the disaster of the "Captain".
Regarding the collision could this be a simple misunderstanding. Was Tryon referring to 200 cables as a RADIUS for turning and everybody else thought he meant 200 cables DIAMETER. The 200 cables RADIUS becomes 400 cables DIAMETER and could have given a reasonably easy turn under rudder only. 
The "Victoria" would then have turned outside the "Camperdown" and the "Camperdown" would turn in the opposite direction and observe the naval custom of not crossing the bow of the flagship. Had each ship then followed in turn the order of the fleet would have been preserved but all heading in the reverse direction.
Perhaps at the last moment Tryon may have realised that he hadn't made it clear that he meant 200 cables RADIUS and the order had been interpreted incorrectly. Could this be the remark "Its all my fault (for not specifying RADIUS"?
I suggest this as in the accounts that I have read nobody seems to make it clear whether Radius or diameter was being referred to on the bridge of the "Victoria".
Does anybody else have any thoughts about this as I'm not a seaman?AT Kunene (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the concept of turning radius would ever enter the mind of a seaman. In turning onto a reciprocal course you want to know how far your new course is displaced from your current one, which is the diameter of the turn. Tryon screwed up, like everyone does from time time, which is why we need other eyes and ears keeping watch with us. Rumiton (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: “had cylinders of diameters 3 in (76 mm), 62 in (1,600 mm) and 96 in (2,400 mm)”
The first cylinder size mentioned here can’t be right, if the second and third ones are correct, I would guess something like 40 inches (1,016 mm) for the first one. 
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 in is definitely wrong. Rumiton (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 43 in, per this. I changed it. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine cylinder size can't be right 

message: It seems no one has used Enigmas: Another Book of Unexplained Facts by Rupert T. Gould as a resource. He devotes a good thirty pages to the Victoria, and it might be a good source for another take on Tryon's intentions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.71.120 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Additional Resource 

message: Does anyone know the coordinates? It would be a good addition to the article. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck location?

message: Does anyone have a source that tells us what this stood for? Rumiton (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: TA

message: Reading Hough's book this seems the most likely explanation.
It seems very similar to say a British and American driver on opposite sides  of the road. The British is expecting the American to move over to the left, the American expects the British to move over to the right. Both are confused as to what the other is going to do on a tight turn and do nothing until far too late. AT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except driver Tryon had been told beforehand that he was going to be on the wrong side of the road and didn't care. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong side of the road 

message: Other ships came to a stop 200 yards and 100 yards away respectively. The conversion tag gives these as 180m and 91m.  In point of fact the distances are surely certain to have been given as one cable and half a cable respectively. They would be rough distances only, and they are appropriately converted to 200m and 100m. Otherwise we suggest that someone was measuring to the nearest 50 cm the distance between these ships!  Springnuts (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they gave the distances in yards. You find a source that states that it was measured in cables and you can put that in. To people who use metric, a yard is usually found behind one's house. I have a better idea what 180 metres is than a "cable length" or a "yard". 200 metres is definitely not 200 yards. Llammakey (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you accept the spurious accuracy point about 91m? Springnuts (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I'd rather go for accuracy than rounded numbers. 100 yards is not 100 metres. Find a source that says 100 metres and we will convert that into yards. Llammakey (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  For this purpose, 100 is perfectly good for either (the accuracy of the canonical number isn't any better). In which case, we don't need the conversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a first step I found a link to the court-martial document. I will add that, then look to put the distances in cables as the primary measure where they are so given, since this official document must be an archetypal RS.  I note that ships’ turning circles are generally given in yards, (always to a an exact multiple of 100 yards, and with a recognition that turning circles are not an exact science), but distances between ships given in cables, even down to a quarter of a cable. But is it safe to assume general understanding of how long a cable is, or that measuring distances between ships at sea involves approximation, even when done, as  (sometimes) in this case, by measuring angles? So in this instance would something on the lines of eg “one cable (approximately 200 metres/yards)” be appropriate? Springnuts (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text: * I think cables and yards would be appropriate. Some would recognise cables, and there's value to using them if that's the likely unit for comparisons with other contemporary documents. But far from "everyone" or "general understanding". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text:  I don't understand? If measurements at sea are approximate and that is what you are looking for, why not put the word "approximately" in front of 200 yards? Why all this roundabout way to eliminate the 91 metres? I disagree on the 100 being perfectly good. 100 yards is not 100 metres. Do not introduce intentional factual inaccuracy. It's one thing for the source to be inaccurate but for editors to then double down and introduce even more inaccuracy because you like rounded numbers...I'd have to bring this up for review if that were the case. Llammakey (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text: * "Approximately 200 yards" is good. "Aproximately 200 yards (approximately 200 m)" is pointless. "Aproximately 200 yards (approximately 180 m)" would be worse, as it implies an extra digit of precision that we can't justify. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh no. Approx 200 yards makes metric users learn imperial measurements just because, and 200 yards (180 m) is not approx 200 metres. That is a variance of 40 metres because 200 yards is 220 metres. That is 120 feet if you cannot do the metric math, roughly half the length of the ship. That is not approximately. Llammakey (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the correction.  Now I feel OK about ignoring you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, ditto. I will also have to go about checking your work for factual inaccuracies now. Good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As that's a clear threat to WP:HOUND  , I will insist that you at least get your arithmetic right this time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please reread WP:HOUND. Once again, you introduced a factual error. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". Llammakey (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  "a factual error"  Which was?  Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what, I apologize. I let my pride and anger get in my way. I will not hound you or otherwise follow you around. You are a good editor, and I shouldn't have let the red mist descend. I hope you have a good day. I'm sorry once again. Llammakey (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious accuracy in conversion of distances 

message: Would anyone happen to know the exact location of "Snipe Point near Platea on the Greek coast" where the grounding of 1892 took place? As far as I can ascertain, the nearest harbour near Plataea (which is several miles inland) is in the vicinity of this point. Contemporary reports are similarly unforthcoming.
I found a photo of the anchorage here: The Vulcan, Royal Sovereign and Thetis at Plataea Harbour c.1900.
An admittedly classical survey of Boetia says that "Creusis is not the port of Plataea and no
real route joined them.[102] The harbour of Plataea probably lay at Aghios Vasilios, about three kilometres to the southeast of Creusis, at the terminus of an overland route that avoids the rigours of the Oeroe valley." A History of Boetia by Robert J Buck, NB PDF pp 4, 14 (nos. 39 & 40) and 28.
The article pic taken from Tryon's biography p. 282 appears to show just such a place, but it is otherwise devoid of useful information.
Any ideas? MinorProphet (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipe Point