Talk:HMS Ark Royal (91)

message: What are "16 4.5-inch/45-caliber guns"? Moriori 02:45, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
:A little clearer? —Morven 07:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  16 of 4.5 inch diameter 45 calibres long. GraemeLeggett 08:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right:  16 guns paired in 8 turrets, each of which had a bore diameter of 4.5 inches, and the barrels were 45 times the length of the bore, i.e. 202.5 inches or 16 feet 10.5 inches. I am surprised to see them described as "anti-aircraft guns" as most navies considered a barrel that long too unwieldy to track aircraft accurately.  Perhaps these were actually dual-purpose, i.e. a compromise gun for use against both destroyers and aircraft, like the American 5/38? 207.245.172.22 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4.5" Mk I was a new dual-purpose weapon fitted on high-angle/low-angle mounts on new aircraft carriers like the Ark Royal and reconstructed battleships and battlecruisers like the Renown.  The later had ten twin 4.5" counter-sunk turrets, spit into four groups; each group had its own director with a HACS Mk IV fire control table for high-angle fire and an AFCC Mk VII fire control table for low-angle fire.  They were used against both aircraft and surface targets - the Renown used her 4.5s with success against the battleship Gneisenau.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: According to the good article criteria, I have passed this article. Some useful suggestions I can give include a copyedit (from WP:MHL, and an A-Class review from WP:MILHIST before an attempt at FAC. Also, if you have an opportunity, please consider reviewing an article here. -MBK004 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful Good Article Nomination 

message: What is the significance/origin of the name "Ark Royal"?  Can this be added to the article, please? Johntex\talk 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is taken from the first ship, HMS Ark Royal (1587). The 'Ark' part was chosen by Walter Raleigh and ships usually took the name of the owner, so she was 'Ark Raleigh'.  The government then purchased her for the navy, and since the crown was the owner and no longer Raleigh, she became 'Ark Royal'.  All subsequent ships have been named after this one. However the reason why a ship may receive a certain name can vary and be based on speculation.  HMS Ark Royal (1914) had been an early seaplane carrier so perhaps the Admiralty wanted to perpetuate the name in connection with naval aviation, but this is OR on my part.  For a similar example it was decided to name the current HMS Ark Royal (R07) after the previous HMS Ark Royal (R09) was scrapped, to try to ease public anger at the loss of Britain's fleet carriers to budget cuts. While that Ark Royal had probably been named after this Ark Royal because of her fame. Since this article is about this specific ship, I don't think this is the place to go into a discussion on the origin of the name with regards to this lineage, since for the most part it's unsourced and not directly relevant. One way to get to it is to follow the 'other ships' link to see where the name comes from.  Or it could be briefly outlined in a note. Benea (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: These findings seemed to absolve Ark Royal’s captain of blame for failing to save her.
That's unwarrented, IMO.  E.g. no damage control for 49 minutes after the hit.  The fact that the currents at the time prevented her being moved to Gibralter is one thing, but she might not have sunk in the first place had damage control promptly occurred.
Toby Douglass (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have misunderstood this section.  The findings of the investigation were 'The sinking of the Ark Royal was shown to be only a matter of time once the damage had been done.' So she would have sunk even if damage control measures were carried out promptly, in other words the torpedo hit was fatal.  The fact that Maund had failed to save the ship was not his fault, no captain could have saved Ark Royal.  That's not to say that Maund was guilty for not having initiated procedures at once, and indeed the board of inquiry condemned him for not having done so. But the ultimate sinking was not due to Maund's failure to do so. Benea (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rediscovery 

message: Why did the RN not deploy naval version of the Hurricane or the Seafire on this ship?
:becasue she was sunk before the Seafire was widely used, adn the naval Hurris were mostly used on CAM or MAC ships, rather than fleet carriers I should think.  David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricanes could be flown from her flight deck, but they couldn't be carried on her lifts, so they'd have had to remain on the deck at all times. There were vague intentions to adapt the lifts to take Hurricanes, but as the flight deck was a major part of the structure this would have required a long time in dock, which simply wasn't available. Shimgray | talk | 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft 

message: Is the Ark Royal the first Royal Navy Fleet Carrier they got?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.65.197 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Royal Navy had been operating fleet carriers since the First World War, the first ones being the Glorious class aircraft carriers, and HMS Argus (I49). Benea (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Fleet Carrier? 

message: Is it worth mentioning or linking to Unsinkable Sam, the ship's cat? -- saberwyn 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsinkable Sam 

message: Hi all, excellent work on this article, and congratulations on getting it on the main page today! I read through the article, and noticed a few places where some citations should be added. I didn't want to add  tags, what with the article being on the main page and all, but I still wanted to bring it to your attention. For instance, the bit on Bismarcks fate after being torpedoed by Ark Royals Swordfishes needs a citation. Most of these should be pretty easy to tidy up. Let me know if you need any clarification or anything. I can probably help with some of them, but I'm about done for the night, so I'll come back tomorrow and see what I can do. Congrats again on such a fine article on the main page. Parsecboy (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be easy to fix, I'm off as well now, but I'll add them later. Thanks for not tagging them immediately, I know many editors would not have been sensible/sensitive enough before dashing through. Benea (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed most of them, but I'm probably as far as I can go. There's a line about the refit that started on 3 November (I'm guessing Jameson will cover this, but the majority of his book isn't viewable in Google Books) and the bit about the hangar decks being in the hull and causing the flight deck to be 66 feet above the waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. My internet went down suddenly for the entire day, so I missed practically the entire period of its appearance on the mainpage. Probably for the best, since I'd have spent a lot of time fighting vandals. When I got on I saw you at work, so thought I'd not cause edit conflicts. I'll sort out the remaining cites. Benea (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem at all. Yeah, it's always sad to miss your article on the main page. One of mine, , ran during a vacation, so I missed the whole thing. Everything looks good now, excellent work tying off those last couple of loose ends. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of comments 

message: One of the references is:
:Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, Appendix A. Ark Royal entered service with four 8 barreled mountings, but by October 1941 all six mountings were in place.
I suspect someone forgot to then add this to the "books" section after adding this to the body of the article.
I went ahead and added it to "Books" myself but as I don't have the book I may have added the wrong edition. I found these:
* Friedman, Norman (1988) British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft. Conway Maritime Press 
* Friedman, Norman (1989) British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and their Aircraft. Naval Institute Press 
The troublesome aspect is the Conway edition is 352 pages and the Naval Institute edition is 384 pages. They are roughly the same size. The page count difference may be typesetting or that the Naval Institute edition includes Appendix A which is the part being used by the citation <ref>s in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the info was from the N.I.P., . I should have specified this when I created the original reference.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Congratulations on WP:TFA. I enjoyed reading the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman reference for ''British Carrier Aviation'' 

message: The article links no article to the Captain Maund's mention in the end of the article.  The name should link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loben_Edward_Harold_Maund, which details his career.
:Generally, only the first occurence of a wikilink 'target' is linked to. -- saberwyn 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Captain Loben Maund 

message: I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Captain Val Bailey is reported to be the last person off the HMS Ark Royal
* 
--Marc Kupper|talk 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Val Bailey 

message: Certainly an interesting ship, but at 6,500 words this article seems overly detailed. Sca (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Ship's complement is listed as "1,580 officers and sailors" which I find odd since I think of Officers as being sailors too. I assume here it means what I would call "seaman" or "enlisted." Is this standard British usage? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. Look around British books on such vessels and you'll find it quite often Sometimes it's "officers and men". Britmax (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sailors 

message: Several of the Friedman citations are accompanied by prose, for example: "Ark Royal entered service with four 8-barrelled mountings, but by October 1941 all six mountings were in place." I can't tell if these are explanatory notes or quotes from the source. If they are notes, I think they should be placed in the Notes section; if they are quotes, they should have quote marks around them. Anyone know which they are? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman, notes or quotes?