Talk:Formidable-class battleship

Formidable-class battleship is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Parsecboy (talk) at 16:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Formidable-class battleship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom C‑class

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ships C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Janes Fighting Ships 1919 lists 7 out of 8 of these ships as Formidable-class (exception is HMS Bulwark, unclassifised). www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk says only Formidable, Implacable and Irresistible are Formidable-class, the rest are London-class. Any idea which is right? Geoff 21:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My Naval Annual 1913 doesn't have a lot to say, lists all eight together, with five including London getting a footnote noting a change in the bow armor. So I think the Londons could be considered a "subclass", which would explain the confusion. I would put them all in the Formidable class, add a redir, and use the article to explain the minor differences - when I get around to uploading the nice diagrams in my book, it will look kind of silly to clone the one diagram into two purportedly-different articles. Stan 22:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MacDougall (Chatham built warships since 1860 - ISBN 0 907771 07 6) gives the following details for Venerable and Prince of Wales which differ from the values already present here.

Displacement 15,000 tons, Length 400 ft, Draught 29 ft. Complement 740 (Venerable), 750 (Prince of Wales)

And for Irresistible

Displacement 15,000 tons, length 430 ft, Draught 27 ft, Speed 18.5 knots.

He also comments against Venerable "Little difference externally from Irresistible, but the Venerable had a longer belt of armour amidships". This would lead one to expect a larger displacement from the Londons unless the difference in deck armour thickness was very significant or there were other differences.

While some of the difference could arise from one source using waterline measurements while the other uses OA (MacDougal states he has used BP lengths), photographs confirm that these all had the straight, vertical stem one would expect from ships of this era (and a fairly low freeboard to boot), so 30' seems decidedly excessive. This suggests the London's did have shorter hulls which would significantly compensate for a thicker belt.

More sources needed I think. 13:30 BST 20 Set 04

Mikasa

The Japanese battleship Mikasa was built as a modification of the Formidable-class, yet there's no mention of this on the article. Any suggestions as how to proceed? ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Just a note in case anyone watches this article, but I'm planning on chopping it up in the next few days to bring it in line with how most historians treat the Formidable and London classes (see this discussion here). Gibbons seems to be the only historian who treats all 8 ships to be one class, so it hardly seems justifiable to give his opinion primacy of place. I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections, but in the absence of any, I'll start hacking. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a week and there have been no objections, I'm going to start chopping away. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]