This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Prince of Wales (53) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
HMS Prince of Wales (53) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guys, the tables etc are important, but please don't ignore the POV text. There are far too many opinionated comments here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Ed ( talk • contribs)
Need an interpretation here: Is it Prince of Wales or Prince Of Wales?
Definitely Prince of Wales. Lower case o in of. A historical name after the title 'Prince of Wales' which refers to the first son of the King/Queen of England, who would also be first in line to the throne. Wales is know as a Principality because of this. Some of them even learned Welsh as a language. Prince Charles speaks it very well. I met him once, but I bet he doesn't remember me ;-) -- Andy Wade 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a reported difference in tonnage:
Prince of Wales Statistics: 35,000 tons, ten 15-inch guns, crew of 110 officers and 1,502 ratings, last Captain is Captain John C. Leach.
Military Heritage did a feature on the Prince Of Wales and its sinking (Joseph M. Horodyski, Military Heritage, Volume 3, No. 3, pp.69 to 77).
The tonnage and captain's name are correct. The ship had 14 inch guns, not 15 inch. 147.240.236.9 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
They skipped pre-operation 'work up' to get her into combat faster, leaving the crew inadequately trained - note in edit summary left by User:Hrimfaxi. Hrimfaxi is saying that is the reason the ship's AA gunners failed to shoot down the Japanese planes that sank her.
She fought the Bismarck in May. She was in Singapore in December. Just what the heck did the crew do for seven months, go on holiday? Drogo Underburrow 10:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guys, If you'd like, I'm pretty sure that they did several gunnery exercises in the time between Bismarck and the sinking, but I can confirm this with some of the crew I know who are still alive if you'd like. Would this be an acceptable verification though? Please let me know what you think. -- Andy Wade 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, even we are talking about a RN warship here, and I know they would have had plenty of gunnery practice in the time of the Malta convoys, and on the way to South Africa, and Singapore. But I can't 'verify' this. Never mind anyway... However, here's a ref: Page 206/207 of 'Battleship' (MiddleBrook & Mahoney), states that after the port outer shaft hit, the resulting vibration caused huge damage, and four of the eight dynamo compartments had been flooded. So the four aft 5.25 turrets P3, P4, S3, S4 had lost all electrical power, and the Pom Poms had faulty ammunition belts, and then shortly afterwards because of the 11.5 degree list, the forward four 5.25 turrets could not traverse, although they could elevate. So they had very little AA defence left to speak of at this time. Even if they'd had a good amount of practice, they couldn't have used their guns anyway That port outer hit was indeed a 'one in a million' chance.
I forgot to say... I think that the story about gunners not being worked up has been confused with the inexperienced main gun crews before the Denmark Strait battle, and not the AA gun crews at Singapore. -- Andy Wade 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to do the tags and stuff, so hpefully, someone can do 'em for me. This article has good references, but we don't know where they're used, since there are no endnotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.34.143 ( talk) 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
This ship is in the category "Protected Wrecks of the UK", which links to List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act. This shipwreck, however, is not on that list. I do see that it is on the list of 'Wrecks designated as military remains' under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 [1]. It appears that List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act should be updated to include the Prince of Wales per that site, but I am unsure of the distinction between the two Acts, therefore I am proposing the addition here in hopes of advice. Maralia
All the above clarifications are correct and I have changed the catmore on Category:Protected Wrecks of the UK to remove the confusion Viv Hamilton 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The casualty figures in the articles on the Prince of Wales, Repulse and the sinking of both ships do not agree with one-another (Eg. According the article on Repulse more survivors were rescued from the ship than were in its complement, and >300 died). I have no idea what the correct figures are and since there are no in-line citations it's impossible to work out where the data has come from. Does anyone have verifiable information on the complement of each ship and the number that perished in December 41? Wiki-Ed 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I found some numbers at this source:
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/prince.html and
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/casualties.html
Thanks, Carl Gusler 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely "given to the United States of America to aid in the Pacific campaign" is not an accurate description of PoW's mission in the Pacific. I will need to pull out some reference work but my understanding of her mission was a Churchill idea to send a few top-quality warships to the Pacific to intimidate the Japanese and bolster confidence in British Empire subjects. Has anyone else objected to the wording quoted above? --Tchie Tao 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a really hard time believing that this ship has a motto in the German language, as opposed to Latin or English. I can't find any Internet information to support or refute. What is the source of this information?
Thanks, Carl Gusler 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to correct some misinformation on your HMS Prince of Wales page but see it was not ‘accepted’. For the record, the depth of the wreck IS approximately 68m/223ft to the seabed (+/- depending on the tides), not 155ft as you state. And the wreck is actually upside down, not 'nearly' upside down either. How do I know? I have made numerous dives on the wreck and participated in an extensive hull survey on both PoW and HMS Repulse in 2007 (Expedition ‘Job 74’).
To give you some idea of the PoW wreck orientation, her port deck edge is flush with or buried into the seabed from her very stern all the way forward to approximately opposite the leading edge of B turret, with the foredeck then held slightly up off the seabed from A turret to the bow stem. Her starboard deck edge is flush with the seabed at the stern and gradually ‘rises’ until it is held up off the seabed (by her superstructure) amidships about 4m/12ft or so, with the deck edge then again getting gradually closer to the seabed the further forward one goes, until the very bow itself is about 2m/6ft up.
And for an idea of the ’angle’ the wreck is on, or how just upside down she is, the quad barrels of A turret which point forward and are ‘level’ (that is down in their ‘least elevated’ position as it were) can just be seen on the seabed. The starboard most barrel is actually visible while the furthest port one is almost completely buried. If you can picture that ‘orientation’, that is her foredeck is only a few degrees from ‘level’ so to speak, then it should give you some idea just how ‘upside down’ she is.
Now while the above details obviously do not need to be included in your page I think you should at least correct the depth. As for ‘nearly’ upside down, well if that’s what you still think after reading the above then, without meaning to be rude, your idea of ‘upside down’ is obviously very different to mine.
PS. While the above details were correct and verified during our 2007 expedition, it should be noted that ocean currents could/can scour out or build up sand incrementally on either side of the wreck at any time.
Should you be so interested, for further info on the wreck please see our 2007 survey report at; http://www.explorers.org/expeditions/reports/Flag_Reports_PDF/Expedition%20Job_74_web_version.pdf
Kevin Denlay 124.171.135.199 ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that’s odd, as when I open up the page (even now) it still shows text as 'nearly' upside down and '155ft' as depth (and the link I inserted to the survey report is not their either). Why am I not seeing the changes? I didn’t think that someone (i.e. the general public) searching for info had to first be 'logged in' to view your pages? Are you implying that for anyone to see the changes they must first log in?
Kevin 124.171.135.199 ( talk) 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Benea! However, although I can see the four contribution headings on the history page, the main page (at my end) still shows no changes whatsoever. Any idea why my computer would show the changes on the history page but not update the main page?
Kevin 124.171.135.199 ( talk) 06:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. Benea, after posting last comment/question I called a friend and had him check the page via his computer. Interestingly, the changes don't show up via his computer either. Kevin 124.171.135.199 ( talk) 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Kevin, all your updates mentioned are showing to me and I have refreshed the page. It's a puzzle as to why you can't see them. Did you clear your browser history? Maybe it's loading a previous version of the page from your cache? Can't think of any other reason it would not show the page updates. Would you mind adding the depth in metres as well as feet as nowadays most nautical charts are metric. Also I'd appreciate it if you could confirm that the depth you stated is at chart datum and therefore tidal heights are additional to the actual charted depth. Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the current state of the wreck. Cheers! -- Andy Wade ( talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I am a bit suspicious about the story about the naming of the ship in this article i.e. that it was at one time planned to be called "King Edward VIII". The reason is that " King George V" was launched earlier, so if Edward had not abdicated it would have been the first battleship of his reign. They were both laid down on the same day, did KGV overtake PoW during construction?
If there was some doubt about what the first ship of the class was to be called, what were they calling the class while it was being planned. Was it always thought to be likely that the first ship of the class would be KGV? PatGallacher ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The story about KGV seems plausible enough, but I am suspicious about the story about PoW. I suspect it may have arisen because at that time Edward only recently had been Prince of Wales, and the title was still widely associated with him, particularly since at that time there was not a current Prince of Wales. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Checking the article, I see that there is a source for this, Philip Ziegler's "King Edward VIII". However I still think it would be worth checking this work. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Pure speculation, but it's possible that the KGV was always planned to be called this, since there was an earlier battleship of this name which was scrapped in 1926, there was a lengthy hiatus in building battleships caused by various naval treaties, but the second KGV was the first battleship to be launched after the first was scrapped, and the Navy wanted to have a battleship with the name of the current sovereign. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article could be basically right. Here is what I think probably happened, although it does include some speculation. The crucial point to note is that the 2 battleships were ordered and laid down on the same day, so during the relevant period it may not have been clear which was going to be launched first. There had already been serious plans under way for the new class of battleship in 1935, while the old king was alive. Possibly at that stage there were already at least tentative plans to build 2 ships of the new class in the first instance, and they would be called KGV and PoW. During the crisis of 1936 the Navy wanted to follow the convention of naming the first battleship to be launched in the new reign after the new monarch, but they did not know which this would be. They offered Edward to rename the PoW, since in a way it was already named after him, and it might not make much sense to have a ship called PoW when there was not a current prince, but he turned them down, possibly already sensing problems with his reign. After the abdication they made a similar offer to George, but this time they had to offer to rename the KGV since it would have created operational problems to have 2 ships with very similar names, but he turned them down for different reasons. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Putting this in here; it doesn't sit very well in the reference section imho. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it accurate to have the date of the sinking under the "struck" entry in the infobox? I thought ships were struck when their names were removed from the roll due to decommissioning, not sinking? Or am I being FOOLISH? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What is this "Prince of York" mentioned with Repulse as being the first ships sunk solely by airfire? Is that supposed to be Prince of Wales? NevarMaor ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wiki cop ter what i do s + c cup| former 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I'll get to this.
Comments
Everything looks resolved here. Are there any further issues? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Last comment is not resolved yet. Nom user has been absent for 21 days, article is failed as a result. FAC Wiki cop ter what i do s + c cup| former 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In the 1950s when there some talk of the RN building a new Prince of Wales there were stories about survivors from the original ship.
Both the PoW and the Repulse called in at South Africa on their way out to the Far East. So many men simply deserted rather than sail to Singapore that the local police had to be used to round up deserting cremen.
There were numbers who were never caught and put their survival down to simply having deserted at the time in south Africa.
Does anybody else have any information about this? AT Kunene ( talk) 12:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
If you check the actual history, the Joint Declaration issued as a press release at 9:00 a.m. on August 14, 1941 in Washington DC, by FDR's press secretary, Stephen Early, was not called the "Atlantic Charter". It was simply a press release of a joint declaration, and it was unsigned. In fact, neither FDR nor Churchill ever signed it. (FDR lied when he said in the press release that it was signed.) The term "Atlantic Charter" was not coined until about August 19, 1941 by the London Daily Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andante$46 ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Death of the Battleship, Richard Hough
( IHR mlm1134 ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BrianDeeG ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I will review the article but have no immediate comments. I am currently on a short holiday and will begin the process in a few days time. -- Brian ( talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't fault this article and I see that the only reason it failed GAN last year was because it then had insufficient information about the Battle of the Denmark Strait. That has been rectified in the interim. It meets all the criteria and is an interesting, informative and well-written article with good verification and no problems. It passes easily. Well done to all concerned. -- Brian ( talk) 18:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article "Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse" the photograph of the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse used in the "Far East" section was edited by adding a destroyer in the foreground. The Wikipedia article "Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse" cites the source (Stephen, Martin. Sea Battles in Close-up: World War 2 (Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan, 1988), Volume 1, p. 111.)
GENTLEMEN. PARDON MY INTERJECTING HERE IN CAPITALS BUT I WANT TO REFUTE SOME OF YOUR POINTS. I AM NOT INTENDING TO SHOUT PER SE, JUST WANT TO DIFFERENTIATE MY TEXT FROM OTHERS.
SO, FIRST, THE ABOVE ASSUMPTION RE 'EDITING / INSERTING' A DD IS INCORRECT.
The description for the photograph used in the "Far East" section claims the destroyer in the foreground is HMS Express, when in fact that "destroyer" is a complete fabrication. Doctored photographs with inaccurate descriptions do not belong on a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecko116 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG RE FABRICATION (SEE BELOW).
AND THAT IS CORRECT!
Your source doesn't reveal exactly how the photograph of HMS Prince of Wales has been "retouched". Your source states that the photograph of HMS Prince of Wales has been "heavily retouched" without clarifying what in the photograph has been "retouched", and my source states that the destroyer in the foreground of the photograph is a fabrication.
WHO IS YOUR SOURCE???? NOT JUST THE BOOKS YOU QUOTE I HOPE?
A vague description on the Imperial War Museum website isn't good enough evidence to discount the information from my source. (Stephen, Martin. Sea Battles in Close-up: World War 2 (Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan, 1988), Volume 1, p. 111.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gecko116 (
talk •
contribs)
07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SECOND HAND SOURCES AT BEST. LETS LOOK AT THE 'ORIGINAL' SHALL WE. (SEE BELOW.) BY THE WAY, UNFORTUNATELY, THE IWM HAS SOME OF THE WORST COPIES OF SOME HISTORICAL (NAVAL) IMAGES I HAVE EVER SEEN.(HOW DO I KNOW? UNFORTUNATELY I BOUGHT SOME FROM IWM BEFORE COLLECTING MUCH MUCH BETTER COPIES OF THE SAME IMAGE ELSEWHERE.)
IT IS NOT JUST CONCEIVABLE, IT IS A FACT. THE ORIGINAL IMAGE APPEARS TO SHOW THAT BOTH PRINCE OF WALES AND EXPRESS (THE DD IN FOREGROUND) HAVE JUST MADE AN 'ABOUT TURN' WHILE REPULSE CONTINUES ON HER WAY.
but not like thi) and the funnel smoke is distinctly different and is blowing in different directions; the destroyer has no funnel smoke at all, despite being portrayed as sailing at high speed.
NOT SO. SAILING A HIGH SPEED DOES NOT 'HAVE' TO PRODUCE SMOKE.
Also, given that this is supposedly a Japanese point of view, the angle at which this photo was "taken" and the apparent proximity to the destroyer seems improbable (no AA fire).
OH, THERE IS PLENTY OF AA FIRE FROM THE DD IN THE 'ORIGINAL', BELIEVE ME! SEE BELOW RE ORIGINAL PHOTO.
Nevertheless the shape and structure of an E-class destroyer at this angle is quite clear - much more so than one might expect if a Japanese newspaper artist was trying to sketch it without a reference point. To my eye it looks like the sea, the sky and the Repulse are the the original image; the other elements have been added in from other photographic sources and/or retouched. Fabrication is too strong a word. Either way, it's irrelevant - this is not a reason to remove it; it's an original wartime image and portrays the action the article is describing.
Wiki-Ed (
talk)
10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ORIGINAL PHOTO, AS OPPOSED TO THE PHOTO YOU ARE DISCUSSING (AND IS ON THE WIKI PAGE IN QUESTION AS OF 22/DEC/2014) IS REAL, NOT FAKED. YES, THE ORIGINAL HAS ALSO BEEN ‘RETOUCHED’ SOMEWHAT, BUT TO NOWHERE NEAR THE EXTENT AS SEEN IN THE PHOTO YOU ARE DISCUSSING. AND 'RETOUCHING' IS NOT FAKING! (PHOTOGRAPHERS, IN THE DARKROOM, 'BURNT AND DODGED', ETC, IMAGES LONG BEFORE DIGITAL CAME ALONG.)
HOW DO I KNOW? I OWN AN ORIGINAL HARD COPY OF THE PRINT AS PUBLISHED / ISSUED BY THE JAPANESE IN 1942. (AND ON THAT PRINT IT IS PLAIN TO SEE THE SMOKE POURING OFF THE AA GUNS ON HMS EXPRESS, THE DESTROYER IN THE FOREGROUND, SO THAT ‘REASON’ FOR DOUBT ABOVE CAN BE THROWN OUT THE WINDOW ALSO.)
I WILL, WHEN I GET A CHANCE (AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO SO), REPLACE THAT HEAVILY DOCTORED VERSION OF THE IMAGE ON THAT OTHER WIKI PAGE WITH THE ONE I HAVE.
PS. BY THE WAY, THIS TOPIC AND THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE PHOTO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ADINFINITUM ON VARIOUS NAVAL HISTORICAL FORUMS OVER THE YEARS. AND ONCE FULLY DISSECTED / DISCUSSED THERE HAS BEEN NO DOUBT AS TO THE 'NON-FAKERY' (AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE 'RETOUCHING') OF THE ORIGINAL IMAGE.
Britmax; First, no idea how to 'sign', so...................you will have to live with that. 2nd, as I said in my intro I was not intending to shout (but some people it seems are so hung up on 'terms' that they can't see past their own prejudices). Nor is there any argument. I am just presenting facts, not an argument. Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored after all. That being said, upon rereading some of what was written previously in this section re the photo in question (in support of various 'theories / assumptions'), it seems it may have been a good idea to 'shout' after all, especially seeing as the 'debate' centered around a heavily, repeat heavily doctored (not just 'retouched') copy of the original photograph, as opposed to the original itself.
Wiki-Ed; As for 'correct license', what do you mean? And the photo (that is there now) is not just 'lower quality', it is doctored as opposed to just being 'retouched'.
MERRY CHRISTMAS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.255.239 ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Though the damage was "negligible", do we think it's perhaps worth mentioning? I probably would if I were updating the article. I'm not a ship person so I don't know what is significant or not. It is rather interesting however its timing in catching fire. At the time, England and France were giving Germany a verbal beating. Germany was on the defensive in its media, throwing insults to the English. In any case, here is the clipping where I found out about the fire, so you all can decide. It is a reliable citation as well, being a newspaper. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kind of a coincidence that both the Bismarck and Prince of Wales had cats while they fought: Prince of Wales had a cat named Blackie and Bismarck had Unsinkable Sam, both cats also survived each of their ship's deaths (Sam was rescued by one of Bismarcks murderers the HMS Cossack (F03)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 ( talk) 20:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
RESPONSE TO ABOVE
You say "......one of Bismarck's murderers....." Are you serious?
So, you would also have us believe that the German submarine U-563 commanded by Klaus Bargsten murdered HMS Cossack I suppose (not)?
People die in war. It is not murder.
And if I may ask, where did you find the reference to HMS Cossack recuing 'unsinkable sam', as the Wiki page makes no mention of it.
/info/en/?search=HMS_Cossack_(F03)
Chasing Bismarck In May 1941, she participated in the pursuit and destruction of the German battleship Bismarck. While escorting Convoy WS-8B to the Middle East, Cossack and four other destroyers broke off on 26 May, and headed towards the area where Bismarck had been reported. They found Bismarck that evening and made several torpedo attacks in the evening and into the next morning. No hits were scored, but they kept the Bismarck's gunners from getting any sleep, making it easier for the battleships to attack the Bismarck the next morning.
Loss On 23 October 1941, Cossack was escorting a convoy from Gibraltar to the United Kingdom when she was struck by a single torpedo fired by the German submarine U-563 commanded by Klaus Bargsten. She was taken in tow by a tug from Gibraltar on 25 October, but the weather worsened and the tow was slipped on 26 October. Cossack sank in the Atlantic west of Gibraltar on 27 October 1941. 159 of her crew were lost.
KevinVD ( talk) 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like it known that the schematic in this section showing where the one torpedo hit on the aft port side of HMS Prince of Wales is inaccurate / wrong. That is, the arrow needs to be moved forward (and the text changed) to show the true position of said hit. Hence the diagram should be either redrawn or removed if this section is to be considered 'accurate'.
The torpedo hit right where the outer port shaft exits the hull at the stern tube gland, that is well forward of the 'A' bracket, not 'near' the A bracket as the 'artist' claims.
Please see; https://explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf - specifically page 12.
And for even more detail; https://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/prince_of_wales/death-of-a-battleship-2012-update.pdf - specifically pages 12 through 27 and 41 and 42
I also think that if the 'artist' of said diagram would like 'his' work credited if reused, then may I politely suggest he also credits where he got his data from in the first place (to remove the non existent 2nd torpedo 'hit', etc, he previously had in his diagram) which is from our above reports.
PS. Being rather unfamiliar with how Wiki works, if anyone can tell me how to contact the artist himself directly then I would / will gladly do so.
KevinVD ( talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no way that rendition of a ship in the foreground is an E-class destroyer. Smoke would be issuing from her funnel, anyway. It couldn't be more clear that isn't a real ship. SlyGuyFox ( talk) 07:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. I see now that the replies I was trying to make to the "Authenticity of the photo in the "Far East" section actually appeared elsewhere. I thought by they were failing to appear anywhere. I don't know what to do now. SlyGuyFox ( talk) 07:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The photo's caption is inaccurate. That is not a real ship in the foreground, and it doesn't even resemble a destroyer. That photo has been altered, with a fake ship drawn in to liven it up. I saw that fact given in another Wikipedia article years ago. SlyGuyFox ( talk) 06:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
During full-power trials on 31 March 1941, Prince of Wales at 42,100 tons displacement achieved 28 knots with 111,600 shp at 228 rpm and a specific fuel consumption of 0.73 lb per shp.
I see that brake-specific fuel consumption has units of g/(kW⋅h) or lb/(hp⋅h).
That's the best reference I can find for "specific fuel consumption" on Wikipedia.
It baffles me where the 'h' unit is accounted for in the sentence above, but I know not very much at all about nautical engineering. — MaxEnt 16:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyone else bothered to insert the word consort?
BlueD954 ( talk) 04:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)