Talk:Lion-class battlecruiser

Merge

Strong Agree. Both Jane's and Breyer list one class e.g. Lion class. Queen Mary was built to a revised design with minor differences. Jane's mentions Queen Mary as "A similar but slightly larger ship of this type. Queen Mary and Princess Royal also incorporated the changes made to Lion before she commissioned, namely moving the forefunnel behind the mast and spotting top, and placing the bridge behind, rather than on top of, the conning tower. Queen Mary had an increase of beam resulting in her displacing an extra 700 tons, lost the upper-forward 4 inch guns and the centre funnel was circular rather than oval in cross-section. These are really design details though, mechanically and structurally she was the same as her sisters. I can't see any reason to have separate articles, all it does is confuse the reader, there is nothing that a separate section cannot solve, considering that there are individual ship pages anyway. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree but make a mention of the differences. Jak722 05:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been a long time and there's been no dissent, so I've redirected Queen Mary class here, and I'll edit the article appropriately. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

Re: the 'Unreferenced' claim made to the edit on 04:24, 23 February 2009

I won't get into an edit war with anyone but I've tried to correct falsehoods in the article, if you want a 'referenced citation' as to whether Queen Mary had a round mid funnel, I'll scan the plan for you [MBK] if you'd like?

Presently, I know of no other presence on the internet who knows the Lion Class like myself. I'm not an 'expert' on them but I know an awful lot about them and enough to correct the constant mistakes I see about them. Common mistakes such as Queen Mary had a round mid funnel, it's rounder, not round.

But as wiki has this in her entry and every web-author thinks Wiki is accurate and repeats these flasehoods ad nauseum.Such as this:

Battlecruiser H.M.S. Queen Mary, Design specifications etc.

Quote: "Conway's says that she is 'often listed as a third Lion [but]...was a half-sister with many internal improvements later extended in the Tiger. These included higher power, 1,400lb shells for the main armament and a different arrangement of the 4in belt armour. However, apart from having round funnels and a single-decked 4in gun battery she appeared identical.' In October 1914 she was fitted with a 3in/20cal AA Mk I & a 6 pdr Hotchkiss AA."

Everything I wrote yesterday about their 'Alterations' can't be easily 'checked' as there's no one reference book on the Lion class. But it s 100% correct. I may not have 'logged on' but that shouldn't have diminished my editing content.

Which brings up the question, how can you provide a reference to something that hasn't been written yet? As there's no reference books on the Lion class or any of the individual ships, how is one to correct this article without a 'reference' to cite?

Or how can you correct misleading statments in citeable written form?

I stand behind all what was written yesterday, Queen Mary didn't recieve the tripod foremast as she wasn't around by then and I have an image to back that up... Her mid funnel was not 'round'. She differed from the other Lion clas in that all her forward 4 inch were on one level, not on 2 as per her half-sisters, and she did indeed have a sternwalk, etc, etc. I can provide images.

Thru-a-hoop (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All articles must comply with some policies which your edits as an unregistered user violated: WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. If you can fulfill those policies, then by all means improve the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had.

Oops, looks like some 'opinion' slipped through, quote:

"like all British battlecruisers, their staying power did not match their fighting power"

Thru-a-hoop (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put back in those of 82.42.43.176's edits that I can substantiate with citations. However I do not know exactly when the trip mast went back in - Parkes suggested "in about five years" (page 533). I do not know when the torpedo nets were removed. Reviews of models suggest that it was probably post Jutland - however I am not convinced that the model reviews are a reliable source - especially as they quote Massie. I found a wikipedia-type site that claims that Lion had her nets removed in late 1915 or early 1916 and Princes Royal had her nets removed in 1915. However wikipedia type sites are not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

relation between Indefatigable class and Molkte

The first paragraph doesn't really explain the relation between Indefatigable class and Molkte class. Siuenti (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, the point is to show a pattern of action and reaction with each side building battlecruisers more powerful than the preceding ships from the other country.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)