This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Ark Royal (91) 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 Ark Royal (91) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are "16 4.5-inch/45-caliber guns"? Moriori 02:45, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Morvem, I believe Moriori may be referring to Ark Royals anti-aircraft machine guns? Capt.Nero
Under design, it is stated "The hangar decks were placed inside the hull, thus benefiting from the protection of the 4.5 inches (110 mm) belt armour." This doesn't make sense. The hangar decks were above the belt armor. The armor belt can be clearly seen in the adjacent photo; the armor belt is the t-shaped patch on the side of the ship, just above the water line. The top of the armor belt is 1 to 2 decks below the lower hangar deck. I would be curious to know the exact wording of the source cited, which I don't have access to.
207.245.172.22 (
talk)
15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
In the BBC 2's program "Shipwreck Ark Royal" at 8 pm this evening (12/02/06) a very short reference was made about 2 minutes from the end saying that the captain was court martialled. Can enyone confirm that? Was he convicted? What was the charge?
Steve K. Thanks.
See below for clues as to the reason for the court martial. The charge would probably have been "Hazarding his ship". There appears to be no public record of the result but these proceedings were normally a formality to establish the facts and produce a definitive report.
Damage Report - Ark Royal
HMS Ark Royal was torpedoed by U-81 on November 14th, 1941. A single g7e torpedo struck the ship on the starboard side, abreast of the Island. This position was the worst possible in that, being dead midships, it was where the list caused would be greatest and its position relative to the transverse bulkheads was such that four main compartments plus over 106 feet of the ship's starboard bilge was immediately subject to flooding.
The enemy torpedo was running very deep and, at the time, there was some speculation that it may have used a non-contact (magnetic) exploder. This was later discounted on grounds that the damage inflicted by the hit was not as extensive as, nor was it of the type typical of, under-the-keel hits.
The explosion opened a hole 130 feet long by 30 feet deep, the size being increased by the time taken to bring the ship to a halt, resulting in additional hull plating being peeled off. This resulted in the starboard boiler room, air spaces and oil tanks flooding as did the main switchboard and the lower steering position. The starboard power train was also knocked out by the hit but the port and centerline trains kept functioning.
Some of the torpedo blast vented upwards through a bomb trunk forward of the Island. The ship whipped violently with the explosion which caused the fully-loaded torpedo-bombers on the flight deck to be hurled into the air. The ship however, showed very little shock damage internally and her masts remained standing. The Ark Royal (immediately after the explosion) took on a 10 degree list that increased to 18 degrees within 20 minutes.
Due to the flooding of the switchboard, communications within the ship were lost, explaining the delay in bringing the ship to a halt. At this point the Captain decided to evacuate the ship. All personnel were withdrawn from the machinery spaces and assembled topside in order to determine who should leave the ship and who should remain on board. As a result of this action, damage control measures were only initiated 49 minutes after the hit, the flooding having been uncontrolled for this period. During this critical period, the centerline boiler room started to flood from below. During the evacuation of the machinery spaces several covers and armored hatcheswere left open, allowing the flooding to spread further than otherwise would be expected.
As the ship listed further, water came in through the uptakes of the starboard boiler room, flooding over into the centerline, and later into the port, boiler rooms. This flooding further reduced the area through which the funnel gases could escape, causing severe local overheating and fires.
One hour and 19 minutes after the torpedo hit, all power within the ship failed. Meanwhile, most of the crew had been ordered to evacuate the ship. Those that left the ship included the entire staff of shipwrights and key members of the electrical staff, depriving the damage control crews of much-needed expertise. There were still further delays before the repair crews returned to the machinery spaces and attempts at counter-flooding started.
Only half of the available compartments on the portside were flooded, (which reduced the list to 14 degrees) because there was a lack of specialist expertise in the damage control parties. To make matters worse, the flooding valves were not then closed, so the water in the counterflooded units was gradually expelled as more water entered the starboard side of the ship.
Flooding and the loss of feedwater had already shut the ship's power-plant down. Since all the generators were steam-powered, this deprived the ship of electrical as well as motive power. The ship's engineers fought to get the plant back on line despite the rising floodwaters.They won that battle five hours and 34 minutes after the torpedo hit when the portside boiler room was lit off.
However, by that time, the list had increased to 18 degrees and the flooding was starting to spread across the ship's boiler room flat. This was an uninterrupted compartment running across the whole width of the ship, making the entire area of the machinery spaces vulnerable. The efforts made by the engine room crews to restore power were futile. The boiler room flat flooding forced the plant to be shut down again.
Progressive flooding now caused the list to increase rapidly. The list reached 20 degrees 11 hours and 4 minutes after the hit and touched 27 degrees an hour and a quarter later. At this point, the abandon ship order was again given. All crew were off the ship at 0430hrs, 12 hours 19 minutes after the hit, at which time the list had reached 35 degrees.
HMS Ark Royal capsized and sank at 0619hrs after the list reached 45 degrees. Although the ship had been designed with a great reserve of buoyancy, this had been allowed to dwindle away and an invaluable warship had been lost.
After the Second World War, the loss of Ark Royal was investigated. The conclusion drawn was that, on a target of 22,000 tons, the provision of an effective anti-torpedo scheme was difficult.
However, when a comparison with the Yorktown was held it was demonstrated that it was possible, and that the Yorktown had only sunk when all her reserve buoyancy had been exhausted.
The primary cause of the loss of Ark Royal was held to be the inexperience and poor judgement of those responsible for damage control and their lack of initiative. Proper damage control measures were not undertaken in good time nor was action to tow the ship to Gibraltar, less than 25 miles away undertaken promptly.
The torpedo hit on Ark Royal was serious but put the ship in no immediate danger of sinking The prompt application of counterflooding and standard damage control procedures would have saved the ship.
The Investigation also concluded that there were a variety of design factors contributing to the loss:
The uninterrupted boiler room flat was a significant error that was immediately rectified in the Illustrious and Indefatigable class. The adoption of a double hangar had forced the use of cross-deck uptakes low in the ship adding to vulnerability. The reliance on steam generators was also an error and diesel generators were back-fitted to the armored carriers. The power train design itself was strongly criticized.
Thanks. Steve K.
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. - MBK 004 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's now a FA, but I have significant reservations about its reliance on just two sources. Surely such a notable, recent topic has more good material available than that. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 13:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why did the RN not deploy naval version of the Hurricane or the Seafire on this ship?
The suggestion that BISMARCK's predictors could not track Swordfish should be removed. Swordfish dropped torpedo at the same speed as other torpedo bombers of the era, the fragility of torpedoes being the determining factor. Also Swordfish were somewhat faster than the towed targets used for AA practice.
Skeltonp ( talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Peter Skelton
Both the USN Mk33/37 AA FCS and RN HACS III/IV could track aircraft down to 35 knots and it would be incredible if the German AA systems couldn't do the same. German naval intelligence was fully aware that the RN FAA were using Swordfish torpedo bombers, and had encountered them many times before, but the German navy was also having severe development problems with it's AA directors, and there is evidence that Bismarck's AA systems were not fully ready (see Koop, Battleships of the Bismarck class), however in 1942 Tirpitz did only marginally better, when she shot down 2 of 14 Albacores, but then she had an escort of 3 or 4 destroyers, and so a much greater volume of fire, especially from close range weapons, as the Albacores had to pass low over the destroyer screen. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth mentioning or linking to Unsinkable Sam, the ship's cat? -- saberwyn 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This is strange and unusual formatting, and does not appear to be following known guidelines such as the MOS or the examples laid out by the other FA articles in WikiProject:Ships. Why is it there? For consistancy with the formatting of other articles of this quality grade, it should be removed as unnecessary. Why has it been done here, and not on the other HMS "" FA-class articles? Why be inconsistent, either the other FAs need to be dragged into line, or this one should have the section binned. Kyteto ( talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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 {{ cn}} 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 Bismarck's fate after being torpedoed by Ark Royal's 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)
FixedOne of the references is:
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:
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)
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.
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)
Certainly an interesting ship, but at 6,500 words this article seems overly detailed. Sca ( talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states:
Wasn't the Hōshō the first ? ( Hōshō, Japan, 1922). Kintaro ( talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
take a look at Hōshō and you see that the hanger deck is the weather deck level and the flight deck is an additional structure atop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.212.16 ( talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
I found two sentences in the article which I think need to be corrected/improved, but I am reluctant to do this in a featured article before putting the changes up to discussion:
-- Marinebanker ( talk) 10:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ark Royal featured an enclosed hangar design[1] where the fight deck was the 'strength deck'[2] and was strongly built with .75in (19mm) thick Ducol steel plating.[2] The two hangar decks were thus enclosed within the hull girder, which also gave splinter protection to the hangars. Three lifts moved aircraft between the hangars and the flight deck.[R] Another feature was the length and height of the flight deck. At 800 feet (240 m), the flight deck was 118 feet (36 m) longer than the keel; the latter dictated by the length of Royal Navy drydocks in Gibraltar and Malta.[R] Due to the twin hangar decks, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline.
Hi, I wrote Ducol, and I'm trying to pinpoint the actual page in Friedman on which this info appears. A snippet search for 'Ducol' in the Google books copy returns 0 results. By the way, the [2] above appears in the article itself, rather than a proper blue ref. Can anyone enlighten me, please? Cheers, > MinorProphet ( talk) 14:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
"Steam catapults" is wrong, these were invented in the late 1940s by CC Mitchell and prototyped on HMS Perseus in 1950. The ones used on Ark in WW2 must have been hydraulic catapults.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Ark Royal (91) 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 Ark Royal (91) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are "16 4.5-inch/45-caliber guns"? Moriori 02:45, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Morvem, I believe Moriori may be referring to Ark Royals anti-aircraft machine guns? Capt.Nero
Under design, it is stated "The hangar decks were placed inside the hull, thus benefiting from the protection of the 4.5 inches (110 mm) belt armour." This doesn't make sense. The hangar decks were above the belt armor. The armor belt can be clearly seen in the adjacent photo; the armor belt is the t-shaped patch on the side of the ship, just above the water line. The top of the armor belt is 1 to 2 decks below the lower hangar deck. I would be curious to know the exact wording of the source cited, which I don't have access to.
207.245.172.22 (
talk)
15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
In the BBC 2's program "Shipwreck Ark Royal" at 8 pm this evening (12/02/06) a very short reference was made about 2 minutes from the end saying that the captain was court martialled. Can enyone confirm that? Was he convicted? What was the charge?
Steve K. Thanks.
See below for clues as to the reason for the court martial. The charge would probably have been "Hazarding his ship". There appears to be no public record of the result but these proceedings were normally a formality to establish the facts and produce a definitive report.
Damage Report - Ark Royal
HMS Ark Royal was torpedoed by U-81 on November 14th, 1941. A single g7e torpedo struck the ship on the starboard side, abreast of the Island. This position was the worst possible in that, being dead midships, it was where the list caused would be greatest and its position relative to the transverse bulkheads was such that four main compartments plus over 106 feet of the ship's starboard bilge was immediately subject to flooding.
The enemy torpedo was running very deep and, at the time, there was some speculation that it may have used a non-contact (magnetic) exploder. This was later discounted on grounds that the damage inflicted by the hit was not as extensive as, nor was it of the type typical of, under-the-keel hits.
The explosion opened a hole 130 feet long by 30 feet deep, the size being increased by the time taken to bring the ship to a halt, resulting in additional hull plating being peeled off. This resulted in the starboard boiler room, air spaces and oil tanks flooding as did the main switchboard and the lower steering position. The starboard power train was also knocked out by the hit but the port and centerline trains kept functioning.
Some of the torpedo blast vented upwards through a bomb trunk forward of the Island. The ship whipped violently with the explosion which caused the fully-loaded torpedo-bombers on the flight deck to be hurled into the air. The ship however, showed very little shock damage internally and her masts remained standing. The Ark Royal (immediately after the explosion) took on a 10 degree list that increased to 18 degrees within 20 minutes.
Due to the flooding of the switchboard, communications within the ship were lost, explaining the delay in bringing the ship to a halt. At this point the Captain decided to evacuate the ship. All personnel were withdrawn from the machinery spaces and assembled topside in order to determine who should leave the ship and who should remain on board. As a result of this action, damage control measures were only initiated 49 minutes after the hit, the flooding having been uncontrolled for this period. During this critical period, the centerline boiler room started to flood from below. During the evacuation of the machinery spaces several covers and armored hatcheswere left open, allowing the flooding to spread further than otherwise would be expected.
As the ship listed further, water came in through the uptakes of the starboard boiler room, flooding over into the centerline, and later into the port, boiler rooms. This flooding further reduced the area through which the funnel gases could escape, causing severe local overheating and fires.
One hour and 19 minutes after the torpedo hit, all power within the ship failed. Meanwhile, most of the crew had been ordered to evacuate the ship. Those that left the ship included the entire staff of shipwrights and key members of the electrical staff, depriving the damage control crews of much-needed expertise. There were still further delays before the repair crews returned to the machinery spaces and attempts at counter-flooding started.
Only half of the available compartments on the portside were flooded, (which reduced the list to 14 degrees) because there was a lack of specialist expertise in the damage control parties. To make matters worse, the flooding valves were not then closed, so the water in the counterflooded units was gradually expelled as more water entered the starboard side of the ship.
Flooding and the loss of feedwater had already shut the ship's power-plant down. Since all the generators were steam-powered, this deprived the ship of electrical as well as motive power. The ship's engineers fought to get the plant back on line despite the rising floodwaters.They won that battle five hours and 34 minutes after the torpedo hit when the portside boiler room was lit off.
However, by that time, the list had increased to 18 degrees and the flooding was starting to spread across the ship's boiler room flat. This was an uninterrupted compartment running across the whole width of the ship, making the entire area of the machinery spaces vulnerable. The efforts made by the engine room crews to restore power were futile. The boiler room flat flooding forced the plant to be shut down again.
Progressive flooding now caused the list to increase rapidly. The list reached 20 degrees 11 hours and 4 minutes after the hit and touched 27 degrees an hour and a quarter later. At this point, the abandon ship order was again given. All crew were off the ship at 0430hrs, 12 hours 19 minutes after the hit, at which time the list had reached 35 degrees.
HMS Ark Royal capsized and sank at 0619hrs after the list reached 45 degrees. Although the ship had been designed with a great reserve of buoyancy, this had been allowed to dwindle away and an invaluable warship had been lost.
After the Second World War, the loss of Ark Royal was investigated. The conclusion drawn was that, on a target of 22,000 tons, the provision of an effective anti-torpedo scheme was difficult.
However, when a comparison with the Yorktown was held it was demonstrated that it was possible, and that the Yorktown had only sunk when all her reserve buoyancy had been exhausted.
The primary cause of the loss of Ark Royal was held to be the inexperience and poor judgement of those responsible for damage control and their lack of initiative. Proper damage control measures were not undertaken in good time nor was action to tow the ship to Gibraltar, less than 25 miles away undertaken promptly.
The torpedo hit on Ark Royal was serious but put the ship in no immediate danger of sinking The prompt application of counterflooding and standard damage control procedures would have saved the ship.
The Investigation also concluded that there were a variety of design factors contributing to the loss:
The uninterrupted boiler room flat was a significant error that was immediately rectified in the Illustrious and Indefatigable class. The adoption of a double hangar had forced the use of cross-deck uptakes low in the ship adding to vulnerability. The reliance on steam generators was also an error and diesel generators were back-fitted to the armored carriers. The power train design itself was strongly criticized.
Thanks. Steve K.
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. - MBK 004 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's now a FA, but I have significant reservations about its reliance on just two sources. Surely such a notable, recent topic has more good material available than that. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 13:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why did the RN not deploy naval version of the Hurricane or the Seafire on this ship?
The suggestion that BISMARCK's predictors could not track Swordfish should be removed. Swordfish dropped torpedo at the same speed as other torpedo bombers of the era, the fragility of torpedoes being the determining factor. Also Swordfish were somewhat faster than the towed targets used for AA practice.
Skeltonp ( talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Peter Skelton
Both the USN Mk33/37 AA FCS and RN HACS III/IV could track aircraft down to 35 knots and it would be incredible if the German AA systems couldn't do the same. German naval intelligence was fully aware that the RN FAA were using Swordfish torpedo bombers, and had encountered them many times before, but the German navy was also having severe development problems with it's AA directors, and there is evidence that Bismarck's AA systems were not fully ready (see Koop, Battleships of the Bismarck class), however in 1942 Tirpitz did only marginally better, when she shot down 2 of 14 Albacores, but then she had an escort of 3 or 4 destroyers, and so a much greater volume of fire, especially from close range weapons, as the Albacores had to pass low over the destroyer screen. Damwiki1 ( talk) 20:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth mentioning or linking to Unsinkable Sam, the ship's cat? -- saberwyn 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This is strange and unusual formatting, and does not appear to be following known guidelines such as the MOS or the examples laid out by the other FA articles in WikiProject:Ships. Why is it there? For consistancy with the formatting of other articles of this quality grade, it should be removed as unnecessary. Why has it been done here, and not on the other HMS "" FA-class articles? Why be inconsistent, either the other FAs need to be dragged into line, or this one should have the section binned. Kyteto ( talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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 {{ cn}} 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 Bismarck's fate after being torpedoed by Ark Royal's 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)
FixedOne of the references is:
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:
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)
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.
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)
Certainly an interesting ship, but at 6,500 words this article seems overly detailed. Sca ( talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states:
Wasn't the Hōshō the first ? ( Hōshō, Japan, 1922). Kintaro ( talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
take a look at Hōshō and you see that the hanger deck is the weather deck level and the flight deck is an additional structure atop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.212.16 ( talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
I found two sentences in the article which I think need to be corrected/improved, but I am reluctant to do this in a featured article before putting the changes up to discussion:
-- Marinebanker ( talk) 10:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ark Royal featured an enclosed hangar design[1] where the fight deck was the 'strength deck'[2] and was strongly built with .75in (19mm) thick Ducol steel plating.[2] The two hangar decks were thus enclosed within the hull girder, which also gave splinter protection to the hangars. Three lifts moved aircraft between the hangars and the flight deck.[R] Another feature was the length and height of the flight deck. At 800 feet (240 m), the flight deck was 118 feet (36 m) longer than the keel; the latter dictated by the length of Royal Navy drydocks in Gibraltar and Malta.[R] Due to the twin hangar decks, the flight deck rose to 66 feet (20 m) above the waterline.
Hi, I wrote Ducol, and I'm trying to pinpoint the actual page in Friedman on which this info appears. A snippet search for 'Ducol' in the Google books copy returns 0 results. By the way, the [2] above appears in the article itself, rather than a proper blue ref. Can anyone enlighten me, please? Cheers, > MinorProphet ( talk) 14:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
"Steam catapults" is wrong, these were invented in the late 1940s by CC Mitchell and prototyped on HMS Perseus in 1950. The ones used on Ark in WW2 must have been hydraulic catapults.