HMS Rodney (29) 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. Review: November 25, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Rodney (29) 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 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From where is the statement that Rodney actually torpedoed Bismarck successfully derived from? Neither Raven and Roberts' British Battleships or Bercuson and Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck mention it at all, and Ludovic in Pursuit says that Rodney fired 8 torpedoes, none of which hit (p.197-199 of the 1975 Pinnacle Books edition). 68.20.4.14 ( talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should ask about that. David Mearns, who discovered the wreck of the Hood and surveyed the Bismarck on the same expedition, reported visible torpedo holes, as well as large-calibre shell holes, in what remains of the Bismarck. https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129972&page=1 Mearns can't be doing with the childish 'scuttled' theory of the Bismarck's demise, or the pretence that she was somehow invulnerable to shells and torpedoes.
'"I have a real problem with that," says David Mearns, an explorer and author who has also examined the Bismarck wreck.
Mearns says the damage is there if one looks closely enough, and more may be hidden by the mud on the sea floor. He adds that sailors' accounts from the time — both British and German — agree that the British got the revenge they sought.
"It is only when you start getting closer and closer," he says, "that you see that this beautiful hull is actually peppered with torpedo holes and large-caliber shell holes, that she was actually sort of beaten to death by all this British gunnery."'
Bismarck is full of holes, including torpedo holes, probably more holes than we can see because she's half-buried in mud. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous. Rodney fired 378 16-inch shells at Bismarck, just one of them in the fourth salvo disabling the forward armament and wiping out the entire bridge crew including the captain and the admiral, and those 16s could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour, anywhere, at any range from point blank to 23km. It is evident that KG5 and Rodney shot Bismarck to pieces in fairly short order, and for good measure Rodney scored the only torpedo hit ever gained by one battleship against another. It is not possible that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling, because she rolled over and went under only 20 minutes after the supposed detonation of the charges on the seawater feedpipe in the engine room, and that method would take at least six hours to sink a ship the size of the Bismarck, and probably more, and might never succeed in sinking her at all. (Over twenty of the German ships 'scuttled' at Scapa Flow in 1919 failed to sink, including a capital ship. It was 40 minutes before even one ship in the fleet started to list visibly, and six hours before the last ship to sink went down -- and this was after days of preparation with holes made in all the bulkheads to speed the flooding process.) Khamba Tendal ( talk) 20:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Per Ballantyne p.142, Rodney's Torpedo Officer, Lt Cdr Lewis, said, 'I always claimed that one of the last three torpedoes I fired, at a range of 3,000 yards by then, did hit the Bismarck and in several circles this has been accepted.' Rodney's battle observer recorded a torpedo hit on Bismarck at 9.58am. ERA Ken George, in the starboard engine room, said he heard Dalrymple Hamilton say over the Tannoy, 'We have made history in hitting another battleship with a torpedo.' Dalrymple Hamilton had a fairly good view. Bismarck's surviving gunnery officer apparently claimed the hit was 'doubtful', but, given what was happening to Bismarck at the time, with Rodney, KG5, Devonshire and Norfolk all in action, it is unlikely that the German officer was in full possession of his faculties.
Ludovic Kennedy's ship HMS Tartar was in fact present. Only Eskimo had been detached to escort Britannic. Earlier in the morning, Tovey in KG5 had asked Tartar and Mashona for their fuel state and signalled, 'On receipt of executive signal, proceed as convenient to refuel at Plymouth or Londonderry.' Later, he sent, 'Proceed in execution of previous orders.' According to Kennedy, 'Tovey's original signal had said to proceed to refuel as convenient -- "and what I'm going to find convenient," said the captain, "is to stick around for a bit and watch." ' Rodney opened fire 'a moment later'. Kennedy wrote, 'In all my life I doubt if I will remember another hour as vividly as that one.' But he was perhaps not best positioned to see which torpedoes hit and which did not. (Ludovic Kennedy, On My Way To The Club, Harper Collins 1989, extracted in Mordecai Richler ed., Writers on World War II, Chatto & Windus 1992, p.154.) Tartar and Mashona withdrew once the Bismarck sank. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
A good color image exists at World War 2 in color
I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s. He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington". -- jmb 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is supported by another source too: Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977), Page 71: "They were known as the 'Cherry Tree' class--cut down by Washington--but the unkindest cut was the sailors' nickname for them--'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol'--in memory of a group of fleet oilers whose names ended in 'ol': this was a reference to the position of the funnels so far aft." 'Washington' referring to the naval arms limitation treaty. Unfortunately Preston and Batchelor don't cite their source. Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Rodney had her 6 x 4.7 inch guns replaced by 8 x 4 inch guns in twin mounts. Does anybody know: which 4.7 inch mounts were replaced, and which were not? Was it number 1 and 2 on each side (abreast the superstructure) were replaced, and number 3 (on the fantail) left open? Or was it numbers 1 and 3 replaced, and number 2 left open? Anybody know? 76.112.65.31 ( talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Although it was one of several modifications to the A/A weapons considered, it was never carried out. The Dart ( talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Both these ships were notorious for bad steering at low speeds. Both ships leaving Portsmouth harbour frequently ran aground on the Hamilton Bank. A standing naval joke was "Nelson on Hamilton again". AT Kunene ( talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Rodney (29). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Above there has been discussion on the replacement of the 4.7 in guns with 4 in ones. I feel that in the photo of the Rodney shelling Caen the stern heavy AA guns are different from those appearing in the photos at earlier times. At least they have been enclosed. Is a computer wizard able to say something? Perhaps the top-quality photo to do this is in www.world-war.co.uk. pietro 151.29.86.54 ( talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this - my contribution to Majestic Titan, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That's about all I can find on this. Very impressive work. Placing on hold. Once these get fixed, I'd say this is a good ACR candidate. Hog Farm Bacon 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@ AugusteBlanqui: I'm white-washing nothing. Did you miss these bits?
"The ship encountered a strong storm with gale-force winds on 6–8 December that caused leaks in her hull plating with a moderate amount of flooding. Repairs at Rosyth began on the 18th that included structural reinforcement of the hull plating and general reinforcement of the forward hull structure."
"While at sea with the French battleship Richelieu to conduct a night gunnery exercise on 29 December, Rodney suffered weather damage during a severe storm that caused extensive flooding forward."
"heavy weather further stressed the steering motors and exacerbated her many leaks."
What you persist in defending is far too detailed and is not encyclopedic, i.e. summarized. If you have helpful suggestions on what should be added to the excerpts I gave above, I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you. But nothing will be used verbatim, I can tell that to you right now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Speed: | 12 knots | 14 knots | 16 knots | 18 knots | 19.5 knots |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Endurance (nautical miles) | 8,160 | 7,336 | 6,060 | 4,820 | 3,910 |
Fuel consumption (tons per hour) | 5.5 | 7.1 | 9.8 | 13.8 | 18.5 |
@ Davey2010: Please explain your deletion of the Buxton reference Source Buxton (2019) with the allegation in the summary that the author, Ian Buxton, was a "Spammy Author" in the edit summary. [1] Additionally this left the article syntax broken in a "good article" with citation to Buxton p. 114 being left with no associated reference source, and I've reverted from that inconsistent broken state for that reason. Referring to Tony Holkham's thread at Talk:Chichester#"Spammy author" it is possible the gripe is with the book editor MacDougall. Per that thread, and especially as the citation seems added by Sturmvogel 66 in good faith on 30 November 2021 at [2] & [3], albeit temporarily removed by an IP on 9 December 2020, [4], please explain your actions and allegations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:10, 31 July 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) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
HMS Rodney (29) 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. Review: November 25, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Rodney (29) 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 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From where is the statement that Rodney actually torpedoed Bismarck successfully derived from? Neither Raven and Roberts' British Battleships or Bercuson and Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck mention it at all, and Ludovic in Pursuit says that Rodney fired 8 torpedoes, none of which hit (p.197-199 of the 1975 Pinnacle Books edition). 68.20.4.14 ( talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should ask about that. David Mearns, who discovered the wreck of the Hood and surveyed the Bismarck on the same expedition, reported visible torpedo holes, as well as large-calibre shell holes, in what remains of the Bismarck. https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129972&page=1 Mearns can't be doing with the childish 'scuttled' theory of the Bismarck's demise, or the pretence that she was somehow invulnerable to shells and torpedoes.
'"I have a real problem with that," says David Mearns, an explorer and author who has also examined the Bismarck wreck.
Mearns says the damage is there if one looks closely enough, and more may be hidden by the mud on the sea floor. He adds that sailors' accounts from the time — both British and German — agree that the British got the revenge they sought.
"It is only when you start getting closer and closer," he says, "that you see that this beautiful hull is actually peppered with torpedo holes and large-caliber shell holes, that she was actually sort of beaten to death by all this British gunnery."'
Bismarck is full of holes, including torpedo holes, probably more holes than we can see because she's half-buried in mud. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous. Rodney fired 378 16-inch shells at Bismarck, just one of them in the fourth salvo disabling the forward armament and wiping out the entire bridge crew including the captain and the admiral, and those 16s could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour, anywhere, at any range from point blank to 23km. It is evident that KG5 and Rodney shot Bismarck to pieces in fairly short order, and for good measure Rodney scored the only torpedo hit ever gained by one battleship against another. It is not possible that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling, because she rolled over and went under only 20 minutes after the supposed detonation of the charges on the seawater feedpipe in the engine room, and that method would take at least six hours to sink a ship the size of the Bismarck, and probably more, and might never succeed in sinking her at all. (Over twenty of the German ships 'scuttled' at Scapa Flow in 1919 failed to sink, including a capital ship. It was 40 minutes before even one ship in the fleet started to list visibly, and six hours before the last ship to sink went down -- and this was after days of preparation with holes made in all the bulkheads to speed the flooding process.) Khamba Tendal ( talk) 20:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Per Ballantyne p.142, Rodney's Torpedo Officer, Lt Cdr Lewis, said, 'I always claimed that one of the last three torpedoes I fired, at a range of 3,000 yards by then, did hit the Bismarck and in several circles this has been accepted.' Rodney's battle observer recorded a torpedo hit on Bismarck at 9.58am. ERA Ken George, in the starboard engine room, said he heard Dalrymple Hamilton say over the Tannoy, 'We have made history in hitting another battleship with a torpedo.' Dalrymple Hamilton had a fairly good view. Bismarck's surviving gunnery officer apparently claimed the hit was 'doubtful', but, given what was happening to Bismarck at the time, with Rodney, KG5, Devonshire and Norfolk all in action, it is unlikely that the German officer was in full possession of his faculties.
Ludovic Kennedy's ship HMS Tartar was in fact present. Only Eskimo had been detached to escort Britannic. Earlier in the morning, Tovey in KG5 had asked Tartar and Mashona for their fuel state and signalled, 'On receipt of executive signal, proceed as convenient to refuel at Plymouth or Londonderry.' Later, he sent, 'Proceed in execution of previous orders.' According to Kennedy, 'Tovey's original signal had said to proceed to refuel as convenient -- "and what I'm going to find convenient," said the captain, "is to stick around for a bit and watch." ' Rodney opened fire 'a moment later'. Kennedy wrote, 'In all my life I doubt if I will remember another hour as vividly as that one.' But he was perhaps not best positioned to see which torpedoes hit and which did not. (Ludovic Kennedy, On My Way To The Club, Harper Collins 1989, extracted in Mordecai Richler ed., Writers on World War II, Chatto & Windus 1992, p.154.) Tartar and Mashona withdrew once the Bismarck sank. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
A good color image exists at World War 2 in color
I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s. He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington". -- jmb 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is supported by another source too: Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977), Page 71: "They were known as the 'Cherry Tree' class--cut down by Washington--but the unkindest cut was the sailors' nickname for them--'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol'--in memory of a group of fleet oilers whose names ended in 'ol': this was a reference to the position of the funnels so far aft." 'Washington' referring to the naval arms limitation treaty. Unfortunately Preston and Batchelor don't cite their source. Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Rodney had her 6 x 4.7 inch guns replaced by 8 x 4 inch guns in twin mounts. Does anybody know: which 4.7 inch mounts were replaced, and which were not? Was it number 1 and 2 on each side (abreast the superstructure) were replaced, and number 3 (on the fantail) left open? Or was it numbers 1 and 3 replaced, and number 2 left open? Anybody know? 76.112.65.31 ( talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Although it was one of several modifications to the A/A weapons considered, it was never carried out. The Dart ( talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Both these ships were notorious for bad steering at low speeds. Both ships leaving Portsmouth harbour frequently ran aground on the Hamilton Bank. A standing naval joke was "Nelson on Hamilton again". AT Kunene ( talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Rodney (29). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Above there has been discussion on the replacement of the 4.7 in guns with 4 in ones. I feel that in the photo of the Rodney shelling Caen the stern heavy AA guns are different from those appearing in the photos at earlier times. At least they have been enclosed. Is a computer wizard able to say something? Perhaps the top-quality photo to do this is in www.world-war.co.uk. pietro 151.29.86.54 ( talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this - my contribution to Majestic Titan, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That's about all I can find on this. Very impressive work. Placing on hold. Once these get fixed, I'd say this is a good ACR candidate. Hog Farm Bacon 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@ AugusteBlanqui: I'm white-washing nothing. Did you miss these bits?
"The ship encountered a strong storm with gale-force winds on 6–8 December that caused leaks in her hull plating with a moderate amount of flooding. Repairs at Rosyth began on the 18th that included structural reinforcement of the hull plating and general reinforcement of the forward hull structure."
"While at sea with the French battleship Richelieu to conduct a night gunnery exercise on 29 December, Rodney suffered weather damage during a severe storm that caused extensive flooding forward."
"heavy weather further stressed the steering motors and exacerbated her many leaks."
What you persist in defending is far too detailed and is not encyclopedic, i.e. summarized. If you have helpful suggestions on what should be added to the excerpts I gave above, I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you. But nothing will be used verbatim, I can tell that to you right now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Speed: | 12 knots | 14 knots | 16 knots | 18 knots | 19.5 knots |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Endurance (nautical miles) | 8,160 | 7,336 | 6,060 | 4,820 | 3,910 |
Fuel consumption (tons per hour) | 5.5 | 7.1 | 9.8 | 13.8 | 18.5 |
@ Davey2010: Please explain your deletion of the Buxton reference Source Buxton (2019) with the allegation in the summary that the author, Ian Buxton, was a "Spammy Author" in the edit summary. [1] Additionally this left the article syntax broken in a "good article" with citation to Buxton p. 114 being left with no associated reference source, and I've reverted from that inconsistent broken state for that reason. Referring to Tony Holkham's thread at Talk:Chichester#"Spammy author" it is possible the gripe is with the book editor MacDougall. Per that thread, and especially as the citation seems added by Sturmvogel 66 in good faith on 30 November 2021 at [2] & [3], albeit temporarily removed by an IP on 9 December 2020, [4], please explain your actions and allegations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:10, 31 July 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) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)