stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Dec 30, 2021 13:05:16 GMT
On today's WWII thread you have a bit about HMS Skate,
She might be the oldest remaining destroyer in the RN but definitely not the oldest ship. The Queen Elizabeth class BBs were laid down in 1912 and entered service in 1914-15 and the next class the R's with the exception of one which was delayed by a problem with launching were in service by 1916. Two BCs converted from other members of the class, Renown and Repulse joined the fleet shortly after Jutland. Probably some of the cruisers were older as well.
I suspect the problem might be with the original - probably press - source not distinguishing between destroyers and ships in general.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 30, 2021 14:51:06 GMT
On today's WWII thread you have a bit about HMS Skate,
She might be the oldest remaining destroyer in the RN but definitely not the oldest ship. The Queen Elizabeth class BBs were laid down in 1912 and entered service in 1914-15 and the next class the R's with the exception of one which was delayed by a problem with launching were in service by 1916. Two BCs converted from other members of the class, Renown and Repulse joined the fleet shortly after Jutland. Probably some of the cruisers were older as well.
I suspect the problem might be with the original - probably press - source not distinguishing between destroyers and ships in general. Steve
The Trolls find it nice to hear they are not to be blamed this time.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Dec 31, 2021 15:33:53 GMT
On today's WWI thread,
The issue might be how much the losses increased compared to the increase in the size of the force, as that was also presumably expanding considerably over this period. I suspect not as much as the loss rate however.
I think the never should be newer?
Plus further down
That sounds dodgy as its a neutral ship traveling between two neutral states. Wonder if it will be released by the prize court?
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 31, 2021 16:03:15 GMT
On today's WWI thread, The issue might be how much the losses increased compared to the increase in the size of the force, as that was also presumably expanding considerably over this period. I suspect not as much as the loss rate however.
I think the never should be newer? Plus further down
That sounds dodgy as its a neutral ship traveling between two neutral states. Wonder if it will be released by the prize court? Steve
First on the Never should be Newer, will edit it. Also the Germans did unrestricted submarine warfare at this moment, you can see a the daily updates they by now did not care what flag a ship sailed under as any ship could carry goods to a country at war with Germany.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 7, 2022 10:12:17 GMT
On today's WWI post you have:
Given that the US is still a few months from joining the conflict and the date I suspect this is a post that should be appearing in a year's time to mark the Supreme Court decision?
On the WWII post:
I knew the US used it as a supply route through Iran to the Soviets but didn't realise they took military control.
Further down &
I think there's a duplication here.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 7, 2022 10:18:32 GMT
On today's WWI post you have:
Given that the US is still a few months from joining the conflict and the date I suspect this is a post that should be appearing in a year's time to mark the Supreme Court decision? On the WWII post:
I knew the US used it as a supply route through Iran to the Soviets but didn't realise they took military control. Further down &
I think there's a duplication here.
Steve
Think you are right regarding the American Supreme Court Upholds Conscription piece, strange my troll found it on the January 7, 1917 date, will edit it and of course the Burma piece.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 9, 2022 16:00:40 GMT
Sorry I think you have another duplication in today's WWII post.
Then under the NEW GUINEA CAMPAIGN heading you have as the 2nd paragraph
The only difference I can see is that the former entry mentions US a/c as well as the RAAF which are mentioned in both but it seems to be the same data.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 9, 2022 16:04:07 GMT
Sorry I think you have another duplication in today's WWII post.
Then under the NEW GUINEA CAMPAIGN heading you have as the 2nd paragraph
The only difference I can see is that the former entry mentions US a/c as well as the RAAF which are mentioned in both but it seems to be the same data. Steve
Seems my troll are off to a good 2022 start with so many things i need to edit, will change it, thanks as always stevp.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 13, 2022 15:36:00 GMT
On the WWI post today a couple of comments.
a)
Interesting PoD if say the Montserrat was to be lost at sea. I like the irony that later in the post he's described as a pacifist given his later role in founding the Red Army.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 15, 2022 18:38:22 GMT
On today's WWI post
I'm normally a fan of Lloyd George and can understand his opposition to Haig's policies but on this he should definitely have listened to Robertson. Mind you Haig repeatedly used the same argument that an attack that proved too costly could be called off.
Is small the right word here for the German defences as it sounds off?? Especially since Robertson is comparing the position with the small front Nivelle attacked on at Verdun. Possibly something like strong instead. Mind you with the withdrawal to the Hindenburg line, which made Nivelle's operating more difficult it was a moot point anyway.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2022 11:19:16 GMT
A couple of points with today's WWII post.
a) Since the 1st and 3rd paragraph are about Guadalcanal, along with the final sentence would it be tidier if they were under the same heading, whether its Guadalcanal, Solomons, South Pacific or whatever.
b) The 2nd paragraph is about China so should have its own heading rather than be under the Solomons.
Otherwise looking good.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 23, 2022 12:47:26 GMT
lordroel ,
On today's WWI post you have a duplication over the German messages being intercepted and what mischief their up to in the US.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 23, 2022 12:52:32 GMT
lordroel , On today's WWI post you have a duplication over the German messages being intercepted and what mischief their up to in the US.
Steve
Seems a troll hit the duplication button, will edit it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jan 25, 2022 12:35:22 GMT
On today's WWI post there seems to be two cases of duplication.
a) The 1st is that there are two entries for the occupation of Wejh with a bit under the "Arab Revolt: Arabs Enter Wajh" heading and then a much longer section further below. I wasn't sure if this was worth mentioning as it could be a case of a summary and then a more detailed account further down. However since I'm mentioning the 2nd case I might as well refer to that in case it was an oversight.
b) There are two mentions of the bombardment of the Suffolk coast. First under the general Western Front heading
Then further down a full section
On today's WWII post That just sounds insane as well as risky for the U boat, as it could have been damaged preventing it submerging. I can understand using the guns rather than wasting a torpedo on such a small boat but ramming!
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,098
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 25, 2022 14:56:12 GMT
On today's WWI post there seems to be two cases of duplication. a) The 1st is that there are two entries for the occupation of Wejh with a bit under the "Arab Revolt: Arabs Enter Wajh" heading and then a much longer section further below. I wasn't sure if this was worth mentioning as it could be a case of a summary and then a more detailed account further down. However since I'm mentioning the 2nd case I might as well refer to that in case it was an oversight. b) There are two mentions of the bombardment of the Suffolk coast. First under the general Western Front heading
Then further down a full section
On today's WWII post That just sounds insane as well as risky for the U boat, as it could have been damaged preventing it submerging. I can understand using the guns rather than wasting a torpedo on such a small boat but ramming! Steve
On the first question, will edit, thanks as always for the notice where my trolls have failed, you are their best friend. Regarding ramming, not the first time something bigger has tried to ram something smaller, on purpose ore like HMS Curacoa (D41) being accidentally sliced in half and sunk by the ocean liner RMS Queen Mary in 1942 ore light aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne sinking destroyer USS Frank E. Evans in 1969.
|
|