Talk:History of the Royal Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the Royal Navy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815) World War I task force World War II task force

At 23K, this is already a lengthy article, and I found that it was simply impossible to mention every notable battle and person; just "name-dropping" of wars, trends, and milestones filled it up the space. 20th century could use some more detail and/or links to other articles with more depth, while the early stuff is a little longer because there is little material elsewhere. There could also be more on changes to sailors' lives. We have plenty of pics to reuse, each section should have one or two. Stan 19:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It does not seem particularly long to me. After all it has section breaks, etc.--Toddy1 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence "and despite being at war since September 2001 the United Kingdom's forces suffered further savage cuts in 2004" does not really come from a neutral POV.

Britain is not "at war" in the traditional sense - it has been engaged in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other places). The term "savage cuts" is no doubt the view of many, others would consider them prudent and yet others insufficient.

I'd suggest: "the strength of the Royal Navy was reduced further in 2004". Some detail on the nature of the cuts would be useful, as would a table of naval strength against time?

Contents 1 Blue, red and white squadrons 2 Battleship section 3 Naval construction 4 Merger 5 A useful figure 6 Permanent Navy 7 Linking Articles 7.1 Pax Britannica, 1815–1895 8 Dalriada 9 RN Capability 10 The Royal Navy in the 19th Century Pacific

[edit] Blue, red and white squadrons

There should be something here about the three squadrons of the Royal Navy prior to the 1864 reorganization. AndyL 04:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Battleship section

"Both naval construction and naval strategizing became intense, prompted by the development of torpedoes and submarines, which challenged traditional ideas about the power of battleships. At the same time the Dreadnought committed to the "big gun" concept and caused a shift in thinking around the world, giving Britain the undisputed lead. Another innovative (though ultimately unsuccessful) concept was the battlecruiser, fast and light but still hard-hitting."

I would have to disagree with this point. The invention of the dreadnought made most other battleships pretty much useless. Britain had 1 dreadnought, the others zero. BUT, a lead of one ship is not an undisputable lead, as other nations can quickly catch up. It would, in fact, have been harder for the others to catch up if the dreadnought had not been invented, as they'd have to build much more ships to do this (not just ten, twenty, but possibly a hundred). Anyone agree on changing that sentence a bit...? --HJV 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"The invention of the dreadnought made most other battleships pretty much useless." Not really. In general Wikipedia articles contain a lot of unreferenced opinion. Things could be improved a lot by justifying statements with quotes and facts, and footnotes quoting sources.

Perhaps "useless" in line of battle but were used for shore support at the Dardenelles and the opening shots of the Second World War were fired by German pre Dtreadnoughts. HMS CAnopus took part in the Battle of the Falkland Isles in 1914.

206.165.217.125 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naval construction

I have just stumbled across this in old Times articles - no idea where to put it, but it might be worth noting somewhere for future reference. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1937 construction programme: 3x battleships (King George V class), 2x aircraft carriers, 5x 8,000 ton cruisers, 2x 5,300 ton cruisers, 16x destroyers ("repeat J type"), 7x submarines ("Patrol type"), 3x escort vessels, 4x minesweepers, 3x patrol vessels, various small vessels.

1933 construction programme: 4x cruisers (various types), 9x destroyers, 3x submarines, 1x coastal sloop, various small vessels

1930 construction programme: 3x 6in cruisers, 9x destroyers, 3x submarines, 4x sloops, 1x netlayer.

1927 construction programme: 3x cruisers, 9x destroyers, 6x submarines, 2x minesweepers. (Two cruisers were later cancelled; the third was Exeter.)

Why not create some tables and charts showing strength or programmes over that time?--Toddy1 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

removed " and the capture of Louisbourg in North America " from Austrian Succession. That was a colonial expedition. RN was 1758 Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)?

ROYAL NAVY AUXILLARY SERVICE

I've seen that name mentioned on the RN talk page, exactly what was/is that and how was it different from the RFA or RNVR.

207.159.196.253 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I have added in a lot of information from the main article Royal Navy because of the merger concerns. The article on the main royal naval page should have a summary and not a full-blown history. As such i have prepared a summary in one of my sandboxes found here. Everyone is welcome to edit it if they feel it neccessary. I will move it onto the main page in the next few days. If there is any aspect i have missed please add it in here. Thanks Woodym555 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance. But aware of vandalism such as this being added. THis user has added this about 4 or 5 times already, and will probably continue. - BillCJ 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will watch out, have seen it added a few times. I will warn him on his talk page that it is not constructive and against consensus. Thanks for the heads-up. Woodym555 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A useful figure

Thought I'd drop a fact here at the talkpage since I didn't know where to include it in the article; in 1797 the Victualling Board estimated the cost for supplying 110,000 men during the following year to be £2,758,268,1.10.1/2.

Source: Macdonald, Janet W. (2004) Feeding Nelson's Navy: The True Story of Food at Sea in the Georgian era ISBN 1-86176-233-X (p. 46).

Peter ^Isotalo 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent Navy

Could someone please enlighten me as to what this means,

"A permanent Naval Service did not exist until the mid 17th century"?

I was under the impression that a standing navy existed as far back as Henry VIII. Does this refer to the administrative branch?

[edit] Linking Articles

[edit] Pax Britannica, 1815–1895

This section is linked to Cyprian Bridge Aatomic1 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalriada

"In 680 every 20 households had to supply 2 ships with 14 oars". What is the source for this ? The Anglo-Saxon Navy in about 1009 or possibly before this were founded on a similar system, but on the basis of one ship per 300 hides or households, admittedly of 60-80 oars, but this imposed quite a high burden and the figure of Dalriada at 2 ships per 20 seems excessive.Streona (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for sources. Most of that information was added today. If the sources are not forthcoming, I will revert. Woody (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

cross posted to User talk:Adresia

Does anyone else think that the page is getting a bit top-heavy. Whilst the information is useful, I think it is placing undue emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon and pre-saxon periods, where actually there wasn't a Navy. The page is already getting long and I think some of the information above the "The beginnings of an organised navy, 1485–1642" and particularly the "Norman" should be trimmed. Perhaps we could have some split off pages per WP:SUMMARY. Woody (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

School children were always taught that Alfred the Great was the founder of the R.N. but nothing more. It seems as though there was a standing Navy from Alfred to 1066, a period of nearly 200 years, but seems to be forgotten on the principle that history - or rather "History"-starts in 1066. Therefore the amount written (admittedly mostly by me)is, I suggest proportionate. Streona (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will see how it goes when I turn my copyedit/reference eyes on them]]. (Might be a while before that happens though). Woody (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The source for the statement is page 20 of "Maritime history of Britain and Ireland" by Ian Friel. Adresia (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RN Capability

In the introduction it says that the RN is "the second largest and most powerful in the world". What is the source of this statement? Unfortunately it is unlikely to be true, more's the pity. How "size" is measured is difficult and measurement of "power" must be impossible. Adresia (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Royal Navy in the 19th Century Pacific

I was surprised to see only two uses of the word "Pacific" on the page, both relating to 20th Century events. the reason I'm surprised is because of the vital role the Royal Navy played out of the Esquimalt naval base near Victoria, British Columbia; I've just been sourcing various actions taken by British ships and officers and it's a long roster (see List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest. I came to this page hoping to find out if the Pacific station was mentioned (i.e. Esquimalt) and maybe somewthing about various cmomanders (e.g. Admiral Joseph Denman, post commander 1864-1868 I think, and commander of the HMS Sutlej during the "punitive expedition" to Clayoquot Sound in the sake of the Kingfisher incident; there's a host of similar events, and some are tied into naval actions elsewhere, esp. during hte Crimean War and teh Siege of Vladivostok (or was it Petropavlovsk?) when Victoria/Esquimalt was used as a redoubt; the infrastructre spending on the Esquimalt shipyard/drydock and also on an important RN hospital there underscores the Pacific Squadron's relevance (that goes to a US Navy page, not an RN one - if there's an RN Pacific Squadron page please advise). Anyway I note there are iswsues with the current length of this page; might I suggest it be broken up eithr by ocean or time period; History of the Royal Navy in the Pacific seems pretty much a whole article, and could/would include the WWI/WWII stuff.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)