Talk:Kingston class patrol vessel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST 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.

Moved from the main article: (Geoff NoNick 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] General Comments

It might be useful to note that the official written description of any Canadian Forces (CF) Base, Unit, Lodger Unit, ship, aircraft etc. should always be in upper case versus a combination of upper and lower case letters. For example, whenever a ship's name appears in print it would ideally appear as HMCS HALIFAX versus HMCS Halifax or Hmcs HALIFAX. Another example is CFB SHEARWATER vs. CFB Shearwater

This is actually just Canadian Forces style and only applies to official documents of the CF, it doesn't apply to things written about CF units. For example, the ship "Halifax" would be written "HMCS HALIFAX" in a letter produced by the CF, but would be "HMCS Halifax" in correspondence originated by the Royal Navy. I'm not certain if there is an official Wikipedia style for military units, but I suspect that they should be treated simply as any other proper noun (i.e. Initial Capitalized). Geoff NoNick 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingston class

Hi there. I'm the guy that's been reverting your modifications to the Kingston class patrol vessel article. Here's what I removed:

"The main armament is a 40mm L/60 Bofors. This gun is a museum piece dating back to 1944. Even as training weapons, the Bofors is of dubious value – they were just on hand and at a lowered cost."

The first sentence isn't needed because it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (including at the beginning of the paragraph you're adding it to); as well, the gun is called a "Bofors 40mm 60 Mk 5NC", not "40mm L/60 Bofors". This is what the old version of the gun was called prior to its modification to Naval Configuration (the "NC"); if you want to be technical, this gun design dates from 1933, not 1944.

The second sentence isn't suitable because, while some unmodified Bofors Mk1s are in museums, the ones on the Kingston class were in active use (at the Canadian base in Lahr, Germany) up until they were fitted on the ships, when they received a major overhaul of the aiming system to make it hydraulic. So only the barrel (which is as accurate and "valuable" as any .50 cal weapon) is original.

The third sentence is unsubstantiated opinion; clearly someone considers them to be of training value, and your opinion doesn't trump theirs.

I agree with your sentiment - the Bofors aren't serious weapons for the platform - but you really should refer to scholarly/reliable sources rather than reiterating "what everyone knows".

I am confused about why you keep removing the sentence, "A replacement for this gun (the OTO Melara 12.7 mm RCHMG) is being trialed." The OTO Melara 12.7 RCHMG was trialed on HMCS SUMMERSIDE in October 06 and this is a matter of the public record. More info is available at http://www.tridentnews.ca/PDFArchives/Nov27_2006.pdf and I will add this link as a reference to the article. I will grant that the gun actually dates (in Canadian use) from 1944.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Geoff NoNick 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)