Talk:Daring-class destroyer (1949)

Pennant Numbers

When first ordered and built, all the RN Darings had "I" flag superiors, and were only later re-allocated new pennant numbers with "D" flag superiors. This does indicate the error in usuing pennant numbers as a means of identifying wartime vessels in Wiki-article titles, instead of using the years of launch. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think year of launch is far better, because some nations (e.g. India) have given new vessels the same name and pennant number as previous vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rif - please could you give a source for the old Pennant numbers.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Admiralty records. However, you will also find them listed in Norman Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates (Chatham Publishing, 2006) ISBN 1 86176 137 6. p.330 gives all dates and pennant numbers for the Darings, and all preceding WW2 era destroyers are on the immediately preceding pages. Also given in Trevor Lenton's two-volume British Fleet and Escort Destroyers, and in his and Jim Colledge's Warships of World War II, from the latter of which I should perhaps quote (I've just improved the punctuation for clarity):

At the outbreak of war destroyers had flags D, H or F superior to their numeral pennants. The Tribal class were originally allotted flag L, but this was changed to flag F in December 1938, and flag L used (instead) for escort destroyers building (Hunt class) or converting ("V" and "W" classes). In 1940 flags D and F were changed to I and G, and war construction was allotted the latter letter until the "T" class, which adopted flag R. A reversion to flag G was made with the Weapon and (cancelled) "G" classes, and as war losses had left many gaps in the original lists the later Battle and "D" classes reverted to flag I. Post-war, flag D was allocated to all destroyers and in consequence some re-numbering was required, usually by the addition of 100 or 200 to original numbers.

The final sentence was perhaps an understatement. It would in practice seem more accurate to talk about wholesale re-numbering than just "some re-numbering"; and this was often more than simply adding 100 or 200. The changes in the Darings' numbers are a good example of this. This post-war re-numbering took place in (I think) 1948, since when pennant numbers have been fairly static. You will gather from this that pennant numbers were very fluid during the war period (and pre-war!), and were often switched around. In particular, no destroyers had D pennant numbers between 1940 and 1948. All this was equally true for other classes of British warships.

It is for this reason that it is ridiculous to try and use them for identification in the titles of articles on individual British warships built before 1948, and why I have argued on Wikipedia that the launch years should be used in such titles. Sadly, American contributors in particular do not seem to be able to grasp that pennant numbers are NOT the same system as the hull serial numbers given to US warships when they are ordered. Please feel free to quote me on this if you wish. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Assess for B-class

I'e just filled in the checklist for B-class assessment under SHIPS and MILHIST. In my view, the article meets criteria 2-5, but needs citations in the "Design", "Construction#British" and "British Modifications" sections to meet B1. B2 is a borderline pass in my opinion: Content is needed on the design differences between the British and Australian vessels, the Australian modernisation, and the ships in Peruvian service, but I think the article as it stands is a reasonable coverage of the subject. -- saberwyn 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the Models section

I don't think the model section adds anything at all - we wouldn't dream of having a "photographs" section or a "prints" section. Furthermore it's entirely unverified. My real gripe, though, is with these sections turning up in multiple articles as boilerplate text. I'd like to remove it. Shem (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who make model ships might disagree about whether this information adds something or not. I don't like it is not a valid reason to remove a section from an article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Equally, I like it isn't a good reason to keep it. I'm not saying I don't like it, I'm saying it's not the function of an encyclopaedia to list every possible connection with a subject, and as connections go, this one is pretty tenuous. Shem (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I like it, either. What I am asking is for you to provide valid reasons to remove content from an article. I will go with the consensus on this, I just think that the regulars on this page (which does not include me, IMO) should get an opportunity to comment on the proposed deletion of an entire section before the fact rather than after. I suggest we wait for a few days to see if anyone else wants to comment on the proposed change. If we get no comments, then I will not oppose. BTW, I have renamed this section for clarity. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of ship model sections in articles was discussed in a general sense here. The consensus was they are not notable for inclusion, and have been removed by other editors, for example here and here, and with more reasoning outlined here. Benea (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a "consensus to remove" issue so much as a "consensus to keep" one; if I had spotted the insertion when it was made 3 weeks ago, I would have removed it then on the same grounds. Just because I've waited 3 weeks doesn't mean it needs more consensus to remove it - it stands or falls on the same grounds: a complete lack of relevance to the article subject. Having said that, I'm very happy to go with the consensus, of course. Shem (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think sections detailing model kits in warship articles are miniature on the same level as "In Popular Culture" sections. If reliable published sources can show that the design/manufacture of Daring-class model kits is important to understanding the warships, but in this case (and I image most others), we have an unsourced section detailing that toy and model companies produced toys and models of these ships, because that's what toy and model companies do. -- saberwyn 22:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Vendetta in Vietnam

HMAS Vendetta was not the only Australian ship to serve in the Vietnam conflict. HMAS's Melbourne, Sydney and Boonaroo also made several voyages to the war zone. Ref. "Australia's Navy in Vietnam" by John Perryman & Brett Mitchell published by Topmill Pty Ltd. Silverwater, NSW, Australia. 2012. OK if you want to be pedantic the Melbourne & Sydney weren't built in Australia.The Dart (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the phrasing. About 15 RAN warships were involved in the Vietnam War, plus an aviation unit (more if you count the occasionally embarked helicopters aboard Sydney), a CDT, and assorted hangars on. The key word, as you said, is -built; Vendetta was the only ship assembled in Australia to be directly involved in the shooty end of the conflict (the only other RAN warships to see combat during the war were the three US-build Perth class destroyers). -- saberwyn 11:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No probs, that's fine now, just thought I'd leave it to you to phrase it your way.The Dart (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead ship?

Just a curious question, how come this class is named after HMS Daring (D05)? She was neither the first ship of this class to be launched (Decoy was launched 29 March, Daring 10 August) nor the first to be commissioned (Diamond was commissioned 21 February, Daring 8 March). /Esquilo (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)