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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hull/Interaction, Experience & Engagement (2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have added a Timeline of events for the HMS Hardy's career, if someone had further information then please add to it. I have also added a little information on the opening statement and cited a source. Jbaron88 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Some points:
The Spitfire referred to in the source is the HMS Spitfire (1912). The famous plane had not been invented at this time.
Plowden was in command at the battle of Jutland, but the source does not say he took command at Jutland. The point where command transferred between Crabbe and Plowden (and any intervening commanders) has been lost, or at least is not in any source we have so far found.
It is unlear if the "1917 - Transferred to Devonport" and "November 1918 - 4th Destroyer Flotilla, Devonport", refer to separate transfers or simply the second item is saying "still at Devonport". [1] implies it is the latter, and that Hardy moved with the rest of the Flotilla in 1917.
The timeline, which is taken from [2], doesn't really give any more information than has already been summarised in the other sections that already exist. I'm also not over-keen to trust [3], as there is an obvious mistake whereby the timeline's "launched" date is out by a year. Personally, I would prefer not to have this section, as it relies wholly on one slightly vague and slightly undependable source, whereas the prose sections use several sources and are therefore a bit more robust. --LukeSurltc12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply