Talk:HMS Tiger (1913)

References

User talk:Parsecboy Thanks for adding "primarily from SMS Moltke, who scored 13 of those 15 hits." to the page on HMS Tiger (1913). However what was the source for this?

There is a big problem with many of these pages containing unsourced material. This would gradually be fixed if when people made additions they footnoted them giving the source. <ref>Author, ''Name of Source'', page number</ref> --Toddy1 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First World War, vs World War One

I reverted an edit that changed World War One into First World War. The reason for this is that there was already a wikilink in the introduction to World War I.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkin' Turkey

I read here Turkey bought some ex-Tiger 13.5s. Can anybody confirm? Worth a mention? (I'd also wonder what price was paid...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

They weren't delivered. See http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_135-45_mk5.htm Rcbutcher (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Conan?

I recognize barbette is technically correct. However, "turret" is by far the more common usage, especially in position references. Should it be changed back? Is there a WP-standard usage? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

MkV (H)

I'm led to understand that all later 13.5" BB/BC used the (H) version of the gun (1400lb rather than 1250lb shell) - isn't this also the case with Tiger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.192.207.179 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

LOC image - quick note

Found this today Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Magic disappearing 'X' turret

The 'Armament' subsection begins "Tiger mounted eight 45-calibre BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns in four twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'Y' from front to rear." yet there are six references to an 'X' turret or barbette throughout the article. How should this inconsistency be resolved? 1RM (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Good catch; sources disagree on the turret's name, so I've standardized on X.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a 'Q' turret, according to the after-action hit diagram held on record by the IWM (and reproduced in a book in 1921): https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205133177

Which makes some sense, given that it was placed between the boilers and turbines, being therefore a 'midships' turret. Additionally, the photograph of the ship at the top of the article clearly shows the elevated control position at the break of the forecastle and other nearby raised (albeit low) structures standing above the level of the forecastle deck. There is even a jackstaff in the vicinity. No 'X' turret in a superfiring relationship to its 'Y' would feature such clutter or obstruction.

So, this was clearly a midships turret, therefore properly a 'Q'. In fact, IWM generally seems to refer to Tiger's "midships" 'Q' turret in other instances as well: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205027935 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D98D:2F68:431A:BB60 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You are confused. As per that diagram that you refer to, the sternmost turret is designated as 'X', not 'Y' as you seem to think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Where in my statement did I say that the diagram referred to the aft turret as 'Y'? I referred to a 'Q' in it only. You may be confused. Certainly better not to assume what I think. Many thanks for your presumptuous and insulting reply.2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:914D:DC50:8A12:BE3A (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Coronel

In this: After the Battle of Coronel and the deployment of three battlecruisers to hunt for the German East Asia Squadron, Tiger was ordered to cut short her firing trials off Berehaven[34] and was commissioned into the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1st BCS) two months later, on 3 October,[31] and began trials and working up.

Battle of Coronel was 1 November, so two month later is January, or I miss something? Demostene119 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Roberts says she was commissioned for the 1BCS, not into. She didn't join the fleet at Scapa Flow until 6 November. Using Emperor of India as an example: Rear-Admiral Alexander Duff hoisted his flag aboard her on 22 October 1914, she commissioned on 10 November and joined the fleet on 10 December after travails with the dockyard and then working up off the coast of Ireland. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

So we can write for sure

Tiger was commissioned for the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1st BCS) on 3 October.[31] After the Battle of Coronel and the deployment of three battlecruisers to hunt for the German East Asia Squadron, Tiger was ordered to cut short her firing trials off Berehaven[34] and began trials and working up. Demostene119 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not quite right either as her trials and working up were already in progress when they were cut short.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

English is not my native language so your corrections will be always welcome.--Demostene119 (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

length of the ship relative to HMS Queen Mary

Here it is stated that the Tiger was 704 feet long and was 4 feet longer than the Queen Mary. Yet the entry about the Queen Mary gives a length of 703 feet for that ship. These figures don't add up, so what is correct? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. The figure for Queen Mary included her sternwalk, but I've replaced it with her hull's actual length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

MIlitary time

Is there any particular reason that this article wasn't written using the accepted 24-hour military time? Or does the British military use 12-hour time for their documents? Magus732 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not that I know of, go ahead and change it over if you want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Authorisation vs design

Would it be more reasonable to place the paragraph discussing the procurement, construction programme and authorisation of Tiger, along with the discussion of the potentially erroneous claims of a never-built-but-'considered' sister ship, in its own separate section (perhaps 'Planning & Authorisation'?) rather than in 'Design & description', since it has nothing to with the details of the ship itself, but rather discusses matters of procurement strategy instead. Even if it remains in the section, should it be at the start of it? Again, it is not a matter of the ship's architectural detailing or other characteristics and seems distracting & off-topic where it is. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D98D:2F68:431A:BB60 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Post your draft of such a section here for discussion, complete with sources formatted as per those cited in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong link in Service History - First World War

Links to the wrong Henry Pelly, Henry Carstairs Pelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Henry_Pelly,_3rd_Baronet (1844-1877), not the right one, Admiral Sir Henry Bertram Pelly (1867-1942) http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Henry_Bertram_Pelly

I'm not feeling well & can't remember how to add an external link, so it'd be nice if someone fixed it. Pjirving (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)