Talk:Vickers-Armstrongs

Spelling

I believe the page name here is wrong. The company name was "Vickers Armstrong" not "Vickers Armstrongs", although the latter seems to be a common misspelling.

Anyhow, I get about twice as many Google hits for the first spelling than I do for the second, and Hutchinson encyclopedia confirms that "Vickers Armstrong" is the correct spelling, I quote:

In 1927, Vickers merged with the Tyneside based engineering company Armstrong Whitworth, founded by W. G. Armstrong, to become Vickers-Armstrong, Ltd...In 1928 the Aviation Department became Vickers (Aviation) Ltd and soon after acquired Supermarine, which became the "Supermarine Aviation Works (Vickers) Ltd". In 1938, both companies were re-organised as Vickers Armstrong (Aircraft) Ltd, although the former Supermarine and Vickers works continued to brand their products under their former names.

The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act also led to the nationalisation of Vickers' shipbuilding division as part of British Shipbuilders. These had been renamed Vickers Armstrong Shipbuilders in 1955, changing again to Vickers Limited Shipbuilding Group in 1968. Gatoclass 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking exactly the same thing, will ask for comment at WP:AIR Nimbus227 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that the current article name is correct according to this reference from BAE Systems (successor of the parent company): [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus227 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All the reference books I have show the bit that built aircraft as Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Limited. Please note that the reference quoted above is an old copy of this wikipedia article page which has been corrected to Vickers-Armstrongs! MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha!!! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What reference books do you have, exactly, that refer to the company as "Vickers Armstrongs? Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

None - all mine have Vickers-Armstrongs. Why do you have a problem with the hyphen? MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the hyphen I have the problem with - it's the "s" on the end of the "Armstrong"! Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK -

• London Gazette Issue 34582 23 December 1938 - Supermarine Aviation Works (Vickers) Limited be wound up - "that the main businesses of the company are carried on by Vickers-Armstrongs Limited".
• London Gazette Issue 41502 19 September 1958 - Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Limited
• London Gazette Issue 41727 Supplement 13 June 1599 Award of an OBE - "Gabe Robb Bryce, Esq., Chief Test Pilot, Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft), Ltd."
• London Gazette Issue 40914 30 october 1956 List of land to be registered by "Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Limited"

Just a few I found on a quick search. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I know you can find plenty of examples of usage. But if you do a google search you will find that "Vickers Armstrong" is actually used far more commonly. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is not just a google search - the London Gazette is the official government newspaper, it does make mistakes but it is rare. A few examples more from Companies House:

• English Company 00227013 Vinters-Armstrongs Limited changed name from Vickers Armstrongs Limited in 2003 company founded 31 December 1927.
• English Company 00542022 Vinters-Armstrongs (Engineers) Limited changed name from Vickers-Armstrongs (Engineers) Limited in 2003 company founded 1954.
• English Company 00542023 Vinters Defence Systems Limited changed name in 2003 from Vickers Defence Systems Limited, changed name in 1987 from Vickers-Armstrongs (Shipbuilders) Limited company founded 1954.

MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced :)

I suspect this may have come about because, perhaps, the company name was wrongly registered in a database somewhere, in its tax records or something. It just doesn't make any sense to me that they would suddenly decide to pluralize their name.

Obviously I don't have proof of that though, so I guess I'll have to try and do some sleuthing on the subject at some stage. Don't really have the time right now though. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This may well be a dead debate, but the fairly authoritative Putnam book "Vickers aircraft sine 1908" by Andrews & Morgan (1988) records on p.10 ... in 1928... a merger of the heavy engineering interests of Vickers and Armstrong Whitworth in a new company called Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd." At this point AW had no aircraft interests, having sold off their subsidiary "The Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Ltd"" to J.D. Siddeley, originally of Siddeley-Deasy and who later bought up A.V. Roe. Tapper, in the matching "Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913" (1973) also refers to the merger of Vickers and AW as producing (p.11) "Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd". These guys were so deep in the company records and details they are unlikely both to have got it wrong.

A different point: looking at the list of military aircraft, I noticed the separate paragraph

"Vickers also competed for work with fighter designs offering designs such as:

   * Vickers Type 432 - WW2 high altitude interceptor
   * Vickers Type 559 - 1950s high altitude supersonic interceptor"

Why are they separated? There are plenty of Vickers fighters, e.g. the FB5, FB19, Type 143, the Venom (pre WW2), so given the Type 432 flew, what is different? The Type 559 was a paper aeroplane - there's an argument to be had here as to the inclusion of projects - so it is different in that respect and perhaps needs a note. Trouble is that there must be many projects. Should they all be listed?TSRL (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Type 559

This project does not appear in Andrews & Morgan's lists, nor are there any Vickers-Armstrongs type numbers in the range 500-599 There were, though many Supermarine aircraft with type numbers in that range, so were they reserved for Supermarine? Someone with the Putnam Supermarine book or similar should know. True or not, it is possible that the Type 559 was a Supermarine project rather than a V-A one, and indeed the Supermarine page lists it as one. If that is correct we should delete it from the V-A page.TSRL (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was Vickers-Armstrong (Supermarine) Type 559, but it seems to have been called Vickers Type 559 often enough for that be be picked up as the common name. I'd check the F155 section of Buttler's book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stitcher

"including the Vickers Stitcher and Vickers Hardness Machine business"

What is the "Vickers Stitcher"? Genuinely puzzled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vickers-Armstrongs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328090903/http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/index.asp to http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)