Talk:HMS Prince of Wales (53)

Tables
Guys, the tables etc are important, but please don't ignore the POV text. There are far too many opinionated comments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Ed (talk • contribs)
 * If you're going to add comments, could you sign them please? Just put four tildes after your comment --Andy Wade 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Name?
Need an interpretation here: Is it Prince of Wales or Prince Of Wales?

''Definitely Prince of Wales. Lower case o in of. A historical name after the title 'Prince of Wales' which refers to the first son of the King/Queen of England, who would also be first in line to the throne. Wales is know as a Principality because of this. Some of them even learned Welsh as a language. Prince Charles speaks it very well. I met him once, but I bet he doesn't remember me ;-)'' --Andy Wade 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Different Tonnage
There is a reported difference in tonnage:

Prince of Wales Statistics: 35,000 tons, ten 15-inch guns, crew of 110 officers and 1,502 ratings, last Captain is Captain John C. Leach.

Military Heritage did a feature on the Prince Of Wales and its sinking (Joseph M. Horodyski, Military Heritage, Volume 3, No. 3, pp.69 to 77).


 * The tonnage quoted in the article is the ship's deep displacement. Wiki-Ed 14:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Mostly correct
The tonnage and captain's name are correct. The ship had 14 inch guns, not 15 inch. 147.240.236.9 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No time to train?
They skipped pre-operation 'work up' to get her into combat faster, leaving the crew inadequately trained - note in edit summary left by User:Hrimfaxi. Hrimfaxi is saying that is the reason the ship's AA gunners failed to shoot down the Japanese planes that sank her.

She fought the Bismarck in May. She was in Singapore in December. Just what the heck did the crew do for seven months, go on holiday? Drogo Underburrow 10:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, the British Admiralty said that, not me. You might notice by reading the article:


 * She was in for repairs after fighting Bismarck. Time, 6 weeks.
 * In August, she was used to carry Churchill across the Atlantic for a secret meeting with Roosevelt.
 * She was then assigned to convoy escort duty in the Mediterranean, ending 25th October when she left for Singapore.
 * She arrived just in time for the Japanese to attack, and was sunk.


 * Notice in any of that any long periods of downtime when she could have paused to do live AA gunnery exercises? No, me neither.Hrimfaxi 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guys, If you'd like, I'm pretty sure that they did several gunnery exercises in the time between Bismarck and the sinking, but I can confirm this with some of the crew I know who are still alive if you'd like. Would this be an acceptable verification though? Please let me know what you think. --Andy Wade 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it sounds like you have a fantastic resource, I suspect Wikipedia would not view it as verifiable unless it was put on paper and made accessible (i.e. published). It might be pushing it, but I wonder what would happen if you asked one of these veterans to write down his experiences and sign the paper and then scanned it in and displayed it here?


 * However, in this case Hrimfaxi's contention is not verifiable either so a simple indication of what they say should be enough. In fact, if I recall correctly from reading the board of enquiry report made after the sinking (it's in the National Archives, possibly ADM/1/11043), the naval architect responsible thought the torpedo that sunk the ship was a "one in a million" chance. Given the number of attackers the AA gunners on the ship could hardly be blamed, regardless of how much training they had. Wiki-Ed 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, even we are talking about a RN warship here, and I know they would have had plenty of gunnery practice in the time of the Malta convoys, and on the way to South Africa, and Singapore. But I can't 'verify' this. Never mind anyway... However, here's a ref: Page 206/207 of 'Battleship' (MiddleBrook & Mahoney), states that after the port outer shaft hit, the resulting vibration caused huge damage, and four of the eight dynamo compartments had been flooded. So the four aft 5.25 turrets P3, P4, S3, S4 had lost all electrical power, and the Pom Poms had faulty ammunition belts, and then shortly afterwards because of the 11.5 degree list, the forward four 5.25 turrets could not traverse, although they could elevate. So they had very little AA defence left to speak of at this time. Even if they'd had a good amount of practice, they couldn't have used their guns anyway That port outer hit was indeed a 'one in a million' chance.

I forgot to say... I think that the story about gunners not being worked up has been confused with the inexperienced main gun crews before the Denmark Strait battle, and not the AA gun crews at Singapore. --Andy Wade 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected wreck status
This ship is in the category "Protected Wrecks of the UK", which links to List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act. This shipwreck, however, is not on that list. I do see that it is on the list of 'Wrecks designated as military remains' under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. It appears that List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act should be updated to include the Prince of Wales per that site, but I am unsure of the distinction between the two Acts, therefore I am proposing the addition here in hopes of advice. Maralia


 * Hi Maralia, the distinction is that the Protected Wrecks Act essentially covers wrecks of historical significance or are classed as hazardous, and the 1986 Protection of Military Remains Act (POMRA) covers what are specifically War Graves. It is a designated site under the POMRA, a status granted in 2001 when the act was first used. I am unaware of HMS Prince of Wales being on the Protected Wrecks Act (I'm a member of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse Survivors Association, so I'm sure I would have heard of this) Maybe with time it will be considered historically important enough to be added, but I expect it will be just a huge pile of rust long before that happens --Andy Wade 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. If I understand correctly from your information, the proper statement to be made in this article, then, is that the wreck site has been designated protected under the POMRA - not under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. I believe this to be an important distinction as POMRA would prohibit all diving, whereas POWA 1973 would not necessarily. Additionally, I find the definition of the Category:Protected Wrecks of the UK to be somewhat misleading, in that it implies protection under POWA 1973 is the qualifier for inclusion in the category, when in fact POMRA-protected wrecks are included. I will leave a talk message for someone I know has experience with the protected wrecks legislation, and ask for input here. Thanks again. Maralia 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to be able to help. :) Your understanding is correct. However, POMRA would not necessarily prohibit all diving as it has two designations, they are 'Controlled Site (UK waters - no diving)' and 'Protected Place (restricted diving)'. HMS Prince of Wales would probably be a 'Controlled Site' and diving would not be allowed, but for the fact that she lies in international waters, and outside the jurisdiction of the MOD (and POMRA) Therefore she is a 'Protected Place'. UK nationals are subject to the 'Protected Place' designation, and may visit but should not enter or disturb the wreck. (The same applies to HMS Repulse, sunk at the same time). The POMRA does not affect foreign nationals in international waters. However, pressure has already been placed upon the Singapore Government by the UK Government in recent cases where the wrecks have been disturbed by divers (the dive vessels operated out of Singapore). I do know that this occurred at very high level, but am not aware of any action which may have been taken against any foreign national divers at the time. At the end of the day it is all a matter of what the UK Government can enforce. Hope this helps.--Andy Wade 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All the above clarifications are correct and I have changed the catmore on Category:Protected Wrecks of the UK to remove the confusion Viv Hamilton 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures
The casualty figures in the articles on the Prince of Wales, Repulse and the sinking of both ships do not agree with one-another (Eg. According the article on Repulse more survivors were rescued from the ship than were in its complement, and >300 died). I have no idea what the correct figures are and since there are no in-line citations it's impossible to work out where the data has come from. Does anyone have verifiable information on the complement of each ship and the number that perished in December 41? Wiki-Ed 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I found some numbers at this source: http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/prince.html and http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/casualties.html

Thanks, Carl Gusler 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Service in the Pacific
Surely "given to the United States of America to aid in the Pacific campaign" is not an accurate description of PoW's mission in the Pacific. I will need to pull out some reference work but my understanding of her mission was a Churchill idea to send a few top-quality warships to the Pacific to intimidate the Japanese and bolster confidence in British Empire subjects. Has anyone else objected to the wording quoted above? --Tchie Tao 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right, at the time the British had a rather substantial fleet in the Pacific themselves, see Eastern Fleet. The Prince of Wales was sent to serve as part of that under British control to protect British interests.  "Given to the USA" sounds like she was transferred to the US Navy, which she certainly was not, nor was she under US control fulfilling US objectives.  I've reworded this section accordingly.  Benea 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ship Motto
I'm having a really hard time believing that this ship has a motto in the German language, as opposed to Latin or English. I can't find any Internet information to support or refute. What is the source of this information?

Thanks, Carl Gusler 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Prince of Wales's feathers. Maralia 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and for that internet seal of approval ,see here, here and my favourite, here Benea 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this may seem bizarre, but it is probably true, since "Ich Dien" is the traditional motto of the Prince of Wales. PatGallacher (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wreck depth, etc
I recently tried to correct some misinformation on your HMS Prince of Wales page but see it was not ‘accepted’. For the record, the depth of the wreck IS approximately 68m/223ft to the seabed (+/- depending on the tides), not 155ft as you state. And the wreck is actually upside down, not 'nearly' upside down either. How do I know? I have made numerous dives on the wreck and participated in an extensive hull survey on both PoW and HMS Repulse in 2007 (Expedition ‘Job 74’).

To give you some idea of the PoW wreck orientation, her port deck edge is flush with or buried into the seabed from her very stern all the way forward to approximately opposite the leading edge of B turret, with the foredeck then held slightly up off the seabed from A turret to the bow stem. Her starboard deck edge is flush with the seabed at the stern and gradually ‘rises’ until it is held up off the seabed (by her superstructure) amidships about 4m/12ft or so, with the deck edge then again getting gradually closer to the seabed the further forward one goes, until the very bow itself is about 2m/6ft up.

And for an idea of the ’angle’ the wreck is on, or how just upside down she is, the quad barrels of A turret which point forward and are ‘level’ (that is down in their ‘least elevated’ position as it were) can just be seen on the seabed. The starboard most barrel is actually visible while the furthest port one is almost completely buried. If you can picture that ‘orientation’, that is her foredeck is only a few degrees from ‘level’ so to speak, then it should give you some idea just how ‘upside down’ she is.

Now while the above details obviously do not need to be included in your page I think you should at least correct the depth. As for ‘nearly’ upside down, well if that’s what you still think after reading the above then, without meaning to be rude, your idea of ‘upside down’ is obviously very different to mine.

PS. While the above details were correct and verified during our 2007 expedition, it should be noted that ocean currents could/can scour out or build up sand incrementally on either side of the wreck at any time.

Should you be so interested, for further info on the wreck please see our 2007 survey report at; http://www.explorers.org/expeditions/reports/Flag_Reports_PDF/Expedition%20Job_74_web_version.pdf

Kevin Denlay 124.171.135.199 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is indeed what you added to the article, and it is all still there. No one has even edited the page since you added that information, let alone altering or reverting what you wrote. The information on the depth is exactly as you edited it, so are you saying that it was a mistake and should be corrected? Why do you think that it has not been ‘accepted’? Benea (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm assuming that you're User:KDPOW? If so, logging in will help in trying to clarify issues) Benea (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that’s odd, as when I open up the page (even now) it still shows text as 'nearly' upside down and '155ft' as depth (and the link I inserted to the survey report is not their either). Why am I not seeing the changes? I didn’t think that someone (i.e. the general public) searching for info had to first be 'logged in' to view your pages? Are you implying that for anyone to see the changes they must first log in?

Kevin 124.171.135.199 (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No you don't need to be logged in, though it's certainly more beneficial for you if you want to edit for a number of reasons. But it does suggest there is a problem with your computer/software, as the information is there as clear as day for me.  If you click on the 'history' tab at the top, you will see all the contributions made to the article, the last set being four edits by you on 12 July, the last being at 06:54. If you can't see this it suggests that the page is not updating for you for some reason, but that the problem is at your end. Benea (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Benea! However, although I can see the four contribution headings on the history page, the main page (at my end) still shows no changes whatsoever. Any idea why my computer would show the changes on the history page but not update the main page?

Kevin 124.171.135.199 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Benea, after posting last comment/question I called a friend and had him check the page via his computer. Interestingly, the changes don't show up via his computer either. Kevin124.171.135.199 (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's outside my area of expertise. You could ask at Village pump, which handles such things as the project's software, and someone there may be able to provide an answer as to why the page isn't updating for you. The last paragraph of the page states 'The wreck lies upside down in 223 feet of water at approximately 3°33′36″N, 104°28′42″E.', and at the bottom of the references section is the link to the pdf, so the system has definitely saved the changes. Benea (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, all your updates mentioned are showing to me and I have refreshed the page. It's a puzzle as to why you can't see them. Did you clear your browser history? Maybe it's loading a previous version of the page from your cache? Can't think of any other reason it would not show the page updates. Would you mind adding the depth in metres as well as feet as nowadays most nautical charts are metric. Also I'd appreciate it if you could confirm that the depth you stated is at chart datum and therefore tidal heights are additional to the actual charted depth. Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the current state of the wreck. Cheers! --Andy Wade (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Story about naming of ship
I may be wrong, but I am a bit suspicious about the story about the naming of the ship in this article i.e. that it was at one time planned to be called "King Edward VIII". The reason is that "King George V" was launched earlier, so if Edward had not abdicated it would have been the first battleship of his reign. They were both laid down on the same day, did KGV overtake PoW during construction?

If there was some doubt about what the first ship of the class was to be called, what were they calling the class while it was being planned. Was it always thought to be likely that the first ship of the class would be KGV? PatGallacher (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The HMS King George V (41) article states that she was planned as HMS King George VI, but that HM King George VI ordered that she be named for his father, the late King George V. This would imply that Edward chose the name of the second ship, but that his successor chose the name of the first ship, which seems back to front, especially if this article is claiming that KGV was originally going to be KEVIII, and the KGV article claiming she was going to be KGVI. Benea (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the National Maritime Museum with the statement that HMS KGV was to be named HMS KGVI, but was changed at KGVI's insistence. HMS Duke of York (17) was apparently named in honour of KGVI instead, being the title he held before he became king. Following on from this logic, perhaps PoW was named after KEVIII in the same vein, and that this was down to KGVI rather than Edward. Benea (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The story about KGV seems plausible enough, but I am suspicious about the story about PoW. I suspect it may have arisen because at that time Edward only recently had been Prince of Wales, and the title was still widely associated with him, particularly since at that time there was not a current Prince of Wales. PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking the article, I see that there is a source for this, Philip Ziegler's "King Edward VIII". However I still think it would be worth checking this work. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The dates just don't add up though. HMS KGV was ordered whilst KGV was still king.  What was the provisional name they were building her under? They could have had no way of knowing that the future KGVI would take the throne, so they certainly weren't building her as that at that point.  By the time PoW is ordered, Edward is on the throne. Did the Admiralty offer to name the under-construction battleship as KEVIII, to which he declined? But then KGVI takes the throne, the Admiralty perhaps make the same offer to him, he also declines, choosing the name KGV. Who chose to name the second ship PoW? Had it been fixed prior to the order and Edward's accession, chosen by his father and/or the Admiralty? Did Edward choose it, in which case why was he not offered the name of the first ship under construction as per tradition? Or was he offered it, but declined it, altering the name of the second ship, to be named not after himself but his title? Or was it George VI, who named the first ship after his father, and perhaps at least accepted the naming of the second after his brother and the third after himself? So much is all speculation unfortunately. The answer must be in the Admiralty records somewhere.  Benea (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but it's possible that the KGV was always planned to be called this, since there was an earlier battleship of this name which was scrapped in 1926, there was a lengthy hiatus in building battleships caused by various naval treaties, but the second KGV was the first battleship to be launched after the first was scrapped, and the Navy wanted to have a battleship with the name of the current sovereign. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I expect you're right. Colledge has no alternative names listed for either ship, whereas it does correctly list that HMS Monarch (1911) was built as HMS King George V until being renamed in 1910 before being launched in 1911, and that HMS King George V (1911) was built as HMS Royal George until being renamed in 1910 (as the names were presumably switched). The fact that the PoW and KGV entries don't carry this information suggests that they were never actually renamed, and only ever bore the names they were originally intended to. The only trouble comes with the unexpected accession of George VI, which led to Anson being renamed Duke of York, the name Anson then being given to the proposed Jellicoe. In this case neither Edward nor George assented to the proposals to have the under construction KGV named after them.  This version suggests that both articles are to varying degrees true.  KGV's name was confirmed by George VI, Edward did decline the offer to have a ship named KEVIII, but the ship offered was the KGV not the PoW, which was always intended as the PoW. Too bad that we have no strong evidence of this. Benea (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could be basically right. Here is what I think probably happened, although it does include some speculation. The crucial point to note is that the 2 battleships were ordered and laid down on the same day, so during the relevant period it may not have been clear which was going to be launched first. There had already been serious plans under way for the new class of battleship in 1935, while the old king was alive. Possibly at that stage there were already at least tentative plans to build 2 ships of the new class in the first instance, and they would be called KGV and PoW. During the crisis of 1936 the Navy wanted to follow the convention of naming the first battleship to be launched in the new reign after the new monarch, but they did not know which this would be. They offered Edward to rename the PoW, since in a way it was already named after him, and it might not make much sense to have a ship called PoW when there was not a current prince, but he turned them down, possibly already sensing problems with his reign. After the abdication they made a similar offer to George, but this time they had to offer to rename the KGV since it would have created operational problems to have 2 ships with very similar names, but he turned them down for different reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bell
Putting this in here; it doesn't sit very well in the reference section imho.Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck?
Is it accurate to have the date of the sinking under the "struck" entry in the infobox? I thought ships were struck when their names were removed from the roll due to decommissioning, not sinking? Or am I being FOOLISH ? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince of York?
What is this "Prince of York" mentioned with Repulse as being the first ships sunk solely by airfire? Is that supposed to be Prince of Wales? NevarMaor (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Wales and Repulse in south Africa
In the 1950s when there some talk of the RN building a new Prince of Wales there were stories about survivors from the original ship.

Both the PoW and the Repulse called in at South Africa on their way out to the Far East. So many men simply deserted rather than sail to Singapore that the local police had to be used to round up deserting cremen.

There were numbers who were never caught and put their survival down to simply having deserted at the time in south Africa.

Does anybody else have any information about this? AT Kunene (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems unlikely. Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of crewmen had failed to return from liberty when the ships were due to sail; it was a fairly routine occurrence in every navy. I'm skeptical there was an unusual level of this in this particular instance; the ships were headed away from the war in Europe and the Japanese were not (yet) much of a terror to the average uninformed British sailor. --Yaush (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Atlantic Charter" Proclaimed?
If you check the actual history, the Joint Declaration issued as a press release at 9:00 a.m. on August 14, 1941 in Washington DC, by FDR's press secretary, Stephen Early, was not called the "Atlantic Charter". It was simply a press release of a joint declaration, and it was unsigned. In fact, neither FDR nor Churchill ever signed it. (FDR lied when he said in the press release that it was signed.) The term "Atlantic Charter" was not coined until about August 19, 1941 by the London Daily Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andante$46 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fruther Reading
Death of the Battleship, Richard Hough
 * This book is a good fruther reading because the book as every indepth facts of about the ship in the areas of the book the ship is talked about. The book goes over may of the things the article has in it but it tells it in a more fluid style. It has some clashing facts with the article.

(IHR mlm1134 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

Authenticity of the photo used in the "Far East" section
According to the Wikipedia article "Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse" the photograph of the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse used in the "Far East" section was edited by adding a destroyer in the foreground. The Wikipedia article "Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse" cites the source (Stephen, Martin. Sea Battles in Close-up: World War 2 (Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan, 1988), Volume 1, p. 111.)

GENTLEMEN. PARDON MY INTERJECTING HERE IN CAPITALS BUT I WANT TO REFUTE SOME OF YOUR POINTS. I AM NOT INTENDING TO SHOUT PER SE, JUST WANT TO DIFFERENTIATE MY TEXT FROM OTHERS.

SO, FIRST, THE ABOVE ASSUMPTION RE 'EDITING / INSERTING' A DD IS INCORRECT.


 * Your point? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The description for the photograph used in the "Far East" section claims the destroyer in the foreground is HMS Express, when in fact that "destroyer" is a complete fabrication. Doctored photographs with inaccurate descriptions do not belong on a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecko116 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG RE FABRICATION (SEE BELOW).


 * The Imperial War Museum, which owns it, says nothing about "fabrications" and simply notes that the photo has been "retouched", something which was as common then as it is today. That's not a reason to remove it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AND THAT IS CORRECT!

Your source doesn't reveal exactly how the photograph of HMS Prince of Wales has been "retouched". Your source states that the photograph of HMS Prince of Wales has been "heavily retouched" without clarifying what in the photograph has been "retouched", and my source states that the destroyer in the foreground of the photograph is a fabrication.

WHO IS YOUR SOURCE???? NOT JUST THE BOOKS YOU QUOTE I HOPE?

A vague description on the Imperial War Museum website isn't good enough evidence to discount the information from my source. (Stephen, Martin. Sea Battles in Close-up: World War 2 (Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan, 1988), Volume 1, p. 111.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecko116 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SECOND HAND SOURCES AT BEST. LETS LOOK AT THE 'ORIGINAL' SHALL WE. (SEE BELOW.) BY THE WAY, UNFORTUNATELY, THE IWM HAS SOME OF THE WORST COPIES OF SOME HISTORICAL (NAVAL) IMAGES I HAVE EVER SEEN.(HOW DO I KNOW? UNFORTUNATELY I BOUGHT SOME FROM IWM BEFORE COLLECTING MUCH MUCH BETTER COPIES OF THE SAME IMAGE ELSEWHERE.)


 * "Retouched" is a more appropriate word; it's unlikely that any of the elements were entirely fabricated per se, but it does look like a composite shot. The base layer is the seascape and the sky; this is fine. In the background we have the distinct silhouettes of PoW with Repulse behind: Repulse is pointing in the opposite direction to PoW (which is conceivable at certain points during the action,

IT IS NOT JUST CONCEIVABLE, IT IS A FACT. THE ORIGINAL IMAGE APPEARS TO SHOW THAT BOTH PRINCE OF WALES AND EXPRESS (THE DD IN FOREGROUND) HAVE JUST MADE AN 'ABOUT TURN' WHILE REPULSE CONTINUES ON HER WAY.

but not like thi) and the funnel smoke is distinctly different and is blowing in different directions; the destroyer has no funnel smoke at all, despite being portrayed as sailing at high speed.

NOT SO. SAILING A HIGH SPEED DOES NOT 'HAVE' TO PRODUCE SMOKE.

Also, given that this is supposedly a Japanese point of view, the angle at which this photo was "taken" and the apparent proximity to the destroyer seems improbable (no AA fire).

OH, THERE IS PLENTY OF AA FIRE FROM THE DD IN THE 'ORIGINAL', BELIEVE ME! SEE BELOW RE ORIGINAL PHOTO.

Nevertheless the shape and structure of an E-class destroyer at this angle is quite clear - much more so than one might expect if a Japanese newspaper artist was trying to sketch it without a reference point. To my eye it looks like the sea, the sky and the Repulse are the the original image; the other elements have been added in from other photographic sources and/or retouched. Fabrication is too strong a word. Either way, it's irrelevant - this is not a reason to remove it; it's an original wartime image and portrays the action the article is describing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC) THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ORIGINAL PHOTO, AS OPPOSED TO THE PHOTO YOU ARE DISCUSSING (AND IS ON THE WIKI PAGE IN QUESTION AS OF 22/DEC/2014) IS REAL, NOT FAKED. YES, THE ORIGINAL HAS ALSO BEEN ‘RETOUCHED’ SOMEWHAT, BUT TO NOWHERE NEAR THE EXTENT AS SEEN IN THE PHOTO YOU ARE DISCUSSING. AND 'RETOUCHING' IS NOT FAKING! (PHOTOGRAPHERS, IN THE DARKROOM, 'BURNT AND DODGED', ETC, IMAGES LONG BEFORE DIGITAL CAME ALONG.) HOW DO I KNOW? I OWN AN ORIGINAL HARD COPY OF THE PRINT AS PUBLISHED / ISSUED BY THE JAPANESE IN 1942. (AND ON THAT PRINT IT IS PLAIN TO SEE THE SMOKE POURING OFF THE AA GUNS ON HMS EXPRESS, THE DESTROYER IN THE FOREGROUND, SO THAT ‘REASON’ FOR DOUBT ABOVE CAN BE THROWN OUT THE WINDOW ALSO.)

I WILL, WHEN I GET A CHANCE (AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO SO), REPLACE THAT HEAVILY DOCTORED VERSION OF THE IMAGE ON THAT OTHER WIKI PAGE WITH THE ONE I HAVE.

PS. BY THE WAY, THIS TOPIC AND THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE PHOTO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ADINFINITUM ON VARIOUS NAVAL HISTORICAL FORUMS OVER THE YEARS. AND ONCE FULLY DISSECTED / DISCUSSED THERE HAS BEEN NO DOUBT AS TO THE 'NON-FAKERY' (AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE 'RETOUCHING') OF THE ORIGINAL IMAGE.
 * Thank you for your interesting contribution... if you can find a way to add in a better version of the image that would be great - just remember to use the correct license (etc) so it doesn't get deleted (that's often a problem and it's one reason why we appear to be debating the merits of a lower quality picture). Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you also sign your posts (4x~) and stop using all capitals as it looks like shouting whatever your reason. People shout to differentiate their side of the argument and it doesn't look good then either. Britmax (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Britmax; First, no idea how to 'sign', so...................you will have to live with that. 2nd, as I said in my intro I was not intending to shout (but some people it seems are so hung up on 'terms' that they can't see past their own prejudices). Nor is there any argument. I am just presenting facts, not an argument. Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored after all. That being said, upon rereading some of what was written previously in this section re the photo in question (in support of various 'theories / assumptions'), it seems it may have been a good idea to 'shout' after all, especially seeing as the 'debate' centered around a heavily, repeat heavily doctored (not just 'retouched') copy of the original photograph, as opposed to the original itself.

Wiki-Ed; As for 'correct license', what do you mean? And the photo (that is there now) is not just 'lower quality', it is doctored as opposed to just being 'retouched'.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.255.239 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It caught fire at the shipyard.
Though the damage was "negligible", do we think it's perhaps worth mentioning? I probably would if I were updating the article. I'm not a ship person so I don't know what is significant or not. It is rather interesting however its timing in catching fire. At the time, England and France were giving Germany a verbal beating. Germany was on the defensive in its media, throwing insults to the English. In any case, here is the clipping where I found out about the fire, so you all can decide. It is a reliable citation as well, being a newspaper. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the ships with Ship's cats
Kind of a coincidence that both the Bismarck and Prince of Wales had cats while they fought: Prince of Wales had a cat named Blackie and Bismarck had Unsinkable Sam, both cats also survived each of their ship's deaths (Sam was rescued by one of Bismarcks murderers the HMS Cossack (F03)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE

You say "......one of Bismarck's murderers....." Are you serious?

So, you would also have us believe that the German submarine U-563 commanded by Klaus Bargsten murdered HMS Cossack I suppose (not)?

People die in war. It is not murder.

And if I may ask, where did you find the reference to HMS Cossack recuing 'unsinkable sam', as the Wiki page makes no mention of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cossack_(F03)

Chasing Bismarck ''In May 1941, she participated in the pursuit and destruction of the German battleship Bismarck. While escorting Convoy WS-8B to the Middle East, Cossack and four other destroyers broke off on 26 May, and headed towards the area where Bismarck had been reported. They found Bismarck that evening and made several torpedo attacks in the evening and into the next morning. No hits were scored, but they kept the Bismarck's gunners from getting any sleep, making it easier for the battleships to attack the Bismarck the next morning.''

Loss ''On 23 October 1941, Cossack was escorting a convoy from Gibraltar to the United Kingdom when she was struck by a single torpedo fired by the German submarine U-563 commanded by Klaus Bargsten. She was taken in tow by a tug from Gibraltar on 25 October, but the weather worsened and the tow was slipped on 26 October. Cossack sank in the Atlantic west of Gibraltar on 27 October 1941. 159 of her crew were lost.''

KevinVD (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Far East Section - Torpedo hit schematic
I would like it known that the schematic in this section showing where the one torpedo hit on the aft port side of HMS Prince of Wales is inaccurate / wrong. That is, the arrow needs to be moved forward (and the text changed) to show the true position of said hit. Hence the diagram should be either redrawn or removed if this section is to be considered 'accurate'.

The torpedo hit right where the outer port shaft exits the hull at the stern tube gland, that is well forward of the 'A' bracket, not 'near' the A bracket as the 'artist' claims.

Please see; https://explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf  - specifically page 12.

And for even more detail; https://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/prince_of_wales/death-of-a-battleship-2012-update.pdf  - specifically pages 12 through 27 and 41 and 42

I also think that if the 'artist' of said diagram would like 'his' work credited if reused, then may I politely suggest he also credits where he got his data from in the first place (to remove the non existent 2nd torpedo 'hit', etc, he previously had in his diagram) which is from our above reports.

PS. Being rather unfamiliar with how Wiki works, if anyone can tell me how to contact the artist himself directly then I would / will gladly do so.

KevinVD (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no way that rendition of a ship in the foreground is an E-class destroyer. Smoke would be issuing from her funnel, anyway. It couldn't be more clear that isn't a real ship. SlyGuyFox (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I see now that the replies I was trying to make to the "Authenticity of the photo in the "Far East" section actually appeared elsewhere. I thought by they were failing to appear anywhere. I don't know what to do now. SlyGuyFox (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Far East section, photograph
The photo's caption is inaccurate. That is not a real ship in the foreground, and it doesn't even resemble a destroyer. That photo has been altered, with a fake ship drawn in to liven it up. I saw that fact given in another Wikipedia article years ago. SlyGuyFox (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with SlyGuyFox, the ship in the foreground has been (badly) drawn in the photo. I'm going to delete it as it has very little actual information to convey.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Time for a unit change?
During full-power trials on 31 March 1941, Prince of Wales at 42,100 tons displacement achieved 28 knots with 111,600 shp at 228 rpm and a specific fuel consumption of 0.73 lb per shp.

I see that brake-specific fuel consumption has units of g/(kW⋅h) or lb/(hp⋅h).

That's the best reference I can find for "specific fuel consumption" on Wikipedia.

It baffles me where the 'h' unit is accounted for in the sentence above, but I know not very much at all about nautical engineering. &mdash; MaxEnt 16:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Consort?!
Anyone else bothered to insert the word consort?

BlueD954 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * HMS Prince of Wales ships crest.JPG