Talk:HMS Ramillies (07)

Obsolete But Needed
This section, "Obsolete But Needed", contains good deal of what borders of hyperbole, regarding the course of the war had old battleships been unavailable. Toby Douglass 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In what sense hyperbole? Polycarp. I believe that the statements here are quite defensible and are a counter to the oft held view that battleships were obsolete by 1939.


 * "Without the five old Revenge class battleships, Britain most certainly would have lost control of the Mediterranean Sea after France surrendered. Malta would have fallen and convoys from Italy would have reached North Africa unmolested ensuring [[Erwin intact supplies for Rommels Afrika Korps . This may well have led to the fall of Eqypt and the oil fields of the Persian Gulf.


 * Without the Revenge class ships on North Atlantic convoy duty, German raiders would have created huge destruction and, breaking out beyond, threatened the troop convoys from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India."


 * These claims are, to say the least, speculative. They have no place in a serious historical article. Toby Douglass 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you in fact ever read any history? A neutral point of view does not imply no point of view. Wikipedia lately seems overrun by people with a desire to reduce all to the level of tasteless pap! Polycarp


 * I've read WW2 history, as an amateur, for twenty-three years. It is simply the case, to address one of the claims made, that control of the Med did not hinge upon five obsolete battleships.  NPOV has nothing to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of historical comment.  Toby Douglass 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Endless Cycle of Debate
I understand both the point's of view in the above discussion.

The problem is, this is a cracking article so am loath to have the speculation removed but in line with Wikipedia's guidlines they shouldn't be there :S

&#91;Birth.Life.Death] - Do It All Or Die Trying... 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"While it is often argued that Britain during the 1930s should have replaced the battleships she was allowed under the Washington Naval Treaty (and subsequent London Conferences) with newer vessels, the fact remains the she was close to bankruptcy after World War One and later mired in the Great Depression. It could be argued that victory in World War II hinged, among other things, on Britain's possession of the obsolescent battleships left over from World War I, as they were superbly manned, ably led and aggressively used."

"Without the five old Revenge class battleships, Britain might well have lost control of the Mediterranean Sea after France surrendered. Malta would then have fallen, and convoys from Italy would have reached North Africa unmolested, ensuring intact supplies for Rommel's Afrika Korps. This could have led to the loss of Egypt and the oil fields of the Persian Gulf."

"Without the Revenge class ships on North Atlantic convoy duty, German raiders could have created significant destruction and, breaking out beyond, threatened the troop convoys from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India."


 * All that should go I'm afraid. Clear violations of: WP:Crystal Ball - "German raiders could have...", "Britain might well have..."; WP:Weasel words - "It could be argued that ..."; and WP:NPOV - "they were superbly manned, ably led and aggressively used...".  Benea 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairey Flycatcher ...contradiction???
This article says the Fairey Flycatcher was "flown during most of the 1918 to 1939 period" whereas on its dedicated page it says it retired in 1934. Any thoughts? JRPG (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

British Loyalty
This article states that, following Ramillies being damaged by a Japanese midget sub, the second Jap sub sunk British Loyalty. However, British Loyalty is also states to have been sunk by a German sub whilst at Addu Atol. Anyone know the truth here?

Paragraph "Return to the Indian Ocean"
"Ramillies was reported sunk by the Japanese, but in fact was merely severely damaged. She was towed to Durban for temporary repairs, then in August 1942 she returned to Plymouth[citation needed] under her own steam and was back in service in June 1943. The Royal Navy's senior constructor was sent out to Madagascar to assess the damage inflicted by the torpedo." I don´t quite understand why "The Royal Navy's senior constructor was sent out to Madagascar" for inspecting the ship when a/ the ship is already back in Plymouth b/ There is no mention of the ship having been to Madagascar and if when? 151.136.144.155 (talk)
 * Good point but's one of the problems that occurs if a source isn't cited. It looks as if the sentences need reordering to show when the inspection occurred but I don't think anyone will do that without clarification from the source. Regards JRPG (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Ramillies (07). 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/20070522081908/http://www.royal-navy.org/warships/period-11/index.php?name=3 to http://www.royal-navy.org/warships/period-11/index.php?name=3

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)]]