Talk:HMS Courageous (50)

Haven't found it yet

My father served on her and told me that Courageous was involved in a collision probably during the 1930's and was shortened som feet. Memory is of the order of ten feet. Does anybody have details.

I have researched several sources, and I can not find any reference to a collision. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; it just means that I haven't found anything on it yet. Will keep looking.

I did find references to where it suffered moderate damage in the bow and forecastle area on trials as a result of steaming full speed into heavy seas. Plates were buckled and oil tanks opened up and leaked. Additional stiffening was added.

PAUL

I can't find any evidence either. Perhaps you are thinking of her sister, HMS Glorious, which collided with the French liner Florida in 1931?m Benea 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

accidently or not?

These two pieces of information do not make sense when put together…

"During this time, Courageous was stalked for over two hours by the U-29, commanded by Kapitanleutnant Otto Schuhart. Then Courageous turned into the wind to launch her aircraft. This maneuver put the ship right across the bow of the U-29, which then fired three torpedoes." (from this article)

"Am 17.9. versenkt U 29 (Kptlt. Schuhart) westl. Irland die Courageous (Capt. Makeig-Jones †, 514 Tote). Zwar handelt es sich um einen Zufallstreffer: der Flugzeugträger läuft in die Schussbahn der auf einen Frachter abgefeuerten Torpedos." -- "On Sep.17 the submarine U-29 ... sinks the Courageous ... west of Ireland. Though this was a fluke: the carrier ran into the path of torpedoes fired off at a cargo ship." (From http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/39-08.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.142.204 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

here is a full account of U-29's sinking of Courageous. It indicates that Schuhart was both aware of Courageous's presence, deliberately hunted her and meant to sink her. Two u-boats were in the vicinity, hunting for an inbound convoy. Schuhart stumbled across Courageous instead and then stalked her. It seems unlikely that having penetrated the destroyer screen, he would have blown his cover by firing at a mere merchant when there was the far more significant target of an aircraft carrier nearby. It also seems unlikely that it was a fluke, that Courageous would have happened to sail into the path of torpedoes aimed at something else. William Jameson's and Mike Rossiter's books on Ark Royal also describe the sinking as deliberate, so I'd be quite sceptical about this being an accident. Benea (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My grandad was one of the survivers when it was torpedoed... he was a boiler man and was below deck when it struck... this was during the 2nd world war.. His name was Victor Whalen.. just one of many brave men who took up arms to protect Queen and country.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.65.10 (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox illustation

According to Maritime Quest, http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/pages/aircraft_carriers/hms_glorious_77_page_2.htm, HMS Courageous had an upright nose on the bow, whilst her sister ship HMS Glorious had a pointed nose on the bow. The image that was in the Infobox shows a ship with a pointed nose, and is therefore Glorious (and the image appears as such on Maritime Quest, not, as labelled in Wikimedia, Courageous. I have therefore removed the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Keen2 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that File:HMS Courageous 285029.jpg be deleted from Commons Rcbutcher (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual Error?

While the article claims "Courageous was the first British warship to be lost in the war", HMS Oxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Oxley) was apparently sunk a week prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricericon (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd missed that, good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic project inaccuracy

The current ingress text, stating that the ship was "Designed to support the Baltic Project championed by First Sea Lord John Fisher..." is somewhat misleading. There is ample evidence - as argued by among others Nicholas Lambert in his "Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War" that Fisher's did not support the Baltic project in anything but the most superficial way, and that he used it as an excuse to get his desire for yet more battlecruiser designs for high seas service through cabinet. The same is implied by the current article when it states under Origin and construction that "He justified their existence by claiming he needed fast, shallow-draught ships for his Baltic Project, a plan to invade Germany via its Baltic coast".

To my mind the ingress text is thus misleading, and not up to the standards of a featured article, as it implies Fisher favored sending the lightly armored Courageous into the enclosed Baltic. Rather, it could read something along the lines of "Designed and ordered on the insistence of First Sea Lord John Fisher...". I'll make the edit in due course, provided there are no objections. Verence (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The existing cites do not misquote their sources. Lambert may well be right, but we have a disagreement between the sources about Fisher's reasoning and that should be explained in a footnote that explains Lambert's belief while leaving the existing text alone. Which is not wrong, but perhaps incomplete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. The verb "champion" strongly implies wholehearted agreement and intention, which may have been very far from what Fisher had in mind. I agree that the disagreement should be explained within the text proper, but - to my mind at least - a contentious statement has no place in an ingress, which should introduce and sum up the article in as neutral a way as possible. The current text states that Fisher was championing a Baltic strategy, which is contentious, at the very least, and it should therefore not be mentioned in the ingress. How about "Designed and ordered on the insistence of First Sea Lord John Fisher, as part of campaign to increase the number of battlecruisers in the Royal Navy..."? Verence (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

So where is the article misstating what Roberts and Burt wrote? The relationship between Fisher and the Baltic Project is not well documented and it's uncertain how much he seriously supported the whole idea or just floated the concept to get support for his own pet projects like the battlecruisers, etc. AFAIK, the Baltic Project was used to justify them, especially their shallow draught.

I think that you've made a conclusion of your own, namely that the ships never would used in the Baltic, without any evidence to support it whatsoever. Firstly, no serious operational planning was ever done for the Baltic Project, so we cannot know if the Courageous-class ships would or would not have been deployed there. And second, what makes you believe that the ships were any less suited for the Baltic than the North Sea?

I have Lambert's book, but haven't read it. The Baltic Project isn't even listed in the index and I don't want to trawl through all the pages listed for Fisher, so what pages are you talking about?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Have I hit a sore spot? Not my intention to insult or any such thing. My beef is only with the layout and content of the article lead, and its statement that Fisher championed the Baltic project. Nowhere have I argued on whether the Courageous or any other ship would have been used in the Baltic or not. I'm certain any number of people at the Admiralty who would have been very happy to use them so, had circumstances been different. My point is simply that - as you say - there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding Fisher's relationship with the Baltic project. So much so that it should not be mentioned in the lead in the current manner, which heavily implies that this uncertainty does not exist. If you feel the lead reads differently feel free to say so. =) I'm glad you have the Lambert book. You have something to look forward to. It's both well written and well researched - a rare combination. For references you'll have to wait until I get to work tomorrow, though. Verence (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of references to plans (or lack thereof) for Baltic operations scattered around the book, and through thorough source work Lambert demolishes the notion that Fisher supported the use of the Grand Fleet or parts thereof in the Baltic. A summary of Lambert’s assertion that earlier historians have seriously misrepresented Fisher’s wartime views on Baltic forays can be found on pages 295-296. For a discussion on Fisher and Admiralty pre-war thinking on Baltic operations, see the section on economic warfare vs amphibious operations found in pages 38-55 and the section on the 1907 war plans contained in pages 71-82. I have read neither Burt not Roberts, but I’m guessing they relied – directly or indirectly – either on Marder’s work or on documents produced in the Dardanelles aftermath, both of which Lambert challenges. Feel free to confirm or deny if you know where they found their sources.

As stated above, my original gripe was purely with the article lead reference to Fisher's alleged support for Baltic operations (As a result of it appearing on the front page as today's featured article - which is fully deserved, of course. It's a well written article.), but having had to get my teeth in more deeply I might now attempt to rewrite other sections in the relevant articles too. I'll just have to find the time first. =) Verence (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)