Talk:HMS Queen Mary

An editor has changed

The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the [[rangefinder]]s controlling the turrets were limited to 15° 21' until [[prism (optics)|prism]]s were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.<ref name=c27>Campbell 1978, p. 33</ref>

To

The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until [[prism (optics)|prism]]s were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.<ref name=c27>Campbell 1978, p. 33</ref>

The stated basis of this change was "elevating prisms were part of the director, not the rangefinder".

I have reverted this edit because the original information was backed up by a citation, and the change was not. I do not have a copy of NJM Campbell's Battle Cruisers, Warship Special 1 so I cannot check what it says.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd need to see a copy of the cited work, but either the citation is wrong or the work itself in error. Coincidence rangefinders have prisms in them, but every such rangefinder is intrinsically capable of measuring ranges to infinity (albeit, with errors approaching infinity). The gun sights on a director (or the local ones on a gun), however, have a range of elevation that is finite and in some weapons, less than the elevation limits of the mounting. It is on these sighting telescopes to which super-elevating prisms are attached, and new cams on the sight's range dial expressed the relationship of range to these +6 degree elevations.

Page 4 of "The Sight Manual, 1916", ADM 186/216:

The following methods of increasing the range to which guns can be laid are under consideration.

...

II. Telescope Sights, Director or otherwise. --Providing an optical attachment which can be clamped on the end of the telescope, and which deflects the line of sight 6 degrees downwards. These attachments have been supplied for Ottway 5-15 power telescopes to "Indomitable" and all later classes of battleships and battle cruisers in the proportion of one to each aloft director sight. No inaccuracy need be anticipated from constantly taking off and putting on the 6 degree attachment, whose accuracy is within one minute.

Whether these were provided to Queen Mary before her destruction I'd have to further research, but if prisms and cams were provided her to help her achieve greater elevation and hence range, there is no question that these were part of the pitch angle difference between her gun barrels and her sighting scopes, an optical/mechanical relationship entirely unrelated to rangefinder use. DulcetTone (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. I'll have to check Campbell this weekend to see his exact wording, but I'm fairly certain that the manual trumps his book. Just be sure to cite it properly and we'll be OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment wasn't as convincing as it could be... the photo on page 86 of Roberts's book augments the phrasing and the plan drawing he provides, clearly showing the ship had RFs in A and B in 1914. Apparently, QM was the first capital ship to enjoy this level of RF installation upon completion and it was to be retrofitted as possible in coming years in the earlier vessels. DulcetTone (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a common error in describing the function of the Director. According to J Brookes Dreadnought Fire control & Jutland, the Dreyer table provided elevation and deflection data for the gun turrets not the Director. The director provided another source of target bearing (the Rangefinder mounts being another), target range and range rate change. This data was fed to the Dreyer table and from it data was then transmitted to the turrets relating to elevation and bearing, including deflection. The Director did fire the guns. This information is not made clear in the written piece. Revisionist99 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

in 2016 reports of the wreck being looted by a Dutch salvage company http://thepipeline.info/blog/2016/05/22/exclusive-named-the-salvage-company-which-looted-jutland-war-graves-as-mod-fails-to-act/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Queen Mary. 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/20080708214655/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm

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) 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

change

HMS Queen Mary was the last battlecruiser >>> built <<< by the Royal Navy before the First World War.

to

HMS Queen Mary was the last battlecruiser >>> COMPLETED <<< by the Royal Navy before the First World War.

151.29.105.180 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Better, I think, to delete it entirely as a trivial point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In the lead, says "ship was refitting". should be "ship was refitted". 2A0D:6FC7:601:4C15:929F:B6B5:2F81:CD23 (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed that, good catch IP! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

there seem to be proportionally way way more featured articles about old boats than any other subject. it's as if there is some sort of team at work here. Been going on for years. it's pretty boring really. 185.47.218.165 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OMT. Nothing says that you have to read them if you're not interested in them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 Thanks for your reply...I am aware of my rights to not read the articles. I would like to think that many other less canvassed subjects could be featured articles and maybe boat of the month could have a break. Good articles for sure. I read them. 185.47.218.165 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Then write one yourself on something that you find of compelling interest. Featured articles are written on topics that individual editors find to be interesting, not on what somebody thinks that they should write about, whether it’s hurricanes, Pokémon or whatever. There are millions of possible subjects, but very few of them have had the time and energy devoted to them to reach featured status. I and my friends are passionate about warships and have devoted the time and energy to bring them to featured status. Rather than waste your time and energy in empty criticism, I invite you to contribute to Wikipedia by improving an article or creating a new one. Do something positive! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 Thanks very much again for your reply. And you have answered the question I originally asked... "Is there some sort of team.... etc". And you have answered confirming that there is. A group of people committed to getting warships articles to a standard for WP featured articles. So now I know. As for the invite to write... this is not something I wish to do. I write other things in other media.. not internet. Please be aware that my criticisms are not of the articles themselves... which are always, as one would expect, of the highest quality... but of the frequency of their selection for featured articles in a whole universe of knowledge. 185.47.218.165 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That's disappointing, but I hope you change your mind at some point. At any rate, you can always do little things like correct typos or fix punctuation mistakes as you come across them. Not every thing involves writing or creating articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)