Talk:HMS Montagu (1901)

Light Keeper quote and copied text

I'm the culprit responsible for the uncited quote from the light keeper. Unfortunately, when I checked the sources I had included it wasn't there and a new search a few days later failed to find it. A Lundy websitesays the keeper "had to forcefully point out the Officers mistake" I'm pleased to see the article has been considerably expanded but whilst there are loads of references to the quotation now, I'm also concerned most look like copies of this article. Any suggestions? JRPG (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Salvage Attempts

I note

Unfortunately the Admiralty had no appropriate equipment and Wilson requested help from the Liverpool Salvage Company. Despite his own lack of expertise in this highly specialised area, Wilson unfortunately treated Salvage Company experts as junior partners and serious disagreements destroyed prospects of saving the ship.

has been removed with the comment Removed text not supported by source

It seems an excellent summary for the utter chaos described in reference 18 (part below) which I had intended to cover both this sentence and the next.

By now the Montagu’s lower compartments were all flooded and the hull was grinding nastily against the rocks. The Navy had no salvage equipment so they sent for the Liverpool Salvage Company and their most experienced officer Capt. Young. Since they had asked for their help you would have thought the Navy would have let the Salvage Company get on with it, but no. Capt. Young was relegated to the status of assistant and the Admiralty put in their own man, Admiral Sir A.K.Wilson. Although he was a brilliant officer he was completely out of his depth when dealing with the salvage of such a large battleship. Almost at once he ordered a huge flotilla of ships to bring all sorts of gear to the site. Working parties of hundreds of seamen were put aboard the Montagu, all with conflicting agendas. The upshot was chaos and confusion with everybody getting in each other’s way whilst the ship sank lower and lower in the water. The arguments and conflicting ideas raged unchecked with Capt. Young of the Salvage Company being told to mind his manners. The last straw came when the Admiral seriously suggested that the Montagu be filled with cork and be allowed to float off on the high tide. It was by now obvious to all that the great battleship was lost and in desperation the Admiralty turned to Capt. Young to salvage something from the shambles.

A better reference -but not on line or in my collection is Admiralty Salvage in Peace & War 1906-2006: 'Grope, Grub and Tremble. reviewed here from which one can deduce that Admiralty salvage dates from this disaster, an indication that the previous policy was not deemed a success.

Simon Harley, are you ok if I add a separate citation after each sentence?

Good luck with your 150 anniversary project. JRPG (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, the website in question probably wouldn't meet WP:RS. I certainly wouldn't consider it as such. And the review you mention, as you say, is only an indication. The two sources I've seen from naval officers who were there suggests that Wilson acted properly during the operation, for which he incidentally wasn't present for all of. Without decent evidence that Wilson seriously hindered the salvage of the ship, there's no way he can be blamed for the loss in the article. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt clarification. The on-line source is far from ideal though backed by local museums. I’ll get the other reference. It appears RN hadn’t developed state-of-the-art salvage techniques, an omission I expect the book to say it immediately put right. Could you tell me what your contemporary source is? Given the international tension, I wouldn’t have expected any public criticism of AW. JRPG (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admiralty Salvage in Peace & War which has a foreward by the First Sea Lord says Young -later the RN's first chief salvage officer -was disgusted that Montagu was "lost needlessly". I will therefore update it. Wilson is most unfortunate in that his comments on submarines are taken to show a very negative mindset rather than a dire warning from a top torpedo expert.

JRPG (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Booth's book, expecting some masterly exposition of why Montagu was "lost needlessly". But no. Booth has referred to no official papers whatsoever and relied instead on the memoirs of Commodore Young's son, a not disinterested and unbiased party. This isn't history, it's gossip. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect Simon, the salvage attempt was poor, minimalising the chances of success, you don't fill ships with cork! However was the Admiralty's fault. Wilson's desire to do things his own way were perfectly natural but Young had far more experience and should have been put in charge. The creation of the separate department under Young was a tacit admission of error. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the salvage attempt, as presented by Booth, was poor. That doesn't mean it was. The allegation that Wilson suggested the Montagu be filled with cork is unsubstantiated. The Salvage Section at the Admiralty wasn't formed until 1915, nearly a decade later, which can hardly be connected to the loss of the Montagu. Incidentally, Booth is either a liar or a fool in his claim that Wilson's salvage attempt went on for six months. The ship went aground on 30 May. The Navy's last attempt to refloat the ship ended on 10 August, having been interrupted by part of the annual manœuvres - Just over two months. Reading through Booth's book, I'm appalled by the number of silly mistakes. For example, Booth fails to mention that Parliament never ratified the Declaration of London and Britain wasn't bound by it, calls Sir Philip Watts the Director of Naval Construction in 1916 (it was Eustace T. D'Eyncourt), he claims that W. Graham Greene helped form the Naval Intelligence Department which is simply untrue (he also calls him the "Admiralty representative" which is a curious name for the chief civil servant of a great department of State. There are many more in this vein which suggest that Booth has a very superficial knowledge of the Navy he slights. When I'm at Kew tomorrow I'll have a look through the Channel Fleet files for the reports on Montagu, which is apparently more than Booth will have done. Rant over. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, I'd be really delighted to read anything you come up with and I'm on email if you can send me anything. Are you refering to the board of enquiry report?

The book has a forward by Jonathon Band who I assume will have read it and not deemed it insulting and I've no axe to grind at all.

Be aware, that whilst the ship may have been deemed a loss quite quickly, from memory there are photographs of the guns being salvaged many months later.

There are also photos in Ilfracombe museum and references to the questions in Parliament. Good reading tomorrow! JRPG (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Band would have had any qualms about writing a foreward to a book on a topic he did not have in-depth knowledge on. Even in the First World War, Jellicoe as Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, had a young paymaster branch officer writing such things for him.

With regards to the 12-inch guns, Booth gives the impression that they were removed within two weeks of the Navy ceasing their salvage operations, and taken away in a lighter together. As far as I can tell, the guns were removed independently, the third gun (after port gun) being taken to Pembroke in a lighter on 20 September. So says Lloyds of London, anyway. So Booth's wrong again.

Regarding questions in Parliament, they seem to be a mix of the usual uninformed expeditions one can expect of Carlyon Bellairs (a man who seems to have believed that by dint of his short service in the Navy he was an expert in all maritime matters), and other routine questions regarding the ship; how much were the salvage costs, will the ship be replaced, &c. Regarding the questions on whether the ships' crews were given leave for their part in the salvage attempt, they certainly were in the months after.

As a further note on the reliability of Desmond Young's testimony, note that at the time the Montagu went aground he was either thirteen or fourteen and writing many years later - hardly a credible witness. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Operational history:Grounding and dismissal from ship.

Apologies to user 94.1.4.15, I didn't recheck the source before reverting. Thanks to Simon Harley for correcting. JRPG (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Following my earlier mistake and having just checked the BBC college of journalism website, I note that the correct RN term is "dismissed the ship" not "dismissed from the ship" as in the source. I'll change it and add a note. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Montagu (1901). 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/20131029205101/http://www.hartlandforum.co.uk/archivesproject/T81.htm to http://www.hartlandforum.co.uk/archivesproject/T81.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828025036/http://www.ilfracombediveclub.com/content/view/80/55/ to http://www.ilfracombediveclub.com/content/view/80/55/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Montagu (1901)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 01:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one as well. Comments:

Lead

• Suggest linking 12-inch guns
  • Done
• The ship's career was short; she spent the years 1903–1905 in the Mediterranean Fleet before transferring to the Channel Fleet in early 1905. Suggest changing to 'The ship had a brief career, serving with the Mediterranean fleet for two years before transferring...'
  • Works for me.
• she proved to be a total loss - perhaps change to 'declared a total loss', though this is not explicitly stated in the body of the article
  • I think that's a little more in the wrong direction as far as active vs. passive voice.

Design

• Link 6-inch guns, 12 pdr guns, and 3 pdr guns
  • All done
• Link belt armor, bulkheads, gun turret
  • Done
• main battery turrets sides suggest changing to 'the sides of her main battery turrets'
  • Done
• Missing mention of range in body
  • Removed from the box - I don't have a sourced figure and I missed removing it before.

Operational history

• 28 July 1903 to '28 July of that year' to avoid repetition of 1903
  • I think we can just drop the year.
• I presume her service in the Mediterranean and Channel was routine peacetime duty; do your sources have anything more than what is already in the article?
  • No, nothing I was able to uncover - contemporary naval/military journals can sometimes provide useful details, but they're pretty hit or miss.
• was involved with testing new wireless telegraphy equipment in the Bristol Channel, which included sending Suggest change to 'tested new wireless...Channel, sending'
  • Done
• a series caissons, Is that supposed to be 'a series of caissons'?
  • Good catch
• whilst trying to help the salvage effort Could exactly how Duncan was to help the salvage be elaborated on?
  • Burt doesn't say - I'd guess
• Per this and this her captain was severely reprimanded by the court-martial and his naval career effectively ended by the incident; suggest mentioning this.
  • Added a line on this, good find

Bibliography

• Is there an OCLC for Scientific American? Suggest adding that, the specific date of the issue, issue number, volume etc and the page numbers of the article to the citation.
  • Added the ISSN and the rest of the details.

That's all I've got. Kges1901 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kges. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the title for the reference you added in the bibliography. Kges1901 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• There isn’t one for that – it’s in a section of assorted news items, some of which have titles but most of which don’t. There’s also not a title for the section as a whole. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)