Talk:Diadem-class cruiser

Military history: Maritime / British / Canadian / European / North America / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Revision of infobox[edit]

I have revised the infobox, using Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships as my source. The changes are minor except for the complement (677 vice 760). Curiously, the 677 figure is also given in the only source previously quoted, worldwar1.co.uk. I will make the corresponding changes for the individual ship articles in due course. Regards to all, John Moore 309 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janes 1900 quotes 600 for the complement, whereas Brasseys for 1904 quotes 677.--Toddy1 19:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question of main armement[edit]

I don't think these had BL Mk VII 6-inch guns, which were not yet available. I suspect they had the older QF 6 inch Mk III. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrrected main guns from BL 6 inch Mk VII to QF 6 inch. BL 6 inch Mk VII was not yet available, and Tonu DiGiulian's website (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-40_mk1.htm) is quite authoritative in this. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether the website in question is right or wrong about this matter.

Brassey's Naval Annual and Conways do not specify which model gun was used. Brasseys lists both the 6-in QF and the 6-in BL Mk VII as QF guns.

Jane's Fighting Ships 1900 states on page 108 that the Diadems had 6-in 45 calibre guns. (The 6-in BL Mk VII was 45 calibres, whereas the 6-in QF was 40 calibres.)

Before we take Janes as conclusive, it is worth noting that page 98 of the 1900 edition of Janes credits the Canopus class with 6-in 45 calibre guns, whereas R.A. Burt's "British Battleships 1889-1904" (which is very specific about which model guns were used) credits the Canopus class with 6-in 40 calibre guns (page 141), and the Formidable class with 6-in 45 calibre guns (page 162). --Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's is not conclusive on this matter either interestingly enough. Jane's 'Fighting Ships of World War I' amended the entry to credit the Diadems with the 6-in 40 calibre guns, rather than the 45 calibre. Similarly the Canopus class were rerated and listed with the 40 calibre guns. Jane's credited the new ships with guns they did not carry, and this had to be corrected in subsequent editions. Benea (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]