Talk:Grand Fleet

Untitled

Wouldn't the 3rd battlecruiser squadron belong in the "The Battlecruiser Fleet" list ? I am putting it there as it is logical, but please confirm. Also, is it normal that there is no 3rd Battle Squadron ? Tovarich1917 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple information please!

It has recently come to my attention, that though this and several other web sites contained interesting and detailed information, some basics are not blatently stated, for instance, exactly how many ships were actually in the British Grand Fleet? How many were sunk? etc.

Zor0 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron under Hood was at Scapa Flow for Gunnery Practice hence the 5th Battle Squadron under Evan-Thomas being attached to the Battle Cruiser force under Beatty. Until the two force combined 3rd Battlecruiser was under Jellicoe and attached to the main body of the Grand Fleet and the 5th Battle Squadron force of the 4 QEs class (with the 5th QE (QE herself) under refit) were part of Beatty's force. Without the 5th Beatty would have been in real trouble after QM blew up. 3rd Battle squadron were older ships including HMS Dreadnought were based in Harwick and did not join the main body

information on battles

I feel it would improve the article to have at least a section with a summary of the battle of Jutland, at least, if not the smaller-scale battles fought by portions of the grand fleet. while the mention in the introduction is good, the rest of the article seems more of a list. Also,why no mention of the commander of the Fleet?

Merger needed

This article ought to tell people something about the Grand fleet. Is there a different article doing that? At the moment it is basically identical to the article Order of battle at Jutland, except that latter also has information for the German side as well. I would suggest deleting the entire order of battle here and just putting a link to the 'jutland' page. This article should exist, but not simply as a copy of the same list under a different title. compare with the Kaiserliche Marine article about the history of the Imperial German Navy? Sandpiper (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried classifying the page as a Stub not so long ago because if one had taken away the Order of Battle, that's all it would have been. Someone thought differently for a reason known only unto themselves. I might write the workings of a lead section which will suffice until the article can be expanded (currently re-reading Jellicoe's The Grand Fleet atm) It would be a shame to make a it a redirect. There are already enough of those floating around already, such as Operation ZZ. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Fleet. 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/20070202190107/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3940 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3940

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) 04:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)