Talk:HMS Active (H14)

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War II

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II 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

Depth charges[edit]

Some significant differences between sources on depth charge outfit. English, p. 13, and Friedman, p. 298, give the legend of four chutes, two throwers and 8 depth charges. The drawing of Active as completed on p. 198, though, shows only three chutes and no throwers, but doesn't list total number of DCs carried. Whitley, p. 98, says six DC, without throwers, which matches the drawing of Active, so I suspect that we have a difference between designed (legend) and completed as shown by the drawing. And Lenton doesn't mention any DCs at all. I've got March's book on British DDs on order, hopefully it will have more detailed info so we can settle this. In the meantime, I'm going to add the three chutes and 6 DCs to the infobox pending better info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other Lenton book (Navies of the Second World War: British Fleet & Escort Destroyers Volume One. p 68–69) states three racks, although it does say that 4 racks and two mortars were originally intended, but that the mortars and one rack was omitted to give more room for the Two Speed Destroyer Sweep. It doesn't say how many depth charges were carried.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I missed Lenton saying the same thing in his magnum opus, again without giving the number of DCs carried.

I looked at Conways in the vain hope of anything substantive on this issue and was struck by how they combined the A and B classes just like the Cs and Ds, etc. Our class articles are already set up like that for all of the later classes, so I'm wondering if we ought to do the same thing and merge the B class article into the A class article? What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a lot of difference between the two classes, so its probably reasonable to cover them in one article. There's probably more justification for splitting the two Canadian ships off as they are more differences between these and the standard Admiralty design.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the differences are still pretty minor between the Canadian As and the British ships. If the G and H-class destroyer article can cover Gs, Hs, and Havants, I think that the same technique of giving the Canadian ships their own paragraph or two delineating the differences within the overall class article would suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]