Talk:HMS Formidable (1898)

First comment

I have created a modified version of the word-for-word copy by Johnyysmith of the web-site's original text and grammar which in parts was difficult to read and undrestand. I have attempted to interpret the article's relevant points correctly but there are some areas requiring verification: eg:- the original text mentions a refit lasting from August 1909 to April 1909???

Re the line which reads: She was reduced to a "nucleus" crew with the 2nd Fleet at the Nore. , I assume that a nucleus crew refers to the standard compliment of men as opposed to that whilst Formidable was acting flagship. However, I have no idea what the Nore refers to.

the Nore - a sandbank in the Thames estuary, that was used for Anchorage. A nucleus crew might refer to those remaining on a ship at anchor when all the others have gone ashore, but I am not sure. Snowman 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Snowman, sounds reasonable to me.--Red Sunset 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope the image will have been given a license tag. --Red Sunset 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth to be sunk

The last paragraph says Formidable was the third battleship to be sunk in WWI, and the 2nd to enemy action. I've changed this to 4th; the maritime incidents category for 1914 has Invincible (gale, Sept) Audacious (mine, Oct) Bulwark (internal explosion, Nov) and Formidable. Just by way of explanation...Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Invincible was a battlecruiser, not a battleship, the article was correct before. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you meant HMS Invincible (1869), even then, it isn't a Dreadnought or Pre-dreadnought battleship, but an Ironclad and most historians would disagree with your edit, as do I. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to point that out, though you beat me to it. I'd agree with MBK004 on this one. Invincible wasn't serving as a front line combat vessel but as a depot and receiving ship, basically a mobile (or not so mobile as it turned out) hulk. If she was ever termed a battleship she had ceased to be one a number of years before. Benea (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

sinking another cockup?

Just been reading 'A great seaman' by william James, which is a biography of Henry Oliver who was admiralty chief of staff at the time formidable was sunk. He says

[Oliver] was very worried when he heard Vice-admiral Bayley was exercising his squadron of pre-dreadnought battleships, based in the Thames estuary, without an anti-submarine screen, and that he did not believe in submarines. His squadron was ordered to Portland and when Oliver asked him when he was sailing so that he could order some destroyers to escort him, Bayley replied that he did not want an escort. But Oliver sent eight destroyers which were to leave after dark when Bayley would be able to reach Portland before the moon rose. Instead of going into Portland Bayley steamed down channel in bright moonlight and the battleship Formidable was sunk by a submarine, the only survivors being a few men who swam to the launch which had floated off. Bayley was immediately relieved of his command but, to the navy's surprise, was subsequently given the command of Ireland.

This does not seem entirely in accord with the description here. Oliver had access to room 40 signals decode information which may by this point in the war have been giving highly detailed information about german submarine movements. Sandpiper (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Boiler type?

Does anyone know what type of boilers were fitted? Belleville? Dürr? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier commission?

The newspaper The Times dated 30 April 1902 has an article about an accident on board the Formidable, killing three people. The battleship was outside Terranova Pausania, on the island of Sardinia in the Mediterranean. Captain A. W. Chisholm-Batten was in command of the ship. Is it likely that the ship did a tour in the northern Mediterranean two years before its first formal commission (which was in 1904 according to the article). Or was there possibly an earlier commission after the ship had been completed in late 1901. (Takvaal (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Formidable was commissioned for service in the Mediterranean on 10 October, 1901. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Times of sinking

Several specific times are given in connection with the sinking of Formidable. Are these GMT, which Formidable would have used, or CET, which U-24 would have used? 49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that it actually matters; put in other words, what difference does it make? To the average reader, I'd imagine it makes no difference whatsoever. But since the article was written using the British official history, I'd assume GMT, though Corbett of course does not say. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If the time zone doesn't matter, why do the times matter? To the average reader, I'd imagine it makes no difference whatsoever to give any specific times. We could say "After midnight on 1 January 2015", "U-24 launched another torpedo at the stricken Formidable forty-five minutes after the first", and "another hour and forty minutes before beginning to capsize". Normally a time zone is irrelevant because an event happens in a single place with a defined time zone, but if it's important to specify the hours and minutes of an event at sea, it's important to specify the time zone because there's no specific local time, and the two ships in question would have used different time zones. If the time is GMT, then U-24 first fired at about 03:20 its time, but if the time is CET, Formidable was hit at about 01:20 its time. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)