Talk:Formidable-class battleship

Janes Fighting Ships 1919 lists 7 out of 8 of these ships as Formidable-class (exception is HMS Bulwark, unclassifised). www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk says only Formidable, Implacable and Irresistible are Formidable-class, the rest are London-class. Any idea which is right? Geoff 21:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My Naval Annual 1913 doesn't have a lot to say, lists all eight together, with five including London getting a footnote noting a change in the bow armor. So I think the Londons could be considered a "subclass", which would explain the confusion. I would put them all in the Formidable class, add a redir, and use the article to explain the minor differences - when I get around to uploading the nice diagrams in my book, it will look kind of silly to clone the one diagram into two purportedly-different articles. Stan 22:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MacDougall (Chatham built warships since 1860 - Template:ISBN) gives the following details for Venerable and Prince of Wales which differ from the values already present here.

Displacement 15,000 tons, Length 400 ft, Draught 29 ft. Complement 740 (Venerable), 750 (Prince of Wales)

And for Irresistible

Displacement 15,000 tons, length 430 ft, Draught 27 ft, Speed 18.5 knots.

He also comments against Venerable "Little difference externally from Irresistible, but the Venerable had a longer belt of armour amidships". This would lead one to expect a larger displacement from the Londons unless the difference in deck armour thickness was very significant or there were other differences.

While some of the difference could arise from one source using waterline measurements while the other uses OA (MacDougal states he has used BP lengths), photographs confirm that these all had the straight, vertical stem one would expect from ships of this era (and a fairly low freeboard to boot), so 30' seems decidedly excessive. This suggests the London's did have shorter hulls which would significantly compensate for a thicker belt.

More sources needed I think. 13:30 BST 20 Set 04

Mikasa

The Japanese battleship Mikasa was built as a modification of the Formidable-class, yet there's no mention of this on the article. Any suggestions as how to proceed? ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ping - was about to add a new topic but see it's been expressed before...how do you propose readers might learn that an preserved Formidable sister-ship still exists for anyone interested in researching further without any mention of the fact that it's out there?(399scout (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC))

Mikasa wasn’t a member of this class, but her design was based on it. There’s no need to include anything beyond what’s now in the article. Ship design being an inherently iterative process, we should note where those connections exist, but we should keep articles as focused on the subject as we can.

In other words, further information on Mikasa, particularly the link to the virtual tour, would be excessive since that ship is not the subject of this article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

ah, i see what you did in the design section. agree the tour might be excesive, thanks. {399scout (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)}

Heads up

Just a note in case anyone watches this article, but I'm planning on chopping it up in the next few days to bring it in line with how most historians treat the Formidable and London classes (see this discussion here). Gibbons seems to be the only historian who treats all 8 ships to be one class, so it hardly seems justifiable to give his opinion primacy of place. I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections, but in the absence of any, I'll start hacking. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Since it's been a week and there have been no objections, I'm going to start chopping away. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)