Talk:HMS Canopus (1897)

Canopus

The disambiguation page on Canopus (disambiguation) refers to two RN ships of this name. Where is the second? Mark O'Sullivan 15:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The HMS Canopus article was added on 13 August 2005 with this information. -- Curps 14:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor point but having naval warships and astronomy as interests, could I point out that Canopus is the second brightest star in the sky after Sirius (and of course the Sun) Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopus_(star)

Importance of Canopus's hit on Gneisenau

The article correctly gives HMS Canopus credit for causing Sharnhorst and Gneisenau to retreat, correctly suggests that the Germans would have won a stunning victory had they continued, and correctly says that the shell richoched.

In my opinion it achieved an absolute miracle. It could even be claimed to have had an effect on both world wars as Churchill's reputation might have been irreparably damaged by sucessive disasters in the opening months of the war.

Could a line "A live shell could not have achieved this as it would probably have exploded before hitting Gneisenau." be added? This is my first post, I hope I've not broken any rules or caused too much offence!

--JRPG 22:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) JRPG

SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau of 1914 were not the powerhouses of WWII. Sturdee's battlecruisers outclassed them in guns (12" versus 8.2") and speed (25 kt vs 22 kt) so it's hard to see any other outcome.96.54.53.165 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is possibly a useful source. I have seen a much better article -I wish I knew where -which suggests that the battlecruisers were without power during coaling and virtually defenceless as their guns couldn't fire and their armour was comparable with their opponents. It went on to say Graf Spee could have achieved a famous victory had he continued. JRPG (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Canopus' Top Speed.

Greetings, my first wiki talk-post.

The general characteristics section shows HMS Canopus' top speed to be 18 knots, typical for pre-dreadnought battleships and in agreement with http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/pre-dreadnought/hms-canopus.html.

In the article however, it is stated: "Canopus 's slow maximum speed of only 12 knots (22 km/h) meant that she was 300 miles (500 km) south of the rest of Cradock's squadron..."

The article does not clarify why the speed is 12 knots, far less than the design's specified maximum speed. I am assuming that the value of 12 knots may have been derived from the distance and coal consumption, under the understanding that a ship burns less coal traveling a given distance if it moves at a slower speed, and therefore to save coal, a ship generally did not approach maximum speed unless in battle. Anyways, I could be wrong (engine troubles? maintanance issues?) and I would love it if the article clearly stated the reason for 12 knots, whatever that reason may be.

Tank 7 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Tank7

I read in a book on warships that steam turbines were a big advance over triple expansion reciprocating steam engines, in spite of lower efficiency, because to fit in the space available in a battleship the reciprocating engines needed to run at such high speeds that they were not reliable operating long at full power. So the 18 knots may have been usable only in battle, even with sufficient coal. The battle cruisers had turbines.

David R. Ingham (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Set Sail Date from Abrolhos Rocks

I'd like to review the date stated that HMS Canopus set sail from the Abrolhos Rocks. I am actually reviewing the actual ship logs and she doesn't set sail until October 8 1914. I'm reading these as part of the "Old Weather" project and am uncertain how to cite this source.

Beto0707 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Type of Armour

I have doubts that the armour of the Canopus is correctly described. I would follow Pears:British Battleships 1892-1957,p.20; where is stated that only the last ship, HMS Vengeance, had Krupp armour. From timescale, knowledge on other types I think Pears is correct.
Looking at the article I added a bit to the introduction--erb. 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erb34 (talk • contribs)

Sturdee

When Sturdee already arrived on 7 December with the intention to sortie on 9 December, how could the germans then have spotted the tripodmasts of Sturdee´s arriving battlecruisers on 8 December ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking. Sturdee's battlecruisers were in Stanley on the 8th, making preparations to leave the next morning. Spee's ships spotted their masts when they arrived the morning of the 8th. What exactly is the problem? Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Namesake

As has been pointed out long before this, Canopus is an astronomical navigational point of reference of extremely high importance to sailors - the second brightest star after Sirius.

Given this context, the naming of a second-class battleship after the star, when a recent cruiser had also been named for Sirius, would be completely appropriate and logical. For what it's worth, I assumed for decades that the battleship was named for the star (because, apart from anything, naming ships for stars was a tradition in itself).

But this article states that her namesake was in fact an ancient city? I am not so sure that this is correct, but perhaps the supporting materials will bear this out. 2A00:23C7:312C:2401:884C:653D:EBA8:57BB (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited source states: "Named for the ancient Egyptian city near Alexandria where Nelson defeated the French at the Battle of the Nile, Canopus was..." Do you have a source for your claim, or is it just your assumption that the star is the actual namesake? Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, no, not a bit, but it's just a curious thing.

I took a look at the Paine book - not especially good (the worst kind of scanty, flitting work of broad strokes and confident statements without any supporting evidence, to this reader's experienced eye) and seems to be poorly reviewed too.

But, by all means, rely on the one source which says that, beyond the lack of sources which might otherwise suggest something far more obvious.

I do understand how Wikipedia works and know that this is the process, so that's that.

Matter put to bed. 2A00:23C7:312C:2401:884C:653D:EBA8:57BB (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, most sources apart from Paine put the site of Nelson's victory as Abu Qir or Aboukir, not the lost city of Canopus (which, according to its WP article, seems to have had its submerged ruins discovered in the early 20thC)?

Fascinating stuff. 2A00:23C7:312C:2401:884C:653D:EBA8:57BB (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, Paine may not be the best source, but it is a source. So far, all you've presented is what you find to be obvious.

Manning & Walker, in British Ship Names state: "Canopus, an ancient Egyptian city." Nothing about a star. Meanwhile, their entry for "Sirius, the Dog Star". Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Spurces are good. WP article on 'Battle of the Nile' only records two warships named by the RN for the battle , Nile and Aboukir, so someone might want to correct that in light of this. 2A00:23C7:312C:2401:884C:653D:EBA8:57BB (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility is the mythological Canopus, who was a navigator for Menelaus, king of Sparta at the time of the Trojan War. A little nautical twist! Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)