Talk:HMS Glatton (1871)

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Introduction date of Hotchkiss guns ?[edit]

" In 1881 she was fitted to discharge 14-inch (360 mm) torpedoes. At the same time three QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss and 4 machine guns were added to her armament". ?? My info is that the QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss was not introduced until 1885. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The weapon's design dates from 1883 and it was produced starting in 1884. This clearly precludes its addition to the armament of Glatton in 1881 (before its invention).

Paloczi-Horvath's book is interesting but old, somewhat lacking in depth of content and certainly not infallible, containing numerous errors. It is not a first-class source by any means. It was, however, the only easily accessible volume specifically dealing with the topic of coast defence ships for a long time and has thus become a routinely referenced 'standard'. It is, largely, quite acceptable but demands close scrutiny of 'facts' when quoting. 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:DD09:B01D:CB11:6675 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?[edit]

"In reality, her lack of freeboard would appear to have precluded any operations whatsoever except those in calm weather and smooth water." Is this a recorded fact, or is this someone's opinion? Do we have a verified source for this 'claim'? It is phrased in a curiously speculative manner for encyclopedic content.

Further, has there been any attempt to reconcile the claimed supposed 'vagueness' of the ship's purpose (something which the luminary Reed was very well clear of determining for himself in any case) with the Fourth Sea Lord's* proposed role for the ship (dual-purpose coast defence and attack) - as given in the article?

(ought to be capitalised in the article - I will attend to this)

Is this article, as it stands, in part based upon and thus contaminated by Reed's very obvious politicking within the Admiralty, backed up by writers blithely gulping down Reed's Kool-Aid? I feel it would be better to state that Reed claimed a certain thing, when it is clearly contradicted in the very next line. I will happily help with overhauling this article. 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:DD09:B01D:CB11:6675 (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]