Talk:Northern Patrol

Recent edits

I was getting ready to put Rawalpindi in on Monday. ;o) regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Inserts "LIKE" button!! Keith-264 :). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed TNL 1913. It was originally added by Navops47 as a reference for composition of the patrol during the Second World War, clearly somewhat of a mistake. The first commander of the Patrol was de Chair, appointed 1914, and the Patrol appears to have been formed that year. In 1913 de Chair was Naval Secretary. Happy to hear reasons why TNL 1913 is actually relevant, but for now, I have removed it. Keith-264 Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Keith have made some more edits. Am I correct in thinking you have Hampshire 1980? Before the outbreak of war and before First/Second/Third Fleets were merged into Grand Fleet, does Hampshire say that the plan was to have the Northern Patrol placed under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have Hampshire so I've made a start with Marder, who's good on grand strategy. I'll dig out the details from OH N I and II. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Participating ships

These two pages note ships that took part (with dates) in the Northern Patrol, some of which aren't mentioned in the article. Not sure it's a good enough source for the article, but it might serve as a jump-off point to check the history of the ships elsewhere:

• https://www.naval-history.net/Oxon01-ShipList.htm
• https://www.naval-history.net/Oxon01-ShipList2.htm

(Hohum ^@) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder, for readability, it might be better to have the list of ships in a sortable table?

Name, Owner, date started?, date ended?, notes

(Hohum ^@) 18:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I was in a rush as an Italian meal was imminent ;O). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the table, I wasn't looking forward to trying to do one. Have spent a pleasant afternoon plundering Dunn (2016) for details, plenty more to do. Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I started trying to get the correct use of SS, HMS, etc., but the places I looked were inconsistent for some ships, so I gave up. (Hohum ^@) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I've used RMT and HMS to link to the wiki pages but I suppose in RN service they should all be HMS and be piped. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The differing prefixes was exactly the reason why I listed them without any prefixes whatsoever in my initial in-text list from Watson. I do not believe, given the AMCs' character as inherently commercial vessels with add-on popguns, that they should be able to be viewed as HMS; when the list of actual Hawke-class cruisers is added, this will instantly differentiate the AMCs from the purpose built naval vessels. Open to others' view of course. Good collaborative work by all!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I see your point but if they were named HMS by the navy can we demur? I'm enjoying it too, despite being pressed for time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What do the sources call them? Obviously there's a possibility sources are ambiguous or contradictory. They have commissioned captains, though which marks them as military rather than civilian. If a distinction needs to be made, there is the notes column. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Very good point Graeme and that's what we should do. Even if we get a list going "HMS X, RMS Y HMS Z, SS A, RMS B" etc, it's not uniform or tidy, but despite Milhist's instinct and urge for tidiness, that's not a policy or guideline. Following the sources is. So as far as I am concerned we should assess the reliability of the different sources for each individual ship, come to a decision for each ship, and list according to that, indeed and the notes section is available for clarification. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite agree, perhaps we should leave it until last when we will have a better idea of the sources. Dunn is good but his books are strewn with typos and sometimes inconsistent in nomenclature, the OH N I & II good but usage might have changed since then, Marder is good on grand strategy but sometimes skimps the details etc. PS got Hampshire on order, less than a quid! Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Official Histories

Hurd: The Merchant Navy [1]

• Fayle: Seaborne Trade [2] (only vols I & II) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC

via 1921 edition at The Internet Archive I wish I'd have thought of this a decade ago ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

More

Added narrative about the Edgars, couple more paragraphs to follow. Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Keith-264, GraemeLeggett, and Griceylipper, you've done amazing work here together. Yet I was just copying some of your new text into Grand Fleet and noticed that while this article here is about a bunch of ancient AMCs, it is now a good summary, while Grand Fleet, about the most important British fleet of the war, is a bare bones not-really-sufficent-summary. Could I encourage people to take a look at that article? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

hampshire

P. 37 has data for year, tonnage and speed of 17 of the AMCs so will amend the table anon. regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Shetland (boxed) with surrounding lands.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Klutserke: RV your very interesting edits as they need to be cited to a reliable source. Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hoi Keith. I think i added Bekker 1971 Verdammte See as source, pp35-40. Is that relable source ? Klutserke (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you need to cite each edit. regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, a minor note of caution, Bekker is a fifty-year-old source, we need to be cautious in altering the narrative when he contradicts later sources as these might be based on later research. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Clear, fully agree Klutserke (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been standing over for far too long, about time I finished it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In for a B class, after inadvertently blanking the page instead of my sandbox (?!?) Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)