Talk:HMS Exeter (68)

Untitled

According to the reference I put in and the web site, the ship sank and was not scuttled. This event also took place on 1 March 1942 after theBattle of the Java Sea the day before.

Cheers

WRONG

there were EIGHT hits on exeter.
Regarding the comment "more appropriately called The Battle of Bawean Island" I'm not in total agreement as I only have found reference to the battle also being called the battle of Bawean Islands and also action of Soerabaja in the Combat Narratives of The Java Sea Campaign by Naval Intelligence of US Navy. You could argue for comment "also known as" but "more appropriately" is an expression too strong.

References

I dont think it was part of the 'County ' class at all

While there were a few sub classes of the County class, Exeter( And York) were not amoung them. The names alone are not 'counties'- then again London wasnt either- but the dimensions , armament and so on are all different.

Yeah, not County class. Exeter and York were cut down, cheaper derivatives, though. Two built of five planned. My ref calls them Exeter class, with differing bridge and funnel profiles. By the way, London was an English county for many years until the early-1970s, when it was superseded by 'Greater London'. Folks at 137 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Checked further. The wiki article County class cruiser includes the York sub-class and contrasts with other County cruisers. But you're right: there were significant differences. Folks at 137 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft on Exeter

I have just completed a restoration of a photo album belonging to a sailor from the HMS Exeter who recently passed away. The photographs were taken whilst the Exeter was on tour during 1936-1939.

The photographs are in good condition and would enhance your article. In fact they contradict the statement that only one aircraft was carried on board at a time. Photographs clearly show the ships two aircraft stored on board and also launching and recovery practice undertaken with both aircraft.

The photographs were taken by the ships photographer on board.

I have no idea how to add a photo here or amend your article, obviously I need your permission.

--Sarkyart (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images which will give you some advice as to how to upload images, and feel free to ask me if you have further questions. You are right that for a period two aircraft were carried. Port and starboard catapults with an aircraft each were installed 4-5 months after Exeter had been completed, but one of the catapults and presumably its aircraft was removed prior to the outbreak of war. Benea (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION NEEDED

Benea, re your following statement. You are right that for a period two aircraft were carried. Port and starboard catapults with an aircraft each were installed 4-5 months after Exeter had been completed, but one of the catapults and presumably its aircraft was removed prior to the outbreak of war.

NO catapults were removed from Exeter at any time during here career. She entered the war with two catapults and two Walrus planes, the 'dumping' of the two planes over the side (because of fire hazard after being hit) during the Battle of the River Plate is a recorded fact. Even after her 40/41 refit she still carried two catapults but generally only one Walrus. The two catapults are today still visible on the wreck.

InterestedINhistory (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft Catapults

1) Exeter carried two aircraft catapults throughout her career, that is both before and after her 1940 refit, as can be seen in period photos (and on her wreck). I have changed accordingly under ‘General Characteristics’.

On this note a correction is also needed to the statement under ‘Modifications’ that post Graf Spee modifications included “A larger catapult arrangement and cranes were fitted for handling the Walrus amphibious aircraft.” At the time of her loss Exeter carried only one crane (not cranes), and while the catapults may - and I repeat only ‘may’ - have been modified post Graf Spee, catapults and crane capable of carrying the Walrus aircraft were already carried pre the Graf Spee engagement. There are definately photos of her carrying 2 Walrus aircraft dated prior to her 1940 refit. NOTE. From studying period photos of the crane pre / post the 1940 refit it appears to be the same crane, but strengthened, i.e. additional strut supports added to its frame.

I also changed the Walrus link destination (by adding the word 'Supermarine'), as the 'Walrus' link actually took you to the walrus animal page!

2) Although tubs (enclosures) were fitted atop B and Y Turrets to carry a 20mm Oerlikon, the guns themselves were never fitted.

3) Exeter was hit by two torpodoes (as claimed by Inazuma and evidenced on the wreck) not one. Hence I have also changed accordingly under ‘Fate’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.103.255 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Exeter (68)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• One dupe link
• "Most of her crew survived the sinking and was rescued by the Japanese" - I think in BrEng, this should be "and were rescued"
  • I always get mixed up on how the Brits treat collective nouns
• While we're on the subject, watch for ENGVAR - I spy an "armor"
• Good catch.
• Grad Spee did not have a 203mm secondary battery
  • You, of all people, should know that one off the top of your head.
• "At 06:30, Langsdorff switched..."
• "...repeated unsuccessful..." - need a comma after repeated
• I'd shift the photo in the Modifications section to the right (and maybe move it up to the top of the section) so it doesn't mess with the headers below it
• There are other photos available of the ship on history.navy.mil - for instance, I think this one would be a much better replacement for the overhead shot in the Design section. The one currently in the article is pretty washed out and hard to see. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I initially rejected the overhead photo because of the sun shades obscuring things, but I reconsidered after adjusting the contrast on the one that you suggested, and have added it. What do you think about swapping the sinking photo for one of the ones from the bow?
    • I had looked at that one too - it's a shame that neither one of them is particularly good, but I guess you can't expect more given the circumstances. I could really go either way. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

To The Far East

Added a new sub heading entitled 'To the Far East' as what was there previously was woefully brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.76.221 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)