Hi Adm.tang! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-10-01T16:08:00.000Z","author":"HostBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HostBot-2014-10-01T16:08:00.000Z-Adm.tang,_you_are_invited_to_the_Teahouse!","replies":[]}}-->

Hello Adm.tang. I have again reverted your change to {{Civil Air Patrol Wing Infobox}} because you need to use the "Date" parameter in individual pages using that infobox. I've fixed your draft article to show how it should be done. If you have any questions, please leave a note here. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-06-23T20:55:00.000Z","author":"Huntster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Huntster-2015-06-23T20:55:00.000Z-Civil_Air_Patrol_Wing_infobox","replies":[]}}-->

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Anarchyte was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--Anarchyte 01:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-06-24T01:23:00.000Z","author":"Anarchyte","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Anarchyte-2015-06-24T01:23:00.000Z-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_New_Hampshire_Wing_Civil_Air_Patrol_(J","replies":[],"displayName":"Anar"}}-->

I've made some improvements to the draft mentioned above. I'd like your help in fleshing out the rest of the article, if you are available. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-08-19T00:09:00.000Z","author":"Etamni","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Etamni-2015-08-19T00:09:00.000Z-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_New_Hampshire_Wing_Civil_Air_Patrol_(J","replies":[]}}-->

The article New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol has been moved out of draft space and is part of the encyclopedia now. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-15T20:37:00.000Z","author":"Etamni","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Etamni-2015-11-15T20:37:00.000Z-New_Hamshire_Wing_Civil_Air_Patrol","replies":["c-Etamni-2015-12-12T03:59:00.000Z-Etamni-2015-11-15T20:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

I see you found the article and have edited it further. Please feel free to help keep it (and other Civil Air Patrol articles up to date. Without periodic maintenance, these articles will quickly become out of date. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-12-12T03:59:00.000Z","author":"Etamni","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Etamni-2015-12-12T03:59:00.000Z-Etamni-2015-11-15T20:37:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello, and thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. First off, I can advise that the description of which ships are in the photograph is taken from the original publication, 'fighting at Jutland', where the picture was published. This is not to say that it is definitely correct, just that this is how it is described there. Second, the Jutland article suggests the order of the ships was Lion, Princess Royal and then Queen Mary, and in general this seems to be supported by information elsewhere. Logically, therefore, it ought to be Princess Royal in front of the smoke cloud stated to be around Queen Mary. I don't know where HMS Lydiard was stationed, from where it is stated the picture was taken, which might have implications for the apparent position of ships.

Things, however, may not be quite so simple. Unfortunately it is some time since I looked into this, so my memory of detail is a little vague, and I do not recall noticing this problem before, so obviously did not try to sort it out when I was better informed. What I recall now is that the book by Campbell, 'Jutland, an analysis of the fighting' has been well regarded for exact detail of movements and damage to ships. Unfortunatley Campbell is dead, and therefore in no position to update his definitive work on the subject. I do know that a couple of people have identified errors in his work, not least because of further information coming to light, but also by logical analysis. By the time Campbell got to work much original information such as ships logs had been destroyed.

Campbell states QM was hit by two shells at 1626 from Derfflinger, one of which caused an immediate disastrous explosion, blowing the ship in two. Descriptions of exactly what happened are patchy, because there were very few survivors, and observers from other ships could not necessarily see very well. There was considerable difficult experienced by all because of smoke from coal and also gunfire drifting between the ships. QM was also hit at 1621 by a shell on Q turret, which disabled the right gun. A survivor from Q turret reported several hits on the ship in the 10 minutes before it sank. The left gun fired three more rounds, before there was a further explosion which broke that gun in half and knocked both guns off their mountings. The survivor reported that 'B' magazine had exploded, forward of their gun, but Campbell considered this inadequate to explain the damage to the turret and left gun, and considered that it had been simultaneously hit by a second shell, presumably from the same salvo. I think this must be the shots from Derfflinger at 1626. When Storey got out on top of Q turret, he saw that the front of the ship was missing from about the foremast, and what was left was sinking front end first. He reported that then X turret magazine blew up, and the people from Q were blown into the water.

Petty officer Francis from X turret reported a hit in the after 4 in battery, which was accompanied by much debris and dust flying about, so that a man was sent out to clean the periscopes. He was killed by a further hit. After that a further big shock was felt (possibly the 1621 hit on Q). Then a bigger shock which caused the hydraulic systems to fail, campbell suggests this was the B magazine blowing off the front of the ship. Then finally a yet bigger explosion accompanied by the floor buckling up, which presumably was their magazine below them, although I am not quite clear why the blast would not have killed them if it was the connecting magazine below. They then abandoned the turret and ship, but there was yet another big explosion as they swam away.

The question must arise exactly what is shown in the photograph, bcause all you can see is a cloud of smoke. From the above, the earliest reported incident seems to be the aft 4in battery being hit, which might have occurred around 1610-1620. I am not convinced that this is sufficient to account for all the smoke in the picture, but it is possible.

The reason for all this detail is because Campbell also describes some information about the precise events on other ships. Lion was hit in Q turret at about 1600, which started a fire which broke out dramatically again at 1628 with big explosions. However it would appear to have caused quite a bit of smoke, since at 1626 Beatty signalled Pincess Royal to keep clear of his smoke. Also Derfflinger ceased firing at Lion at 1616 and transferred that fire to QM. I think they later reckoned this as having sunk Lion, accounting for some of the later over claim for damage to british ships. On the other hand, separate reports from crew said that Lion's fire in Q had been put out and declared safe, before it suddenly erupted again with the big explosion at 1628. So at 1626, it might have been in a cloud of smoke of its own, or it might have been clear. If surrounded by smoke, probably not the ship on the left of the photo.

But... before 1600 it would seem the range had closed such that the Germans attempted to use their smaller 6in guns against the british battlecruisers. At about 1600 the range between the British and german ships was increasing again, and some confusion seems to have arisen onboard Lion about what heading it was supposed to be on. Possibly also jinking because of the hit on Q. Lutzow reported seeing it sheer out of the line, and Campbell seems to suggest it fell behind princess royal before returning to its position leading the line. So...maybe this is too early, but at one point Lion might have been next in front of QM.

I don't remember now whether this event at 1610 was the extraordinary one where Lion executed a complete circle, which Beatty later denied had ever happened, and proceeded to hush up. Or if that was a separate incident. Either way, Lion was somewhat accident prone in its encounters with german ships both in this battle and others. German gunfire was much more accurate at the start of this battle than Beatty's ships. On the other hand, the 5BS battleships squadron accompanying Beatty's battlecruisers, trained with the rest of the fleet, did rather well with respect to accuracy.

Not sure what you might conclude from this, but I would be interested in any suggestions, Sandpiper (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-04-13T01:08:00.000Z","author":"Sandpiper","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sandpiper-2016-04-13T01:08:00.000Z-Queen_Mary_blowing_up","replies":[]}}-->

Just to add to the above, there is another book by Brookes, 'naval gunnery and the battle of Jutland', written originally as a PhD thesis, which examines the battle from the perspective of gunnery systems and the accuracy achieved during the battle. His analysis paints a pretty poor picture of the accuracy achieved by the British battlecruisers, and suggests they ought to have done rather better had they properly accounted the information available to them, and the various automatic range keeeping and tracking methodologies they should have been familiar with. As mentioned above, the 5BS battleship squadron managed this very much better than the battlecruisers. Reading his analysis of the ranges, it is apparent the ships jinked about quite a lot and their real courses were significantly off from an ideal straight line of ships, so that even if viewed from the side they might appear in a line, some ships were closer to the German line than others. As mentioned, this might be an issue depending on where the ship was which took the photo.

It also occurs to me that if the photo was taken late, it might be that QM was already stopped in the water, and the cloud of smoke could have been centred on half a ship or even none. It would then be conceivable that the ship seen ahead was in fact one of those which had originally been following QM. Apparently the two following battlecruisers passed one either side of the wreck. Sandpiper (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Lydiard was an escort destroyer I think, so could have been engaged in ongoing operations between the battlecruisers, where they attempted to get in range to torpedo the other side, or prevent the Germans doing the same.[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-04-13T08:10:00.000Z","author":"Sandpiper","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sandpiper-2016-04-13T08:10:00.000Z-Queen_Mary_blowing_up","replies":[]}}-->

Oh, also the contents of the original book Fighting at Jutland might also have been subject of censorship, or at least being written so as not to upset the admiralty. Sandpiper (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-04-13T08:10:00.000Z","author":"Sandpiper","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sandpiper-2016-04-13T08:10:00.000Z-Queen_Mary_blowing_up-1","replies":[]}}-->