Talk:HMS Centaur (R06)

What is an accommodation ship?

see aboveTeeTylerToe (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See Barracks ship - literally, the ship was used to provide accommodation for Victorious' crew while Victorious was in dry dock for refit.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An Accommodation ship is usually a ship of the line that is not in operation use but has all the facilities that a ship might have without it's Operational Title. Usually berthed alongside or close to a similar ship that is in for an extensive refit but is usually in dry dock and has limited facilities to support manpower accommodation.

Proposed edits to existing text

Hello, I've been adding further detail to the HMS Centaur R06 page to fill out her history - my motivation being that she was probably the least known and publicised of the post-war Carrier Fleet. I propose to make some further changes to the pre-existing text as there are some statements regarding her limitations in handling the Supermarine Scimitar, and her withdrawal in 1965, that I have found difficult to corroborate from any published source. From what I can see, her limitations applied equally to the Sea Vixens and were probably in part due to the lack of strength on her hangar deck, which prevented second generation jets such as the Scimitar and Sea Vixen being fueled and armed there, and restricting the size of air-group that could safely be accommodated. In addition to this, her obsolescent air-search radar fit, compared to the Standard A Carriers (Type 984), only partially rectified by the fitting of Type 965 in 1963, meant that her ability to manage an air group was extremely restricted. I would add that the Scimitar was itself obsolescent as a Fighter due to the lack of AI radar (compared to the Sea Vixen) and when last embarked in Centaur in 1961-63, had been redesignated as an attack aircraft, in which role it was being replaced by the Buccaneer; the latter being beyond the capability of Centaur to operate. My understanding from the sources I have seen was that Centaur's modernisation in 1956-58 was deliberately austere, to ensure she was equipped, quickly, to the minimum standard (C) to be able to operate a defensive air-group, and to provide cover for Eagle whilst she was overhauled to Standard A. I also think her withdrawal in 1965 was later than originally planned as she was retained to cover for first Ark Royal and then Hermes, in their respective refits in 1964 and 1964-66. At this time the policy was to maintain a carrier East of Suez and another in the North Atlantic as part of the NATO standing force, which necessitated a minimum of 3 active carriers to guarantee. I would agree that Centaur would have been less capable against the threat of Indonesian aircraft attack, but cannot see that the Sea Vixen would have been a less effective counter than the Scimitar, given the latter's lack of AI radar as previously mentioned; although I admit that never having flown either type in air combat, this is pure conjecture on my part! MarkE805 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest heading over to Wikiproject:Military History or Wikiproject:Aircraft to see if anyone might have aircraft sources about the limitations of those aircraft and the overall naval policy at the time. As for ship histories, also visit Wikiproject:Ships, they might be able to tell you about sources. As for conjecture, can't put in opinion unless its stated in a reliable secondary source. Llammakey (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice- couldn't find anything there, but have ordered some additional source publications which may shed further light on the points discussed above. I plan to make some more additions regarding Centaur's modernisation and later career. I also plan to remove the unverifiable statements/conjectures regarding the Scimitar, Sea Vixen and her withdrawal. Thanks for your help in tidying up my recent edits also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkE805 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No prob. You've made quality additions, so I'm glad to support your edits. Llammakey (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - forgot to sign my previous posts! MarkE805 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Centaur (R06). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418064345/http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-conflicts to http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-conflicts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011224729/http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html to http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Qasim/Kassim ?

Third commission section mentions President Qasim of Iraq, but then refers to Kassim three times in the text - am I right in thinking that's the same name, just with a different transliteration? Would make sense to standardise on Qasim for consistency, if so? (as that's the spelling in his own Wikipedia article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.251.235 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Angle?

The text has two different angles for the "new" flight deck, one time it is 6° and another time it is 5 1/2° . . . ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well 6 degrees is 5+1⁄2 rounded to nearest degree. So it looks like it depends on precision the source used. The actual angle might have been 5.7 degress and one rounded to nearest half degree and another to nearest whole degree. In the grand scheme of things it probably only mattered to the designer and dockyard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if taking the total length of ap. 225 m, it calculates to either 21,67 m (with 5,5° angle) or 23,67 m (with 6°) deviation . . . . not to much for the whole ship. The problem is, the article gives both values. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)