Talk:HMS Vengeance (R71)

Wrong flag

The RAN used the White Ensign in the 1950s. The Australian white ensign displayed in the info box came into use in the 1960s. 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Now fixed. -- saberwyn 01:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, sorry I must have entered too many ~. Ozdaren (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it policy to only show the ensign in use at the time? If possible I believe the Australian white ensign should be shown for all RAN vessels rather that the RN Ensign. Using the RN ensign has the disadvantage of implying to many people that the RAN operated under the command of the RN, which was not the case, definitely from 1939 on. Princebuster5 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, rather that than to show a ship anachronistically carrying a flag that was not introduced until after she had left service. RN ships for example show the ensign used in the navy at the period the ship was in service, so a ship from the seventeenth century has a different ensign from one from the twentieth century. Benea (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the guidance.Princebuster5 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the convention is to use the "last flag flown". So, for example, HMAS Melbourne is shown flying the current Australian naval ensign, even though she flew the old Australian naval ensign (identical to the RN white ensign) when commissioned. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Unicted claims

I've removed the following uncited claims from the article...if a source can be found, they should be added back in. -- saberwyn 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• The carrier's presence was to help prevent a coup de main by Chinese forces. Vengeance then joined the other Colossus-class ships in repatriating prisoners of war.

1954 collision location

I think there may be issues with some of the events and/or references in this article.

I've made changes to the location of the collision with HMAS Bataan in 1954. The original location given was "off the coast of NSW", but I believe it is wrong and it was off the Cocos Islands. I did an Internet search and there were references to both locations.

References to NSW are linked (if at all) back to this wiki, the Lind book, or www.navyhistory.org.au who reference the Lew Lind book, and without access to the book I cannot confirm what it says or who Lind himself references. My research has all but confirmed, to my mind, that the Lind claim is incorrect.

• The RAN itself seems to believe it was off the Cocos Islands.
• AWM photograph of SS Gothic off Fremantle, escorted by Vengeance & Bataan dated 3/4/54.
• NLA retrieved The Advertiser article dated 10/4/54 about the collision.

QE went ashore Cocos Island 5/4/54, and RAN vessels turned for Darwin. Bataan then collided with Vengeance while refuelling. Damage was light, allowing the pair to continue their northern cruise to Darwin, followed by stops at Manus Island and Rabaul in New Guinea and finally the Solomon Islands, arriving back in Sydney in May 1954. The Lind error (if it is in his book) may arise from the fact that Bataan (and to a lesser extent, Vengeance) arrived back in Sydney damaged and assumptions about location were made.

Additionally, the dates for the "Elizabeth" signature is either wrong or the witty reply is. The logic doesn't add up that the Queen had left the Vengeance's presence on 5 April to continue her tour, but she's back in Australian waters again on 29 May to witness the crew's display.

• This official webpage states that QE wasn't on tour on 29 May 1954, but back in Britain. So either the date is wrong, or the date is right and QE couldn't have seen it.
• This webpage (which is the indirect origin of the JPEG file used here) puts the date of the photo as 3/4/54, which is during the royal escort.
• A Google search shows the only two references for this date is this Wiki article and the associated image's description and www.navyhistory.org.au, both of whom reference Lew Lind.

I haven't corrected the "Elizabeth" date because the only alternative (3/4/54), which I think is correct and fits with the time-line, cannot be verified by an independent or official source that is available to me (I did check the AWM, NLA & NAA archives). I don't have enough Wikipedia experience to judge whether www.hms-vengeance.co.uk is considered to be "legitimate" enough to use as a historical source by the community. Advice and comment is welcome. - 113727b (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for all the research :)

The more I learn about the RAN, the less reliable I find Lind and the Naval Historical Society of Australia to be. Although I used Lind's book a lot when I first started working on Wikipedia (it was one of a few RAN books in the local library), my personal rule has come to be if something contradicts Lind, assume Lind is incorrect until proven otherwise.

As for the HMS Vengeance website, I think its 'reliable enough' to be used as a replacement until a 'more reliable' source can be found, and have made the changes. However, such a source would definitely have to be found before this article is taken to higher ratings. -- saberwyn 23:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Operational Service in 1954

The article presently details a trip to Japan in late Oct 1954 returning Nov 1954 but doesn't identify this as operational service. One of my in-laws' service record (sourced from the Australian National Archives - NAA 5412761 - R28283 George Leonard Lancaster) shows him as posted to the HMAS Vengeance between 1 June 1953 and 13 Nov 1955 and as having operational service (area/operation unspecified) between 27 Oct 1954 and 3 Dec 1954. This coincides with the Japan trip so it appears highly likely this trip was considered operational service. Unfortunately the service record is not more explicit, so using it to support a claim that the trip was operational service would be original research. In any event, unsupported by additional sources it is not enough to be conclusive. Picking up No 77 Squadron suggests that the ship did enter Korean waters and I note that per Annex A to Chapter 16 of the new (Australian) Defence Honours and Awards Manual, medallic entitlement for afloat service within 161 km of the Korean Peninsula during this time period was to the Australian Service Medal with clasp Korea and that such service was therefore considered operational service but not warlike service. It could be useful if someone with more expertise in Australian naval history than I were able to lay their hands on references to establish more details about this trip in a way that does not constitute original research. AusTerrapin (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Vengeance (R71). 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/20081202185737/http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/02_04_02/story10.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/02_04_02/story10.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)