David Porter
Oct 18 2009, 12:31 PM
Despite prominent features I have failed to identify this ship. The photo has on the back "Suez - May 1916"
Anyone recognise this one?
Click to view attachment
centurion
Oct 18 2009, 12:56 PM
The severe tumblehome would suggest a French warship
Siege Gunner
Oct 18 2009, 01:05 PM
Suffren ?
simonharley
Oct 18 2009, 01:23 PM
The battleship portrayed in post #5 is a British "Lord Nelson" class battleship, either "Lord Nelson" or "Agamemnon".
Simon
David Porter
Oct 18 2009, 01:28 PM
Well done Armidale, I have to agree it is the Jaureguiberry.
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/jaureguiberry.htm
Siege Gunner
Oct 18 2009, 01:47 PM
QUOTE (simonharley @ Oct 18 2009, 02:23 PM)

The battleship portrayed in post #5 is a British "Lord Nelson" class battleship, either "Lord Nelson" or "Agamemnon".
Simon sounds very sure of his identification, so we should perhaps see a pic of one or both of the Nelsons before settling on
Jaureguiberry.
Siege Gunner
Oct 18 2009, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (per ardua per mare per terram @ Oct 18 2009, 02:53 PM)

Thanks. It doesn't look like either of them to me - what do you think ?
bmac
Oct 18 2009, 02:23 PM
The penultimate photo on the right I would think confirms it as Jaureguibbery:
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/jaureguiberry.htm The prominent midships bulges give it away.
David Porter
Oct 18 2009, 02:29 PM
centurion
Oct 19 2009, 05:28 PM
To quote the general in Mony Python "boring, too boring"
Why are people whittling on about various British warships? As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread battleships with that exaggerated degree of tumble home shown in the photo were French. Armidale is almost certainly right and if he's wrong the ship is some other French battleship.
simonharley
Oct 19 2009, 05:39 PM
QUOTE (centurion @ Oct 19 2009, 06:28 PM)

To quote the general in Mony Python "boring, too boring"
Why are people whittling on about various British warships? As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread battleships with that exaggerated degree of tumble home shown in the photo were French. Armidale is almost certainly right and if he's wrong the ship is some other French battleship.
Boring? Perhaps. But it would be rather sad if someone passing through this thread had seen the two photos shown in post #5, seen the captions and left with the erroneous impression that it was a French battleship. There can be no doubt that the ship in THOSE photos is a "Lord Nelson", pre-1917 judging from the height of her funnels.
It would seem from looking at a sketch of the plan that Armidale's original warship is indeed "Jaureguiberry".
Simon
centurion
Oct 19 2009, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (simonharley @ Oct 19 2009, 06:39 PM)

Boring? Perhaps. But it would be rather sad if someone passing through this thread had seen the two photos shown in post #4, seen the captions and left with the erroneous impression that it was a French battleship.
Which was never the subject of the thread but a red herring
Siege Gunner
Oct 19 2009, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (per ardua per mare per terram @ Oct 19 2009, 02:07 PM)

Simon's post related to the ship in post #5 and I agree that ship looks more like Lord Nelson or Agamemnon.
My apologies to Simon - I missed the reference to post #5, and I agree that it does

.
mattgibbs
Oct 20 2009, 08:25 AM
Configuration of the masts in Post 1 is fooling me, is this Charlemagne class..? Nice photo. In looking at other mast configs its annoying how easy it is to dismiss others yet not pinpoint this one!
per ardua per mare per terram
Oct 20 2009, 03:13 PM
michaeldr
Oct 20 2009, 03:27 PM
This thread is almost incomprehensible thanks to extraneous post, pictures, comments and, as Centurion put it, Red Herrings.
May I add to the confusion by asking - Does anyone know what the Jaureguiberry was doing at Suez in May 1916?
regards
Michael
horatio2
Oct 20 2009, 03:43 PM
Michael,
Suez Canal defence/guardship but not sure for how long in 1916.
michaeldr
Oct 20 2009, 03:54 PM
Many thanks H2
I'd previously come across the REQUIN and the D'ENTRECASTEAUX, but not his one
Best regards
Michael
DulcetTone
Oct 22 2009, 12:04 AM
I'm confused how Simon in post #4 could comment on something in post #5. Is this forum software so bad that they renumber posts when one is deleted?
tone
simonharley
Oct 22 2009, 01:07 PM
Apologies Tone (and anyone else confused). It's not the forum at fault, but for some reason I put post #4 when I meant post #5.
Simon
per ardua per mare per terram
Oct 22 2009, 03:28 PM
QUOTE (DulcetTone @ Oct 22 2009, 01:04 AM)

I'm confused how Simon in post #4 could comment on something in post #5. Is this forum software so bad that they renumber posts when one is deleted?
Several posts have now been delted from this thread, at the time when he wrote Simon was referring to the then post#5. The posts get renumbered, but this doesn't happen with the content of a post. As the red herrings have been deleted, I've also deleted my posts relating to them.
mattgibbs
Oct 22 2009, 07:47 PM
C'est Bon!
Great photo. Thanks for the explaination.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.