Talk:HMS Zealous (R39)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

Here i am. Were are the issues about Eilat?--Stefanomencarelli 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eilat

Calm down, where and what was wrong with my edit about Eilat?

  • Do you know that that sinking was a milestone in the modern naval war?
  • That often are reported in many sources Six day war?
  • That there was also often reported one missiles, instead they were four?
  • And that until that day there was not a really clue of the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles in real wars?
  • So i don't understand how do you have even deleted the successfull battle in which Eilat sunk two P6 boats.

Not good, next time you should ask for doubts or 'unsourced' info, rather than delete them. Regards--Stefanomencarelli 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Please provide references for some of your points, such as the battle. Some are Points of View, and are not relevent to this article, such as whether the result was such a milestone that you claim. Information about this has already been added in a more encyclopedic style anyway. Please calm down. Benea 17:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references for some of your points, such as the battle.

War machine enciclopedy, Limited publishing 1984,, italian version, pag 864

Some are Points of View, Name how are POV. Perhaps you are not so proficient in missile maritime war. You problem not mine. and are not relevent to this article, such as whether the result was such a milestone that you claim. This sinking is well known as a milestone about naval warfire and it shoud remembered in this manner. If you have some obscure reasons to negate it, it's you POV not mine. I report well cleared fact, instead to censor them. Information about this has already been added in a more encyclopedic style anyway. There is nothing unenciclopedic about the secrecy about anti-ship missiles until 1967. Please improve your knowledge about, then speak. Regards--Stefanomencarelli 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references for some of your points, such as the battle.

War machine enciclopedy, Limited publishing 1984,, italian version, pag 864

I can find no evidence of such a battle in any websites that detail Israeli Naval History, in our own wikipedia articles or anywhere else. Does it have a name? It might make it easier to track down

Some are Points of View,

Name how are POV. Perhaps you are not so proficient in missile maritime war. You problem not mine.

That the sinking resulted in the wide shift to missile maritime warfare is POV. It can be countered with the assertation that developments were well underway in many navies well before the sinking of Eilat, but that many ships were not converted despite the sinking. Claiming that it was is unsupported and POV. The information that it had an affect on Israel's strategic thinking about is sourcable, it has been, and it is included. Perhaps you are well sourced in missile history, but you do not appear to be knowledgable in maritime history.

and are not relevent to this article, such as whether the result was such a milestone that you claim. This sinking is well known as a milestone about naval warfire and it shoud remembered in this manner. If you have some obscure reasons to negate it, it's you POV not mine. I report well cleared fact, instead to censor them.

See above.

Information about this has already been added in a more encyclopedic style anyway. There is nothing unenciclopedic about the secrecy about anti-ship missiles until 1967. Please improve your knowledge about, then speak.

I'm still not really sure what you're trying to say here. Can you speak more coherently? If it is to say that anti-ship missile capabilities were cloaked in secrecy, then that needs citations, and a home somewhere where that is relevant. This article is about the ship and its history. Benea 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Benea. Be informed that user:mencarelli is an infinite banned user on it.wiki. He received there such this sanction for multiple personal attacks to users and admins who "dared" to ask him his sources. --EH101 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)



Some quick answers.

1-I HAVE in my enciclopedia this description, translated in english: In july 1967 Eilat and two torpedo-boats, in one of the last large surface battles with guns, sunk two P-6 torpedo boats of Egiptian Navy'.

2-There is this link: http://www.btinternet.com/~david.manley/naval/Bulldogs/israeli.html that account more precisely the battle that i have 'invented'. Strangely enough, this support fully my statement.


3-Eilat captured, during the war of 1956, the Ibraim El Awal, an egiptian frigate, toghever with Jaffa destroyer. Furtherly it began, if i well understood, the third israeli destroyer Haifa. Also this is 'unknown' to you? Well, you obviousely don't know and don't believe in me? Well, that's is :[1] or [www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_103.shtml]

-That this sinking was not a milestone about the naval warfare? I think you should update a lot you naval knowledge, sorry.

1-The Eilat sinking was a shock for all the naval experts. If you have to contest this simple fact perhaps you should study better this and then speak: to help you these are:

[2]At the time, the sinking of the Eilat was a considerable shock to navies around the world, especially those within NATO. It was the first clear indication of the threat posed by such weapons. The incident led to increased anti-ship cruise missile development in the West, leading to such designs as the French Exocet and the U.S. Harpoon.

[3]

'After the war, the Israeli destroyer Eilat, patrolling 15 miles off Port Said, was sunk by four Soviet-made Styx antishipping missiles fired from an anchored Egyptian missile boat in harbor, killing or wounding 99 of its crew. Likewise, the two India-Pakistani wars featured some maritime air operations (including antisubmarine sorties and carrier air strikes by Indian Breguet Alize and Hawker Seahawk aircraft), though these were but a sideshow to the larger conflicts being waged ashore.

Of all of these events, it was the sinking of the Eilat that had the greatest impact; one surface warfare officer remarked that "it was reveille" to the surface Navy, and a Center for Naval Analyses study concluded "The threat is so great to all combatant ships of the Navy that a revolution in naval tactics may be required." Rumors that the Soviets had supplied Styx missiles to North Vietnam seriously constrained naval operations off the Vietnamese coast, particularly shore bombardment missions, and the then-commander of Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla 7, Rear Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, (later the Chief of Naval Operations in the Carter administration), called the potential Styx threat his "worst nightmare."'


and in the same Wiki.en:Precision_bombing#Precision_weapons_and_national_security_decision-making 'One of the most significant events in the history of precision weaponry occurred on October 25, 1967, when the Israeli destroyer Eilat, patrolling 15 miles off Port Said, was sunk by four Soviet-made Styx antishipping missiles fired from an Egyptian missile boat, killing or wounding 99 of its crew. The sinking of the Eilat had profound impact; one surface warfare officer remarked that "it was reveille" to the surface Navy." One senior American naval officer called the potential Styx threat his "worst nightmare."'

I hope that you will understand and read that stuff before call me an incompetent and then learn the kindly words of EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some sources. Please understand that this is not optional, it is required. Your link for the battle is interesting. Regrettably it is from a wargaming website, and the author admits that much of it is from his own personal knowledge and experience. It has not appeared in peer reviewed journals, or anything of that nature. The main problem I have with this is that it is not recorded in reputable official histories of the Israeli Navy, where such a significant event as the sinking of the Egyptian ships in one of the 'last large' surface combats would be expected to appear. Can you provide such sources? If so ,I would be happy to consider them.
The information about the Ibraim El Awal is encyclopedic and sourcable, and I would be happy to add it. But this is the first time you've mentioned it.
I'm not disputing the fact that it was significant, it clearly was. Again, thank you for providing sources about how it was viewed in other navies. Again, I would be happy to add information of this nature. But it is still point of view to claim that this was the turning point in the development of the smaller missile carrying ships. This had been well underway before the sinking. Again, this is very basic maritime history. It was clearly an important event that was a major reaffirmation to navies of the effectiveness of missiles against ships. But to stretch it as far as you do is to introduce unnacceptable POV to the article. Benea 12:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I repeat the battle of July 1967 that sunk two P-4 or P-6 torpedo boats is not a 'wargame dream'. This is also present in my enciclopedy, published at first on Limited Publishing, UK, then De Agostini, two of the most prestigiuos editors in enciclopedy: what further proof do you need? This was well known years ago, atleast outside Israel. I suggest that you (i had done my sources) you will make some extra-sources and finally admit that this battle is 'not happened' just because no record are available on Israel navy, sorry. I bet that i am right and it will be showed in the future.

second, an 'unsourced claim' can be challenged, but it's not automatic that is deleted at will: Sillogysm is admitted, after all, consensus also. If i say that an egg is smaller than the kichten, what kind of citation must i send? Common sense, please.

Third. Your assumption are not precise and right. I explain why.

You know that ATGM, anti-tank missiles, were in service atleast since 1955. SAM were in service since 1954.

Now, answer to me: why ATGM were a 'shock' only in 1973 war? And don't tell me that you need proofs for this affermation (please...AT-3 Sagger, ERA, Merkava..).

Why, after that, only in 1960 SAM proof to be a real danger (U-2 shooting), and furtherly this leads to the developement of low- level flight tactics? Please, be kindly to not ask sources also for this: Operation Moked, Yom Kippur War, F-111,TRS.2, Tornado, Su-24, the shifting to low- level missions for B-52G/Hs, Vickers Valiant (that were phased out due to the stress of these flights) and a lot more stuff. Yes there were already A-6 and Buccaneer in developement, but this was necessarly the 'future'.At the time the 'future' was B-58/70.

Now to the anti-ship missiles: some types were already in service in 1967: SS-12s, Martel and soviet models. BUT, all the main Western Navies had still big ships *without* SSM and CIWS. So tell me, after this action: the building of: Saar series: my enciclopedy states: after the loss of Eilat in 1967, Israeli Navy was aware of the importance of small missile boats and then ordered many SAAR units.

They entered in service after 1967,right? Gabriel missiles were in service from 1970 or similar, right?

DO you know when Italy sent in service their hidrofoils-missile boats? from 1974. US Navy did the same with Pegasus.

Greece: 4 Combattante II, 10 Combattante III, 2 Jaguar: all entered in service from 1972: what was the reason, to you? All the Combattante II/III were built after 1967: for Tunisian, Iran, Greece.

Ramadam FACs: entered in service in Egipt after 1977.

German units: Type 143: from 1976, Type 148, since 1972 or similar: total over 40 units.

Italian missile corvettes: from '70s in Lybia, Ecuador, Marocco, Malaysia -ex Irak.

Swedish units: SPICA I: in the sixtie's but it was originally only a torpedo boat class. SPICA II: since 1973

Nowegian units: in don't know but Penguin missile entered in service in 1972, even if the developement started in 1962. Before there were only torpedo and guns for norvegian FACs.


Please be kindly to call them above 'onsourced' I have all sources to state that, if something particular it's unclear you can ask to me or Google.

To missiles: in 1967 there were some stuff under developement, essentially Penguin, Kormoran, Rafael. Only AS-SS-12 were in service, coupled with Martels ARM/ASM and some othe old missiles.

From that year there was the developement of the three main western SSN missiles: OTOMAT, Exocet, Harpoon. Lather arrived RBS_15, Sea Skua, Sea Eagle and some others.

Finally, the CIWS issue: in 1967 there was no one useful against SSNs: in few years, see you: DARDO; Phalanx;Goalkeeper;Sea Guard and some others, when Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf Aspide were modiphied to be better effective against anti-ship missiles.

So, seen all, there is full of evidence that 1967 was a real turning point, all but POV, in naval warfare. Simply you seem not accept the simple fact that many minor navies choose to arm their units and buy small FAC armed with SSNs as 'balance' against oceanic Navies, more powerful. SAM 'sovereign' born in 1960, not in 1944 or 1954. ATGM rules from 1973, not 1956. Submarines born as real 'Threat' not from American turtle but from the sinking of thrre armoured Cressy cruisers: before submarine were seen as 'laughable pieces of machinery' not even ships.

What's the point? Ask to youself WHY tanks fitted with Chobbam armour were effectively projected and produced after 1973 war; Do you know why? Simply because before there were machines 'fasts' like Leopard 1 and AMX that can 'avoid' missile detection. With 1973 this was found 'not enough' good and so Leo1 was fullowed by Leo2 and M1 Abrams. Actually there are no tanks 'meant as fast': all are armoured with Chobbam/ERA armour. Do you have the point?

Finally, my ban in wiki.it is a bit too complex to talk about, but it had nothing to do with 'lack of references' that in Wiki.it are almost always even not present in the articles. If you want we can talk about in my mail address, seen that one of my actual diffamator, EH101, is ready to make 'pubblicity' also here.--Stefanomencarelli 14:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Benea 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

that from 1973 ATGMS were taken seriously,

that from 1960 there was the SAM 'era',

that from 1914 submarines were found 'effective' and lead ASW tecnology.

It's not relevant to see 'when' a new weapon started to be developed or used. It's relevant when it became 'ufficially effective':

Sinking of 'Cressy's (1500 deads) phased out every residual doubt about submarines and was an heavy shock for RN: before a RN battleship, during an excercise was signaled as 'sunk' by a RN sub and answered 'it's impossible to be sunk by you'. Still from my enciclopedia, written formerly by UK authors.

ATGM missiles were used even in 1956 war, do you know? And in 1967 also. But only in 1973 they became 'temible' and led to the new gen tanks: see Merkava, M1, Leopard 2, see ERA tank protections and so on.


SAM were a reality well before the downing of Francis Gary Powers. From 1960, the SAM 'Era' was ..real. And since then the high altitude tactic and dottrine leaved marketly the space to low-flyng. This is why Tornado are low level bombers and not, let's say, stratospheric machines like Vulcan and even Camberras. Still with me?

SSN were a reality also before Eilat sinking: but after that, the major navies run to develope stuff before few or no present at all: ECM/ESM and above all CIWS, expecially meant for anti-ship missile.

The minor navies, or those like Greece equipped with old lemons, moved to small missile boats, that from early 70s' knew a great diffusions, with hundreds made by France, UK, Italy and Germany. Check the service of those Saars, Combatante, Type 143/148, Spica, Fincantieri Corvettes and so on. In the meanwhile, old ships were update with CIWS, ECMs and SSM: just check the 'changes' on all the US Navy ships like Knox, Belknaps and some others.

It's so simple: every major change was stimulated from dramatical events, and Eilat was the proof that SSN were a real formidable threat. Only mines, torpedoes and SSNs have really changed the threat perception for major fleets (OK apart aircrafts: but also there, there was the 'proof' of Taranto, P.Harbour and K.G.V sinking to credit to aircrafts those capabilities already meant by Mitchell in 1922!).

--Stefanomencarelli 14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


That is your point of view. It is not relevant to this article, it is POV and it is Original Research. The Cressy class really just illustrates your errors. Submarines were not regarded as 'laughable pieces of machinery'. Most of the major world navies had developed them, the Royal Navy had about 75, the Germans slightly fewer. The Cressys were obsolete and called the 'live bait squadron' well before their actual sinking. Their sinking proved that the old armoured cruisers were no longer effective, NOT that the submarine was suddenly seen as an effective weapon in war. In this case navies had already begun the development of missile boats well before the sinking of Eilat. How had the Russians managed to develop, build and then transfer several to Egypt if this was not the case? Claiming that the sinking of Eilat was this turning point is completely illogical, the process PREDATES 1967! All of the above is your original research to try and prove this nonsense theory. That the sinking proved the effectiveness of missiles against ships is sourced, and is in the article. I respect that you are knowledgable about missiles and that how they crossed over into maritime warfare would be an area of interest to you. But you must be prepared to contribute in line with wikipedia policies. Benea 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No dear, it's you that cannot accept even such logical statements: the sinking of the Cressy WAS a shock for Royal Navy. Apparently you lacking some logical process and some basic knowledge. I have an article that explains in detail this fact, it's Mario Cecon, March 1999, RID Magazine, that states about the born of submarine as really happened NOT IN CRONOLOGICA SENSE with the sinking of those cruisers.

It is not relevant to this article, it is POV and it is Original Research.

IT's relevant to this article and not POV, not even OR. You have some problems about this issue, not i.

Most of the major world navies had developed them, the Royal Navy had about 75, the Germans slightly fewer

This not matters: before the Cressy sinkings there was not a clue about the real worth of submarines. Proof in a real battle, do you understand this? There was also a inquiring to attribue to someone the guilth and was said that the german sub were more than one.

The Cressys were obsolete and called the 'live bait squadron' well before their actual sinking. Their sinking proved that the old armoured cruisers were no longer effective, NOT that the submarine was suddenly seen as an effective weapon in war

Do dear, the lost of 1500 lives was NOT considered a bait. Less in 90 minuts, to not to talk that almost ALL the ships of that time had not an effective underwater protection

In this case navies had already begun the development of missile boats well before the sinking of Eilat. How had the Russians managed to develop, build and then transfer several to Egypt if this was not the case?

Why you have so difficults to understand that obviousely NOT ALL THE WORLD made the same things in the same time.. URSS fullowed the path of FAC/Missiles boats well before west and for a precise reason: contrast western carrier and Navies. What's you problem to understand that suddently Western navies went in an era in which they were not prepared? In 1967 and correct me if i am wrong there was NO one US ship armed with CIWS or SSNs. IN fact they were further developements, and this is the case for many others.

You call mine as OR? Why it should had been, just because, differently than you i care to check in my sources to find the stuff needed? Apart you no-no you have made any proof that i am wrong, while i sent a lot of links and citations. So the problem. sorry, it's definitively YOURS.


Claiming that the sinking of Eilat was this turning point is completely illogical, the process PREDATES 1967!

NOOOO. The process in URSS predates 1967. But you have read the links i done or not?

All of the above is your original research to try and prove this nonsense theory.

Gratuitus insults. It's not my OR but you unablity to understand this issue. Sadly, but not guilth of mine.

I respect that you are knowledgable about missiles and that how they crossed over into maritime warfare would be an area of interest to you. But you must be prepared to contribute in line with wikipedia policies.

Ah, what's the wiki policies that forbid to me to post this simple, SOURCED fact that URSS was well ahead in SSN tecnology in 1967? Ah, obviousely you can show me that in 1967 there were already Harpoon, OTOMAT, Exocet all around??

Finally: [4] something about the 'non existent' battle of july 1967.--Stefanomencarelli 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, what on earth are you on about? I think a lot of this is coming down to the fact that you cannot understand what I am saying. Your comments about the Cressys means that not only can you not understand the points I was making, you cannot understand what the article itself says. This article is about the ship. None of what you are talking about is relevent to this article. Ironically, this article already includes much of what you are trying to get added. Anything more about how this affected the development of naval warfare is your point of view, is unsourced and is original research. I will be watching this page, and will not allow this to be added, simply because it is not in line with policies. I invite you to try and raise your point that the development of submarines was not taken seriously until aftert the sinking of the cressys on a relevant talk page. I suspect you will get equally short shrift. Benea 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support Benea remarks. The user:stefanomencarelli adds are not relevant to this article. In my opinion, those adds derived from an Original Research and lead to a POV result. --EH101 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For the records, EH101 is an 'interested observer' i.e. one of my more aficionados, and one of the responsables of my ban. Obviousely he is not still satisfacted from this. Such a shame.

X Bedea:

There is still the battle of July 1967 with P-4/6 torpedo boats, that is still missing. This must been added, not because me, but because this was happened AND SOURCED. Sorry. You have two internet links and enciclopedy above mentioned. So i expect that you will have no problems to post this. For the other issues there i'll talk to you in other sides.--Stefanomencarelli 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any former relationship with that user. I will treat either of you fairly and equally. I will happily add information about the battle as it is interesting, encyclopedic and it is now sourced. That wasn't so hard was it? As to the other issues, I'm sorry I don't know what you are trying to say. Benea 19:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

no problem, you add that battle and we will be happy(;-).--Stefanomencarelli 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subs

Yeah, yeah, original research and POV results:

From : http://www.germannotes.com/hist_ww1_uboat.shtml :

U-Boats at war

  • At the beginning of 1914, the submarine remained something of a nautical curiosity of uncertain usefulness. Two days after Britain declared war on Germany over the German invasion of Belgium, ten German U-boats left their base in Helgoland to attack Royal Navy warships in the North Sea. They were effectively all the blue-water submarines the Germans had

And

  • The sinkings (of the three Cressys) were a wake-up call to the British Admiralty. The Royal Navy base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, just north of Scotland, seemed clearly vulnerable. The Admiralty was also increasingly nervous about mines, which had sunk the light cruiser HMS Amphion off the Thames Estuary the first week of the war, and much more significantly sending the battleship HMS Audacious to the bottom of the Irish Sea on 17 October. Most of the crew of the Audacious was saved, but it was still a major humiliation.


'The fleet was sent to refuge in Ireland and on the western coast of Scotland until adequate defenses were installed at Scapa Flow. This, in a sense, was a more significant victory than sinking a few old cruisers. The submarine, which had been held in such suspicion, had forced the world's most powerful fleet from its home base.

So we have: (at beginning of the war, the subamarine was rated as) something of a nautical curiosity of uncertain usefulness + The submarine, which had been held in such suspicion, had forced the world's most powerful fleet from its home base.

that was on pair with During an exercise of British fleets, at the beginnings of the siecle, a submarine signaled to a battleship to have sink her. The battleships answered that it cannot been possible that a sub can do it. This episode showed how this unliked reality was raising, the avvent of submarine era. This reality was ignored by traditional naval ambients (War Machines, pag 2529, italian version printed by De Agostini)

The old U-9 og Weddingen made a strike that influenced dramatically the conceptions about the capabilities of submarines (war machines, pag 1795)

The news about this sinking shocked deeply the world opinion about , and this operation was one destined to pass in the history..The Great Bretaign public opinion was shocked to learn that only one submarine was the author of the loss of 1500 lives and three cruisers (Mario Cecon, 'Le born of submarine' article on RID magazine march 1999).

So call me POV. Oh yeah.--Stefanomencarelli 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: ----The entire battle had lasted less than an hour, and cost the British three warships, 62 officers and 1,397 ratings. Coming on the heels of the loss of the light cruiser HMS Pathfinder earlier to another submarine attack, this incident established the U-boat as a major weapon in the conduct of naval warfare.

From Wikipedia itself, Aboukir page.--Stefanomencarelli 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing there I disagree with. Benea 20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)