Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Back in Service: The 60 Gun Frigate HMS Winchester

Yokel

LE
What sort of guns though?

4.5 inch - 5 inch for future frigates
Phalanx?
DS30M Mk2?
0.50 Cal?
GPMG?
SA80?
9mm pistol?

Not sure how else you could make the numbers add up to sixty.

I suppose we should not be too critical of the press.
 
I followed the link, but I am non the wiser
too much repetition and too little fact

Agree. The layout & link highlighting is crap

Hover over first red word in each para

Same story in ITV, Times, Telegraph, Indi, Sun, Star

Quality journalism at work
 

soleil

War Hero
Yes, I've been sending e-mails about this today. HMS Winchester was dismantled in 1921.

HMS Westminster has been helping with the search off the Kent coast today, unfortunately the person the ship was helping to search for has been found dead.

I think that the mistake appeared in one original source and then got copied and copied.

One newspaper did change it to HMS Westminster but left the part in about it being a 60 gun frigate. I suspect that the first journalist who noted down the details was told "HMS Westminster" but heard "HMS Winchester" then googled it and came up with the 60 gun frigate phrase.

Another newspaper corrected its mistake very quickly and sent me a nice message too.
 
60 guns would make her a fourth rate ship of the line, not a frigate. Bloody press, they can't get anything right! :-D
 

philc

LE
If they can get the simple stuff wrong, what of the difficult stuff. Press is poor and not improving in my opinion.
 

soleil

War Hero
Press is poor and not improving in my opinion.

I agree, but can't explain how this came to be.

The impression I do get is that the time when there were really well-informed journalists specialising in Defence matters seems to be almost at an end. There are one or two still around who can write intelligently on matters like Defence Procurement, but they are starting to become the exception.

It's increasingly the case that articles which make reference to the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army are written by people who have barely any knowledge of them at all. When they need to give the names of ships, most of them have no real idea of which ships are currently in the Fleet, so they fall prey to mistakes like the one today when 'HMS Winchester' kept popping up. I'm at a loss to know why they didn't just look on the RN website to see what kind of ship it was; they would have noticed that it didn't exist in the current Fleet.

For what it's worth, I get the impression that there are fewer articles in the media nowadays about the Royal Navy. I couldn't give an accurate appraisal of the equivalent for the RAF or the Army, but I suspect that the same applies.

Something which does seem to be happening is that there are fewer feature articles written about the Royal Navy. They are not the same articles as the ones which are about subjects like procurement and which might appear in the FT, they are lighter articles but they used to be a nice fit for some of the tabloids and regional newspapers. I suspect that the momentum behind articles of that kind came from within the Navy itself and that the appetite for this has somehow been lost.
 
I agree, but can't explain how this came to be.

The impression I do get is that the time when there were really well-informed journalists specialising in Defence matters seems to be almost at an end. There are one or two still around who can write intelligently on matters like Defence Procurement, but they are starting to become the exception.

It's increasingly the case that articles which make reference to the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army are written by people who have barely any knowledge of them at all. When they need to give the names of ships, most of them have no real idea of which ships are currently in the Fleet, so they fall prey to mistakes like the one today when 'HMS Winchester' kept popping up. I'm at a loss to know why they didn't just look on the RN website to see what kind of ship it was; they would have noticed that it didn't exist in the current Fleet.

For what it's worth, I get the impression that there are fewer articles in the media nowadays about the Royal Navy. I couldn't give an accurate appraisal of the equivalent for the RAF or the Army, but I suspect that the same applies.

Something which does seem to be happening is that there are fewer feature articles written about the Royal Navy. They are not the same articles as the ones which are about subjects like procurement and which might appear in the FT, they are lighter articles but they used to be a nice fit for some of the tabloids and regional newspapers. I suspect that the momentum behind articles of that kind came from within the Navy itself and that the appetite for this has somehow been lost.


Part of the problem is the quality of news releases issued by MoD. If in-house staff can't get things right, there's not much hope for journalists.
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
Good Job it is not green !!!

on our local paper the journalists rarely leave the building, or they work from home
they have little knowledge of the outside world, their spelling and punctuation is awful
when I was contacted about a charity event he asked me to make a video and send it to him
I didnt bother I dont need that kind of publicity
they leave uni after doing a course in Journalism and know bugger all
 
I agree, but can't explain how this came to be.

The impression I do get is that the time when there were really well-informed journalists specialising in Defence matters seems to be almost at an end. There are one or two still around who can write intelligently on matters like Defence Procurement, but they are starting to become the exception.

It's increasingly the case that articles which make reference to the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army are written by people who have barely any knowledge of them at all. When they need to give the names of ships, most of them have no real idea of which ships are currently in the Fleet, so they fall prey to mistakes like the one today when 'HMS Winchester' kept popping up. I'm at a loss to know why they didn't just look on the RN website to see what kind of ship it was; they would have noticed that it didn't exist in the current Fleet.

For what it's worth, I get the impression that there are fewer articles in the media nowadays about the Royal Navy. I couldn't give an accurate appraisal of the equivalent for the RAF or the Army, but I suspect that the same applies.

Something which does seem to be happening is that there are fewer feature articles written about the Royal Navy. They are not the same articles as the ones which are about subjects like procurement and which might appear in the FT, they are lighter articles but they used to be a nice fit for some of the tabloids and regional newspapers. I suspect that the momentum behind articles of that kind came from within the Navy itself and that the appetite for this has somehow been lost.

The problem is, outside of a naval town the RN is out of sight, out of mind. It is not as 'present' or as visible as the army nor as 'glamorous' as the RAF fly-boys.
 

soleil

War Hero
The following is true.

A couple of years ago, I rang the local newspaper for Richmond (the Surrey one), to talk to them about an interesting story from the First World War about pieces of embroidery which had been made during 1918 and 1919 by wounded men at the Royal Star and Garter Home. The Home was sold to developers a few years ago, but the building is still there at the top of Richmond Hill.

I'd asked which journalist on the paper covered the Richmond area when I had rung the previous day, so I knew to whom I should speak. When he answered the 'phone, I introduced myself and said that I was ringing to talk to him about the Star and Garter. He thought for a moment, said 'no, don't tell me …. oh, yes, I know, that's the Indian restaurant down by the station, isn't it?'

Things really have changed.
 

soleil

War Hero
Here's a bit from the first ITV report. The reporter checked Wiki for the ship name, saw it was a 60-gun ship, and did not look further :



What really struck me about this, when I thought about it, was that it didn't strike the journalist that it was in any way incongruous for a modern ship in the Royal Navy's Fleet to be a '60-gun ship'. When ships had 60 guns, it was surely a reflection of the type of warfare at sea at the time; 60 guns would have been necessary to ensure that the ship could attack or be defended from all aspects. Is it perhaps the case that a good number of these journalists are not familiar with the ships currently in the Fleet and the nature of their design in terms of armaments but that they have seen pictures of ships like the Mary Rose at school and think it sounds quite possible for a modern ship to be bristling with guns in the same way.

I do wonder whether they are poorly served by the advent of the internet. A journalist 40 years ago would have reached for Jane's Fighting Ships and known exactly which ship he/she was writing about. The speed with which things can be looked up nowadays does many journalists, especially young ones, a disservice, in a way. The process of tap tap click is so fast that the mechanism which should step in to say 'hang on, are you writing about the right ship, there's something wrong here, check it again' isn't stepping in. The physical action of looking in the pages of the book and seeing the ship itself would have avoided this.

I am a bit surprised that the sub-editors didn't pick up on the HMS Winchester thing.
 
The BBC is just as bad. Numerous times I have seen them interview a crew from 771 Sqdn at RNAS (Royal Naval Air Station) Culdose and then say they are with the RAF at Culdrose. Most of the interviews were conducted next to a a shiny red and grey SeaKing saying Royal Navy Rescue just above those being interviewed.

I have complained to the BBC about the standard of the reporting of this by Channel 4 News. When they finally said they weren't Channel 4 and that the BBC had no responsibility for the content of their news I responded back that we weren't the RAF and the RAF werent responsible for the rescue that had just taken place.
Bastards.
 
. . . .

I am a bit surprised that the sub-editors didn't pick up on the HMS Winchester thing.

Not that many news-sources use subs these. After all, if someone else has published it, then it must have been right . . . errrrrrmmmm. [To say nothing of the structural and grammatical functions of sub-editing...]
 
To be fair it would be a good idea when the leaky lilo brigade call up their cross channel taxi to the land of milk and honey. Tell em HM Coastguard have dispatched a random warship that sank three centuries ago then go back to playing poker.
 
What really struck me about this, when I thought about it, was that it didn't strike the journalist that it was in any way incongruous for a modern ship in the Royal Navy's Fleet to be a '60-gun ship'. When ships had 60 guns, it was surely a reflection of the type of warfare at sea at the time; 60 guns would have been necessary to ensure that the ship could attack or be defended from all aspects. Is it perhaps the case that a good number of these journalists are not familiar with the ships currently in the Fleet and the nature of their design in terms of armaments but that they have seen pictures of ships like the Mary Rose at school and think it sounds quite possible for a modern ship to be bristling with guns in the same way.

I do wonder whether they are poorly served by the advent of the internet. A journalist 40 years ago would have reached for Jane's Fighting Ships and known exactly which ship he/she was writing about. The speed with which things can be looked up nowadays does many journalists, especially young ones, a disservice, in a way. The process of tap tap click is so fast that the mechanism which should step in to say 'hang on, are you writing about the right ship, there's something wrong here, check it again' isn't stepping in. The physical action of looking in the pages of the book and seeing the ship itself would have avoided this.

I am a bit surprised that the sub-editors didn't pick up on the HMS Winchester thing.

I agree.
The article was probably a rush job. The reporter checked Wiki, and literally didn't read further than the first sentence (I assume).

From Wiki:

HMS Winchester (1822)

'HMS Winchester was a 60-gun Southampton-class sailing frigate of the Royal Navy. She was laid down in 1816 at Woolwich Dockyard, and launched on 21 June 1822. Although designed for 60 guns, she and the rest of the class carried 52 guns. From 1831 to 1861 she served in North America and South East Asia. In 1861 she became the training ship Conway at Liverpool, and from 1876 she was the training ship Mount Edgcumbe. She was sold in 1921. '

Why the word 'sailing' didn't raise any concerns is another matter. And why didn't '1822' pique the reporter's curiosity? The internet can be an unhelpful place in that respect. Major common sense / lack of awareness on someone's part. A tweet to the RN twitter page, taking five minutes, would have cleared things up, if the reporter was too lazy to look further.
 
I am a bit surprised that the sub-editors didn't pick up on the HMS Winchester thing.

Subs? They were all sacked years ago

2011 Example
Sunday Telegraph front page:
"Obama's 75 ton 'The Beast' car gets stuck in Dublin"
 

Latest Threads

Top