Difference between revisions of "History of the Royal Navy"
From The Dreadnought Project
Simon Harley (Talk | contribs) (Oops.) |
Simon Harley (Talk | contribs) (→Submarines) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Submarines== | ==Submarines== | ||
| − | As recently as 2010, one historian has claimed that the Admiralty "studiously ignored the submarines for years" and had been "wont to ignore as dismiss as wasteful tinkering the underwater designs of inventors all over the world."<ref>Breemer. ''Defeating the Submarine''. pp. 5, 7.</ref> Such generalised slurs ignore the facts. | + | As recently as 2010, one historian has claimed that the Admiralty "studiously ignored the submarines for years" and had been "wont to ignore as dismiss as wasteful tinkering the underwater designs of inventors all over the world."<ref>Breemer. ''Defeating the Submarine''. pp. 5, 7.</ref> Such generalised slurs ignore the facts. Since the American Civil War, the Admiralty had, in the words of Dr. Nicholas Lambert, "generally kept itself well informed about submarine development".<ref>Lambert. ''The Submarine Service''. p. ix.</ref> |
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 07:01, 18 December 2010
Submarines
As recently as 2010, one historian has claimed that the Admiralty "studiously ignored the submarines for years" and had been "wont to ignore as dismiss as wasteful tinkering the underwater designs of inventors all over the world."[1] Such generalised slurs ignore the facts. Since the American Civil War, the Admiralty had, in the words of Dr. Nicholas Lambert, "generally kept itself well informed about submarine development".[2]
Footnotes
Bibliography
