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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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 articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
You say that the Floridas were improved over the Delawares, but how?
Convert the displacement in the infobox. I've always liked the convert|LT|MT template myself, but that's just me.
Consider using the main gun's designation in the main body. Mark 5 or whatever it was.
Did these ships have the usual problems with casemated guns mounted too low for operations in heavy seas?
I'll be offline for a couple of weeks beginning on the 19th, but I think we can get through this if you've got the time. If not I'll put it on hold until I get back.
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks Sturmvogel. I fixed the first three points; neither Hore nor Conway's say anything about the casemate guns being particularly wet (for comparison, both mention the problems the
Iron Duke-class battleships had with their casemates in heavy seas - the first ship I could think of that had this problem). I haven't seen anything elsewhere (for instance, the DANFS articles) to that effect either. Conway's does say that the preceding Delwares had problems with their secondary battery being very wet.
Parsecboy (
talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
All the casement based secondaries in US Battleships were very wet according to my sources which was why they were moved up to the main deck. Friedman cites that the forward sections in the Florida class were very wet.
Tirronan (
talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)reply
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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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 articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
You say that the Floridas were improved over the Delawares, but how?
Convert the displacement in the infobox. I've always liked the convert|LT|MT template myself, but that's just me.
Consider using the main gun's designation in the main body. Mark 5 or whatever it was.
Did these ships have the usual problems with casemated guns mounted too low for operations in heavy seas?
I'll be offline for a couple of weeks beginning on the 19th, but I think we can get through this if you've got the time. If not I'll put it on hold until I get back.
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks Sturmvogel. I fixed the first three points; neither Hore nor Conway's say anything about the casemate guns being particularly wet (for comparison, both mention the problems the
Iron Duke-class battleships had with their casemates in heavy seas - the first ship I could think of that had this problem). I haven't seen anything elsewhere (for instance, the DANFS articles) to that effect either. Conway's does say that the preceding Delwares had problems with their secondary battery being very wet.
Parsecboy (
talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
All the casement based secondaries in US Battleships were very wet according to my sources which was why they were moved up to the main deck. Friedman cites that the forward sections in the Florida class were very wet.
Tirronan (
talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)reply