This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333. Joshua 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Engineering plant information that I've provided comes from my own experience as a current volunteer crewmember aboard USS Missouri and a variety of the engineering sources made available to us on board.
I'm afraid I don't really see that the South Dakota class is considered a serious competitor to the Iowa-class as best battleship ever. The South Dakota doesn't have any capability that the Iowa's don't and the Iowa-class are faster and have better guns. -- -B- 21:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The British battleship Vanguard although a one off was said to be a master of sea handling at the time. Shame we scrapped it. GDL 3 Feb 2005
I'm going to have to check on the Armor info posted -- the deck figures seem too thick. The turrets are (off the top of my head) 16" of class A on the front over 2.5" of STS. On the sides they're 9.5" and on the rear around 11". -- -B- 5 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
Can someone please confirm the ordering of the turbines to be correct? High pressure then low pressure may seem sensible enough but throw in a bit of fluid or gas dynamic physics and it looks rather shakey. Bernoulli's principle would suggest the first of 2 turbines would be a high speed / low pressure device followed by the low speed / high pressure turbine. As far as I know, and I don't claim to be an engineer, turbines are named high or low pressure relative to the gas / liquid pressure passing through them, not the pressure of the gas or liquid driving them. In effect high pressure gas drives low pressure turbines and vice versa. -- LiamE 13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I know I'm being nit-picky, but shouldn't the phrase "Iowa class" in this article's title be hyphenated? — Saric ( Talk) 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned
A naval war between the US and PRC would be strong cause to activate at least two IOWAs. I suspect that's exactly why the Navy still has the IOWA and WISCONSIN in a more "readied" state.
The stated beam is 108 ft 2 in (32.98 m). From the point of view of the Panama Canal transits, I was wondering whether this takes into account thermal expansion due to being in the tropics — ie. is this the shipyard's documented beam, or the figure from the canal admeasurer? I assume that there would have been some expansion. — Johantheghost 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-- 72.129.68.251 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The 16 inch guns are also described as 50 caliber, which is half an inch. 50 caliber is typically portable or used against small targets like rafts, jeeps, persons, floating barrels, etc.. at a mile or less. 16" can fire from many miles offshore and might have been used to damage enemy shore defenses prior to a landing in WWII.
"Lastly, all four of the ships are still in existence, which is unusual because the Navy typically scraps older, derelict ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests."
In the first place, none of the Iowa Class ships are derelict. In American English, Derelict would indicate that the ships have been abandoned at sea, and that is not so. All four are tied up, three of them at their permanent homes. Those homes are:
It is the USS Iowa herself that is not yet preserved, and - even then - she is currently at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island
I've recently been all over the USS New Jersey, and she is in great shape, but is in no condition to return to active service. I doubt that any of the others will ever return to active service either, because the goal now is to convert them to Museum Pieces, and that process will make them unable to serve as war ships. For example, much of the control room wall over the Ammunition Loading Equipment has been replaced with Plexiglas so that visitors can see the works, and yet remain separated from them. Likewise, the large caliber guns have been spiked, and the barrels filled. The small caliber guns were retained by the Navy for use elsewhere. I've seen that New Jersey gets all of her utilities from the shore. Her plant no longer operates.
Secondly, the Navy has had a long standing tradition of preserving as many of its historical ships as possible, which is why the USS Constitution is still in commission; the USS Constellation is a museum ship; the USS Olympia is at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
BB35 - USS Texas The USS Texas is preserved as a museum ship at 'San Jacinto, Texas. Large areas are open to the public. She is the only first-generation dreadnaught (WWI era) battleship to survive to this day.
BB55 - USS North Carolina The USS North Carolina is preserved as a museum ship at Wilmington, North Carolina. Large areas are open to the public.
BB59 - USS Massachusetts The USS Massachusetts is preserved as a museum ship at Fall River, Massachusetts. Large areas are open to the public.
BB60 - USS Alabama The USS Alabama is preserved as a museum ship at Mobile, Alabama. Large areas are open to the public.
Many other ships are so preserved.
The use of ships as targets is also a legitimate use of old ships, but the ships that were expended in the Nuclear tests produced a lot of controversy in the Navy.
On another note, I think that the American spelling - armor- is better than the British spelling for a class of American battleships. This is especially true since the British spelling is currently an American Registered Trademark for a company that produces canned meat.
CORNELIUSSEON 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that derelict is a misleading and inaccurate word. I'm going to replace it with the much more appropriate "decommisioned" Gulfstorm75 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The aircraft section seems to have a wrong date. I don't feel like they would have used helicoptors in 1949. I'll leave it to someone with background in this subject to fix this.-- Butters 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Definition of the word Caliber:
a : the bore diameter of the barrel of a weapon (as a firearm) measured in rifled arms from land to land -- compare LAND DIAMETER
b : the diameter of the projectile fired from such a weapon
c : the land-to-land diameter of the bore of a piece of ordnance used as a unit of measurement for stating the length of the tube of the piece -- now used only of naval and coastal defense guns <a 3"/50 cal. gun is 3" in bore and 50 calibers or 150" or 12'6" long>
In other words, to arrive at the caliber number for a naval or coast gun, you must know the actual length, and divide that by the bore diameter. From then on, you know that a naval gun that is 50 calibers, and is 3", is 150" or 12'6" long.
CORNELIUSSEON 17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
'arguably the finest battleships '
If its arguably the finest then its also arguably not and thus this rather meaningless sentence has no place in an encyclopedic entry -- Narson 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"arguably" is one of those words like "factoid" - two meanings, each the opposite of the other. In this context, "arguably" means "defensible by argument" not "something we'd argue over". -vmy
The paper cited in the endnote for the surrender of Iraqi troops to a UAV (endnote 4) states that it was Missouri's UAV that spotted the surrendering troops, as opposed to Wisconsin's as stated in the Wiki article.
"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow, and the narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
Actually, this is a compound sentence that should have been divided into two seperate sentences.
"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow..." This means that the shape of the bow is such that it will dive into high waves (porpoising), and thus there will be significant spray left on the deck. These ships have a high speed bow, but it is not wide enough to be self-supporting, and thus the porpoising.
"The narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
This one deals with the fact that since the ship has a narrow, high speed, bow, there is not much room inside the bow section. Indeed, I've been in the bow of the USS New Jersey, and the only equipment space found there is the Anchor Room. The armor starts behind that room. I had the impression that they took that into account when they planned the armor. It seemed to me that - with the door to the Anchor Room fully dogged, a hit to the bow tip would not do much damage to the rest of the ship. The bow tip might be lost, but not much more.
CORNELIUSSEON 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I took this out of the opening paragraph, someone reinserted it...
If that's not point of view, nothing is. It shouldn't be there. The whole sentence is a little suspect, but it's not TOO bad. Unless you can come up with some battleship expert and quote him saying this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. -- MateoP 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Battleship experts would look at several thing to make these statements. Let me make the case for reinserting this line:
You are taking sides. That's but 3 of many battleships. For example, for the sake of argument, I say that the HMS Victory is clearly better than the Iowa, Yamato, and Vanguard and would defeat them handedly on the battlefield. Excluding the HMS Victory and every other battleship ever created is pushing a POV. Unless you get an expert quote, it will continue to be a POV. -- MateoP 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a wiki-policy on removing patent nonsense though? And that would be. No-one could possibly make the argument that the HMS Victory (love her as I do) could stand up to 'modern' battleships. What other battleships should be mentioned? Bismark class? King George V? Even with my POV (as a Brit) I think including Vanguard is a stretch (15 inchers versus 16 inchers is not a great start) and shows the lack of POV of the editors, as they go that extra bit to include more ships that could compare. Maybe just say that the Iowa was the second largest class of warship ever constructed, behind the Yamato class? Or some other wording if Vanguard should say. Like it has one of the largest displacements of any Battleship constructed, along with the Yamato and Vanguard. If we go on size rather than any combat ability then the need for an expert is removed, hrm?Vanguard would need to be removed in favour of something else, mind, as I doubt at 48,000 it has a large enough displacement to be in the top 3 there -- Narson 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
User Tomstar81, you can say that the battleship Yamato and Vanguard would be able to compete. That's fine. You can't say that no other battleship is a "serious competitors", that's a POV. Reword it if you like to not make sound like the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are the best battleships of all time. That's a POV. Unless you find an expert. --
MateoP 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I found a quote on page 11 in the book The Battleships by Ian Johnston and Rob McAuley that reads as follows: "The Iowa class fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." Does this work, or should I try harder? TomStar81 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that my last revert is not a violation of 3RR as it was vandalism. You can not remove NPOV tags while actual discussion is taking place. -- MateoP 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with MateoP. "The only serious competition" is a POV, and not very necessary anyway because it is a parenthetical statement in an introduction. Take a look at what information is gained or lost in both versions:
I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. -- D e ath phoenix 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhm...yes, because having 'The finest battleships ever built' without providing examples of alternatives isn't NPOV? I'm sorry, but the removal makes the sentence most definatly POV. Anyway, a quote was found and so it looks like this is solved without the need for deletion of sections -- Narson 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you word it then?
TomStar81 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I do not get: I am sayin that the Iowa class can go toe to toe with the Vanguard and both of the Yamatos; In saying this I agree that Yamato was powerfull enough to go toe to toe with Vanguard and the Iowas, and the Vanguard could go toe to toe with the Iowas and the Yamatos. This is very fair, I think. In your example of HMS Vistory, I am saying she could go toe to toe with
USS Constitution and the civil war era
USS Constellation. Where is your beef?
TomStar81 22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Minor point of interest -- being designed to fit thru the Panama Canal doesn't make the Iowa-class unique. Most US Navy ships with a comparable beam were designed to fit thru the canal. Smaller ships didn't have to worry about it. -- -B- 06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't Iowa be rated CB in some navies? (Fitzsimons {ed, Weapons & Warfare, v14, p1459}) sez so {quoting Preston?}). Re the "statute mi" Q: Fitzsimons puts the Mk7 mount's max range 42345yd @45° elevation; since sailors think only in nm, I'd mention it in km & offer a sm convers, too. Also, "the guns are never fired directly forward"? Oh? So what are "A" & "B" turrets for, decoration? Also, the Oerlikon was ineffectual less due to "bigger, heavier aircraft" than determined (kamikaze) pilots... Trekphiler 10:51, 11:33, 11:37, & 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the section based on Fitzsimons (ed), Weapons & Warfare, v14, p1459. Not stated, I presume this was vetted by "contributing editor" Anthony Preston before publication; I don't doubt Preston would know if there was something really wrong with it... Trekphiler 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still problems with the opening paragraph. User TomStar81's addition was very good and solved the problem, but then user TestPilot had to once again insert his POV into it, unsourced. Again, saying that those are the only 2 competition is an insult to all other battleships (maybe I think the Argentine battleship can compete?), unless it can be proven. You can change it to "some of the competition would be" but just so you know, if you do that, I'm going to add other ships to the list other than just the two listed. -- MateoP 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How therefore should we reword it? TomStar81 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)When commissioned, it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the two Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and the five battleships of the Montana-class, which had been authorized but not laid down (they would be cancelled before construction).
Not to throw more fuel on this fire but the new paragraph, about the ships still under design ("Super Yamato" and "Montana") makes me slightly uncomfortable. It says that these new ships would have "outclassed" the Iowa-class. They would have out-gunned the Iowa-class to be sure, but there are a lot of other factors in the effectiveness of a battleship than simple gun-size/number. Fire control, speed, range, survivability, manueverability, etc. Maybe we should change "outclassed" to "outgunned" to be more accurate? -- -B- 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph about the "unsubstantiated rumor" about the barrels needing to be re-rifled. The problem with it is that the barrels of the 16" guns aren't rifled. The Mark 7 guns have liners in them and the liners are rifled. This was explictly done to substantially reduce the need to replace the barrels to account for wear. The barrels are rarely replaced; the liners are replaced. -- -B- 09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The same guy got banned for some time for keep deleting same info from the article and installing NPOV tag. He was so desperate, that he tried to modify one of WP:policy in his favor. Now he come up with Original Research tag. Most ppl do not see that phrase as a POV, and original research was not even mentioned until today. It worth to say, that the only contribution of same very guy to an article is an edit war he started to promote his opinion. He never introduced any other edits. What could be done with that troll? TestPilot
"Their most serious competition among battleships of the WWII era were the Japanese Yamato-class, the single late war British battleship HMS Vanguard, and the French Richelieu-class." Is not a POV. Here is sources. Vanguard was probably the finest of all the allied battleships, with the possible exception of the American Iowa class. http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships.htm So statement is true as to Vanguard. As to Yamato-class and Richelieu - please take a look at battleships comparison at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm - both have highest rating after Iowas. This edition of the phrase introdused by GraemeLeggett and totaly supported by me. TestPilot 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No, those sources do not qualify as expert testimony. Secondly neither presents all battleships in the comparison, only a comparison of some battleships. Therefore you drawing the conclusion that these are the only serious competition is inserting your POV. Again, for the sake of argument, I think the argentine battleship was it's only serious competition. While I might be (and probably am) wrong, we're not here to make arguments. Only to state facts. That statement is not a statement of fact, unless it turns into a quote from an expert. I'm removing it.
Also, what is wrong with saying "Some of their competition"? Why must it be an exclusive statement eliminating all others? It's clearly POV. If you keep adding it, I will put POV tags. -- MateoP 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) What wrong with saing "Some of their most serious competition"? You had beed proveded with sourses!!! What else do you want???? And it absolutely nothing exclusive in that statement. It is absolutely not a POV. Think for a moment and stop enforce edit war. TestPilot 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you see word "OME" It not exlude any ship from being serious competitor or wahtever. So shut up ans stop trolling!!! TestPilot 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm perfectly happy with the current edit ( permalink here) and frankly no information is lost from the dispute over TestPilot's POV information. The important parts are still clear; that the Iowa class was one of the best ever, as shown by TomStar's quote and the reference to the carrier. -- MateoP 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
GraemeL was right the first time -- the guns on the Iowa-class are of a large caliber than the guns on South Dakota. The Iowas have a 50-caliber main battery; the SoDak's have 45-caliber. -- -B- 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, Iowa and South Dakota both had guns of 16-inch caliber. Iowa's gun barrels are longer however, having a length equal to 50 times their caliber (ie 50 times 16 inches equals 800 inches). South Dakota's guns are only 45 caliber lengths. (720 inches).
The extra barrel length allows the Iowa's shells to develop slightly higher muzzle velocity than South Dakota's, giving them greater range, flatter trajectory and better penetrating power.
I'm not over happy with the paragraph on the Iowas "5 point" uniqueness. Are these qualities unique ones and if so is it terms of all battleships, US battleships or what? GraemeLeggett 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My reasoning for the inclusion of the points is as follows:
Over on Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) someone asked why they couldn't spot the missile launchers in the lead 1990 picture. I suspect they were looking for something like the Terrier launchers, so ABLs were explained, etc. Anyway it got me to thinking if a picture is worth a 1000 words.... A nice schematic diagram of the Iowa class with key items identified, might be useful. Probably want one for the 1940's configuration and one for the 1980's configuration. The top view drawing would be the clearest, if all three drawing views aren't available or would look too cluttered.-- J Clear 13:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Jane's says, first of all, that while you are correct about the Standard Displacement, the full load displacement was 52,000 tons. I will post what jane's has. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall one thing Wikipedia is NOT is a link farm. 15 External links seems excessive. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate all of them. Perhaps some can be pushed down to more specific articles, like the Drone video, or that link to someones trip to the New Jersey. It occurs to me that a "Fate of the Iowas" article might be a good place to give the whole firepower debate a look see, as well as move the "what happened to the spare barrels" link to.-- J Clear 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck? I always understood that the turrets were like big gun boxes that rotate on top of barbettes which are like heavily armored farm silos that provide protection for the shell and powder hoists that bring ammunition up from the magazines. I've been in the bottom of the Alabama's barbette, and while some might say it's part of the turret structure, I think the distinction is valid and well worth noting.
Good article! Wish I could write so well.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333. Joshua 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Engineering plant information that I've provided comes from my own experience as a current volunteer crewmember aboard USS Missouri and a variety of the engineering sources made available to us on board.
I'm afraid I don't really see that the South Dakota class is considered a serious competitor to the Iowa-class as best battleship ever. The South Dakota doesn't have any capability that the Iowa's don't and the Iowa-class are faster and have better guns. -- -B- 21:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The British battleship Vanguard although a one off was said to be a master of sea handling at the time. Shame we scrapped it. GDL 3 Feb 2005
I'm going to have to check on the Armor info posted -- the deck figures seem too thick. The turrets are (off the top of my head) 16" of class A on the front over 2.5" of STS. On the sides they're 9.5" and on the rear around 11". -- -B- 5 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
Can someone please confirm the ordering of the turbines to be correct? High pressure then low pressure may seem sensible enough but throw in a bit of fluid or gas dynamic physics and it looks rather shakey. Bernoulli's principle would suggest the first of 2 turbines would be a high speed / low pressure device followed by the low speed / high pressure turbine. As far as I know, and I don't claim to be an engineer, turbines are named high or low pressure relative to the gas / liquid pressure passing through them, not the pressure of the gas or liquid driving them. In effect high pressure gas drives low pressure turbines and vice versa. -- LiamE 13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I know I'm being nit-picky, but shouldn't the phrase "Iowa class" in this article's title be hyphenated? — Saric ( Talk) 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned
A naval war between the US and PRC would be strong cause to activate at least two IOWAs. I suspect that's exactly why the Navy still has the IOWA and WISCONSIN in a more "readied" state.
The stated beam is 108 ft 2 in (32.98 m). From the point of view of the Panama Canal transits, I was wondering whether this takes into account thermal expansion due to being in the tropics — ie. is this the shipyard's documented beam, or the figure from the canal admeasurer? I assume that there would have been some expansion. — Johantheghost 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-- 72.129.68.251 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The 16 inch guns are also described as 50 caliber, which is half an inch. 50 caliber is typically portable or used against small targets like rafts, jeeps, persons, floating barrels, etc.. at a mile or less. 16" can fire from many miles offshore and might have been used to damage enemy shore defenses prior to a landing in WWII.
"Lastly, all four of the ships are still in existence, which is unusual because the Navy typically scraps older, derelict ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests."
In the first place, none of the Iowa Class ships are derelict. In American English, Derelict would indicate that the ships have been abandoned at sea, and that is not so. All four are tied up, three of them at their permanent homes. Those homes are:
It is the USS Iowa herself that is not yet preserved, and - even then - she is currently at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island
I've recently been all over the USS New Jersey, and she is in great shape, but is in no condition to return to active service. I doubt that any of the others will ever return to active service either, because the goal now is to convert them to Museum Pieces, and that process will make them unable to serve as war ships. For example, much of the control room wall over the Ammunition Loading Equipment has been replaced with Plexiglas so that visitors can see the works, and yet remain separated from them. Likewise, the large caliber guns have been spiked, and the barrels filled. The small caliber guns were retained by the Navy for use elsewhere. I've seen that New Jersey gets all of her utilities from the shore. Her plant no longer operates.
Secondly, the Navy has had a long standing tradition of preserving as many of its historical ships as possible, which is why the USS Constitution is still in commission; the USS Constellation is a museum ship; the USS Olympia is at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
BB35 - USS Texas The USS Texas is preserved as a museum ship at 'San Jacinto, Texas. Large areas are open to the public. She is the only first-generation dreadnaught (WWI era) battleship to survive to this day.
BB55 - USS North Carolina The USS North Carolina is preserved as a museum ship at Wilmington, North Carolina. Large areas are open to the public.
BB59 - USS Massachusetts The USS Massachusetts is preserved as a museum ship at Fall River, Massachusetts. Large areas are open to the public.
BB60 - USS Alabama The USS Alabama is preserved as a museum ship at Mobile, Alabama. Large areas are open to the public.
Many other ships are so preserved.
The use of ships as targets is also a legitimate use of old ships, but the ships that were expended in the Nuclear tests produced a lot of controversy in the Navy.
On another note, I think that the American spelling - armor- is better than the British spelling for a class of American battleships. This is especially true since the British spelling is currently an American Registered Trademark for a company that produces canned meat.
CORNELIUSSEON 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that derelict is a misleading and inaccurate word. I'm going to replace it with the much more appropriate "decommisioned" Gulfstorm75 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The aircraft section seems to have a wrong date. I don't feel like they would have used helicoptors in 1949. I'll leave it to someone with background in this subject to fix this.-- Butters 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Definition of the word Caliber:
a : the bore diameter of the barrel of a weapon (as a firearm) measured in rifled arms from land to land -- compare LAND DIAMETER
b : the diameter of the projectile fired from such a weapon
c : the land-to-land diameter of the bore of a piece of ordnance used as a unit of measurement for stating the length of the tube of the piece -- now used only of naval and coastal defense guns <a 3"/50 cal. gun is 3" in bore and 50 calibers or 150" or 12'6" long>
In other words, to arrive at the caliber number for a naval or coast gun, you must know the actual length, and divide that by the bore diameter. From then on, you know that a naval gun that is 50 calibers, and is 3", is 150" or 12'6" long.
CORNELIUSSEON 17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
'arguably the finest battleships '
If its arguably the finest then its also arguably not and thus this rather meaningless sentence has no place in an encyclopedic entry -- Narson 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"arguably" is one of those words like "factoid" - two meanings, each the opposite of the other. In this context, "arguably" means "defensible by argument" not "something we'd argue over". -vmy
The paper cited in the endnote for the surrender of Iraqi troops to a UAV (endnote 4) states that it was Missouri's UAV that spotted the surrendering troops, as opposed to Wisconsin's as stated in the Wiki article.
"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow, and the narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
Actually, this is a compound sentence that should have been divided into two seperate sentences.
"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow..." This means that the shape of the bow is such that it will dive into high waves (porpoising), and thus there will be significant spray left on the deck. These ships have a high speed bow, but it is not wide enough to be self-supporting, and thus the porpoising.
"The narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
This one deals with the fact that since the ship has a narrow, high speed, bow, there is not much room inside the bow section. Indeed, I've been in the bow of the USS New Jersey, and the only equipment space found there is the Anchor Room. The armor starts behind that room. I had the impression that they took that into account when they planned the armor. It seemed to me that - with the door to the Anchor Room fully dogged, a hit to the bow tip would not do much damage to the rest of the ship. The bow tip might be lost, but not much more.
CORNELIUSSEON 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I took this out of the opening paragraph, someone reinserted it...
If that's not point of view, nothing is. It shouldn't be there. The whole sentence is a little suspect, but it's not TOO bad. Unless you can come up with some battleship expert and quote him saying this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. -- MateoP 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Battleship experts would look at several thing to make these statements. Let me make the case for reinserting this line:
You are taking sides. That's but 3 of many battleships. For example, for the sake of argument, I say that the HMS Victory is clearly better than the Iowa, Yamato, and Vanguard and would defeat them handedly on the battlefield. Excluding the HMS Victory and every other battleship ever created is pushing a POV. Unless you get an expert quote, it will continue to be a POV. -- MateoP 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a wiki-policy on removing patent nonsense though? And that would be. No-one could possibly make the argument that the HMS Victory (love her as I do) could stand up to 'modern' battleships. What other battleships should be mentioned? Bismark class? King George V? Even with my POV (as a Brit) I think including Vanguard is a stretch (15 inchers versus 16 inchers is not a great start) and shows the lack of POV of the editors, as they go that extra bit to include more ships that could compare. Maybe just say that the Iowa was the second largest class of warship ever constructed, behind the Yamato class? Or some other wording if Vanguard should say. Like it has one of the largest displacements of any Battleship constructed, along with the Yamato and Vanguard. If we go on size rather than any combat ability then the need for an expert is removed, hrm?Vanguard would need to be removed in favour of something else, mind, as I doubt at 48,000 it has a large enough displacement to be in the top 3 there -- Narson 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
User Tomstar81, you can say that the battleship Yamato and Vanguard would be able to compete. That's fine. You can't say that no other battleship is a "serious competitors", that's a POV. Reword it if you like to not make sound like the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are the best battleships of all time. That's a POV. Unless you find an expert. --
MateoP 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I found a quote on page 11 in the book The Battleships by Ian Johnston and Rob McAuley that reads as follows: "The Iowa class fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." Does this work, or should I try harder? TomStar81 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that my last revert is not a violation of 3RR as it was vandalism. You can not remove NPOV tags while actual discussion is taking place. -- MateoP 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with MateoP. "The only serious competition" is a POV, and not very necessary anyway because it is a parenthetical statement in an introduction. Take a look at what information is gained or lost in both versions:
I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. -- D e ath phoenix 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhm...yes, because having 'The finest battleships ever built' without providing examples of alternatives isn't NPOV? I'm sorry, but the removal makes the sentence most definatly POV. Anyway, a quote was found and so it looks like this is solved without the need for deletion of sections -- Narson 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you word it then?
TomStar81 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I do not get: I am sayin that the Iowa class can go toe to toe with the Vanguard and both of the Yamatos; In saying this I agree that Yamato was powerfull enough to go toe to toe with Vanguard and the Iowas, and the Vanguard could go toe to toe with the Iowas and the Yamatos. This is very fair, I think. In your example of HMS Vistory, I am saying she could go toe to toe with
USS Constitution and the civil war era
USS Constellation. Where is your beef?
TomStar81 22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Minor point of interest -- being designed to fit thru the Panama Canal doesn't make the Iowa-class unique. Most US Navy ships with a comparable beam were designed to fit thru the canal. Smaller ships didn't have to worry about it. -- -B- 06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't Iowa be rated CB in some navies? (Fitzsimons {ed, Weapons & Warfare, v14, p1459}) sez so {quoting Preston?}). Re the "statute mi" Q: Fitzsimons puts the Mk7 mount's max range 42345yd @45° elevation; since sailors think only in nm, I'd mention it in km & offer a sm convers, too. Also, "the guns are never fired directly forward"? Oh? So what are "A" & "B" turrets for, decoration? Also, the Oerlikon was ineffectual less due to "bigger, heavier aircraft" than determined (kamikaze) pilots... Trekphiler 10:51, 11:33, 11:37, & 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the section based on Fitzsimons (ed), Weapons & Warfare, v14, p1459. Not stated, I presume this was vetted by "contributing editor" Anthony Preston before publication; I don't doubt Preston would know if there was something really wrong with it... Trekphiler 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still problems with the opening paragraph. User TomStar81's addition was very good and solved the problem, but then user TestPilot had to once again insert his POV into it, unsourced. Again, saying that those are the only 2 competition is an insult to all other battleships (maybe I think the Argentine battleship can compete?), unless it can be proven. You can change it to "some of the competition would be" but just so you know, if you do that, I'm going to add other ships to the list other than just the two listed. -- MateoP 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How therefore should we reword it? TomStar81 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)When commissioned, it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the two Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and the five battleships of the Montana-class, which had been authorized but not laid down (they would be cancelled before construction).
Not to throw more fuel on this fire but the new paragraph, about the ships still under design ("Super Yamato" and "Montana") makes me slightly uncomfortable. It says that these new ships would have "outclassed" the Iowa-class. They would have out-gunned the Iowa-class to be sure, but there are a lot of other factors in the effectiveness of a battleship than simple gun-size/number. Fire control, speed, range, survivability, manueverability, etc. Maybe we should change "outclassed" to "outgunned" to be more accurate? -- -B- 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph about the "unsubstantiated rumor" about the barrels needing to be re-rifled. The problem with it is that the barrels of the 16" guns aren't rifled. The Mark 7 guns have liners in them and the liners are rifled. This was explictly done to substantially reduce the need to replace the barrels to account for wear. The barrels are rarely replaced; the liners are replaced. -- -B- 09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The same guy got banned for some time for keep deleting same info from the article and installing NPOV tag. He was so desperate, that he tried to modify one of WP:policy in his favor. Now he come up with Original Research tag. Most ppl do not see that phrase as a POV, and original research was not even mentioned until today. It worth to say, that the only contribution of same very guy to an article is an edit war he started to promote his opinion. He never introduced any other edits. What could be done with that troll? TestPilot
"Their most serious competition among battleships of the WWII era were the Japanese Yamato-class, the single late war British battleship HMS Vanguard, and the French Richelieu-class." Is not a POV. Here is sources. Vanguard was probably the finest of all the allied battleships, with the possible exception of the American Iowa class. http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships.htm So statement is true as to Vanguard. As to Yamato-class and Richelieu - please take a look at battleships comparison at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm - both have highest rating after Iowas. This edition of the phrase introdused by GraemeLeggett and totaly supported by me. TestPilot 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No, those sources do not qualify as expert testimony. Secondly neither presents all battleships in the comparison, only a comparison of some battleships. Therefore you drawing the conclusion that these are the only serious competition is inserting your POV. Again, for the sake of argument, I think the argentine battleship was it's only serious competition. While I might be (and probably am) wrong, we're not here to make arguments. Only to state facts. That statement is not a statement of fact, unless it turns into a quote from an expert. I'm removing it.
Also, what is wrong with saying "Some of their competition"? Why must it be an exclusive statement eliminating all others? It's clearly POV. If you keep adding it, I will put POV tags. -- MateoP 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) What wrong with saing "Some of their most serious competition"? You had beed proveded with sourses!!! What else do you want???? And it absolutely nothing exclusive in that statement. It is absolutely not a POV. Think for a moment and stop enforce edit war. TestPilot 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you see word "OME" It not exlude any ship from being serious competitor or wahtever. So shut up ans stop trolling!!! TestPilot 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm perfectly happy with the current edit ( permalink here) and frankly no information is lost from the dispute over TestPilot's POV information. The important parts are still clear; that the Iowa class was one of the best ever, as shown by TomStar's quote and the reference to the carrier. -- MateoP 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
GraemeL was right the first time -- the guns on the Iowa-class are of a large caliber than the guns on South Dakota. The Iowas have a 50-caliber main battery; the SoDak's have 45-caliber. -- -B- 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, Iowa and South Dakota both had guns of 16-inch caliber. Iowa's gun barrels are longer however, having a length equal to 50 times their caliber (ie 50 times 16 inches equals 800 inches). South Dakota's guns are only 45 caliber lengths. (720 inches).
The extra barrel length allows the Iowa's shells to develop slightly higher muzzle velocity than South Dakota's, giving them greater range, flatter trajectory and better penetrating power.
I'm not over happy with the paragraph on the Iowas "5 point" uniqueness. Are these qualities unique ones and if so is it terms of all battleships, US battleships or what? GraemeLeggett 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My reasoning for the inclusion of the points is as follows:
Over on Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) someone asked why they couldn't spot the missile launchers in the lead 1990 picture. I suspect they were looking for something like the Terrier launchers, so ABLs were explained, etc. Anyway it got me to thinking if a picture is worth a 1000 words.... A nice schematic diagram of the Iowa class with key items identified, might be useful. Probably want one for the 1940's configuration and one for the 1980's configuration. The top view drawing would be the clearest, if all three drawing views aren't available or would look too cluttered.-- J Clear 13:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Jane's says, first of all, that while you are correct about the Standard Displacement, the full load displacement was 52,000 tons. I will post what jane's has. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall one thing Wikipedia is NOT is a link farm. 15 External links seems excessive. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate all of them. Perhaps some can be pushed down to more specific articles, like the Drone video, or that link to someones trip to the New Jersey. It occurs to me that a "Fate of the Iowas" article might be a good place to give the whole firepower debate a look see, as well as move the "what happened to the spare barrels" link to.-- J Clear 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck? I always understood that the turrets were like big gun boxes that rotate on top of barbettes which are like heavily armored farm silos that provide protection for the shell and powder hoists that bring ammunition up from the magazines. I've been in the bottom of the Alabama's barbette, and while some might say it's part of the turret structure, I think the distinction is valid and well worth noting.
Good article! Wish I could write so well.