![]() | Nevada-class battleship has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nevada-class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A few things.
More generally, I find myself wondering if "armor" & "armored" are being used interchangably, when they shouldn't be. Also, Fitzsimons has Pennsylvanias, New Mexicos, Tennessees, & Colorados following the Nevada scheme (without describing them as "standard", tho). He also has Nevada with 4 TT, while the page says 2 (& I'm betting 2 is correct...). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:55 & 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, sorry. So would I, but I haven't seen a source for that anywhere...Hmm. I'll look for it this afternoon! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an entire article on Jutland full of sources and citations on the battle and on the ships as well as dozens of books writen on the subject. Point of fact it was not just the British ships that lacked horizontal protection, EVERY SINGLE DREADNOUGHT TO THIS POINT IN TIME HAD THE SAME ISSUES FOR THE SAME REASONS. What you are missing in this is that the armor system was in fact a revolution in armor suites to that time. Once the lessons of Jutland were absorbed and the armor system of Nevada understood, nothing classed as a battleship ever left the design boards without considering plunging fire ever and the protection against it again. Both guns and fire control had now advanced to the point that this had to be considered and as such Nevada was the 1st answer. Tirronan ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't source it (so what else is new? ;D ), but I recall the headaches Rozhestvensky had en route Tsushima. Is it worth mentioning oil firing made fuelling at sea easier? Gong to far to say it made fuelling feasible? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (No, I didn't try & spell it... ;D)
(out) Doubt it. My university library doesn't have it, and I seriously doubt that my hometown library has it (though that is so small, you can't search through their books online that I know of... -_-) However, I will help with whatever I can. You wanna start a drive to get this to FA? ;D — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
Comparison between the Queen Elizabeths and the Nevadas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous version had several errors in the second paragraph. First the prior version cited a design flaw in their lack of Deck Armor. Friedman's book (US Battleships an Illustrated Design History) cites that they were designed with two decks totaling 4.5 to 5" of armor. The Nevada class at the time of their contruction had more Deck Armor than any of its contemporaries and the basic armor scheme they introduced continued unchanged through the standard class well into the era of long range gunnery and plunging fire. When modernized the deck was strengthened adding 80lb STS (Friedman page 197) tot hge second deck incerasing the thickness to 4.75 or 5"
With respect to the quote about watertight integrity the source is quoted correctly but a reading of the actaul damage report written after the ship was salvaged ( http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB36/PearlHarborDamageReport/) does not support the assertion that older ships in general had deficient watertight integrity. To quote "The flooding from damage could have been isolated from a material standpoint, assuming effective closures, Condition Zed fully set, and the ship completely manned." This report should be considered definitive and does not support the original statement regarding the watertight imtegrity of older warships.
Finally to state that older ships did not have the same staying power as new designs no matter how well modernized is self evident and not related to the Nevada class. That a clean sheet new generation design (especially one begun 20+ years later) would be better is self evident. In fact a survey of how the standard class performed in WWII ( http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm) indicates that the standards performed well and considerably better than their foreign contemporaries.
The edit offered (Friedman Chapter 5 as a source) emphasizes design features that made the Nevada's unique and in fact the prototype of the modern battleship. Ships designed post Jutland employed many of the same features (oil fuel, all or nothing armor, the elimination of mid-deck turrets, significant deck armor, and a focus on long range fire) that the Nevada's introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.141.221 ( talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nevada-class battleship. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The picture labeled as the USS Texas has three turrets before any superstructure. The Texas though has a turret amidship
I think that image is of another ship Fdr2001 ( talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Nevada-class battleship has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nevada-class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A few things.
More generally, I find myself wondering if "armor" & "armored" are being used interchangably, when they shouldn't be. Also, Fitzsimons has Pennsylvanias, New Mexicos, Tennessees, & Colorados following the Nevada scheme (without describing them as "standard", tho). He also has Nevada with 4 TT, while the page says 2 (& I'm betting 2 is correct...). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:55 & 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, sorry. So would I, but I haven't seen a source for that anywhere...Hmm. I'll look for it this afternoon! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an entire article on Jutland full of sources and citations on the battle and on the ships as well as dozens of books writen on the subject. Point of fact it was not just the British ships that lacked horizontal protection, EVERY SINGLE DREADNOUGHT TO THIS POINT IN TIME HAD THE SAME ISSUES FOR THE SAME REASONS. What you are missing in this is that the armor system was in fact a revolution in armor suites to that time. Once the lessons of Jutland were absorbed and the armor system of Nevada understood, nothing classed as a battleship ever left the design boards without considering plunging fire ever and the protection against it again. Both guns and fire control had now advanced to the point that this had to be considered and as such Nevada was the 1st answer. Tirronan ( talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't source it (so what else is new? ;D ), but I recall the headaches Rozhestvensky had en route Tsushima. Is it worth mentioning oil firing made fuelling at sea easier? Gong to far to say it made fuelling feasible? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (No, I didn't try & spell it... ;D)
(out) Doubt it. My university library doesn't have it, and I seriously doubt that my hometown library has it (though that is so small, you can't search through their books online that I know of... -_-) However, I will help with whatever I can. You wanna start a drive to get this to FA? ;D — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
Comparison between the Queen Elizabeths and the Nevadas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous version had several errors in the second paragraph. First the prior version cited a design flaw in their lack of Deck Armor. Friedman's book (US Battleships an Illustrated Design History) cites that they were designed with two decks totaling 4.5 to 5" of armor. The Nevada class at the time of their contruction had more Deck Armor than any of its contemporaries and the basic armor scheme they introduced continued unchanged through the standard class well into the era of long range gunnery and plunging fire. When modernized the deck was strengthened adding 80lb STS (Friedman page 197) tot hge second deck incerasing the thickness to 4.75 or 5"
With respect to the quote about watertight integrity the source is quoted correctly but a reading of the actaul damage report written after the ship was salvaged ( http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB36/PearlHarborDamageReport/) does not support the assertion that older ships in general had deficient watertight integrity. To quote "The flooding from damage could have been isolated from a material standpoint, assuming effective closures, Condition Zed fully set, and the ship completely manned." This report should be considered definitive and does not support the original statement regarding the watertight imtegrity of older warships.
Finally to state that older ships did not have the same staying power as new designs no matter how well modernized is self evident and not related to the Nevada class. That a clean sheet new generation design (especially one begun 20+ years later) would be better is self evident. In fact a survey of how the standard class performed in WWII ( http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm) indicates that the standards performed well and considerably better than their foreign contemporaries.
The edit offered (Friedman Chapter 5 as a source) emphasizes design features that made the Nevada's unique and in fact the prototype of the modern battleship. Ships designed post Jutland employed many of the same features (oil fuel, all or nothing armor, the elimination of mid-deck turrets, significant deck armor, and a focus on long range fire) that the Nevada's introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.141.221 ( talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nevada-class battleship. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The picture labeled as the USS Texas has three turrets before any superstructure. The Texas though has a turret amidship
I think that image is of another ship Fdr2001 ( talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)