Talk:Iowa class battleship/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This 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)

Fitzsimons (ed) Weapons & Warfare, "Iowa" (v14) puts the turret armor @432mm, belt 307. Trekphiler 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Engineering Plant

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)

Yes, the high pressure turbine is first in order and it is so-named according to input pressure. The input pressure on the HP turbine is around 600psi if I recall correctly. It's less than 50psi for the LP turbine after passing thru the crossover. Again I'm working from memory there but I'm in the #4 engine room on USS Missouri at least once a week most weeks so I'm fairly confident that's correct. --72.129.68.251 04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, but I do have a suspicion that you are right there. --Apyule 13:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This naval engineering training document suggests the naming of the turbines in the article is correct and that the first turbine is known as the high pressure turbine despite the gas passing through it being low pressure as per the article's velocity/pressure diagrams. If naval egineers use this nomenclature the article is correct to follow. They are named after input pressure not flow pressure. Anyway I'm sure my old physics teacher would be proud of me. --LiamE 14:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. --Apyule 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Old Peer Review

Peer review Iowa class battleship/Archive 1 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

"Iowa class" or "Iowa-class"?

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)

Absolutely. Trekphiler 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

recommisioning?

Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned

Under the most extreme of circumstances I would imagine that all four would be recomissioned; however, it doesn't look like that will be the case. A more likely senario would be using the two mueseum ships as spare parts caches for Iowa and Wisconsin. According to a General Accounting Office report I obtained from the UTEP Library, the USN has absolutely no intersest in (or plans to) recomissioning either of the two battleships. TomStar81 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Admiral Yamamato commented over 60 years ago that in modern war, the battleship will be like unto a sammurai sword - a weapon of the past that has become useless. Raul654 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Possible? Yes. But extremely unlikely. It's prohibitively expensive and there really is very little to gain from it. --72.129.68.251 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

Interestingly, that is exactly the reason why so many non-naval people want the Iowa-class battleships to remain in reserve. The general consenus among battleship fans who operate internet sites is that when China reaches superpower status it will attempt to take Tiawan back into itself, and pose a serious threat to both Japan and South Korea. Many websites on the net point to the US Iowa-class battleships as being instomental in the protection of Japan, S. Korea, and Tiawan when that time comes. Some even suggest that the 16" guns on the Iowa-class could be used in an ABM role, although that is disputed information. TomStar81 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tropical beam

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)

108'3" is what we've been told aboard USS Missouri and I'd be surprised if there is any significant expansion in the ship's beam due to temperature. You're talking about a 887' ship with a substantial hull thickness. I doubt any beam expansion would be measurable. I'm travelling at the moment but when I get back to the ship I can probably look over the engineering documents which should list the official, shipyard-measured, beam.

--72.129.68.251 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors

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.

With battleship guns caliber is used as an indication of length, not the diameter of the barrel. As regards the 16 inch guns the caliber is an expression of the ratio of the length of the gun to the diameter of the bore of the weapon. The gun is 66 feet long or 800 inches long and the bore is 16 inches in diameter. 800 divided by 16 is 50 -- hence 50 caliber. ---B- 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's actually a reference to the number of calibers of length: bore diam =1, barrel length 50x→50caliber(s). The MG is actually erroneously called "50cal", 'cause the bore is .5"; bbl length is about 68cal. Trekphiler 10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No, in the case of United States Battleships the caliber designation is the ratio of length to bore as I have indicated above. ---B- 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"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;

So is Arizona, don't forget... Trekphiler 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No, that's a common misconception. USS Arizona was decommissioned 12/29/1941. ---B- 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

Armor taken care of. --J Clear 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

USS Iowa is not in Rhode Island. She's currently moored in Suisan Bay, San Francisco, California. Last I heard she is expected to be moved to a new home in Stockton, CA where she will be placed on display, shortly. ---B- 04:16, 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)

Yes, in fact they did use helicopters in '49. The Bell 47 was licensed for civilian use as early as 1946. The catapults for the floatplanes were removed around May of '49. ---B- 20:15, 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

'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

Endnote 4, UAV Surrender: minor discrepancy

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.

Thats my fault. I came across that and thought that it was Missouris UAV, when in fact several other sources cite the UAV as Wisconsins. I thought I fixed this one, but no matter. I get it corrected asap. For the record, a more detailed account could be found on the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) page. TomStar81 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

what on earth does this sentence mean?

"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)

Sorry, so does wet forward just mean, that the front of the deck gets wet in heavy ocean waves? the iceman 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Basically that's what it means. In the case of the Iowa class the lenght of the ship is a factor as well -- especially in the Pacific the distance between the swells in medium seas are such that as the ship crests one swell, the bow tends to plunge into the next swell. ---B- 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Please write short article about "wet forward". That term unclear for me (and, english is a second language for me, as it is for many wikiusers) TestPilot 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanx. Article written. Please check "wet forward" hyperlink in the Iowa class battleship article . TestPilot 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Have to remember, "naval" is a second lang even for native Eng speakers. (It was clear enuf to me, tho, after 25yrs reading in naval matters...) Trekphiler 11:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

point of view

I took this out of the opening paragraph, someone reinserted it...

(their only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class)

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)

With such logic you can remove whole article, it also could be considered as point of view. You need to come up with the reason, if you wish to delete someone work. TestPilot 06:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Evidently you have not read the Yamato article, niether have you read the Vanguard article. Both of these battleships posses large enough guns (Vanguard 15.0 in; Yamato 18.1 in) to pose a threat to the Iowa’s, hence both of these ships could have challenged any of the Iowa’s on near equal terms. As far as other nations battleships go the four Iowa class battleship’s "...only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class" TomStar81 06:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I did come up with a reason. It's not NPOV to say that. If you hadn't put "arguably" in the first part of the sentence, that would be POV also (it still sort of is, but made to sound more vague so it's NPOV enough for me). But that line in the parathesis is clearly POV, no matter how much you believe it to be correct. --MateoP 07:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Battleship experts would look at several thing to make these statements. Let me make the case for reinserting this line:

  • The "All big gun" armorment concept: "Partially as a consequence of this new philosophy, and partially as a consequence of its powerful new turbine engine, Dreadnought dispensed completely with the smaller calibre secondary armament carried by her immediate predecessors, allowing her to carry more heavy calibre guns than any other battleship built up to that time. She carried ten 12-inch guns mounted in five turrets; three along the centreline and two on the wings, giving her twice the broadside of anything else afloat. The first large warship equipped with steam turbines, she could make 21 knots in a calm sea, allowing her to outrun existing battleships (with a typical speed of 18 kts). Her armour was strong enough that she could conceivably go head-to-head with any other ship afloat in a gun battle and win."
  • The Super Dreadnoughts: "The design weakness of super dreadnoughts, which distinguished them from post-Great War designs, was armour disposition. Their design placed emphasis on vertical protection which was needed in short range battles. These ships were capable of engaging the enemy at 20,000 metres, but were vulnerable to the angle of fire that came at such ranges. Post-war designs typically had 5 to 6 inches of deck armour to defend against this dangerous, plunging fire. Lack of underwater protection was also a weakness of these pre-World War I designs."
  • The "all or nothing" armor concept: "Even more significantly, they (the Nevada class battleships) introduced the so-called "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which protection of vital areas was optimized against heavy caliber guns, leaving other parts of the ship essentially unprotected. This reflected a growing awareness that improved gunfire controls would drive battleship engagements out to long ranges, where smaller guns would only serve to defend against torpedo and air attack. Thus, armor intended to counter those guns would be, at best, a waste of valuable weight. The basic concept of the Nevadas' armor system was ultimately adopted by all naval powers. The ships marked the end (in the USN) of the midships turret, which had traditionally proven to be problematic because of the necessity of having the midships magazine surrounded by extremely hot boilers and pressurized steam lines. Instead, Turrets I and IV had an additional weapon added, becoming triples instead of doubles and allowing the same amount of firepower with one fewer turret."
  • The Post Jutland hull design: "Tennessee and her sister ship California were the first American battleships built to a "post-Jutland" hull design. As a result of extensive experimentation and testing, her underwater hull protection was much greater than that of previous battleships; and both her main and secondary batteries had fire-control systems."
  • The "Fast Battleship" Concept: "Before this class, the United States Navy favored staying power and fire power over speed. The North Carolina class had a speed of 27 knots versus the 21 knots of the pre-treaty Colorado Class. The class was completely different from all previous US battleships, and set the pattern for all subsequent vessels (as well as the reconstructions of vessels wrecked at Pearl Harbor), with a massive columnar mast replacing the familiar "cage" mast, main armament in two triple turrets forward, one aft, and dual-purpose secondaries along the sides of the superstructure. The most important advance of the class was one that could not be seen from outside: The integration of the first computer at sea, the Mark I fire control computer. The analog fire control system allowed the ship to maintain a constant fire control solution even when steaming at full speed and performing drastic evasive turns."
  • The Japanese Super Dreadnought Yamato: "Yamato, named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province, was a battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and was the lead ship of her class. She and her sister ship Musashi were the largest, heaviest battleships ever constructed, weighing 65,027 tons and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns. The class was designed to be superior to any ship that the United States was likely to produce. The 46 cm (18.2 inch) main guns were selected over 40.6cm (16 inch) because the width of the Panama Canal would make it impracticable for the U.S. Navy to construct a battleship with the same caliber guns without severe design restrictions or an inadequate defensive arrangement."
  • The American Montana class battleships: "With an intended standard displacement of 60,500 tons, the proposed Montana class ships were nearly a third larger than the preceding Iowa class. The Montanas were intended to carry twelve 16-inch (406 mm) guns of 50 calibers in length, three more guns than the earlier class. Protection against underwater weapons and shellfire was also greatly enhanced; they would have been the only new World War II-era U.S. battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own. To achieve these advances, the Montana class was designed for a slower maximum speed than the very fast Iowas. The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling Japan's massive Yamato."
  • The British HMS Vanguard: "...the Admiralty decided to build a new battleship that would use four spare twin 15-inch mountings... A design for a 40,000-ton battleship was produced, intended to be the core of a Far East Fleet, where her high speed and armament would be a match for Japanese warships. Vanguard was unique among British battleships in having remote control for both main and secondary guns."
  • Now Consider the following: Built with cost as no object, the Iowas have enough armor to protect them from 16-in shells and nine of their own 16-in guns to bring against other battleships. There fore does it not stand to reason that, in the absence of the never completed American Montana class battleships and on the basis of armor, guns, and speed, the only serious competition the Iowa-class would have had were the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the Japanese Yamato class, and the US Montana class. TomStar81 08:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, you don't have to convince me. I believe you. That doesn't stop it from being POV. You just made your own argument there. You can't do your first-hand research on wikipedia. Wikipedia is about information, not about making arguments. If you can find a battleship expert and then quote or cite them, it stops being POV. You can't just make judgment calls on what are the "best" of something, that's completely subjective, unless you are an expert at the field. In that case, quote yourself. --MateoP 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But why that is not an NPOV? That sentence you have removed do not state that Yamato or Vanguard any better or any worth than Iowa. It just pointing out the fact that Yamato and Vanguard was a serious competitors to Iowa. And reader of Iowa article could research topic further by reading Yamato and Vanguard articles, so did I. I believe a lot of ppl who read that sentence, did the same. Sure, the sentence state that those was “the only” competitors. You know another battleship that also was serious competitor to Iowa? No problem. It could be added to the list. But I’m not aware of any. So I see no point of removing that. TestPilot 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a neutral point of view. It's saying that all battleships that aren't either the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are not "serious competitors" for being the best battleship.
It doesn't get any more point of view than that. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. It doesn't matter if people can add their own point of views to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of points of view. It's Wikipedia:NPOV period. Stop vandalizing. Either find a quote from a battleship expert or let it go. It's one, clearly POV, segment of a sentence. --MateoP 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight then: TestPilot and I believe that Yamato-class battleships, Iowa-class battleships, and the battleships HMS Vanguard would be able to compete on a relativly fair field and thus should be mentioned on Iowa-class page, while MateoP maintains that any nation who operated battleships comaparble in any way to the Iowa-class should not be mentioned or credited on the page Iowa-class battleship due to a percieved point of view conflict, unless such a view can be substatiated by a "battleship expert". Is this correct? TomStar81 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Mateo, I think that you are misunderstanding NPOV. NPOV requires that we not take sides in a dispute. I see no evidence here that there is a dispute about the correctness of this statement. If everyone agrees that the Yamato, Iowa and Vanguard were in a class of their own, then there's nothing wrong with us saying so. (For more on this, see Wikipedia:NPOV#How_can_I_tell_if_my_article_has_a_POV.3F). Mark1 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Mateo, your opinion is completely irrelevant. The article is not here to describe the views of Wikipedia contributors, it's here to describe the views of people who know about the Iowa class battleship. You haven't produced any evidence that the statement is contested among such people. Mark1 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


That was might point, it's POV. The burden of proof is on the people who want to include the POV statement. You must cite sources. Show proof that battleship experts believe that statement is correct.--MateoP 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Then your complaint isn't an NPOV problem at all- it's a complaint about the sourcing of the statement. For that you should ask politely on the talk page for a source, and give the writers a reasonable time to respond. Since there's no NPOV dispute, I'm removing the tag. Mark1 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a NPOV dispute. It is not a NPOV for a non-expert to make unsourced assertions. By removing the tags you are giving the impression that the article is not under NPOV dispute, it is.
Do not decide for other users if they believe there is a NPOV dispute. I clearly stated time and time that if that segment of that sentence is not POV, nothing is. --MateoP 22:30, 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)

Yes, that's a good quote. Remove the disputed sentence and replace with that quote (in quotes, attributing the author). If fixed, the dispute is dropped. --MateoP 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Its fixed. TomStar81 22:44, 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)

Section break:My take on this

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:

  1. Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built (their only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class), but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.
  2. Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built, but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.

I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. --Deathphoenix 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)

Saying that they are the "only serious competitors" is a POV. I agree though, and think the option of removing the entire sentence and replacing it with the quote proposed by a user above would fix the problem. --MateoP 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you word it then? TomStar81 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I lost my place on the article. Sorry, this remark was uncalled for. TomStar81 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been playing around the text of that line since it became a controversial issue; for what its worth (and its probably not worth much) my best draft version of the sentence was as followed: At the time the Iowa-class battleships were commissioned into the United States Navy 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 at the time had been authorized but not laid down.
  • MateoP, lets take a look at your example with HMS Victory, 18 century battleship. It is obvious that any 20 century one would defeat it in battle. But what you are trying to say is like "find me a quote of an expert that state, that 18 century battleship would be definitely defeated in battle by 20 century one, otherwise it just your point of view". Logically, it makes some sense. But in reality there no need to refer NPOV in both cases. You just don't want to understand that.TestPilot 22:55, 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)

after thinking it through I decided not to borrow trouble. TomStar81 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Calling Iowa "among the finest class ever" isn't POV, but comparing her to her likely opponents (or her peers) is? I don't need to be a "battleship expert" to know any BB is measured by her ability to throw fire & withstand punishment; weight of broadside, maximum range, & thickness of belt & turret armor are the metrics, & have been for over a century. On that basis, Vanguard would have trouble against Iowa, because she'd come under fire beyond her ability to reply; Iowa could engage Yamato but probably not defeat her, because her broadside was insufficent to penetrate Yamato armor. Comparing them isn't POV. It's a reasoned assessment, which ought to be included. Or do you suggest comparing Bismarck & Hood (or PoW) is POV? Why Bismarck sank Hood is a function of that comparo, & omitting it is omitting important facts. So is omitting the main competition to Iowa. It's a bit like saying Dreadnought had five turrets & South Carolina 4, but neglecting to say South Carolina could actually deliver the same broadside, because Dreadnought's wing turrets were masked. (If the Dreadnought page doesn't say something like it, it damn well should!) So? POV or N? Trekphiler 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Panama Canal Design

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)

Arguably factoids

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)

It's hard to believe that any navy would rate a 58,000 ton warship as a "large cruiser." If the Iowa-class are CBs then what would be a BB? There are few surface combat vessels that are larger or more capable than the Iowas -- and note I'm excluding aircraft carriers there. Note that the Alaska-class CB had roughly half the displacement and a smaller main battery.
The U.S. Navy is one of the few military organizations, even within the U.S. Military, that operates in yards rather than meters. A&B are British turret designations in the U.S. Navy the forward turrets are "1" & "2". The forward turrets rotate thru about 300 degrees range of motion so they're always rotated off to one side or the other. They're not fired forward for a couple of reasons:
1. Post-modernization particularly there is a tactical antenna array which we call "The Christmas Tree" located way up on the bow and a directly forward shot wouldn't be very good for that apparatus. Not to mention the possible adverse effects on the forward deck when the shock-blast and accompanying 35-foot fireball comes out of the muzzle.
2. The effect of turret 2, firing over the top of turret 1, is not a good experience for the men inside turret 1.
You don't really have to fire them directly forward, it is not only easy, but desirable, to change the ship's relative bearing to target away from zero degrees before firing.
Finally, regarding the effectiveness of the 20mm guns, while determination may have been a factor I don't see how that really changes whether or not the guns can stop the incoming aircraft. I've never known a pilot who got shot down due to lack of determination; usually it was due to mechanical failure in the aircraft caused by penetrating projectiles. I suppose it could be argued that the 20mm weapons didn't shoot many aircraft down anyhow but that it didn't matter as much when the aircraft weren't attempting to crash into the ship. Still, stopping power has two basic components and one of those components is the mass of what you're trying to stop. A 45mm pistol may stop an oncoming man but not suffice to stop an onrushing elephant, for example. ---B- 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a range note- nautical miles tradtionally were 6000 ft so to be easily divided into yards, and gunnery ranges were recently (10 years ago) still commonly found as yards in the USN.--Mtnerd 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're History

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)

Opening paragraph issue not resolved

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)

I think TomStar had it right. I don't think it's really necessary to add in the references to Yamato or Vanguard. ---B- 06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that unless they face each other in battle it's always going to be opinion as to which ship would win the fight. I happen to think the Iowa class would have the advantage against any battleship ever surged, but I may be a little biased. <grin> ---B- 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that perhaps You and Testpilot and I ought to work on the paragraph here before we reinsert it out in the text. When removed it read as followed:

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).

How therefore should we reword it? TomStar81 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well there are actually 2 problems. 1) it makes it appear that the designers of this ship had the competition of the HMS Vanguard and Yamato in mind at the time. It makes that statement of fact. Do we know that they had these in mind? also 2) It should be weakened to acknowledge that these were 2 noteworthy competition but saying that they were the only serious competition is POV. So saying something like "it was believed that the HMS Vanguard and Yamato would be major competitors" works better, i think. --MateoP 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. suspected the Japanese were building a new, larger, battleship when they ordered the Iowas but they didn't know the details and I'm pretty sure they didn't know the Japanese were planning 18" guns. ---B- 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
On note 1) There is no way that the U.S. could have had either of the Yamato-class battleships in mind when they authorized the Iowa-class; Japan had gone to extreme lengths to prevent the world from seeing its massive battleships. As for Vanguard, there is a possibilty that the US had the ship in mind when designing the Iowa’s, Great Britian and the US were allies after all; however, do not think that was the case. On note 2) I agree with you completly. Yamato would have been the biggest competitor, but not the only one; Japan did have other battleships. It stands to reason that the Vanguard and the Yamato’s would pose the largest threat, but they were by no means the only threat. TomStar81 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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 am cool with it. TomStar81 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rifling the barrels

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)

Original research tag.

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

  • An anon recently placed a tag leading to a website comparing the Iowa class with the Yamto class and five other WWII-active battleship classes, and based on his research assessed the Iowa’s to be on par with the Yamato’s. The Montana’s would have outclassed the Iowa’s, so it stands to reason they would be able to compete evenly with each other. HMS Vangaurd is the only ship I can not find statics for, and even under those circumstances the statement would only need to be ammended to remove Vangaurd. In my opinion this tag is POV, pure and simple. TomStar81 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • He also failed to give a reason as to why he tagged the page with the original research templete. I will wait 24 hours, and if a VALID reason is not given then I’m removing the tag.
Hmm. I read that comparaison quite some time ago. Too bad it do not include Vanguard. But. Could we use it as a reference? Yamato and Richelieu got top rating after Iowa. So lets replace Vangaurd with Richelieu, also a nice battleship. And sine Mateo trying to attack phrase based on builders believes, I will remove reference to that. I will do neceseraly edits shortly and we see what happens. But, my opinion, he just trolling. Article was modified one time to please him, but that did not take any affect. So, this most likely pointless. TestPilot 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It is original research, and trying to poison the well and discredit me pretty much shows that you're not interested in resolving this. I put the tag of "original research" because it seems to be the best one that applies. It is your point of view that the HMS Vanguard, Yamato, etc are the "only serious competition", yet you attribute this belief to the ship builders of the time. Can you prove WITH VERIFIABLE SOURCES that the shipbuilders specifically had these ships in mind? Remember, you can't make an argument as to why the might have had these ships in mind, that would constitute original research. You have to find sources. The best thing would be just to leave this part out, as it's unnecessary anyways. User TomStar81 already resolved this dispute by finding a verified source which said that "The Iowa class fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." You have only contributed with opinions, and seem to have no problem pushing them into the article. --MateoP 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • And sorry, you don't own this article or wikipedia, you don't get to decide what a "valid" reason is for tagging the article. --MateoP 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am saying that more for your protection. If an administrator or someone of that caliber were to come along and not see a reason for the tag they would remove it. I am asking that you provide a valid reason to keep that from happening. TomStar81 05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to resolve. There is no consensus here as to delete that phrase (so it should be kept), here is no consensus that see phrase as POV. In fact most ppl do not believe that phrase POV, and think that it belong to an article. The one and only problem is one person, that trying to enforce edit war for unclear reasons. TestPilot 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't need consensus to remove POV phrasing. The fact that you said "only serious competition IS A POINT OF VIEW. Anyways, I changed it to "some of their competition would be..." because that is not a point of view, it's a statement of fact. Saying that these are the ONLY competition is a point of view, and wikipedians are not allowed to do original research. You can add "only series competition" if you get a verifiable source that says this. --MateoP 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Is last edition fine with you? It do not contain "the only serious competition". 24.42.80.51 04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the one that made that addition. It seemed like a reasonable compromise. It is TestPilot who reinserted the POV phrasing of "the only serious competition". Notice that this has happened with him now twice. The first time TomStar81 found a quote which showed the ship's excellence and I was satisfied, but TestPilot insists on adding his POV to an encyclopedic article. --MateoP 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I may fiddle with that wording some, it seems... ackwardly phrased. If I find a better way to state that information then I will present any modified version I come up with here before placing it in the article. TomStar81 05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning at this juncture that Vanguard was a one off using what was available instead of the 4 Lion class battleships. Both her design and the Lions were contemperaneous with the Iowas. GraemeLeggett 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"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)

I added "Some of their" to make statment even less controversial. It was fine without that modification - but anyway. TestPilot 04:35, 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)

It's absolutely a POV. You are excluding all other battleships except those listed as being "serious competition". Why not just say "some of their competition"? That's a good compromise. Using my example, you are saying that the Argentine battlship is not serious competition. that's fine to have that opinion, but this is not a blog. This is not for opinions. If you managed to find expert testimony from people published in scholarly journals then we could possibly upgrade the statement to "some experts think" but we can never add an opinion statement without qualifying whose opinion it is. This one is your own. --MateoP 20:03, 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)

If that's the case then there must be some reason for adding ONLY these ships as "serious competition". By excluding other ships, you are presenting a POV that these ships are special enough to warrant mentioning. However in a NPOV article, you can not state opinions. Get a blog. --MateoP 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
MateoP - I can see no justification for tagging the article as original research or POV as it stands - it currently says:
Amongst the competitors of the Iowa class in the WWII era were the Japanese Yamato-class, the single late war British battleship HMS Vanguard, and the French Richelieu-class, which were all more or less comparable in terms of armament, fire control, armour, and range. Their true rival, however, was the aircraft carrier, which proved its title as the most important naval vessel during World War II naval battles in the Pacific.
What is original research or POV about that? Are you seriously suggesting that a WWI-era Chilean battleship is comparable to the Yamato or Musashi, Iowas, or Vanguard? Or are you just making a WP:POINT? Is there anyone else that agrees with MateoP? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I have no problem with that draft of the article. However user TestPilot continues to edit it to make sure that all other battleships are excluded as competition. He did so just now and said "Some of their most serious competition". This is a POV, of course. This is now the 2nd compromised draft, the previous being a simple "some of their competition", but TestPilot requires that other battleships except the ones HE agrees with be excluded. He is attempting to make sure his POV is the one that is in the article. However I will edit this article for the rest of my life if that is what requires it, as he is unwilling to compromise on the issue. --MateoP 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Project Rewrite

  • Gentlemen please, It does us no good to fight amongst ourselves. Lets start with something really simple: what ships do we all think would qualify as potential competition for the Iowas? I think we could all agree on Yamato and her sister, owing to the fact that Yamato was the worlds biggest battleship. Are there any others? TomStar81 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I will never concede that we can make a list. Doing so is inserted our own opinions into the equation. This isn't a blog. Simply eliminate the "serious competition" portion and i am fine with the statement. --MateoP 20:03, 15 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)

Guns

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)

However its not so clear that it is larger calibre length and not calibre diameter. The important point is that the guns fired further GraemeLeggett 09:38, 15 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.

Unique qualities

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:

  • These ships were designed as "fast" battleships, able to rely on an even mix of speed and firepower and capable of sailing at the same speed as the carrier force.
Both: The Iowa class battleships were four of only ten battleships designed with speed and firepower in mind. In America, the South Dakota and North Carolina classes had also been designed with speed in mind, and could also keep up with the aircraft carriers.
No, the SoDak's could only make about 23 knots and Showboat (North Carolina) only made about 27 knots. WWII aircraft carriers would typically make 31+ knots. Only the Iowa-class could run with the carriers at flank speed. ---B- 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that USS South Dakota (BB-57) and her sisters are rated for 26-27 kts whereas the earlier South Dakota class (BB-49 through 54) were designed for 23 kts (but were of course cancelled for treaty compliance). Also, 'fast' is a relative term, and at various times it meant different things. In 1906 'fast' meant 21 kts, during WWI, it meant anything faster than 21 kts, typically 23-25 kts (The Queen Elizabeths were considered fast). By WWII, if it could keep up with carriers or nearly so, it was 'fast', generally meaning at least 27 kts or so. While 27 kts did not really match the flank speed of the fast carriers, that would not be a typical formation speed for them, and even if practical to cruise at 30+ kts, they would want the BBs to hang around, and would surely slow to accomodate them. To the best of my knowledge, the Iowas were the only BB's built as such (ie not converted from battle cruisers) that could make over 30 kts (though maybe Vanguard too?) and as late as the 80's all 4 Iowas could still make over 33 kts (35-36 reported) --ThirtyOneKnots 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Although they had to be designed to fit through the Panama Canal, they took that to the limit with less than a foot (30 cm) to spare on either side.
Both. The Iowa class were not unique in fitting tightly through the canal, but they would have been among the largest warships ever built to do so.
  • All four of the Iowa class battleships were recommissioned and refitted under the Reagan Administration as part of Navy Secretary John F. Lehman's "600-ship Navy" plan, particularly in response to the Soviet Navy commissioning the Kirov class.
Unique. At this point in world history the Iowa class were the only remaining battleships still considered to be in good enough shape to be reactivated. These four ships were the only battleships recommissioned anywhere in the world after 1960.
  • The concept of the "600-ship Navy" was introduced by Defense Secretary Harold Brown during President James Earl Carter's term of office. Planning was begun under Brown and actively pursued by Lehman during the Reagan administration. The goal of six hundred ships was never actually reached.
- Penguini, 20:52, 08 Jun 2006.
  • These ships were active, if intermittently, throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
Unique. The Iowa class ships were active in the Korean War (1950-1954), the Vietnam War (1968), the Cold War (1986-1991) and the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991).
Some of them were, yes. ---B- 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • All four of the ships still exist, which is unusual because the US Navy typically scraps older, decommissioned ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests.
Unique: To my knowlage, any entire class of ships have never been completely spared, yet the Iowas look to achieve that goal. TomStar81 10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Schematic Diagram

Breakdown of the weapons systems installed on the Iowa class battleships during their 1980s modernization
Breakdown of the weapons systems installed on the Iowa class battleships during their 1980s modernization

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)

Here is a 1980 modernization look. I color-coded the weapon systems so people would have an easier time IDing them. Does this work? TomStar81 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Given the copyright, can that be used in the article. I'd also color code the key. Actually to help out colorblind readers, a small number in the corner of the boxes and in the key would be better. And lastly, I'd add a more "common" name in each key (e.g. turrets, turrets, tomahawk, harpoon). Other than that it's excellent. ;-)--J Clear 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Given the rest of the page (english cutaway diagrams on otherwize CZ site) you grabbed the image from, I doubt it's original to that site. Seems a little too nice to be a US Navy PD doc though. Should be a Navy line drawing somewhere though.--J Clear 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Item 1: Yes, we can use this in an artilce. Fair use provides for a limited number of web resolution images, of which this is one, for "identification and critical commentary" on or about specific things. In this case, our ID and critical commentary is on the weapons systems the battleship(s) use, so this fits the parameters. Item 2: I will see about revising the image per your suggestions. TomStar81 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS OF WORLD WAR II

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)

Link Farm

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)

There has been some talk of creating an article entitled "Naval Gunfore Support debate (1992-present)" to touch on the retirement of the Iowas and the concern that the Zummwalt class destroyers wont adequately meet the offshore fire requirements. If such an article were created I would suggest moving the associated material there. TomStar81 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Turrets

A 16" Gun turret
A 16" Gun turret

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.

According to this picture we have the turret is considered to be the whole shell holding, powder handeling kit, which would mean that the it is accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck. TomStar81 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we always consider the turret to extend all the way down into the magazines. That's four decks for turrets 1 & 3, 5 decks for turret 2. ---B- 07:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a citation for the "turrets aren't attached to the ship and will fall out if the she capsizes" fact? I've heard it said before, and don't doubt it, but it would be nice to have a credible reference. --J Clear 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to look. It's been empiracally demonstrated, though not with an Iowa. If you see the documentary on the Bismarck you'll note that the wreck on the bottom is minus its turrets - they having fallen out on the way down when the ship tumbled.---B- 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/o/w/Talk%7EIowa_class_battleship_Archive_1_0daf.html"