From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I went through and started throwing some {{fact|date=March 2007}} tags on unattributed claims, but began to realize that you were just omitting all references until the end of the paragraph. Since it's all coming from the same source, it seems silly to cite everything, but per WP:CITE I think you should go through a throw cites on them anyway since you did a good job with the ref-links. (I think it looks stupid too) However, there were some claims made later regarding effectiveness and strategy rather than just technical specifications that may or may not be in the cited source that you should check as well. I also caught a good number of mis-spelled words. And if you're going to talk about an American battleship, you better use American spelling (armor!). Madcoverboy 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- My spelling sucks; of that, i make no secret :) Your fact tags have been removed as I have come across them, most had their source at the paragraph's end, as you statd. A few need still need to be checked, that should be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible modifications and support
I am an old retired Fire Control Technician (Gun) new to WikipediA. You folks have done a great job on this article, but I would like to humbly offer some suggestions to the Fire Control Section. Each gun battery had its own set of Fire Control Systems. The 16in/50Cal Main battery had two Mk 34 GFCS's and they each used a Mk 4 Rangekeeper electromechanical computer (I'm pretty sure about this, but it has been 25 years). The 5in/38Cal Secondary Battery had four Mk37 GFCS's and each used a MK IA electromechanical computer. The 40mm AA Battery probably used a Mk51 Director with a Mk14 (40mm) gun sight near each mount. The 20mm AA Battery used a Mk14 (20mm) Gun Sight mounted over the barrel/barrels on each mount. This is because these were all electromechanical analog computing devices. They calculated by spring tension, Gyro precession, position of a small rod on a three dimensional cam buried deep in the workings of the device. Each computer was designed and hand made for each gun ballistic in the factory, and could not be changed to another gun ballistic at sea. If you all think I could help your great work, I would be glad. FTC Gerry 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You must be the answer to prayers, I have been trying very hard to find information on the computers used by the Iowa class for fire controll. It seems that no matter how hard I try to find that information it remains elusive. If you caould at that material to the article I (and others I am sure) would be very grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1980's Modernization and Missiles
Note former Firecontrolman comments on computers. Analog. Some people described those as a lot of knobs, dials, and preciesly tuned gearing (maybe some made by Singer Sewing Machines). What follows is at the rumors level; in the 1980s amoung the US Navy. [IE I canot produce any collaborating evidence] Reseach was done into replacing the fire control computer with a strictly digital computer. Was not worth the cost for the improvement, and would likely have required some maintenance if not rebooted from the shock of the firings. -Still at rumor level There was also desires to add some newer additional anit-aircraft defense weapons, but again the shock issue could not be overcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfoj2 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, your right about the shock issue becuase the planned installation of the NATO sea sparrow missile was scrubbed for the exact reason -- the system couldn;t withstand the over pressure effects. I wouldn;t be to suprise to learn that other updates enountered similar fates for similar reasons. I will keep an eye out for any information to that effect. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
FA
.jpg/37px-Napoleon(1850).jpg){kind=small}
