Talk:Iowa class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iowa class battleship article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Iowa class battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 31, 2005.
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A: In all probability what you added was unsourced information; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Featured Articles on Wikipedia require sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to a Featured Article without a source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

Q: The entire article makes reference to the ships as "she", shouldn't the battleships be referenced as "it"?

A: This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and the consensus of the editors for the Military history WikiProject and its contributors is that ship articles on Wikipedia may use an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format, but the article may not alternate between the two forms of reference. The primary source of U.S. ship articles is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which refers to all ships as "she" or "her", and as a result is it easier for some members to simply carry that format through the rest of the article.

Q: Why doesn't this article compare the Iowa-class battleships to other battleship classes like the Yamato’s?

A: When originally featured back in 2005 the article did have a comparison section, however the presence of a comparison section resulted in a two month edit war over which nation's battleships deserved to be compared on the class page. Ultimately, a compromise was struck and the section left in until the March 2007 rewrite, at which time the comparison section was removed in accordance with What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia's policy against Original Research. A discussion held in late 2007 reaffirmed the decision to omit any type of comparison of battleship classes in this article, thus any comparison information for the classes should not be discussed on this page.

Q: If reliable sources were located could a comparison section be added?

A: Again, the answer is no. Since no Iowa-class battleship ever fought against an enemy battleship the best sources, even authoritative ones, would be speculative in nature. References that are speculative in nature are not reliable, and because Iowa-class battleship is currently a Featured Article the inclusion of such material would fatally compromise the article quality, which in the long run could result in a downgrading of the article. Worse, any openly visible comparison section in the article would invite another edit war to take place over the issue of whose battleships get a mention here. Edit wars are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and the presence of warring editors here may adversely effect the ability of contributors to edit the article as they please because articles involved in edit wars are almost always protected.

Q: If the community does not approve of comparisons then why do you mention the Yamato-class in the notes section, and why is there a comparison site in the external links section?

A: The inline citation you are referring to was added solely to point out that other battleship individually had certain characteristics that exceeded the Iowa-class. A single reference to Yamato is made because Yamato holds the world record for largest naval guns ever put to sea. As for the external link, the website is in fact a comparison site for seven different battleship classes; however, the link is to a website maintained off Wikipedia. It was included here in part to dissuade critics who felt that some level of comparison was needed in the article. The link has survived the 2007 discussion regarding comparisons of class in Wikipedia articles, and as such is considered an acceptable substitute for a comparison section here on Wikipedia.

Q: This article is long!

A: Yes it is. In part due to its length general and specific characteristics have been split, general information on the class history can be found on this article, info on the weapons used by the battleship can be found at armament of the Iowa class battleship, and the history of each ship can be found on that ship's individual page.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
TomStar81 (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (August 2004-October 2006) Archive 2 (November 2006-April 2007)

Contents

[edit] Tomahawk Specs

The Tomahawk range is dramatically understated at 675nm. In fact we were carrying Block II BGM-109s which had about twice that range. ---B- 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of BGM-109B TASM? The Iowas did carry them for a time along with TLAMs. --Dukefan73 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Check the page Armament of the Iowa class battleship, the TASM should be moentioned there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions - Welding, RADAR

The Illinois and Kentucky sections both repeat the sentences on welding and Montana changes verbatim. It seems to me this would be better placed in a section lower down on construction techniques or similar. Of course a few details on the construction of the first 4 to counter balance are needed. Something about construction techniques maturing during the war, possibly.

Also the 1980 radars are described, but not a word on their WWII radars. Even if they somehow didn't get WWII radar it would be notable enough to say so.--J Clear 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into getting WWII radar specs after finals week, and will also check to see if they had any electronic countermeasures installed in WWII for protection against missiles (though I don't expect to find that they did). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carrier conversion

In the 80s, it was initially planned for a "Phase II" of the reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships, which would have involved converting them into battleship/aircraft carrier hybrids.[1] While ultimately nothing came of this plan, it's just as deserving of mention in the article as things like the rejected proposals to complete the USS Kentucky as a missile battleship. For that matter, the WWII proposal to convert them into aircraft carriers (which Admiral King rejected), also mentioned in that same link, could presumably also be put somewhere in this article. Redxiv 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the plan(s) to remove the #3 turrets and replace them with aircraft facilities (that information having come up during my New Jersey research), but I was unaware of any plans for the construction of these BB's to be switch to CV's. This info will make its way into the article forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Tom it would be nice to find the original references for these conversions. The FAS (globalsecurity) article is so poorly edited that using it as a citation bothers me.--J Clear 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ther's a GOA report detailing plans to remove the #3 turret on USS New Jersey and replace it with either aircraft facilities of a missile magazine sitting in my sandbox at the moment; I could add that to this article to back up the global security sie currently mentioned if it would make you feel better. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i have a pic of a model iowa with the V flight decks that could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The debate on armor protection

I'd like to clear up the debate over the Iowa's armor scheme, what calibre gun they were designed to withstand, immune zones, etc. Norman Friedman, one of the most recognized authorities on the subject, makes the following qoute in his work, U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History:

"Protection against shellfire duplicated that of the South Dakota, with an immune zone of 18,000 to 30,000 yards against the 16in/45 gun firing a 2,240 pound shell. It corresponded to 21,700 to 32,100 yards against the higher velocity and hence flatter-trajectory 16in/50 firing the same shell. However, the armored box of the new ships was 464-feet long, compared with the 360-feet for the South Dakotas, with a proportionate increase in weight. Just as the Iowas were being designed, BuOrd adopted the new 2,700 pound, 16-inch shell, a magnificently destructive projectile, which shrank the immune zone (against the 16in/45) to only 5,300 yards (20,200 to 25,500 yards)."

Some of the confusion over this seems to stem from the fact that people forget that the first class of US "fast battleships", the North Carolinas, were designed to protect against 14" shells, as the USN demanded greater endurance from their ships, and were willing in that case to trade some protection for it.

Another point when discussing armor. There were great variations in armor quality and layout when comparing contemporary German, Italian, French, Japanese, and American ships. The quality and layout went a long ways in determing how effective the armor was. Here's a qoute from Nathan Okun (I'll provide a multitude of links to his work at the end) when comparing the belt armor of Bismark, KGV, Vittori Veneto, Yamato, South Dakota, and Richelieu:

"The use of a spaced decapping plate and a large outboard inclination made the U.S. design, which had the thinnest belt armor, more effective than the heaviest 'naked' armor, regardless of the poor scaling effects of the U.S. WWII Class 'A' armor!"

Remember, this is essentially the same armor and layout as used for the Iowas. The "spaced decapping plate" mentioned is something most people don't know about or forget about. Iowa had a 1.5" STS plate outboard of the main belt. It was designed to "decap" incoming AP projectiles at most angles of obliquity. The Iowas decapping plate was capable of decapping the AP rounds fired from the 18.1" guns of the Yamatos, depending on the engagement parameters. Getztashida makes the assertion in his argument that the Iowas had the same armor protection as the North Carolinas, which unfortunately is false. He may be confusing the North Carolinas with the South Dakotas, upon which the Iowas scheme was based. The North Carolinas had a much smaller immune zone against the 16/45 2,240 pound shell than did the South Dakotas or the Iowas. Getztashida's claim that "the Iowas did not carry sufficient protection against 16" guns - neither the 50 cal nor the 45 cal version" is patently false. If I haven't proved it with the information I've provided here, then I don't know what kind of proof is needed.

Anynobody then states an unusual viewpoint:

"Getztashida I totally agree with you that the North Carolina class ships should accurately be called battlecruisers, after all their armor was only able to offer protection against the 14" guns they were designed with. I'm also open to discussing calling the Iowa class battlecruisers since they were designed with the 16"/45 caliber guns and armor, but ended up with a battery 16"/50 guns with armor protection for 16"/45."

First off, there's no argument to be made for the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, nor the Iowas as regards to them being "battlecruisers". They were nothing of the sort in either design nor role. Let me clear up another misperception that Anynobody and Getztashida seem to have; the North Carolinas DID have a substantial immunity zone (21,300 yards to 32,000 yards) against the 16/45 gun and 2240 pound shell.

Now, if you want to speak of inadequacies in the protection of the Iowas (and the other USN "fast battleships"), now we're talking about underwater protection. Their underwater protection was adequate at best, certainly inadequate against the IJN Long Lance torpedo (then again, did any ship of any navy have adequate protection against the Long Lance?). Fortunately for the USN only North Carolina was torpedoed during the war, and although she was able to sustain 18 knots afterwards, No. 1 turret was essentially out of action and the main search radar was disabled due to shock. Although the protection system had come close to failure in a crucial area (abeam the magazines), BuShips felt that the system had performed as designed. Take it with a grain of salt I suppose.

--Dukefan73 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   I wanted to add something regarding the deck armour of the Iowa's.

The article states it to be 190mm. I recently read and article by Nathan Okun regarding the armour protection of the various battleships, including the South Dakota class. He mentioned that there was a main armour deck roughly 150 mm think and a weather deck about 37.5mm thick. Now in other articles like regarding the Tirpitz only the main armour deck is mentioned while the weather deck thickness is not. I there fore propose a standard value be taken for all battleships either the total deck or the main armour deck to allow for fair comparison as this would appear to show the Iowa's deck protection to be stronger than it is relative to other battleships. Also mulitiple decks seperated are weaked than a single thick deck and therefore the 150mm + 37.5mm would not give 190mm protection but somewhat less protection (i dont know the exact formula but could dig it up in a few days to give an approximate value). I will also retrace the excellent artile by Nathan Okun and post a link here. I also propose a number of other additions such as mentioning the inclined angle(19o) of the armour belt which would increase the effective protection which i calculated(strictly ameture cal) to be around 14.2". My main source is the article by Nathan Okun can i site the article as a reference? srry for the rather long post Merry Christmas everyone.

--Vamsae (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This debate seems very theoretical. It presumes a duel between battleships that scarely occured anytime in the last 100 years. The battleships that have been sunk in that time weren't sunk by the shells of enemy battleships - they've were sunk by torpedoes and bombs, so this talk of relative ranges and broadside weights is comparable to fantasy baseball. It's a fun debate, but I don't see how it furthers the encyclopedia. Unless this thread is focused on improving the article I suggest we find another forum for it. The articles on Wikipedia should be based solely on the summaries of reliable sources, not on our conjectures and surmises. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reactivation Potential

I really don't like the inclusion of the Gorshkov qoute. It would lead one to think that the Iowas are some sort of unsinkable super-ships. I'm willing to bet anything that Gorshkov was blowing hot air when he said what he did; Soviet Naval Aviation would have had less problem taking out an Iowa than Third Fleet and Fifth Fleet had taking out Musashi and Yamato in WWII. My humble opinion, but that quote is *constantly* overblown regarding this subject. --Dukefan73 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


I think it should remain in. This is because they Soviets had a different naval structure to the US and vaulued different ideas in their ideal fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Actually, I'm a bit dumbfounded here, as you are the one that has repeatedly stated that you don't like the article because it makes the same claims that Gorshkov does in his quote. In other words, you're contradicting yourself quite a bit here. What was different about Soviet naval structure or values that had any bearing, either way, on the Gorshkov quote? I'd like to here your reasoning on this one. Thanks. --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critism

From reading this article it seems that Iowa class is some kind of supership, above criticism. I hope someone edits it soon to show faults in the class, such as the armour protection, similary to how its done in other pages on battleship classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:86.140.35.108 (talk • contribs)

There should be some information about the inadequate armour protection for the Iowas in the armour section. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Genesis Evangelion

Can't speak for Neon Genesis as I never saw an episode, but the picture presented here supposedly of the Illinois and Kentucky ... maybe it's the angle we're looking at, but their bows look more like the blunt noses of the North Carolina class battleships. Iowas are much longer and sleeker. Nolefan32 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a very brief shot of some kind of Command and Control system where the ships were labeled thusly. Actually Evangelion used a lot of "inspired by-" style military equipment, like a hypothetical Yak-38 derivative, etc.
Funny thing, even really sleek ships like the Scharnhorsts look chubby when viewed from low and in front. That being said, there's actually no canonical information that Illinois and Kentucky really were Iowas in the NGE canon, so I don't know.
Anyway enough expounding on the subject, I would actually support removing the information except that there's a pretty picture too.
Eleland 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This image names both battleships as Illinois and Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And that image reflects proper Iowa-class outlines for them both. However, this image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/NGE_Iowas.png) - the one on the Iowa-class page - is a straight on shot, and from this angle, those aren't Iowa-class bullnoses we're looking at. Might just be bad animation, but those are too rounded; they're definitely more North Carolina-like. Nolefan32 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats actually no the only thing thats wrong with the ships, both are missing the bow mounted satellite uplink antenna that should have been added in the 1980s. I would chalk it up to bad animation myself, it would be hard to miss the christmas tree antennas since that was a mainstay feature of the modernized Iowas. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPQ-9

SPQ-9, the bubble / radome 2/3 of the way up the mast below the AN/SLQ-32 and above the CIWS and GFCS radar.
SPQ-9, the bubble / radome 2/3 of the way up the mast below the AN/SLQ-32 and above the CIWS and GFCS radar.

I made a stub on AN/SPQ-9 and I noticed some of the Iowa class images of the late 1980s show it and some do not. I'm also not sure which units had the SPQ-9, but it looks like Wisconsin and Missouri both had it during the Gulf War. As for the rest of the radar section, no offense, but the AN/SPS-49 section seems a bit overkill. In the grand scheme of things, the battleship is not an air defense unit, rather a major anti-surface / strike platform, thus the 49 shouldn't be explained in this level of detail in the class article. The only combat use I can see for the the 49 is if the Iowa's had capabilities for combat air controllers that would be direct A/C to ground targets and locate the A/C via the 49. Otherwise, the battleships would be screened by some AAW unit, a AN/SPY-1 or AN/SPS-48 SM-2 missile carrying cruiser at least in the 80s period anyway. What is important in this article, at least I would think, would be radars intended to track surface targets to engage with the shipboard artillery. Radars like the gun fire control radars and the SPQ-9, if it played a role, could use more coverage. I'm not sure I can provide that detail for these ships, maybe someone else has a source that they can use to elaborate on these radars instead of the 49. --Dual Freq 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to reduce details than to add details, so I put everything I had into the article rewrite to update everything. On the issue of SPQ-9: I have been trying to call togather enough information to create an article on the radar, EW, and EW countermeasures of the Iowa-class to help reduce page size here. I haven't dug into it hardcore yet because I just got out of summer school this week. At any rate I agree that the radar stuff should focus on the surface equipment. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much ammunition?

I was wondering, how many shells can these ships carry for the main guns? There's this discussion of whether they should be kept for possible future reactivation, and it makes me wonder just how much firepower is represented by an Iowa-class ship. Also the amount a 5-inch ammo might be relevant, but mainly the 16-inch shells. --Howdybob 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take an educated guess at about 100 rounds per gun for the 16" guns. There are editors who have served on Iowas though who could be more accurate. --LiamE 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually came across those numbers during my research into the article's rewrite some monthes back. The stated number is 130 rounds of 16 in ammo per gun (390 rounds total), but that number is disputed since it seems to small (firing the guns during 6 to 9 hours seiges would exhast that ammount of ammunition quickly). Other personel put the numbers at 387 rounds for Turret I, 456 for Turret II, and 367 for Turret III for a total of 1,210 rounds of 16-in ammo (navweaps.com). For the 5-in guns the number stated is 450-500 rounds per 5-in mount. Multiplied by 10 this puts the total at 4,500 to 5,000 rounds of 5-in ammo in a WWII design. In their 1980s configuration the total would be 2,700 to 3,000 rounds of 5-in ammo (navweaps.com). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's 130 per gun, as opposed to 130 per turret, then the actual total would be 1,170 rounds, which is close to the other figure of 1,210. --Howdybob 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Fire Control section modifications

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 the 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 the 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 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Later: I Apologize for posting this in this article's discussion page. I thought I was on the Armament page. I don't know how to delete it!) FTC Gerry 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; were not suppose to delete good faith additions, and this will eventually be archived. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Storm Rising?

Someone removed a reference to Red Storm Rising from the pop-culture section on the grounds that there was no citation. Isn't the citation the novel itself? I don't see what else could be done beyond a chapter number; the page number will vary depending on whether it's hardcover and so on. --Howdybob 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it becuase no ref tabbed inline citation was provided for the novel account. If you wish to reinsert it use the cite book template and add as much information as you can; otherwise I will remove it again as an inadequently cited reference. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was the one who added that in the first place, I figured it was a notable pop culture refrence, since Red Storm Rising is required reading for the US military, etc. etc. I'm affraid I'm not very good at citing sources, I'll see if I can dig up my copy and puzzle my way through it. Should I just include the chapter number, or should I say the page number and the version of the book I'm getting it from? I'm affraid I'm new to this! =) AGTMADCAT 07:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the hidden notice in the Pop culture section: BEFORE PLACING AN ITEM IN THIS SECTION PLEASE ENSURE IT HAS HAD A WELL-CITED AND NOTABLE IMPACT ON POPULAR CULTURE. (Caps not mine.) How does the Iowa class's appearance in Red Storm RIsing impact popular culture? I don't think it did, but I could be wrong. But one would have to have a reliable source to prove its impact. As it stands, it is simply listing one of many military/naval assets mentioned in the book. A better list might be "List of contemporary military assets NOT apperaing in Red Storm Rising", as Clancy's books usually have just about every US ship, plane, tank, etc. in or expected in service of the relevant nations at the time of writing. - BillCJ 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Under Siege! Sunil060902 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

  • NOTE: I've restored the discussion improperly removed by Eleland. This is a legitimate section covering why certain information has been removed from the article, and why it should not be covered here. Further removals such as this will be met with appropriate actions, either to AIV or Admin reveiw, depending on the editor's status. - BillCJ (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments

In the opening paragraphs it states that these battleships where the ultimate capital ship. This is obviously untrue, the Yamato class far more powerful. These ships where limited by the Panama canal. Even though these ships are historical and possibly the second most powerful battleship, they where not the best. The Yamato would rape these things in combat during WW1, and this should be acknowledged. I can understand that these ships are American but the fact of the matter is Yamato was the most powerful battleship (mind you im not counting Iowas post modernising - we should compare the two ships when they where both active at the same time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.118 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the line that you state is untrue is double-cited. If you could provide reliable sources to back up your claim. -MBK004 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if you could it would be very unwise to compare the Iowa class to the Yamato class in this article; we tried that once, and the net result was a two month edit war over whose ships get to be listed (check archive 1 for proof). Ultimately the whole compitition thing was removed for the sake of peace an civility. Moreover, the Yamato class should be compared to the best U.S. battleships, and those aren't the American Iowa class battleships, they are the U.S. Montana class battleships. In due time I plan to rewrite the Yamato class page, and that page will of nessecity note the honor bestowed on the mighty Yamatos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well when the US was planning the Iowas they didnt expect or want them to fight with the new dreadnought the Japanese where building (Yamato) because they knew it would be certain death. Its role was to be more of a battle cruiser as opposed to a battleship. I think this is excellent proof that the Iowas are not the pinnacle of Battleship design because they where not even designed to take other ships because they where simply stronger. If you think this should be added into this article (which it should because its true, theres no denying the truth) i can get the refs needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. It wasn't until late in the war that US intelligence started to form a clear picture of the design specifications of the Yamatos, including their displacement, armor protection, and size of the main gun armament (the US thought they had 16" main guns). Their (the Iowas) role was nothing like that of a battlecruiser, and they most certainly were designed to take on any *known* battleship in existence or under construction. The Iowa's 16/50 main gun was as good or better than any battleship gun known to be in existence, and was essentially as good ballistically as the Yamato's 18.1" weapon. Saying that the Yamatos were more powerful simply because they were larger and had larger main guns is a simplistic comparison that ignores myriad other factors when quantifying the fighting power of the respective ships. No offense, but your comments here lead me to believe that your research on the subject is extremely limited. You should check out the reference section of the article, especially the Sumrall and Garzke and Dulin works. Also, an excellent source is Norman Friedman's work on US Battleships. I'm not saying one can't argue that the Yamatos were the ultimate, most powerful battleship design, you're simply using incorrect and spurious points to make your case. --Dukefan73 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


The Americans knew that the Japanese where creating a super ship (Yamato) and they didnt want their ships to go one on one with it, but i really cannot be bothered backing this up. But the fact of the matter is, someone who doesnt know anything about battleships will be mislead by this guide. It tells the reader that these where the best battleships the world had ever seen, and has no mention of the Yamato. Lets face it, the Iowas may have been better in terms of a support ship for the carriers and be of more strategic value, but the Yamato fufills the original role of the battleship because it was bigger and better, enough said. The Iowas would surely loose in a one on one duel with the Yamato, but as i said they may have been of more use all around as support ships and what not. I think this article should state that the Yamato was a larger battleship with bigger guns. This would atleast readers to compare the two and come to a conclusion themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can make a multitude of spurious claims yet "cannot be bothered backing this up"? That's a joke, right? Anyway, the key sentence in the article is this one (italics added for emphasis by myself):
"Built with no regard for cost, the Iowa class was arguably the ultimate in the evolution of the capital ship."
Oh, and as I stated previously, US Intelligence did NOT know that the Japanese created a super-ship, and the US DID design the Iowas to be able to stand up to any existing or projected battleship. It wasn't until 1942 that the USN was even aware of the existence of new IJN battleships, and up until June of 1945 still believed that the Yamatos were armed with 9 16" guns and were around 45,000 tons standards displacement.
Simply stating that the Yamato "was bigger and better, enough said." is an ignorant claim, especially when made without any reputable references to back up such a statement. A comparison between the two ships should NOT be included in the article, as the purpose of the article is to relate the design specifications and service history of the ships. *Subjective* comparisons are best left to personal websites. The best site on the subject, which is as objective as could possible be, is found at http://www.combinedfleet.com/. The author of the site makes a thoughtful analysis and comparison of the capabilities of various battleship classes, and given that the site is about the Imperial Japanese Navy (meaning any bias would more than likely lean towards the IJN and their ships), you may be shocked to find that his analysis concludes the Iowas were the best battleships of WWII.
I will therefore mention, once again, that you may want to further your knowledge in this area before making such spurious claims that you cannot be bothered to back up. I, however, can back up my claims, and my 3 primary sources are:
Friedman, Norman: U.S. Battleships
Garzke, William H. and Dulin, Robert O.: Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992
Garzke, William H. and Dulin, Robert O.: Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II
The Garzke and Dulin books are generally recognized as being the finest available concerning their given subject matter, and Norman Friedmen is one of the preeminent authors on USN warships. So, make whatever contentions you wish, but without any reputable research to back up your contentions, your arguments hold as much water as a sieve. --Dukefan73 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Wow your taking this very personally. First of all iv read the combinedfleet.com comparison and iv you take that seriously your very idiotic. Now in the the 'Encylopedia of WARSHIPS from world war II to the present day' by Robert Jackson, it states clearly that 'US intelligence suspected that the new Japanese battleship would have 45.7-mm (18-in) guns, it was hoped that the 'Iowa' class would not have to fight them, as carrier aircraft would keep the Japanese giants outside gun range. The Iowas were primarily inteded to keep heavy cruisers, rather than battleships, at bay, and as such they came close to the original concept of the battlecruiser, although they were never such rated'. That is a direct quote. But i wouldnt seriously expect someone as ignorant as yourself to take this seriously or include it in the article. And i dont want a comparison of the Yamato and Iowa either. But i think this article is still misleading because it gives the impression that this ship was invincable and could easily take out the Yamato. I think in the opening paragraph it should simply state that the Yamato had bigger guns and was a larger vessel.

O and your 'arguments hold as much water as a sieve' statement was very classy, it brang a tear to my eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this personally? In your opening comments in this section, you state unequivocally that the the Iowas were not the ultimate battleship, the Yamato class were far more powerful, the "Yamato would rape these things in combat", and "the fact of the matter is Yamato was the most powerful battleship". You make these statements without any supporting argument, references, etc, and I can't really believe you were expected to be taken seriously on your simple, unsubstantiated opinion.
As far as me taking the combinedfleet.com site seriously, I do so with a grain of salt. The author provides interesting comparisons based on factual data. You, or I, nor anybody else may necessarily fully agree with his conclusions, but they do deserve due consideration. I would find it interesting as to exactly what you disagree with, as far as his methodology, data, and conclusions are concerned.
If the Robert Jackson is your sole or primary source for you argument, then I can now definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't know where Mr. Jackson gets his information from, but he's flat out wrong. There was nothing "battlecruiser" like about the Iowas besides their speed. They certainly weren't intended to fight only cruisers, and it is ludicrous to make such an assertion. I don't suppose you have any other sources? I can come to the obvious conclusion that you've never read Friedman, Sumrall, or Garzke and Dulin, among others. You really need to expand your library, in my humble opinion.
It seems as if your argument for the Yamato is entirely based on their larger displacement and larger guns (you keep repeating this over and over). The gun argument is a wash, the Iowas 16/50 firing the 2700lb AP round had essentially the same effective range and virtually identical penetration characteristics to the Yamatos 18.1" firing a 3219lb AP round. The Yamato does have a slight penetration advantage at ranges under 20,000 yards. The Iowas guns have a higher rate of fire, and are significantly more accurate due to radar fire control. So, whereas the Yamatos rounds were more destructive due to their sheer size, she fires fewer of them were a lesser chance of hitting her target than Iowa does. Oh, and the penetration characteristics of the Japanese rounds were fairly poor when compared to those the US and other countries.
Now, let's look at sheer size. Yamatos much greater displacement and beam allowed her to be more heavily armored. I won't go into depth on this one, but do you know the difference between cemented and non-cemented armor is? Do you know what face-hardened armor is? STS? Do you know the name for the type of armor the Yamato used? Its quality when compared with American, British, German, or French armor? If you don't know these things, then your argument loses even more validity.
It's funny, but the about the only advantages the Yamato had were her sheer size (with the corresponding increase in armor protection) and the size of her guns. The Iowas were faster (by a clear 6 knots), had a smaller tactical diameter, had *far* better fire control (for main and secondary armaments), had a much better secondary armament (the primary Japanese AA weapon, the 25mm, was quite a bit inferior to the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40mm Bofors). I won't even get into such things as damage control, internal subdivison, redundancies, etc. In other words, as I stated previously, there are myriad factors involved in a comparison of the two ships.
The best way for you to have changes made to the article is to directly quote here which passages you feel are exaggerated or just plain wrong. Then, you should provide logical reasoning backed up by several reputable reference sources to support your argument. Then it's possible that a consensus can be reached, and the page edited in a manner that everyone finds acceptable. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. Oh, and don't take things so personally. Many moons ago when I posted in the sci.military.naval news group, I was constantly flamed (usually rather harshly) for some really dumb opinions. When I finally realized that the flamers were usually correct, I sought to increase the quantity and quality of my reference library, and became far more knowledgeable as a result. You can ignore everything I've said here, that's up to you, but nobody will take you seriously until you can back up your arguments with reputable research. Happy Holidays! --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Dukefan73 should be able to state his opinion because ignoring SIGNIFICANT FACTS. Its fact that the Yamato was bigger and had bigger guns and this article could lead to confusion. Also in some other articles (like the Montana class article) it gives the impression that the Iowas couldnt stand up to the Yamato in combat. But when you read this page, it gives the impression that these ships are unbeatable. I agree that the Yamato should be stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiowa (talk • contribs) 02:41, Dec 15, 2007 (UTC)


Uh, what significant facts am I ignoring? I'm more than well aware of the difference in displacement and gun size between the Iowa and Yamato. As I've stated previously, there are myriad other factors involved in making a valid comparison between the two ships. Please feel free to point out to me what facts I'm ignoring. Also, feel free to state which statements in the article are incorrect or exaggerated. Once you provide reputable research to reinforce whatever argument you may have, I, and I'm sure others, will be more than happy to take your arguments under consideration. Happy Holidays! --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for proving my earlier point. This is exactly why absolutley no mention of the Yamato was made in this article body, and only one footnote was included citing Yamato specifically. Look at you, your through insults at each other back and forth on the talk page over an obviously POV subject, and if this kind of outlandish bullshit hits the article it will result in nothing more than a nationalistic wheel war waged over hurt pride and bruised egos. There are external sites to compare the ships, there are accurate and reliable sources for the information present in the article regarding the Iowas, and most importantly there is no edit war over here. IT IS FOR THIS EXACT REASON THAT WE ARE NOT COMPARING ANYONE'S SHIPS IN OUR CLASS ARTICLES. NOT FOR ANY REASON, NOT FOR ANY PURPOSE. Thats why Wikipedia is not a blog. If it bothers you that much, then bring the Yamato class battleship article up to FA status, that should solve the whole issue entirely by giving you a place to put your well cited information (whatever that may be, and given your comments on the subject I trust it will be reliable) where the nature of that information will not be called into question. The solution is not to try and mess with succsess, the solution is to duplicate the succsess of this article elsewhere and bring attention to a point that you feel needs emphasis. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (De-boled by BillCJ (talk) - a whole bodled paragraph is really unnecessary)

All that should be put in is that the Yamato had bigger guns and was bigger than the Iowa. This is a misleading thread because it gives the impression that this ship was invincable and the best battleship ever. ITS A FACT that the Yamato was better in some fields than the Iowa and this should be stated so people are not mislead. There should be NO comparison between the two ships but just state the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiowa (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The article is about the Iowa class battleships, their design specifications, technical data, ship's history, etc. It is not about any other ship or how they compare/contrast with any other ship. That's simply not the purpose of the page. I don't agree with your opinion, but feel free to quote from the article the passages that give the impression that the Iowa was invincible. It's fine if there are things that you don't like about the article, but you need to provide a solution instead of constantly harping on the problem. --Dukefan73 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Iamiowa, in all seriousness, did you bother to click on any of the numbers int he intro paragraph? The note for #6 specifically states "Although it is frequently cited as the ultimate battleship class, other battleship classes did outclass the Iowas in certain fields; for example, the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato-class battleships had larger guns (46 cm (18 in) and more armor than the Iowa’s.", and in that you have your point in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why cant

"Although it is frequently cited as the ultimate battleship class, other battleship classes did outclass the Iowas in certain fields; for example, the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato-class battleships had larger guns (46 cm (18 in) and more armor than the Iowa’s."

be in the opening paragraph? I can understand how some people who feel very patriotic about the ship dont want their ego bruised but all i reccomend is that this statement is put into the opening paragraph and then the rest of it is about the Iowa. Usually this wouldnt be the case, for example i dont think it should be in the Bismarks page. But lets admit it, the Iowas have a long and magnificant history and that can be misleading into making people think that the Iowas where the best. Now not everyone is going to click on the numbers to look at the bottom. I think it should be included so theres no confusion. Im not asking for anything like 'Even though they where great ships, the Yamato would kick the shit out of them and totally rape them in combat'. Even though thats my opinion, we will never know. But what we do know is that the Yamato did have bigger guns and armor and people should know this. I think what you are doing here is hiding knowledge to glorify the Iowas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk • contribs)

I think I have finally realized your problem, User:58.160.169.244: You do not know how to read complicated sentences. On Nov 27, User:58.160.170.118 (presumably you, since you don't sign your posts, and won't use a registerd username) began this discussion by saying:
In the opening paragraphs it states that these battleships where the ultimate capital ship. This is obviously untrue, the Yamato class far more powerful.
Your statement This is obviously untrue actually better descibes what you wrote! The correct statement in the article is:
Built with no regard for cost, the Iowa class was arguably the ultimate in the evolution of the capital ship. (emphasis added)

Do you not know what aruguably means? It means the point can be argued, that is, not everyone agrees. But we didn't just make up the statement: It is from a source, which is cited. That is how information is supposed to be placed into Wikipedia. Nothing else needs to be added to "clarify" the statement, as "arguably" says all that needs to be said. The word evolution also is a key word here, as it's not saying there weren't better designs, but as a whole, the Iowa class was the ultimate. This is certainly born out in there longevity, where as the Yamatos were't around for long. So, can we please move on to other issues to improve the article? - BillCJ (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, I would argue that, in WW2, the Midway class was the ultimate capital ship class. :) - BillCJ (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, it was the Essex class in the Pacific that was the most important, while the most important in the Atlantic would be the Liberty Ships :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the Midway class did not see combat during WWII. Note they were designed with the lessons of WWII in mind, but the war ended before they could see combat. Boy, going off-topic is fun. -MBK004 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • At the risk of more deletions by Eleland, Yes, I know the Mids didn't serve in WW2. THat's the point here! Iowas and Yamatos didn't face each other either, and with the advent of the Essexes and Midways, had the war continued, they would not have either. By the end of WW2, the era of the BB supremacy was a moot issue. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of the Aldenata

The Iowa class battleships are featured in this series of science fiction books being used as fire support against the invasion of the alien Posleen horde. They're successful at that because the aliens' battle computers aren't programed to deal with unpowered, ballistic weaponry. The Iowa herself accidentially and spectacularly destroys a Posleen lander, which is the size of a skyscraper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gray Ghosts of the Viet Nam coast

Several ships are referred to by their crew as "Gray Ghost" during the Viet Nam war. Oklahoma City and Edson are two such ships. I can't find any reference for the Iowas being called "Gray Ghosts" by either the South or the North Vietnamese. I deleted the "Gray Ghosts" mention here. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably becuase New Jersey was the only active Iowa for the war. I didn't find any information to suggest that New Jersey was ever a "grey ghost", nor am/was I aware of any mention of it in this artilce. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed from teh article body, and can be reinserted when a source can be provided for it. "She was referred to as the "Gray Ghost" by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, who feared her because they had no weapon that could reach her, much less harm her; and the deadly accuracy of her 16-inch shells was famous throughout the war zone." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter for Kirov class

I noticed this article and Kirov class battlecruiser assert that the reactivation of the Iowas was to counter the Kirov class, but neither has a source. I figured that since this in a featured article, there must be a source for the statement in here somewhere. The Kirov class article says "The appearance of the Kirov class was a significant factor in the U.S. Navy recommissioning the Iowa class.", but I think saying "significant factor" may be an over statement. Anyone know where this came from? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a naval warfare expert, and I don't want to get in to one of these silly "ship vs ship smackdown" debates, but I find it difficult to see how an Iowa could have countered the threat from a missile cruiser that can strike it with impunity from much longer range. <eleland/talkedits> 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand it was one of those "American Pride" exercises, the USN did not want the soviets to have a ship they couldn't match (if not outright beat), so the battleships came back to show ivan that uncle sam could play the surface action game as well. I will look into tracking down a source for the infomation. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I relaise that this is not a reliable source, but I did find the answer to the information you questioned here, about 1/2 down the page. I will continue to look for a reliable source for the info. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me since the Iowa's don't seem to directly compare with the Kirov class in any statistic except maybe number of CIWS mounts. I made an attempt to find sources with ProQuest for 1980 newspaper articles, but I didn't find any for 1980, but in 1981 only one mentioned both Kirov and the battleships, and it was very critical of reactivation.

“ Some critical questions have also been asked about the Navy's decision to pull two World War II battleships, the New Jersey and the Iowa, out of mothballs and to fit them with new engines and missiles for active duty.

Strategists argue that the battleships would be useful in some situations, such as the support of a landing in the third world. But there are doubts about their combat-effectiveness in other circumstances.

You're going to pit the New Jersey launched in 1942 against the Kirov launched in 1979? a foreign analyst asked incredulously. The Soviet Union's Kirov is an ultramodern, nuclear-powered, 30,000-ton surface battle cruiser armed with surface-to-surface and surface-toair missiles.

PENTAGON LIKES BUDGET PROPOSAL, BUT QUESTIONS SPECIFICS; Military Analysis. MIDDLETON, DREW. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 13, 1981. pg. A.14

 ”

I did find two sources that vaguely confirm the Kirov counter statement:

“ By the 1970s the four battleships were considered a little more than relics from a bygone age, but in 1980 the need to augment the US surface combat fleet and match new warship classes resulted in the US Congress authorizing funds to reactivate the battleship force.

Encyclopedia Of World Sea Power by Tony Cullen p.80 ISBN 0517653427

 ”

and this

“ [Kirov's] size, heavy armament and general sophistication have impressed western navies, and the US Navy felt compelled refurbish and recommission four Iowa class battleships.

Modern naval combat. / David Miller, Chris Miller. p. 114. London ; New York : Salamander Books, c1986. p114. ISBN 0861012313

 ”

There are quite a few 1980 articles focusing on the debate over reactivation and criticizing the lack of AAW weaponry. The debate makes for some interesting reading, and included doubts the Navy would be able to man the ships or procure 16 inch shells. The debate on manning is amusing in that the battleships seemed to be used as recruiting tools and former sailors came back to the Navy just to man them. I don't see the Kirov class as a "significant" factor, since the gunfire support role and the goal of a 600 ship Navy seem to be much more important factors as evidenced by the numerous articles from 1980 that view the Iowa's in that light and never mention Kirov directly. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the it looks like I called it when I wrote that they provided a counter to the Kirov class, but I agree that the Kirov class was likely not a "signifigant" factor in Iowa reactivation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billion

I think I would just use $1.8 billion since you only have three significant figures on the $125 million cost. Adding that amount of digits might give a false sense of precision and just saying 1.8 billion would better reflect that it is an estimate. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will go ahead and round the other one, too. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mastiff

Since the Mastiff UAVs never operated from the Iowa class ships, I would suggest removing that section and integrating some of its contents into a brief lead-in to the acquisition and deployment of Pioneer UAVs. I only make this proposal as my sense of the article is that it centers mostly around the characteristics of the Iowa class; the Mastiff, while definitely a precursor to the fielding of the Pioneers, wasn't directly a part of the Iowas' history or operation. Given that the other weapons and aircraft mentioned in the Contents were all actually used on the Iowas, including the Mastiff caught me as a bit out of place. I'm wide open to opposing views though; I just wanted to see what the consensus is. Kj1631 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That may not be true. Mastif was operational in the 70s, the RQ2 didn't reach operational status until the mid eighties. It therefore stands to reason that the battleships may have carried the Mastif for operational deployments, although I find it odd that TomStar81 hasn't addressed this since the template implies he is familar with the subject. 129.108.96.45 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion as well, so I reviewed all of the sources given in the Mastiff section of the Iowa class page, as well as the Mastiff article itself.[2] [3] [4] [5] There were reports that a Mastiff was deployed on at least one amphibious assault ship for testing and demonstration purposes, but I can’t find a source that the Mastiff was deployed on any of the Iowas. It would seem that the Mastiff played a major role in the procurement and deployment of the Pioneer, but I don’t believe it ever saw any use on these battleships. Kj1631 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It would not be for all of the Iowas, just New Jersey and Iowa; only they were operational before the formal introduction of Pioneer. Iowa would be a long shot at best, but there is a good chance that New Jersey would have made use of the Mastif system for her Lebanon deployment if no use air spotter was available for spotting duty. Have you tried contacting the New Jersey meuseum? They would know for sure if the Mastiff system was ever used aboard an Iowa. 129.108.230.178 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All of my research points to the fact that the Mastiff was never deployed on any American battleships. Since no one has come forward with any citations that indicate otherwise (and I've been unable to find any in my good-faith searches, either), is anyone opposed to me removing that section and integrating some of its contents into the Pioneer section?Kj1631 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm suprised that nothing materialized for USN Mastiff use for battleships, I thought that they did in fact use the Mastiff to locate targets for New Jersey while she was in Lebanon. If you can't find anything then go ahead and remove the section; if I manage to locate evidence of Mastiff usage by battleshps I will readd the section later. (And I've been busy with school, in case anyone was curious). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)