Talk:Montana class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Montana class battleship article.
Article policies
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.
Good article Montana class battleship has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 30, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

Contents

[edit] Calibre terminology

Philwelch wrote in an edit summary that Montana's guns were "NOT 50 caliber! Whoever added that should be disallowed from writing about naval ships ever again." I am the one who wrote that they were, and if I were disallowed from writing about naval ships, Wikipedia's naval content would drop sharply. I obtained that information from the Naval Historical Center -- http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm: "The Montanas were intended to carry twelve 16"/50 guns...," so should they also be disallowed from writing about naval ships? --the Epopt 14:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was an April Fool's joke? :-) Stan 17:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can't rule it out, but if so, it was an odd one. --the Epopt 18:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Caliber has two meanings: (a) the diameter of the chamber (in this case 16 inches); (b) the length of the barrel, expressed in terms of a multiple of the diameter (in this case, 50 times). Both meanings are in common use. So it is quite correct to write 16 inch 50 caliber guns. Tannin 22:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, cancel that, I thought I saw the dot in .50 but it wasn't there. Sorry. Philwelch 22:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could have a 16 inch .50 calibre gun - but shooting a 16 inch shell out of a barrel 8 inches long strikes me as a fast way to do a great deal of damage to your own ship and none at all to the enemy! ;) Tannin

I understand that you got those numbers from an official Navy website but if you are going to use those numbers, use them as they are given. The Navy site, for example, talks about 16"/50 guns but it does NOT say 16" 50 caliber guns. To the layman the Navy terminology, while technically accurate, is obscure enough already. As far as this article goes, the terminology seen here seems to do little more than add an additional contradictory note. It is definitely not being written as something that could be understood by someone with only a passing knowledge on the subject. And quite frankly, I have to admit that I have never once seen any of the heavier military weapons referred to in this manner, so as of this writing I can't verify if that method is correct anyway. Tannin's note above suggests that it is, but if so, I suspect that this too is a fairly obscure convention. Either way, those numbers are neither as clear nor as simple as they could or should be. It should be enough to say "16 inch guns " or "5 inch guns" and leave it at that. --Cavgunner 05:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the terminology to what I believe to be the more layman-friendly format. I expect that someone will change this back shortly. Still, I stand by my assessment that any article should be written as if you are explaining the subject to someone who has little or no prior knowledge about it. While most people with a casual interest in naval topics know what a "5 inch gun" is, only a few are familar with the obscure caliber-as-length convention. Indeed, the ongoing discussion here and on the edit page should be proof enough that this inclusion has not been helpful in any way. --Cavgunner 7 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, the problem is easily solved: Caliber#Caliber as measurement of length
—wwoods 22:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Cavgunner, are you seriously suggesting that an encyclopedia should deliberately leave out information because someone might not already know it? ➥the Epopt 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you didn't even read what I said so I will disregard your loaded question. Until then, perhaps you should go RIGHT NOW and alter every single article concerning military vessels on Wikipedia until it fits your convention. Let me know when you're done.--Cavgunner 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Check the edit histories. ➥the Epopt 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"Armament (secondary battery): 20 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 caliber guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)"

The 5 inch mounts would have been 5 in 38 caliber mounts (as on the Iowa class). I've changed the line accordingly. The 5 in 54s were not introduced until well after WW2 (and were never used in a twin mount configuration to my knowledge.) I've worked on both kinds - they are very different. Bog 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture?

Is it just me or is this class shown on some of the battleship game sets (not sure of the electronic ones). It shows on the silouette of a battleship that looks like iowa but with 4 turrets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EnterpriseMH (talk • contribs) .

The Montana-class is also featured in the naval MMOG Navy Field, which may or may not be worth mentioning. --Lord Kelvin 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with Yamato

There is a comment that says the Montanas would have "clearly outclassed" the Yamatos. I'm finding this one hard to fully believe. The Montanas would have "clearly outclassed" the older Japanese battleships. Against a Yamato, she would have had a fight on her hands. Thoughts? Gulfstorm75 16:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Monatanas would have come close to equalling Yamato, but would not have passed her. TomStar81 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Not an expert or anything, but based on Yamato's 18" guns and heavy armour, I'd say "clearly outclass" is a bit too much. How about "equalled", or "seriously challenged"? — Johantheghost 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
as it was originally it read: "The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling Japan's massive Yamato." TomStar81 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds pretty much perfect; the Iowas were quite a lot more lightly armoured. BTW, happy new year! (It's 2006 here!) — Johantheghost 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status

The text of this page appears to be mostly copied from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm. Is there any reason that is allowed? Nloth 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Works produced by the US government are in the public domain. Sticking in an {{NHC}} would be appropriate, however.
—wwoods 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midway blurb

The blurb on the Midway seems like a stretch. Aside from the fact that the hull of the Midway class was based on the design of the Montana class hull, the rest of it is completely irrelevant and is highly suspect. THe manueverability of the ship probably had nothing to do with the reason that it was selected as the flagship. It's more likely that it was selected because it was among the first ships on station because it was forward deployed to Japan already. In addition, not only is no cite provided to show that the Midway flew twice as many missions as any other carrier, the explaination for why it did (if it did) is pure BS. All a carrier does to launch planes is get about 30 knots of relative wind blowing almost dead of its bow and the launch them into the sky. When it's done it simply turns around and drives in the other direction until more planes are either ready to launch or land, it then turns around again and heads into the wind. The manuevering only takes a few minutes and all the ship has to do to make up for being less manueverable is cut its leeward run a little short and turn earlier. The only real disadvantage is that in order to cover as much "ground" on the down wind run as the up wind run, it has to go a little faster for having less time to make the run before it starts its turn. Once again, the most reasonable explanation I can imagine, but not prove, is that it launched more missions because it simpls got there sooner.(Sonlee 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Nonsensical paragraph

The first paragraph under the History section appears rather unclear to me:

“ In 1939, only three Iowa battleships would be built, being BB-61, BB-62, and BB-63. BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66 were intended to be larger, slower ships mounting twelve 16-inch guns, which would soon be known as the Montana class. In late 1939, as the Navy decided that it needed more 33 knot fast battleships, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66 were laid down as Iowas as well, pushing the Montana to BB-67. ”

It says three Iowas would be built, but lists six, however in actuality only four were built. The same sentence also says these Iowas were slower and mounted twelve 16-inch guns, but that actually describes the Montana class, not the Iowa class. It says in 1939 the Navy changed BBs 64, 65, and 66 to Iowas, however the actual ship articles indicate that BBs 63 - 66 were all ordered in 1940 as Iowas.

Colour me confused, but this paragraph makes no sense to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the last three ships listed (64, 65, 66) were supposed to be the Montana class, but those numbers were reallocated to create 3 more Iowas, although only 1 of the 3 were actually completed. As far as I can tell, the articles for the Iowas don't clearly state they were originally ordered as Iowas or not. Whether the above claim is true, or not, I do not know. Parsecboy 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in the Iowa class battleship article, it makes the same claim. It is also not sourced, though. Parsecboy 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

This class was never build isn't it better to merge the separate articles? --Technosphere83 (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there ships are notable enough to warrent there own article. Otherwise they would have been merged or axed somw time ago. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree with TomStar81 here; the individual Montana-class ship articles appear to meet the same criteria as our other articles on commissioned ships that were canceled before completion. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
They're awfully short, and not likely to grow. A table of the ships' dates or a series of short sections could contain all the same information.
—WWoods (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how these articles will ever grow beyond there current state.

Why are they important individually again?This is exacly the stub growth on wikipedia that should be discouraged. --Technosphere83 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who seem to think that these article will not grow beyond their current status, take a look at what TomStar81 is working on in his sandbox: User:TomStar81/Sandbox#Montana class battleship. I see no reason to believe that this treatment will not also be applied to the individual ship articles of this class. -MBK004 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not following what Technosphere83 means, but why exactly should de-stubbing articles be discouraged? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with MBK004; TomStar81 has quite a bit of material in his sandbox, and pretty well sourced too. There's no reason to merge the articles with that quality of material in production. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should NOT be merged. Maybe some articles on non-built ship classes deserve to be merged, but this article relates to a proposed class of battleships which would have been the largest ever built by the US, (or by any Western democracy). therefore, I feel that it definitely needs to remain as a separate article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that what Technosphere83 is proposing is merging the articles on the individual ships of the Montana class into this class article, not merging this article into anything else. He feels that it is unlikely that USS Louisiana (BB-71), for example, could ever grow. TomTheHand (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. thanks for your reply. not sure about that, either way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Slow down, all, and wait for the class page I am working on in my sandbox up. It may be that the class page provides enough information to expand the individual ship articles in a manner similar to USS Illinois (BB-65) or USS Kentucky (BB-66). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Montana class battleship will become an FA if TomStar keeps working on it. However, I'm not sure that there is any point having an article on each individual ship: since they were never even started, there is virtually nothing to say about them which does not belong in the class article. The Land (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add to my previous comment, and say that i feel the individual ship articles should not be merged into this article. just my opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

(ec)How about this:

  • Wait until TomStar81 finishes his work on this article (Montana class battleship).
  • Then evaluate if the individual articles on each ship should be merged or not.
    • If there is enough content to expand each like USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66), then a merge is a moot point.
    • If not, how about this course of action:
      • Then move the contents of the articles on the individual ships to his sandbox for development, and have the individual articles redirect to the main class page.
      • If there is enough content for the individual articles to exist after work by Tom in the sandbox, they can be re-created at that time.

I think this would work, if Tom is up to it.

I personally think the individual articles on each ship should stay the way they are (but expanded in due course after the expansion to the main class article), but hopefully something like what I have proposed is amenable to all of us? -MBK004 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was never referring to the class page,I admire the work of TomStar81. It was just that unlike the non finished Iowa class ships the individual ships in the Montana class don't have much history to them and what is there can easily fit on the class page.Hell the unbuilt Iowa's are almost 50% made up from info from the class page. --Technosphere83 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

An open peer review request for the article can be found by clicking "show" in the Military history Wikiproject template at the top of the page. All are invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Peer Review is now officially closed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary battery updated

While proof reading the article, I noticed that the link for the secondary battery, 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, was actually a Vietnam-era weapon. Since I had a little extra time on my hands today, I went ahead and changed the text and links in this article to 5"/54 caliber Mark 16 gun, then started that article. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA-Passed

Congratulations! This article is now a Good Article! It is on its way to FA, just needs some more sources. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)