Talk:Pennsylvania class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pennsylvania class battleship article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Clarifications

In several US battleship class articles, there is a standard paragraph at the end regarding "'Standard type battleship' concept of the US Navy..." It states: "a tight tactical radius (~700 yards)". This doesn't make any sense. A tactical radius of a battleship should be something along the lines of 700nm, not 700 yards. Is it perhaps denoting a TURNING radius of 700 yards, a DEFENSIVE radius of 700 yards (seems small), or is it just a unit error and should be Nautical miles instead of Yards? BBODO 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to this page

This is supposed to be about the Pennsylvania Class Battleships and not about the indivual ships. I would expect this to be about the design and influence of the class along with flaws and not a deployment record. All in all a pretty poor page. I am about to begin upgrading it. Any and all comments are highly desired please. Tirronan 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underwater Protection

This section doesn't seem to make much sense. An Artillery shell in a torpedo? A 'Davis' Torpedo? It sounds as if someone's heard about Davis Ammunition^[1] and gotten confused; can anyone elucidate as to what this section's trying to say? njan 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there actually was such an animal, it was called the Davis Torpedo and consisted of a short barrel and projectile housed in a torpedo. It never made it to actual production but it seemed to hold U.S. Battleship underwater protection systems in some state of confusion. Norman Friedman's book goes into this at some detail. In point of fact regular torpedos turned out to be much more dangerous and so it goes. Actually it also lead to greater understanding of why shells diving under water were actually a hazard later. Interestingly Japanese shells were designed with this in mind so that if a shell landed short it would fly fairly straight under water for at least a short period and strike underneith the armor belt. Tirronan 16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! Any chance of documenting that on wikipedia and/or finding a reference to provide? njan 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a great reference for it and I'll put it in tonight. I am at work right now so pulling out my reference book wouldn't look too good. Tirronan 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)