# Talk:Iowa-class battleship

EDIT: Corrected. Thank you!
For the life of me, I can't find this 39 knot figure. The 35.6 knot figure is from a shake-down cruise of USS New Jersey, after a recent refit for her service in the Vietnam War. It is also worth noting that the ship's armament was significantly modified prior to her service in the Vietnam War relative to how she was initially tested for her service in WWII. This figure in itself comes from the Guinness Book of World Records for fastest battleship, however it makes no mention of the 39 knot number in the article. The 39 knot number is however mentioned in the comments section, but I have been unable to verify it.

If it's not properly sourced, feel free to revert such things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Some sources I have seen (Jane's Fighting Ships of World War 2) list the "side" armor as 16", while others list the belt as around 12". Does the side refer to the same thing as the belt, if so which should we use, and if not should we insert both? Wandavianempire (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In response: There is inconsistency in this article in how it reports armor thicknesses. Many places in the Iowa class have backing plates (e.g. bulkheads). In some cases the article includes the thickness of the backing plate. In others it does not. I note that 5" Armor + 1" Backing plate Does not equal 6" of Armor.
Let me start with the tabular data:
(I am working off the original blueprints)
Belt is given as 12.1" Omits the 7/8" Backing plate (12.1" + 7/8". And 12.1 Is the maximum. The belt tapers to 1.62" AND this is the figure only for FR 50 to FR 166.
Between FR 166 ad FR 172 the belt is 13" + 0 (tapering down)
Between FR 172 and FR 188 the belt is 13.5 + 0 (tapering down)
Between FR 188 and FR 203 the belt is constant 13.5" + 0"
Addressing the question above, the hull has 1 1/2" of armor midship. Torpedo BHD 1 is 5/8". Torpedo BHD 2 is 5/8. and Torpedo BHD 4 is 5/8. If you count all of that you get
12.1 + 7/8 + 3 x 5/8 + 1 1/2 = 16.35. However, Torpedo BHDS 2 and 3 are not armor (STS). Excluding those gives 15.1" It all depends upon how you count.
Turrets say 9.5" to 19.5". Two problems with that. (1) it omits the 7 1/4" Roof. (2) The front face is 17" with a 2 1/2" backing plate (+1 inch of cement). :The side it s 9 1/2" with 3/4". There is an inconsistency that the front is reported with backing plate but the side is reported without the backing plate.
Decks say "1.5 in (38 mm), 6 in (152 mm), 0.63–1 in" I am presuming this means Main deck, second deck, third deck.
The main deck ranges from 1 1/2" down to 0.3".
The second deck's maximum is 4 3/4' + 1 1/4". See here the backing plate is included (inconsistently). :Plus the deck has various ranges down to 0.3" (another inconsistency).
The structural third deck ranges from 1" to 9/40th of an inch. In addition, the third deck is armored from FR 166 to FR 203. It is 5.6" + 3/4" from frame 166 to 189 and 6.2" + 3/4" from frame 189 to 203
There is great inconsistency as to whether the backing plates are included in the figures and some figures are off.
Moving to the text:
The text description of the belt does describe the backing plate and the hull armor.
The text mentions the increase in thickness of the transverse armor in the last four Iowa class ships but does not mention the increase in the splinter deck from 5/8" to 3/4".
This statement is misleading: "Over the magazines, the splinter deck is replaced by a 1-inch (25 mm) STS third deck that separates the magazine from the main armored deck." There is quite a bit of overlap between the splinter deck and the 1-inch areas of the third deck. It's not correct to say the latter replaces the former. Also it is not clear that it is the 16-inch powder magazines being referred to. The 5" magazines are on the third deck. (And the 16" projectiles are stored in the turret where the levels are different.)
The thickness figures of the third deck armor omits the armored structural deck of 3/4".
Moving to the turrets, the text again iconsistently includes the backing plate when giving the front thickness but excludes it when giving the side thickness.
Another armor inconsistency is that the article states the belt armor tapers to 1.62". The mill size of the plates (about 3/8" oversize) tapered to 1.62." When the bottom was cut off, the taper was to greater than 1.62." But the shipyard tapered the bottom 9 inches to 1". So in reality, the plates taper to 1".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.128.195 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I. In regard to range:
One of the cited sources, 
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
gives the figure for 2700lb projectile at 45 from OP-770 (range tables) of 43,245 yards. That is 24.05 miles. I do not know where the printed 23.4 figure comes from. The OP figure is of course theoretical.
II. States without source the turret configuration is "2-A-1" in quotes. I've never hard of that and this is not sourced.
III. Incorrectly states  "The guns are 66 feet (20 m) long (50 times their 16-inch bore, or 50 calibers from breechface to muzzle)." The guns are actually 816" (68') from breechface to muzzle. BuOrd plan 227539. The caliber measurement does not include 16" allocated to the breech.
IV. This is misleading: "Each gun rests within an armored turret, but only the top of the turret protrudes above the main deck". There is a fixed part of the turret and a revolving part of the turret. The fixed part of the turret has 1 1/2" of armor. The rotating turret is obviously armored above the barbette, but it is not armored below. Is is high 
The text implies the rotating turret armor extends below the barbette which is incorrect. From the shelf plate to the plan plate, the rotating turret wall is 7/8" high tensile steel. The pan plate rests on the roller bearing track. The circular bulkhead around the pan plate even has openings. So there is no armor intended there.
It also implies that there is armor around each gun rather than around all three guns of the turret.
Plan 7201ZN
IV. "Each turret required a crew of between 85 and 110 men to operate."
The official manning for the turret was 77 plus 6 powder passers and 12 in the magazines. (OP-769). The 77 figure includes many redundancies. There are duplicates on the sights. There are allowances for manning the rangefinder (which was removed in Turret No. 1), and for crew that do nothing when the turret was in automatic control (as they normally were).
There were 45 people killed in the Iowa Turret 2 explosion. "Required" is the wrong term. 
V. "When firing the same conventional shell, the 16-inch/45 caliber Mark 6 used by the fast battleships of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes had a slight advantage over the 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7 gun when hitting deck armor . . . ."
This "advantage" is only true for certain ranges. Beyond 40,000 the 50 caliber projectiles arrive at the same angle and the "advantage" disappears. 
(OP-770)
VI. I find this description misleading or hard to interpret: "The turret extends either four decks (Turrets 1 and 3) or five decks (Turret 2) down."
Reason I find this misleading is that the levels of the turrets do not correspond to decks EXCEPT for the powder handling flat. The powder handling flat is at the Second platform.
All three turrets extend to the Second Platform. (Plan 7201ZN), The revolving parts of the turrets are effectively identical down to the lower projectile flat. Below that, length of the central column and the powder hoist paths are different to accommodate the differences in heights between the barrel centerlines and the second platform.
The shape of the fixed part varies considerably among the turrets and consequently the ammunition storage in the outer ring is different and turret no. 2 has an additional projectile storage level that [over]compensates for its significantly reduced storage in the upper flat.
VII. A bit off the subject but I noticed this incorrect statement "At the time of their commissioning, all four of the Iowa-class battleships were equipped with 20 quad 40 mm mounts and 49 single 20 mm mounts."
Neither the Iowa nor the New Jersey had 20x40mm mounts at the tie of commissioning. It was actually 16x40mm quad on the NJ and 15x40mm on the Iowa.
While I am at it, the number of 20mm mounts was not the same among the Iowa class. The New Jersey had 49x20mm mounts (8 of which were ultimately twin). Some of the other Iowa class wedged in more mounts.IIRC, the Missouri crammed 3 mounts at the 02 level FR 120 in the space designed for 2.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.128.195 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 

@Sturmvogel 66: regarding your partial undo of my edit regarding inflation, you commented, "Do not use ordinary inflation calculators for capital items like warships".
I used the "US-GDP" inflation index, rather than regular "US" (CPI-based) inflation index. A note at the top of {{Inflation}} states, "For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used, which calculate inflation based on the gross domestic product(GDP) for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively."
US-GDP seems like the right index to use. What should be used, and how should it be used so as not to hard-code inflation year into the text? sbb (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that even that index is actually accurate for warships since 1.2 billion is roughly the cost of a single 9,000 ton Burke-class cruiser. An Iowa is roughly 5 times bigger and its armor and guns cannot be built by any facility in the world as they were all retired as unneeded more than half a century ago. The most valid comparison might be as a percentage of that year's Navy budget. Honestly I've given up on comparable costs as prices have increased by multiple orders of magnitude for more directly comparable equipment like tanks. A WW2-era Sherman cost about $50K, a modern M1A2 is about $5 million. And aircraft are even worse.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, there was a pretty robust debate on this a few years ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ARA Moreno/archive1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current infobox image does not show the silhouette of the ship very well, and this image does it better. I know this image has been used by the article forever but I think the following would be a good replacement. Alternately, here's another image that I think is a good candidate as well. Thoughts? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I subscribe to the theory that the best infobox image is a "beauty shot", or an image that otherwise grabs the reader's attention in some way. The current one certainly does that, and the overall color is beautiful. The image you've suggested is a bit bland, and the background makes the overall ship a bit hard to see, especially the details, at that size. I'd keep the current one for now.  However, the proposed image isn't in the article anywhere else, so I'd recommend adding it in an appropriate section. BilCat (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ditto on the second image. I prefer the first one for adding to the article somewhere else. BilCat (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I see your point, but nearly every other infobox picture of a ship class tend to show the profile and silhouette of the vessel quite well; I agree that the current image is great in terms of colors and is attention grabbing, but it seems to be the exception compared to how most ship class articles have their infobox image. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Most other ships don't have nine 16-inch guns either. The Iowa photo is n that article in the lead too, so we probably don't need it here in that position also.  However, I really don't think the alternatives shown are good for the lead. I glanced through Commons, but didn't see any I thought were much better, aside from those in the leads of the other 3 ships. Wisconsin's is probably the best of those, but it's bow on at a slight angle, and the other 2 are still more bow facing. BilCat (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep the current "full-blast" image. It serves the readers much better than the simple "sailing-along" images suggested. The article is about a battleship, not a cruise ship. And the full-blast does a much better job of conveying the role of the Iowa – kaboom!. (More importantly it helps put in context the force behind the tragic turret explosion.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
IMO the current infobox image needs certainly to be in the article somewhere'  It is both very interesting and show it doing what battleships are designed around and designed to do. Other than that I have no strong opinion. North8000 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Every authoritative source on the Iowa class battleships cites a standard displacement of 48,110 long tons; nowhere on any other site could I find an attribution for the (unsourced) figure of 47k and change. It's a minor difference, but one that to my knowledge isn't backed up by any authoritative document. I've replaced the number and added a citation. The Pittsburgher (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please check the formatting of colons after time periods (WWII, Cold War, etc) in the specifications infobox? I can see some with no colon, normal colon, and bold colon. Loqiical (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I shall make them all bold with colons. If that is a problem, please let me know. Loqiical (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a new book out "Armor of the Iowa-Class Battleships" that is nearly 400 pages dealing exclusively with armor. The book was based on original plans. That book conflicts with a a number of statements made in this article. I would behoove some to go through that book and update the article. For example, the book shows the belt tapers to one-inch, not 1.62" as claimed in this article. If you look at the detailed diagrams in the book, it is clear that the belt would not fit if it did not taper to one-inch. I see this issue has been raised in this discussion before. 
Another issue I noticed is that the article refers to the Iowa-class as having "skegs." The supports for the inboard propellers are decidedly not skegs. The plans refer to them as "twin keels" and they are integral to the hull shape, not extensions from the hull as in a skeg.
Every time I try to update something on Wikipedia, it just gets reset back. So I'm not going to do it. 
I can see others have pointed out more errors in the article.
72.88.156.235 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to try a small careful and hopefully fun start, bring up a specific proposed change here in talk along with the sourcing for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

PLRD-81-21 Update of the Issues Concerning the Proposed Reactivation of the Iowa Class Battleships and the Aircraft Carrier Oriskany (gao.gov)

Could contain some info not mentioned here  D1d2d3d29 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)