Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1

message: General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333. Joshua 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fitzsimons (ed) Weapons & Warfare, "Iowa" (v14) puts the turret armor @432mm, belt 307.  Trekphiler 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Can someone please confirm the ordering of the turbines to be correct? High pressure then low pressure may seem sensible enough but throw in a bit of fluid or gas dynamic physics and it looks rather shakey. Bernoulli's principle would suggest the first of 2 turbines would be a high speed / low pressure device followed by the low speed / high pressure turbine. As far as I know, and I don't claim to be an engineer, turbines are named high or low pressure relative to the gas / liquid pressure passing through them, not the pressure of the gas or liquid driving them. In effect high pressure gas drives low pressure turbines and vice versa. --LiamE 13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the high pressure turbine is first in order and it is so-named according to input pressure.  The input pressure on the HP turbine is around 600psi if I recall correctly.  It's less than 50psi for the LP turbine after passing thru the crossover.  Again I'm working from memory there but I'm in the #4 engine room on USS Missouri at least once a week most weeks so I'm fairly confident that's correct. --72.129.68.251 04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but I do have a suspicion that you are right there. --Apyule 13:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This naval engineering training document suggests the naming of the turbines in the article is correct and that the first turbine is known as the high pressure turbine despite the gas passing through it being low pressure as per the article's velocity/pressure diagrams. If naval egineers use this nomenclature the article is correct to follow. They are named after input pressure not flow pressure. Anyway I'm sure my old physics teacher would be proud of me. --LiamE 14:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting that out. --Apyule 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineering Plant

message: I know I'm being nit-picky, but shouldn't the phrase "Iowa class" in this article's title be hyphenated? —Saric (Talk) 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Trekphiler 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iowa class" or "Iowa-class"? 

message: Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned
:Under the most extreme of circumstances I would imagine that all four would be recomissioned; however, it doesn't look like that will be the case. A more likely senario would be using the two mueseum ships as spare parts caches for Iowa and Wisconsin. According to a General Accounting Office report I obtained from the UTEP Library, the USN has absolutely no intersest in (or plans to) recomissioning either of the two battleships. TomStar81 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Admiral Yamamato commented over 60 years ago that in modern war, the battleship will be like unto a sammurai sword - a weapon of the past that has become useless. Raul654 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Possible?  Yes.  But extremely unlikely.  It's prohibitively expensive and there really is very little to gain from it. --72.129.68.251 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, that is exactly the reason why so many non-naval people want the Iowa-class battleships to remain in reserve. The general consenus among battleship fans who operate internet sites is that when China reaches superpower status it will attempt to take Tiawan back into itself, and pose a serious threat to both Japan and South Korea. Many websites on the net point to the US Iowa-class battleships as being instomental in the protection of Japan, S. Korea, and Tiawan when that time comes. Some even suggest that the 16" guns on the Iowa-class could be used in an ABM role, although that is disputed information. TomStar81 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recommisioning? 

message: The stated beam is 108 ft 2 in (32.98 m).  From the point of view of the Panama Canal transits, I was wondering whether this takes into account thermal expansion due to being in the tropics — ie. is this the shipyard's documented beam, or the figure from the canal admeasurer?  I assume that there would have been some expansion. — Johantheghost 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 108'3" is what we've been told aboard USS Missouri and I'd be surprised if there is any significant expansion in the ship's beam due to temperature.  You're talking about a 887' ship with a substantial hull thickness.  I doubt any beam expansion would be measurable.  I'm travelling at the moment but when I get back to the ship I can probably look over the engineering documents which should list the official, shipyard-measured, beam.
--72.129.68.251 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical beam 

message: The 16 inch guns are also described as 50 caliber, which is half an inch. 50 caliber is typically portable or used against small targets like rafts, jeeps, persons, floating barrels, etc.. at a mile or less. 16" can fire from many miles offshore and might have been used to damage enemy shore defenses prior to a landing in WWII.
:With battleship guns caliber is used as an indication of length, not the diameter of the barrel.  As regards the 16 inch guns the caliber is an expression of the ratio of the length of the gun to the diameter of the bore of the weapon.  The gun is 66 feet long or 800 inches long and the bore is 16 inches in diameter.  800 divided by 16 is 50 -- hence 50 caliber. ---B- 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a reference to the number of calibers of length: bore diam =1, barrel length 50x→50caliber(s). The MG is actually erroneously called "50cal", 'cause the bore is .5"; bbl length is about 68cal.  Trekphiler 10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in the case of United States Battleships the caliber designation is the ratio of length to bore as I have indicated above. ---B- 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So is Arizona, don't forget...  Trekphiler 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a common misconception.  USS Arizona was decommissioned 12/29/1941. ---B- 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Armor taken care of. --J Clear 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: USS Iowa is not in Rhode Island.  She's currently moored in Suisan Bay, San Francisco, California.  Last I heard she is expected to be moved to a new home in Stockton, CA where she will be placed on display, shortly. ---B- 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, in fact they did use helicopters in '49.  The Bell 47 was licensed for civilian use as early as 1946.  The catapults for the floatplanes were removed around May of '49.  ---B- 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: 'arguably the finest battleships '
If its arguably the finest then its also arguably not and thus this rather meaningless sentence has no place in an encyclopedic entry --Narson 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguably 

message: The paper cited in the endnote for the surrender of Iraqi troops to a UAV (endnote 4) states that it was Missouri's UAV that spotted the surrendering troops, as opposed to Wisconsin's as stated in the Wiki article.
:Thats my fault. I came across that and thought that it was Missouris UAV, when in fact several other sources cite the UAV as Wisconsins. I thought I fixed this one, but no matter. I get it corrected asap. For the record, a more detailed account could be found on the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) page. TomStar81 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endnote 4, UAV Surrender: minor discrepancy 

message: "While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow, and the narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
----
Actually, this is a compound sentence that should have been divided into two seperate sentences.
"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow..." This means that the shape of the bow is such that it will dive into high waves (porpoising), and thus there will be significant spray left on the deck. These ships have a high speed bow, but it is not wide enough to be self-supporting, and thus the porpoising.
"The narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."
This one deals with the fact that since the ship has a narrow, high speed, bow, there is not much room inside the bow section. Indeed, I've been in the bow of the USS New Jersey, and the only equipment space found there is the Anchor Room. The armor starts behind that room. I had the impression that they took that into account when they planned the armor. It seemed to me that - with the door to the Anchor Room fully dogged, a hit to the bow tip would not do much damage to the rest of the ship. The bow tip might be lost, but not much more.
CORNELIUSSEON 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, so does wet forward just mean, that the front of the deck gets wet in heavy ocean waves? the iceman 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically that's what it means.  In the case of the Iowa class the lenght of the ship is a factor as well -- especially in the Pacific the distance between the swells in medium seas are such that as the ship crests one swell, the bow tends to plunge into the next swell. ---B- 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please write short article about "wet forward". That term unclear for me (and, english is a second language for me, as it is for many wikiusers) TestPilot 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanx. Article written. Please check "wet forward" hyperlink in the Iowa class battleship article . TestPilot 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to remember, "naval" is a second lang even for native Eng speakers. (It was clear enuf to me, tho, after 25yrs reading in naval matters...)  Trekphiler 11:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what on earth does this sentence mean? 

message: FWIW, I agree with MateoP. "The only serious competition" is a POV, and not very necessary anyway because it is a parenthetical statement in an introduction. Take a look at what information is gained or lost in both versions:
#Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built (their only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class), but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.
#Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built, but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.
I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. --Deathphoenix 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that they are the "only serious competitors" is a POV.  I agree though, and think the option of removing the entire sentence and replacing it with the quote proposed by a user above would fix the problem.  --MateoP 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I lost my place on the article. Sorry, this remark was uncalled for. TomStar81 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been playing around the text of that line since it became a controversial issue; for what its worth (and its probably not worth much) my best draft version of the sentence was as followed: At the time the Iowa-class battleships were commissioned into the United States Navy it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the two Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and the five battleships of the Montana-class, which at the time had been authorized but not laid down.
*MateoP, lets take a look at your example with HMS Victory, 18 century battleship. It is obvious that any 20 century one would defeat it in battle. But what you are trying to say is like "find me a quote of an expert that state, that 18 century battleship would be definitely defeated in battle by 20 century one, otherwise it just your point of view". Logically, it makes some sense. But in reality there no need to refer NPOV in both cases. You just don't want to understand that.TestPilot 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: after thinking it through I decided not to borrow trouble. TomStar81 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Am I missing something? Calling Iowa "among the finest class ever" isn't POV, but comparing her to her likely opponents (or her peers) is? I don't need to be a "battleship expert" to know any BB is measured by her ability to throw fire & withstand punishment; weight of broadside, maximum range, & thickness of belt & turret armor are the metrics, & have been for over a century. On that basis, Vanguard would have trouble against Iowa, because she'd come under fire beyond her ability to reply; Iowa could engage Yamato but probably not defeat her, because her broadside was insufficent to penetrate Yamato armor. Comparing them isn't POV. It's a reasoned assessment, which ought to be included. Or do you suggest comparing Bismarck & Hood (or PoW) is POV? Why Bismarck sank Hood is a function of that comparo, & omitting it is omitting important facts. So is omitting the main competition to Iowa. It's a bit like saying Dreadnought had five turrets & South Carolina 4, but neglecting to say South Carolina could actually deliver the same broadside, because Dreadnought's wing turrets were masked. (If the Dreadnought page doesn't say something like it, it damn well should!) So? POV or N?  Trekphiler 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break:My take on this

message: Minor point of interest -- being designed to fit thru the Panama Canal doesn't make the Iowa-class unique.  Most US Navy ships with a comparable beam were designed to fit thru the canal.  Smaller ships didn't have to worry about it.  ---B- 06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Panama Canal Design

message: I added the section based on Fitzsimons (ed), Weapons & Warfare, v14, p1459. Not stated, I presume this was vetted by "contributing editor" Anthony Preston before publication; I don't doubt Preston would know if there was something really wrong with it...  Trekphiler 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You're History

message: There is still problems with the opening paragraph.  User TomStar81's addition was very good and solved the problem, but then user TestPilot had to once again insert his POV into it, unsourced.  Again, saying that those are the only 2 competition is an insult to all other battleships (maybe I think the Argentine battleship can compete?), unless it can be proven.  You can change it to "some of the competition would be" but just so you know, if you do that, I'm going to add other ships to the list other than just the two listed.  --MateoP 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think TomStar had it right.  I don't think it's really necessary to add in the references to Yamato or Vanguard. ---B- 06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem is that unless they face each other in battle it's always going to be opinion as to which ship would win the fight.  I happen to think the Iowa class would have the advantage against any battleship ever surged, but I may be a little biased. <grin> ---B- 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that perhaps You and Testpilot and I ought to work on the paragraph here before we reinsert it out in the text. When removed it read as followed:When commissioned, it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the two Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and the five battleships of the Montana-class, which had been authorized but not laid down (they would be cancelled before construction).How therefore should we reword it? TomStar81 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there are actually 2 problems.  1) it makes it appear that the designers of this ship had the competition of the HMS Vanguard and Yamato in mind at the time.  It makes that statement of fact.  Do we know that they had these in mind?  also 2)  It should be weakened to acknowledge that these were 2 noteworthy competition but saying that they were the only serious competition is POV.   So saying something like "it was believed that the HMS Vanguard and Yamato would be major competitors" works better, i think.  --MateoP 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. suspected the Japanese were building a new, larger, battleship when they ordered the Iowas but they didn't know the details and I'm pretty sure they didn't know the Japanese were planning 18" guns. ---B- 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On note 1) There is no way that the U.S. could have had either of the Yamato-class battleships in mind when they authorized the Iowa-class; Japan had gone to extreme lengths to prevent the world from seeing its massive battleships. As for Vanguard, there is a possibilty that the US had the ship in mind when designing the Iowa’s, Great Britian and the US were allies after all; however, do not think that was the case. On note 2) I agree with you completly. Yamato would have been the biggest competitor, but not the only one; Japan did have other battleships. It stands to reason that the Vanguard and the Yamato’s would pose the largest threat, but they were by no means the only threat. TomStar81 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am cool with it. TomStar81 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph issue not resolved

message: I removed the paragraph about the "unsubstantiated rumor" about the barrels needing to be re-rifled.  The problem with it is that the barrels of the 16" guns aren't rifled.  The Mark 7 guns have liners in them and the liners are rifled.  This was explictly done to substantially reduce the need to replace the barrels to account for wear.  The barrels are rarely replaced; the liners are replaced.  ---B- 09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rifling the barrels

message: *Gentlemen please, It does us no good to fight amongst ourselves. Lets start with something really simple: what ships do we all think would qualify as potential competition for the Iowas? I think we could all agree on Yamato and her sister, owing to the fact that Yamato was the worlds biggest battleship. Are there any others? TomStar81 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will never concede that we can make a list.  Doing so is inserted our own opinions into the equation.  This isn't a blog.  Simply eliminate the "serious competition" portion and i am fine with the statement.  --MateoP 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Rewrite

message: GraemeL was right the first time -- the guns on the Iowa-class are of a large caliber than the guns on South Dakota.  The Iowas have a 50-caliber main battery; the SoDak's have 45-caliber.  ---B- 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However its not so clear that it is larger calibre length and not calibre diameter. The important point is that the guns fired further GraemeLeggett 09:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guns

message: thumb|right|250px|Breakdown of the weapons systems installed on the Iowa class battleships during their 1980s modernization
Over on Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) someone asked why they couldn't spot the missile launchers in the lead 1990 picture.  I suspect they were looking for something like the Terrier launchers, so ABLs were explained, etc.  Anyway it got me to thinking if a picture is worth a 1000 words....  A nice schematic diagram of the Iowa class with key items identified, might be useful.  Probably want one for the 1940's configuration and one for the 1980's configuration.  The top view drawing would be the clearest, if all three drawing views aren't available or would look too cluttered.--J Clear 13:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a 1980 modernization look. I color-coded the weapon systems so people would have an easier time IDing them. Does this work? TomStar81 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the copyright, can that be used in the article.  I'd also color code the key.  Actually to help out colorblind readers, a small number in the corner of the boxes and in the key would be better.  And lastly, I'd add a more "common" name in each key (e.g. turrets, turrets, tomahawk, harpoon).  Other than that it's excellent. ;-)--J Clear 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the rest of the page (english cutaway diagrams on otherwize CZ site) you grabbed the image from, I doubt it's original to that site.  Seems a little too nice to be a US Navy PD doc though.  Should be a Navy line drawing somewhere though.--J Clear 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Item 1: Yes, we can use this in an artilce. Fair use provides for a limited number of web resolution images, of which this is one, for "identification and critical commentary" on or about specific things. In this case, our ID and critical commentary is on the weapons systems the battleship(s) use, so this fits the parameters. Item 2: I will see about revising the image per your suggestions. TomStar81 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic Diagram 

message: Jane's says, first of all, that while you are correct about the Standard Displacement, the full load displacement was 52,000 tons. I will post what jane's has.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS OF WORLD WAR II 

message: I seem to recall one thing Wikipedia is NOT is a link farm.  15 External links seems excessive.  I don't have time at the moment to evaluate all of them. Perhaps some can be pushed down to more specific articles, like the Drone video, or that link to someones trip to the New Jersey.  It occurs to me that a "Fate of the Iowas" article might be a good place to give the whole firepower debate a look see, as well as move the "what happened to the spare barrels" link to.--J Clear 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some talk of creating an article entitled "Naval Gunfore Support debate (1992-present)" to touch on the retirement of the Iowas and the concern that the Zummwalt class destroyers wont adequately meet the offshore fire requirements. If such an article were created I would suggest moving the associated material there. TomStar81 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Farm 

message: Is it accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck?  I always understood that the turrets were like big gun boxes that rotate on top of barbettes which are like heavily armored farm silos that provide protection for the shell and powder hoists that bring ammunition up from the magazines.  I've been in the bottom of the Alabama's barbette, and while some might say it's part of the turret structure, I think the distinction is valid and well worth noting.
Good article!  Wish I could write so well.
:According to this picture we have the turret is considered to be the whole shell holding, powder handeling kit, which would mean that the it is accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck. TomStar81 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we always consider the turret to extend all the way down into the magazines. That's four decks for turrets 1 & 3, 5 decks for turret 2. ---B- 07:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a citation for the "turrets aren't attached to the ship and will fall out if the she capsizes" fact?  I've heard it said before,  and don't doubt it, but it would be nice to have a credible reference. --J Clear 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to look.  It's been empiracally demonstrated, though not with an Iowa.  If you see the documentary on the Bismarck you'll note that the wreck on the bottom is minus its turrets - they having fallen out on the way down when the ship tumbled.---B- 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turrets