Talk:Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

message: In the text it appears to refer to photos of the MK 37 gun directors as being in their recent condition with the MK 22 parabolic antenna but it doesn't look like said photos are actually in the article. Somebody may want to clean up the text to make sure that it doesn't say "pictured" when it's not. ---B- (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Gun Directors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205190637/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/n4/new_jersey-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/n4/new_jersey-ii.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914210138/http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Ships%20History.htm to http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Ships%20History.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205022732/http://history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don’t disagree with what is here about firing keys. But, for safety reasons, there were a lot of keys. There was one in each gun housing. There was another for the whole turret. There was undoubtedly one or more on the bridge, or under the control of the captain/ gunnery officer. These were the same on every Navy ship of the era and could be in a separate article (linked). Student7 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keys 

message: This WP:FA is a 2007 promotion that is no longer at FA standard.  There is a large amount of uncited text (I only tagged a small part of it), and a MOS review is needed.  MOS:CAPTION needs to be addressed, and text is sandwiched between images.  If someone is able to improve the sourcing, the MOS issues should be easily addressed.  If not, this article should be submitted to Featured article review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Tomstar81, though semi retired, was heavily involved in this article, have you tried contacting them? Also WP:OMT has some enthusiasts that can likely help if you want to serve a notification over there. Kees08 (Talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, would you have time to take a look at this? Kees08 (Talk) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - see above, Tom. I for one don't have the time or the sources necessary to do the work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh damn. I wish that first ping had been better formatted, I could have started on this earlier when I had a little more time to devote to it. I'll take a look and see what I can do, but I am overdue for sleep at the moment having worked a 16-hour day. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I had thought to to deconstruct the article and move the relevant information to the individual pages while keeping this as a rough outline (or possibly deleting it since weapon systems are notable enough for their own articles), but the Covid-19 mass hysteria has made finding open R&D assets such as libraries tricky, all the more so since I work in an essential business so I've been swamped for most of this year with refugee people who have grown increasingly paranoid about health and wellness. Lemme see what I can do this month and if it still doesn't pass I'll list it at FAR/C myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   - Can we get an update on this? Hog Farm  Talk 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets walk this through afd first and see what the community thinks, if it survives then off to FAR/C. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed 

message: I'm curious as to the explosive charges in these various 16" shells, both HC and AP, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this ( my apologies if otherwise ) - considering the HC can create a crater 50ft wide and 20ft deep, I'm sure the charge must be quite substantial. Anybody know the actual numbers? Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverToasty (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer can be found at United States of America, 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 on navweaps.com.  The data you want are the bursting charges.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Shell Explosive Charge Mass? 

message: There is this statement in the article:
 "The turrets were not actually attached to the ship, but sat on rollers, which meant that if the ship were to capsize the turrets would fall out."
This is incorrect.  At least the last 10 completed US battleships, including the Iowa class, have hold-down clips which secure the turrets in place.  In the photograph below, these clips are the large, semi-circular rectangular plates leaning against the foundation bulkhead:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016299.jpg
These clips are designed to prevent the turrets from upsetting (jumping the tracks) due to recoil forces or in a heavy seaway, but they also work to prevent the turrets from falling out of the ship should the ship capsize. The multiple holes in these plates are for bolting them to the turret stalk - if you look at this photo, you can see the bolt holes on the lowest level of the turret stalk. Note that these are below the roller path, meaning that the top of the clips would hit against the roller path foundation should the ship capsize.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016298.jpg
Other nations used similar devices that also prevented their turrets from falling out. For example, the Japanese battleship Nagato has been sunk upside down for over 70 years and yet her "A" and "Y" turrets are still on the wreck even though they are suspended off the bottom ("B" and "X" are also still attached, but these are on the bottom and the wreck rests on top of them). An explanation and a photo of the Nagato wreck showing the inverted turrets are in this pdf at NavWeaps.com (see pages 3-5):
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Wreck_Analysis.pdf
The Germans apparently did not use these devices or possibly on Bismarck the ones they used were not strong enough to hold the turrets in place when she capsized.
V/R,
Tony D.
http://www.navweaps.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.126.178 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turrets Falling out