Talk:Pennsylvania-class battleship

message: 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)
replies: text: The "radius of action" listed in Stefan Terzibaschitsch, Der Schlachtschiffe der US Navy im 2. Weltkreig, J.F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1977. is 8,000 nautical miles at cruising speed of 12 knots for the Pennsylvania class. The tactical radius of 700 yards denotes turning radius giving all standard type battleships similar operating characteristics. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifications

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvements to this page

message: 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 Ammunitionhttp://www.big-ordnance.com/Davis/davis_ammunition.htm and gotten confused; can anyone elucidate as to what this section's trying to say? njan 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Great! Any chance of documenting that on wikipedia and/or finding a reference to provide? njan 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater Protection 

message: The "plainlinks" span is a rarely used technique that makes external references look like interwiki links and is therefore surprising to the the reader when clicked on. It should be replaced by a normal external link per WP:CITEFOOT NE Ent 12:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why we need a cite link at all, since that is normally provided on the photograph page. --Yaush (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi NE Ent and Yaush, while I appreciate that plainlinks are rarely used, the approach passed FAC without attracting comment, and it's a better solution than scattering the external link arrows throughout the article. Furthermore, they certainly aren't citations—it's a way of acknowledging credit for the photos (which is also very non-standard, but thankfully Wikipedia allows a wide leeway to article writers), many of which were specifically scanned and uploaded by the National Archives and Records Administration for this article and . Best regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it passed FAC isn't particularly relevant -- it's such an obscure technique I doubt the reviewer(s) thought to look for it. Per Yaush, I've removed the link altogether. NE Ent 09:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I've stated, that's a personal choice of mine, and Wikipedia has traditionally given wide stylistic leeway to the people who are writing the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You chose to submit content under the conditions "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—". Note per Template:Plain_link/doc  is intended for local and interwiki links, not external ones. See also Wikipedia_talk:External_links#plainlinks NE Ent 13:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

text: There are nine usages of "plainlinks", including one which includes everything in the References section. That is wildly excessive, and while we are grateful to have use of the images, they are presumably suitably licensed so "courtesy of" should not be needed—such credits are highly unusual. However, I agree with Ibadibam—there are far worse problems on Wikipedia, and it is not worth pursuing the matter. If it is a real problem, it will eventually be resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be necessary to put "Photograph by x, courtesy of y" in the image captions. That information should be on the file description pages, per WP:CREDITS. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  plainlinks 

message: The edit summary for the edit I just made didn't give quite enough space, so I'm adding to it here. Checked the Battle of Surigao Straits and the Battle of Jutland (WW1), and the Battle of Jutland was bigger, by an order of magnitude. Therefore, the Battle of Surigao Straits could not have been the largest engagement of battleships in history. However, it is worth noting that the Battle of Jutland did not feature the US Navy, but was between Imperial Germany and Great Britain. As difference to the original author of this article, extending the benefit of the doubt, I am therefore editing the part about the Battle of Surigao Straits to say "largest AMERICAN battle of battleships in history". Ahfretheim (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but the edit you made didn't say anything about the size of the battle. It said the battle was the LAST BB vs. BB engagement, not largest. I reverted. BTW I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your assessment of Jutland vs. Leyte Gulf. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may also want to review Largest naval battle in history just FYI and food for thought. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed Explanation of Edit

message: It turned out that damage from the primary armament of enemy battle ships was only a minor cause of damage to battle ships, so this approach to armor was based on exaggerated confidence in predicting future wars.  I don't know how to work this into the article, but editors should keep this inconsistency in mind.  Being imitated is not evidence that one right, succeeding is.
: I'm not sure how to respond to that in what way are you talking about the subject? I've no idea how to respond. Care to explain a bit further on that?Tirronan (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  All or none armor 

message: What kind of fire control did the ships have did they have rangefinders and analog computers like the British ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire control system