Talk:Nevada-class battleship

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Comparison between the Queen Elizabeths and the Nevadas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: The previous version had several errors in the second paragraph. First the prior version cited a design flaw in their lack of Deck Armor. Friedman's book (US Battleships an Illustrated Design History) cites that they were designed with two decks totaling 4.5 to 5" of armor. The Nevada class at the time of their contruction had more Deck Armor than any of its contemporaries and the basic armor scheme they introduced continued unchanged through the standard class well into the era of long range gunnery and plunging fire. When modernized the deck was strengthened adding 80lb  STS (Friedman page 197) tot hge second deck incerasing the thickness to 4.75 or 5"
With respect to the quote about watertight integrity the source is quoted correctly but a reading of the actaul damage report written after the ship was salvaged (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB36/PearlHarborDamageReport/) does not support the assertion that older ships in general had deficient watertight integrity. To quote "The flooding from damage could have been isolated from a material standpoint, assuming effective closures, Condition Zed fully set, and the ship completely manned." This report should be considered definitive and does not support the original statement regarding the watertight imtegrity of older warships. 
Finally to state that older ships did not have the same staying power as new designs no matter how well modernized is self evident and not related to the Nevada class. That a clean sheet new generation design (especially one begun 20+ years later) would be better is self evident. In fact a survey of how the standard class performed in WWII (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm) indicates that the standards performed well and considerably better than their foreign contemporaries.
The edit offered (Friedman Chapter 5 as a source) emphasizes design features that made the Nevada's unique and in fact the prototype of the modern battleship. Ships designed post Jutland employed many of the same features (oil fuel, all or nothing armor, the elimination of mid-deck turrets, significant deck armor, and a focus on long range fire) that the Nevada's introduced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.141.221 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Dr. Friedman's book and I believe that all the comments above are correct. Tirronan (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in previous Version 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nevada-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918094229/http://www.battleship.org:80/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm to http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The picture labeled as the USS Texas has three turrets before any superstructure. The Texas though has a turret amidship
I think that image is of another ship
Fdr2001 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re looking at it wrong - the photo is from astern, not ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively,  may be thinking that there should be a mast in between turrets #3 and #4. Which isn't wrong later in the ship's life! But early on, that aft mast was ahead of the #3 turret. See Navsource for some chronologically ordered photos. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Parsecboy has it right. I had the ship backwards Fdr2001 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve done the same thing too! Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the picture in the design section really the Texas?