Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1939)

message: "These ships are considered the best Treaty battleships ever built, and quite possibly the finest battleships ever built on a ton-for-ton basis, due to their armament, protection, and excellent fire control."
I don't see how claiming anything to be "the best" - unless discussing that which is irrefutable, eg. Academy Awards for Best...,etc - contributes to the article. Moreover, the two sources for this claim are dubious to say the least, coming from personal, non-peer review websites. Note that there is a precedent for not accepting citations from http://www.combinedfleet.com given its mostly fictional content and anecdotal (at best) criteria for choosing what it (or the author) considers "the best".
(for that see []
Also, I'd be hesitant to accept anything from Navweaps.com - the "citation" gives no evidence, proof or justification for this rather grand claim.
There is much else that could be added - the position of the SoDak as Treaty battleships at all, given that they commissioned six years after the US effectively began circumventing the Treaty in relation to the Japanese violation - but the above is enough anyway.
This isn't a busy page, but if there is no objection to the rev. I'll go ahead at a later date. 84.64.197.103 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair to me. I have no objetions to removing it entirely.Parsecboy 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion/Revision of Opening Para. 

message: I don't know where this came from, but I don't remember reading anywhere that the class was referred to as such historically, and as such I don't think that it belongs here. --Lord Kelvin 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "SoDak"

message: According to this source, the outboard screws were aft of the inboard pair, an arrangement that I read somewhere is referred to as a "tunnel stern" (I am relying on memory, so don't quote me). I know of no other ships like this, so I think it is worth a mention. This could open a whole new can of worms: why was it done?, and was it successful? 
:I have one more very trivial comment, which you may disregard without prejudice if you wish. In the section describing the sloped armor, this phrase appears: "...plunging shells would strike it at an angle closer to the perpendicular, which increased their striking force." As a physicist and not a naval architect, I find that this use of the word force makes me cringe. I would refer to their ability to penetrate, which is what it is all about anyway. 
:By the way, I think that this is an excellent article. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look at the article. I fixed the "force" bit you mentioned, and will look into the propulsion stuff. I thought I had mentioned it in the article, but I guess I lost track of it. If I can find enough material, I'd like to write a separate section on the propulsion system, and it would have the analysis of it you're talking about. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propulsion

message: Suggest addition of crew size details to article and table? Noble Korhedron 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). 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 https://web.archive.org/20060924124218/http://history.navy.mil:80/danfs/s15/south_dakota-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s15/south_dakota-ii.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130810125414/http://www.navsource.org:80/archives/01/57b.htm to http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101207212722/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i1/indiana-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i1/indiana-ii.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828055342/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/danfs/m6/massachusetts-v.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m6/massachusetts-v.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HwqXeiqP?url=http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828055342/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/danfs/m6/massachusetts-v.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m6/massachusetts-v.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) 00:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified