Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 2

message: The number of boilers is given in the article as 12.  Norman Polmar, in Ships and Aircraft of the U.S Fleet (Naval Inst. Press, 12th ed. 1981) gives the number at 8, as does the webpage for the Missouri Memorial, [].  Which figure is correct?
:As there is no attestation for the number 12, and two sources give the number as 8, I have made the change.Kablammo 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm it's 8.  My source is actually being aboard the Missouri. :) ---B- 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can second that confirmation, that it's eight boilers.  I served on Iowa. Nolefan32 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Boilers 

message: Why does this article make no comparison with the Yamato class battleship?  I thought that would have been the closest comparison to make in both terms of armament and time period, especially when you talk about the Iowa class being the "the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship".  Thoughts? Pluke 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look in the archives, you can still see the smoldering riuns of the edit war(s) fought over the inclusion/exclusion of certain battleships when compared to the Iowas. In this case Yamato does not appear here because the Montana class battleships were felt to be a higher pillar to measrue U.S. and IJN battleship power with; however, if you wish to add Yamato to the that small list go right ahead. Be forewarned though that the ship may not be listed there long; this article is under scrutiny for to little citations, and information added without a cited source can (and usually is) removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you think that the Iowas would fare any better facing 18inch shells? In any case I have serious doubts about that test you linked. What is a simulated 30,000 yard impact meant to mean? I suspect the test range was a fraction of that. A real 30,000 yard hit would involve the shell coming down at an angle and hitting that plate obliquely which certainly does now appear to have happened in that test. Unless of course 30,000 yards is the sweet spot where the angle of shell fall and the angle the plate on the turret were fitted coincided to allow a perfect 90 degree impact. If that is the case well, how many turret faces were hit at 30,000 yards, give or take a mile, during the whole of WWII? Not many I'd wager. Its a relatively small area to hit on a moving target from a moving platform at 17 miles! --LiamE 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with the Yamato Class

message: What the hell is that competition section at the end of the article all about?  If we are going to indulge in speculation over who built the best warships thn do do so from the assumption that the Iowa's are the ultimate is at the very least biased, if not the very height of arrogance.
For example, claiming that HMS Vanguard had "inferior speed and firepower" not only neglects to mention that the Vanguard was built on a budget using 20 year old guns - fundamental to understanding the design compromises inherent in that particualr ship - but also ommits that rather important fact that the Iowa's armour was only designed to be proof against 14" projectiles whereas the Vanguard was designed to be proof against 16".  What does that mean?  It means that an Iowa would have had to close to within the effective range of Vanguard's 15" guns in order to defeat the Vanguard's armour - at which range it would be more vulnerable to the Vanguard's weapons than the Vanguard was to hers.
Similarly, bragging how the Iowas fire control system was superior to the Yamato's, and how this is likely to be decisive is rather missing the point.  The Yamato was designed to be proof against 18" projectiles, ans as such it is highly unlikely her improved fire control would have made the blindest bit of difference.  A single salvo from a Yamato would likely have been decisive, whilst it is arguable as to whether the Iowa's 16" guns would have been able to significantly damage a Yamato at all...
Don't get me wrong, the Iowas were fine ships and no one will dispute that, but to make the claim that they were the somehow the "best" battleships ever built at the very least demonstrates a lack of understanding of the relative advantages and drawbacks of the vessels of the era...
Bluntly, I would like the section completely removed, but int he interim I've edited the entries to be a little less biased...  Getztashida 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be removed. I am working on a major overhaul of this article to bring it up to what is now considered featured status. As part of this ongoing effort I intend to remove the competion section in its entirety. Since the section does contain some useful information I am considering whether to split the section off into its own article or simply add the beast battleships features in with the article contents (ie "Yamato had the biggest guns of any battleship put to sea", "The Iowa class were the fastest battleships ever built", etc). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section doesn't belong. There is a link at the bottom ("A comparison of seven battleship classes during WWII") that seems to do a very thorough, thoughtful, and unbiased analysis of the respective differences; thus, it does what is necessary without subjecting the article to original research. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition section

message: I was curious to know who the Navy blamed for the ordeal and how they got her free. If what I have heard is correct, getting her afloat again was difficult to say the least. After they were unable to use tugs to get her free I was told they took provisions, fuel, and ammo off to try to lighten the ship enough to get buoyancy. I also think, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Missouri's bow was damaged and removed. Rather than build a new one they took the bow from the completed hull off the U.S.S. Kentucky BB-66. Thanks for any info. Anynobody 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last part about the bow is technically correct; however it was USS Wisconsin whose front end was replaced. This occored shortly after Wisconsin collided with the destroyer Eaton in heavy fog. Supposedly, this gave rise to Wisconsin’s nickname "WisKy", which is supposed to be a combination of the names Wisconsin and Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: TomStar81 has it right about the bow (though I can't confirm or deny the origin of Wisconsin's nickname).  Missouri's bow is original and was never seriously damaged.  The grounding was blamed, rightfully, on Captain Brown who ignored the advice of his navigator and quartermaster and instead directed the ship to run outside the buoy lane and thus hard aground.  Captain Brown was relieved of command and dropped about 200 places on the command list, which effectively meant he was never going to command a ship again.  It was very difficult to refloat her, took about 3 weeks as I recall and they did have to unload a considerable amount of weight in an effort to lighten her.  Ultimately they had to dredge the bottom a bit and use a lot of tugs before they finally got her free.  She did not, however, contrary to a number of rumors to the contrary, suffer any significant lasting physical damage from the incident.  ---B- 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are correct as I discovered when I decided to answer my own questions at the Naval Historical page. The Kentucky was involved in both incidents, in 50 when Missouri needed it's spot in the shipyard to repair, they moved the unfinished Kentucky to make room. Six years later they took Kentucky's bow to repairUSS Wisconsin. The Navy's logic on Captain Brown seems sound, did anyone question his direction to leave the buoy lane? Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it. Anynobody 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the quartermaster and the navigator both said that they thought they were out of the lane and should be passing to the STARBOARD side of the buoys.  But Captain Brown insisted that the lane was to the port side of the buoys.  That factored heavily into their decision to relieve him of command I suspect. ---B- 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grounding

message: I'm new to editing in Wikipedia.  Just started this a few days ago, and am still learning protocols.  Just wanted to let you know I made a bunch of spelling corrections and a couple of grammar corrections.  Did nothing to change the meaning, and in fact all the changes I made had already been flagged by the checker.  In the future I will sign everything.  By the way, this is great work. Busaccsb 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you like it. My only regret is that my spelling and grammar suck, I woul like to be able to find and correct more of my spelling errors before putting new/improved maerial out onto article spaces. I am therefore extremely grateful to contributers such as yourself who fix spelling and grammar mistakes; without you, I would be in spelling hell. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: The "History" section starts by saying the Iowa design was shaped by the rise of naval aviation, but no evidence for this is given. So I have removed several sentences about naval aviation:
:These treaties stopped U.S. construction of battleships and battlecruisers, but not the development of aircraft and aircraft carriers. In 1921, United States Army Air Service Brigadier General Billy Mitchell proved aircraft could sink ships by attacking the German battleship SMS Ostfriesland, which had been given to the United States at the end of World War I under the terms of the Armistice. The Navy downplayed the sinking, saying Ostfriesland was unmanned, yet the demonstration foreshadowed the role such aircraft would play in World War II. USS Lexington and USS Saratoga, originally laid down as heavy cruisers, were thereafter converted to aircraft carriers.
These can go back if someone can link them to the Iowa design. PRRfan 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of evidence are looking for with regards to naval aviation and the Iowa class? I could probably cite this with ease, but I need to know exactly what you are looking for. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, anything that shows how naval aviation influenced the design of the Iowas. All this info about the Ostfriesland, the Lex, and the Sara seems otherwise beside the point. (Thanks for the barnstar, by the way.) PRRfan 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You earned the barnstar, so don't mention it ;) The main extent that Naval Aviation had on the Iowas was to demand the ships could do two things: first, keep up the carriers. The Iowas could do that since they were capable of steaming at 33 knots. The other influence that naval aviation had on the Iowas (and all WWII era US battleships in general) was the need for a floating Anti-Aircraft platform. The Iowa's were equiped with 120 AA-guns partly for defense against enemy aircraft and partly because the US carriers did not mount a large collection of Anti-Aircraft guns, meaning that other ships had to screen US carriers from enemy air raids. The part about Mitchells experiments was included to show the gradual shift from battleships to carriers, and Lex and Sara were included on account of the fact that they mark the birth of US Naval Aviation. Its not like the world will end if the information is excluded, I just thought it might be of interest to readers. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The need to keep up with and protect the carriers makes sense (and, I see, is expanded upon in the "birth of the Iowas" section), so I've readded a clause about naval aviation. I think the stuff about the other ships is still a bit extraneous what's already a long article. PRRfan 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a cite for that?  The 'fast battleship' program started well before the Iowa class.  The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were both 'fast battleship' classes and the extra AA armament didn't get added to the design until after the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.  The way it's currently written suggests that the class was designed as an AA escort from the onset and that just isn't true.  When the class was designed the guns vs aircraft debate had yet to be decided.--Lepeu1999 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Expressed myself poorly above.  Not disputing they were designed to keep up with the Essex class what I am saying is the article suggests that they were designed as primarily an AA platform.  THAT didn't come into play until after they were well on the way to launch or launched.  They were designed to protect the carriers from other battleships - their role as an AA defender didn't come in until after the war started.  I've added a fact to the section I refer to here.--Lepeu1999 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying; I will lokk into citing that as soon as I can. I believe I pulled that information from a book though, so some reading will be in order before I can "fact" it for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I finally found it, it was in my WWII encyclopdia which resides in the back on book closet. The info is cited now, so you can check the citation if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iowa design shaped by naval aviation?