Talk:USS O'Bannon (DD-450)

message: The article claims that the O'Bannon had a major role in the sinking
of the Hiei, but if you go to the article on the Hiei, it doesn't
mention O'Bannon.  Instead, it mentions the Sterrett (sp?).
:"O'Bannon’s gunfire, in combination with the attacks of the rest of the force, damaged Hiei so badly that she was a sitting duck for the air attack which sank her next day." 
: Mm, I don't read that as a major role, but it could be rephrased. I think the Hiei article is giving Sterett too much credit.
: Our article on the battle says, "Hiei, ... now became the focus of gunfire from many of the U.S. ships.  ... Laffey was able to rake Hiei’s superstructure with 5-inch shells and machinegun fire, ... Sterett and O'Bannon likewise pumped several salvos into Hiei’s superstructure from close range, and perhaps one or two torpedoes into her hull, causing Hiei further damage, before both destroyers escaped into the darkness." 
: Sterett’s account says, "Sterett turned now to Hiei, let fly four torpedoes, and peppered her superstructure with 5-inch shells. Though the battleship neither sank nor sustained severe damage, Sterett scored two torpedo hits before a third target crossed her bow."
:—wwoods 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DANFS questions

message: Accordiing to the article USS Sample (FF-1048), the USS Sample (FF-1048) was damaged by the O'Bannon to such an extend that the Sample had to return to the shipyard. However, the article does not state, what precisely caused the damage. Is there more information available? -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''O'Bannon'' damaged ''USS Sample (FF-1048)'' 

message: This shouldn't require a discussion - nowhere else on wikipedia are unexplained acronyms permitted - the full name is more recognizable to the majority or readers, hence why it is usually used, and it reduces confusion between the various aircraft designations. This isn't the USN, where meaningless acronyms are the way to go. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm even more confused. What acronym are you talking about? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: F4F is an acronym meaning the fourth fighter ordered by the US Navy from Grumman, which is fine in certain contexts (such as if the aircraft has already been fully identified), but one of the goals of wikipedia is to be as meaningful as particularly for those unfamiliar with the common nomenclature, and by providing the full name whenever possible, that helps a bit. There is also a consistency factor, as the aircraft used by other countries almost always get the full name, however oftentimes US Navy aircraft only get the designation or designation and type name. - NiD.29 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call that an acronym, but I know what you're talking about now. I disagree that adding the manufacturer's name helps the majority of readers. We do not have consensus to make this change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  F4F vs full name 

message: The source cited for the potato story does not state this as fact. It says there are several different versions of the story, and no one knows what the true story is. And now we have a source that strongly implies there was no potato bombardment. The story seems extremely unlikely to me. Sailors at battle stations are not likely to take the time to throw potatos. And where would the potatos have come from? There wouldn't be any on deck, they would need to be passed up by the gun loading crew. At the very least this paragraph needs a re-write. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The potato story