Talk:Indiana-class battleship

message: The leading sentence to the article is "The three Indiana-class battleships of the United States Navy were the first series of modern battleships to be built." Presumably this is to be built by the US Navy?
--Schwern 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the first series of modern battleships to be built." is ambiguous 

message: Citing Reilly and Scheina, the Indiana class had "limited endurance and coal capacity". on page 68 however they give the steaming radius of the ships. At 10 knots they give radii (sp?) of 3720 naut. miles (BB-1), 4500 naut. miles (BB-2)and 5500 naut. miles (BB-3). While the first could be considered pretty limited, the second is comparable to the British Royal Sovereign and Majestic classes as well as the German Brandenburg class and the third is obviously superior.
This leaves me with two questions:
* Why is there such a big difference in steaming radius between three ships of the same class, considering they all have almost identical dimensions, displacement and maximum coal capacity (1600 tons which I can't compare to other data, but it doesn't seem really limited either)?
* If the steaming radii are correct, why do Reilly and Scheina refer to the entire class as having limited endurance instead of just BB-1, why don't they comment on this almost 2000 radius increase?
Any help with answering these questions or the name of a possible alternate source to check whether the data is correct would be greatly appreciated (DANFS and navsource.org don't have steaming radii). Yoenit (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "limited endurance" is relative. The Royal Sovereigns (1400 tons coal) would have had sufficient endurance for military operations from the UK to around the European seas, but for offensive operations the Indianas would need to steam much further eg in crossing the Pacific. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although a possibility, it doesn't shed any light on why the Oregon can go an additional 2000 miles compared to the Indiana. I did some further reading and the only other battleships commisioned pre 1900 with a radius over 5000 naut. miles seem to be the Centurion class, which are second class battleships specifically desigend for long range, and the Japanese ships, for which the numbers seem to be wrong (a captured Petropavlovsk of 3800 radius suddenly has a radius of 10000?). This would mean that in the 4 years after she was commisioned the Oregon would have the greatest endurance of any first class battleship on the planet, which just does not fit with the limited endurance thingy. My bet is that the 5500 number is simply wrong and perhaps the 4500 as well. Now I just have to find a reliable source to prove it. Yoenit (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility: Oregon was built on the West Coast, and Friedman says on p. 27 that "standard U.S. Navy contracts of this period allowed builders to propose alternatives to the official design." —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  the following publication, or the one it refers to on the first page might shed some light on this, but my university doesn't seem to give online acces to the paper unfortunately. THE STEAMING RADIUS OF UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSELS. Anybody have better luck? Yoenit (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevermind, I got the article. Interesting stuff, seems the true steaming radius for all three vessels was 4500-5500 (at least in 1898) Yoenit (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited endurance and coal capacity? 

message: Hello there, thanks for your work here. I see that your books cites a Scientific American article in ref 2 here. Do they give a page number? If so, I'll go and take a look at it, as my university's library has (I think) every issue ever published. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, The page number is 93 from issue 74, dated 8 may 1896 Yoenit (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll go hunt this down as soon as I can. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Scientific American'' as ref 2 

message: The prose has been expanded more than 5x; does anyone want to nominate this at T:TDYK? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, I looked at it, but I still have no idea how it works and why you would participate. Feel free if you want to nominate, but I don't understand it. Yoenit (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: I saw the price for the Indiana's was given at 3 million dollar with a source. Are you absolutely certain that this is correct?
Reilly & Scheine give the exact total costs for each ship down to the dollarcent and these are around 6 million (6,5 for Oregon). Now they either dreamed those up or the other source is incorrect (perhaps projected costs vs actual cost?) Yoenit (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If R&S say different, by all means use them, they're more reliable and are way more recent. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price of the Indianas 

message: As the header says, which do we use? I don't really care either way, but right now all three styles are used in the article. For the infobox I suggest we stick with the shortest abbreviation, but otherwise I will follow any guideline. Yoenit (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A combination of -inch and inches, depending on its grammatical context (adjective or not) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  in, -inch or inches? 

message: eg "With the outbreak of World War II, it was deemed that the scrap value of the ship was necessary.... to the war effort and she was sold ". I think we can paraphrase or rewrite more. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are no doubt correct. In fact the entire section is just a trimmed copy of the DANFS article (gotta love public domain text) I will have another look at it soon Yoenit (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought: if you want to get this to FA, all of that text will hvae to be reworded/paraphrased or it will fail, I guarantee it. :\ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I plan on getting the individual ship articles up to GA class before I make a nomination for a FA (if I do at all) and rewrite the sections here once I have done the corresponding article. But what about GA-class, would the article fail that assessment on this point? Yoenit (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus on WT:MHCOORD seemed to lean towards A-class and higher, so no—but it depends on the individual GA reviewer as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much text directly takem from DANFS? 

message: The sub-entry for the Indiana has a photograph claiming to depict the ship at the Colombian Exposition in Chicago. It must be a picture of the mock-up "USS Illinois" instead, since the "Illinois" was specifically designed and built for display at the expo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.193 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! that explains it. I was wondering last night how the Indiana could be present there in 1893, when it was not commissioned until two years later. Many thanks for pointing it out, I will look for a replacement picture in an hour orso Yoenit (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Photographic Caption 

message: *There's one "the Indiana" (in the endsections) and at least one "the Massachusetts" and "the Oregon". These don't bother me because that language is common in our sources (Garzke & Dulin for instance) and in general, but a lot of SHIPS people like to be consistent ... up to you. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indiana-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/106.1/lomax.html
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 13:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indiana-class battleship. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110605144714/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o3/oregon-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o3/oregon-ii.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wonder if the length quoted on this article and its child (per ship) article are actually a valid and generally accepted values or a case of misinterpreted terminology. Length waterline is obviously ships' length in the waterline, and length overall is ships' longest dimension when measured parallel to waterline. Logically length overall should never be less than length waterline. ArdWar (T•C•L) 20:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOA and LWL figures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana-class battleship. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120128105138/http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/budget.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/budget.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) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana-class battleship. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080922054736/http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/02a.htm to http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/02a.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) 19:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this sentence accurate, it has no citation: "Specifically intended for coastal defense, their freeboard was insufficient to deal well with the waves of the open ocean."  The Oregon sailed thought the Straight of Magellan, so it's hard to claim it couldn't deal with the open ocean.
76.88.55.202 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indiana-class battleship#General characteristics. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifically intended for coastal defense