Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much ammunition?

I was wondering, how many shells can these ships carry for the main guns? There's this discussion of whether they should be kept for possible future reactivation, and it makes me wonder just how much firepower is represented by an Iowa-class ship. Also the amount a 5-inch ammo might be relevant, but mainly the 16-inch shells. --Howdybob 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take an educated guess at about 100 rounds per gun for the 16" guns. There are editors who have served on Iowas though who could be more accurate. --LiamE 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually came across those numbers during my research into the article's rewrite some monthes back. The stated number is 130 rounds of 16 in ammo per gun (390 rounds total), but that number is disputed since it seems to small (firing the guns during 6 to 9 hours seiges would exhast that ammount of ammunition quickly). Other personel put the numbers at 387 rounds for Turret I, 456 for Turret II, and 367 for Turret III for a total of 1,210 rounds of 16-in ammo (navweaps.com). For the 5-in guns the number stated is 450-500 rounds per 5-in mount. Multiplied by 10 this puts the total at 4,500 to 5,000 rounds of 5-in ammo in a WWII design. In their 1980s configuration the total would be 2,700 to 3,000 rounds of 5-in ammo (navweaps.com). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar has it right, our typical full load aboard USS Missouri would have been just a bit over 1200 rounds of 16". Mostly Hi-Cap with relatively few AP rounds. ---B- (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's 130 per gun, as opposed to 130 per turret, then the actual total would be 1,170 rounds, which is close to the other figure of 1,210. --Howdybob 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Fire Control section modifications

I am an old retired Fire Control Technician (Gun) new to WikipediA. You folks have done a great job on this article, but I would like to humbly offer some suggestions to the Fire Control Section. Each gun battery had its own set of Fire Control Systems. The 16in/50Cal Main battery had the two Mk 34 GFCS's and they each used a Mk 4 Rangekeeper electromechanical computer (I'm pretty sure about this, but it has been 25 years). The 5in/38Cal Secondary Battery had four Mk37 GFCS's and each used a MK IA electromechanical computer. The 40mm AA Battery probably used the Mk51 Director with a Mk14 (40mm) gun sight near each mount. The 20mm AA Battery used a Mk14 (20mm) Gun Sight mounted over the barrel/barrels on each mount. This is because these were all electromechanical analog computing devices. They calculated by spring tension, Gyro precession, position of a small rod on a three dimensional cam buried deep in the workings of the device. Each computer was designed and hand made for each gun ballistic in the factory, and could not be changed to another gun ballistic at sea. If you all think I could help your great work, I would be glad. FTC Gerry 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Later: I Apologize for posting this in this article's discussion page. I thought I was on the Armament page. I don't know how to delete it!) FTC Gerry 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; were not suppose to delete good faith additions, and this will eventually be archived. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Storm Rising?

Someone removed a reference to Red Storm Rising from the pop-culture section on the grounds that there was no citation. Isn't the citation the novel itself? I don't see what else could be done beyond a chapter number; the page number will vary depending on whether it's hardcover and so on. --Howdybob 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it becuase no ref tabbed inline citation was provided for the novel account. If you wish to reinsert it use the cite book template and add as much information as you can; otherwise I will remove it again as an inadequently cited reference. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was the one who added that in the first place, I figured it was a notable pop culture refrence, since Red Storm Rising is required reading for the US military, etc. etc. I'm affraid I'm not very good at citing sources, I'll see if I can dig up my copy and puzzle my way through it. Should I just include the chapter number, or should I say the page number and the version of the book I'm getting it from? I'm affraid I'm new to this! =) AGTMADCAT 07:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the hidden notice in the Pop culture section: BEFORE PLACING AN ITEM IN THIS SECTION PLEASE ENSURE IT HAS HAD A WELL-CITED AND NOTABLE IMPACT ON POPULAR CULTURE. (Caps not mine.) How does the Iowa class's appearance in Red Storm RIsing impact popular culture? I don't think it did, but I could be wrong. But one would have to have a reliable source to prove its impact. As it stands, it is simply listing one of many military/naval assets mentioned in the book. A better list might be "List of contemporary military assets NOT apperaing in Red Storm Rising", as Clancy's books usually have just about every US ship, plane, tank, etc. in or expected in service of the relevant nations at the time of writing. - BillCJ 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Under Siege! Sunil060902 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

  • NOTE: I've restored the discussion improperly removed by Eleland. This is a legitimate section covering why certain information has been removed from the article, and why it should not be covered here. Further removals such as this will be met with appropriate actions, either to AIV or Admin reveiw, depending on the editor's status. - BillCJ (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments

In the opening paragraphs it states that these battleships where the ultimate capital ship. This is obviously untrue, the Yamato class far more powerful. These ships where limited by the Panama canal. Even though these ships are historical and possibly the second most powerful battleship, they where not the best. The Yamato would rape these things in combat during WW1, and this should be acknowledged. I can understand that these ships are American but the fact of the matter is Yamato was the most powerful battleship (mind you im not counting Iowas post modernising - we should compare the two ships when they where both active at the same time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.118 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the line that you state is untrue is double-cited. If you could provide reliable sources to back up your claim. -MBK004 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if you could it would be very unwise to compare the Iowa class to the Yamato class in this article; we tried that once, and the net result was a two month edit war over whose ships get to be listed (check archive 1 for proof). Ultimately the whole compitition thing was removed for the sake of peace an civility. Moreover, the Yamato class should be compared to the best U.S. battleships, and those aren't the American Iowa class battleships, they are the U.S. Montana class battleships. In due time I plan to rewrite the Yamato class page, and that page will of nessecity note the honor bestowed on the mighty Yamatos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well when the US was planning the Iowas they didnt expect or want them to fight with the new dreadnought the Japanese where building (Yamato) because they knew it would be certain death. Its role was to be more of a battle cruiser as opposed to a battleship. I think this is excellent proof that the Iowas are not the pinnacle of Battleship design because they where not even designed to take other ships because they where simply stronger. If you think this should be added into this article (which it should because its true, theres no denying the truth) i can get the refs needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. It wasn't until late in the war that US intelligence started to form a clear picture of the design specifications of the Yamatos, including their displacement, armor protection, and size of the main gun armament (the US thought they had 16" main guns). Their (the Iowas) role was nothing like that of a battlecruiser, and they most certainly were designed to take on any *known* battleship in existence or under construction. The Iowa's 16/50 main gun was as good or better than any battleship gun known to be in existence, and was essentially as good ballistically as the Yamato's 18.1" weapon. Saying that the Yamatos were more powerful simply because they were larger and had larger main guns is a simplistic comparison that ignores myriad other factors when quantifying the fighting power of the respective ships. No offense, but your comments here lead me to believe that your research on the subject is extremely limited. You should check out the reference section of the article, especially the Sumrall and Garzke and Dulin works. Also, an excellent source is Norman Friedman's work on US Battleships. I'm not saying one can't argue that the Yamatos were the ultimate, most powerful battleship design, you're simply using incorrect and spurious points to make your case. --Dukefan73 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


The Americans knew that the Japanese where creating a super ship (Yamato) and they didnt want their ships to go one on one with it, but i really cannot be bothered backing this up. But the fact of the matter is, someone who doesnt know anything about battleships will be mislead by this guide. It tells the reader that these where the best battleships the world had ever seen, and has no mention of the Yamato. Lets face it, the Iowas may have been better in terms of a support ship for the carriers and be of more strategic value, but the Yamato fufills the original role of the battleship because it was bigger and better, enough said. The Iowas would surely loose in a one on one duel with the Yamato, but as i said they may have been of more use all around as support ships and what not. I think this article should state that the Yamato was a larger battleship with bigger guns. This would atleast readers to compare the two and come to a conclusion themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can make a multitude of spurious claims yet "cannot be bothered backing this up"? That's a joke, right? Anyway, the key sentence in the article is this one (italics added for emphasis by myself):
"Built with no regard for cost, the Iowa class was arguably the ultimate in the evolution of the capital ship."
Oh, and as I stated previously, US Intelligence did NOT know that the Japanese created a super-ship, and the US DID design the Iowas to be able to stand up to any existing or projected battleship. It wasn't until 1942 that the USN was even aware of the existence of new IJN battleships, and up until June of 1945 still believed that the Yamatos were armed with 9 16" guns and were around 45,000 tons standards displacement.
Simply stating that the Yamato "was bigger and better, enough said." is an ignorant claim, especially when made without any reputable references to back up such a statement. A comparison between the two ships should NOT be included in the article, as the purpose of the article is to relate the design specifications and service history of the ships. *Subjective* comparisons are best left to personal websites. The best site on the subject, which is as objective as could possible be, is found at http://www.combinedfleet.com/. The author of the site makes a thoughtful analysis and comparison of the capabilities of various battleship classes, and given that the site is about the Imperial Japanese Navy (meaning any bias would more than likely lean towards the IJN and their ships), you may be shocked to find that his analysis concludes the Iowas were the best battleships of WWII.
I will therefore mention, once again, that you may want to further your knowledge in this area before making such spurious claims that you cannot be bothered to back up. I, however, can back up my claims, and my 3 primary sources are:
Friedman, Norman: U.S. Battleships
Garzke, William H. and Dulin, Robert O.: Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992
Garzke, William H. and Dulin, Robert O.: Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II
The Garzke and Dulin books are generally recognized as being the finest available concerning their given subject matter, and Norman Friedmen is one of the preeminent authors on USN warships. So, make whatever contentions you wish, but without any reputable research to back up your contentions, your arguments hold as much water as a sieve. --Dukefan73 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Wow your taking this very personally. First of all iv read the combinedfleet.com comparison and iv you take that seriously your very idiotic. Now in the the 'Encylopedia of WARSHIPS from world war II to the present day' by Robert Jackson, it states clearly that 'US intelligence suspected that the new Japanese battleship would have 45.7-mm (18-in) guns, it was hoped that the 'Iowa' class would not have to fight them, as carrier aircraft would keep the Japanese giants outside gun range. The Iowas were primarily inteded to keep heavy cruisers, rather than battleships, at bay, and as such they came close to the original concept of the battlecruiser, although they were never such rated'. That is a direct quote. But i wouldnt seriously expect someone as ignorant as yourself to take this seriously or include it in the article. And i dont want a comparison of the Yamato and Iowa either. But i think this article is still misleading because it gives the impression that this ship was invincable and could easily take out the Yamato. I think in the opening paragraph it should simply state that the Yamato had bigger guns and was a larger vessel.

O and your 'arguments hold as much water as a sieve' statement was very classy, it brang a tear to my eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this personally? In your opening comments in this section, you state unequivocally that the the Iowas were not the ultimate battleship, the Yamato class were far more powerful, the "Yamato would rape these things in combat", and "the fact of the matter is Yamato was the most powerful battleship". You make these statements without any supporting argument, references, etc, and I can't really believe you were expected to be taken seriously on your simple, unsubstantiated opinion.
As far as me taking the combinedfleet.com site seriously, I do so with a grain of salt. The author provides interesting comparisons based on factual data. You, or I, nor anybody else may necessarily fully agree with his conclusions, but they do deserve due consideration. I would find it interesting as to exactly what you disagree with, as far as his methodology, data, and conclusions are concerned.
If the Robert Jackson is your sole or primary source for you argument, then I can now definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't know where Mr. Jackson gets his information from, but he's flat out wrong. There was nothing "battlecruiser" like about the Iowas besides their speed. They certainly weren't intended to fight only cruisers, and it is ludicrous to make such an assertion. I don't suppose you have any other sources? I can come to the obvious conclusion that you've never read Friedman, Sumrall, or Garzke and Dulin, among others. You really need to expand your library, in my humble opinion.
It seems as if your argument for the Yamato is entirely based on their larger displacement and larger guns (you keep repeating this over and over). The gun argument is a wash, the Iowas 16/50 firing the 2700lb AP round had essentially the same effective range and virtually identical penetration characteristics to the Yamatos 18.1" firing a 3219lb AP round. The Yamato does have a slight penetration advantage at ranges under 20,000 yards. The Iowas guns have a higher rate of fire, and are significantly more accurate due to radar fire control. So, whereas the Yamatos rounds were more destructive due to their sheer size, she fires fewer of them were a lesser chance of hitting her target than Iowa does. Oh, and the penetration characteristics of the Japanese rounds were fairly poor when compared to those the US and other countries.
Now, let's look at sheer size. Yamatos much greater displacement and beam allowed her to be more heavily armored. I won't go into depth on this one, but do you know the difference between cemented and non-cemented armor is? Do you know what face-hardened armor is? STS? Do you know the name for the type of armor the Yamato used? Its quality when compared with American, British, German, or French armor? If you don't know these things, then your argument loses even more validity.
It's funny, but the about the only advantages the Yamato had were her sheer size (with the corresponding increase in armor protection) and the size of her guns. The Iowas were faster (by a clear 6 knots), had a smaller tactical diameter, had *far* better fire control (for main and secondary armaments), had a much better secondary armament (the primary Japanese AA weapon, the 25mm, was quite a bit inferior to the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40mm Bofors). I won't even get into such things as damage control, internal subdivison, redundancies, etc. In other words, as I stated previously, there are myriad factors involved in a comparison of the two ships.
The best way for you to have changes made to the article is to directly quote here which passages you feel are exaggerated or just plain wrong. Then, you should provide logical reasoning backed up by several reputable reference sources to support your argument. Then it's possible that a consensus can be reached, and the page edited in a manner that everyone finds acceptable. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. Oh, and don't take things so personally. Many moons ago when I posted in the sci.military.naval news group, I was constantly flamed (usually rather harshly) for some really dumb opinions. When I finally realized that the flamers were usually correct, I sought to increase the quantity and quality of my reference library, and became far more knowledgeable as a result. You can ignore everything I've said here, that's up to you, but nobody will take you seriously until you can back up your arguments with reputable research. Happy Holidays! --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Dukefan73 should be able to state his opinion because ignoring SIGNIFICANT FACTS. Its fact that the Yamato was bigger and had bigger guns and this article could lead to confusion. Also in some other articles (like the Montana class article) it gives the impression that the Iowas couldnt stand up to the Yamato in combat. But when you read this page, it gives the impression that these ships are unbeatable. I agree that the Yamato should be stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiowa (talk • contribs) 02:41, Dec 15, 2007 (UTC)


Uh, what significant facts am I ignoring? I'm more than well aware of the difference in displacement and gun size between the Iowa and Yamato. As I've stated previously, there are myriad other factors involved in making a valid comparison between the two ships. Please feel free to point out to me what facts I'm ignoring. Also, feel free to state which statements in the article are incorrect or exaggerated. Once you provide reputable research to reinforce whatever argument you may have, I, and I'm sure others, will be more than happy to take your arguments under consideration. Happy Holidays! --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for proving my earlier point. This is exactly why absolutley no mention of the Yamato was made in this article body, and only one footnote was included citing Yamato specifically. Look at you, your through insults at each other back and forth on the talk page over an obviously POV subject, and if this kind of outlandish bullshit hits the article it will result in nothing more than a nationalistic wheel war waged over hurt pride and bruised egos. There are external sites to compare the ships, there are accurate and reliable sources for the information present in the article regarding the Iowas, and most importantly there is no edit war over here. IT IS FOR THIS EXACT REASON THAT WE ARE NOT COMPARING ANYONE'S SHIPS IN OUR CLASS ARTICLES. NOT FOR ANY REASON, NOT FOR ANY PURPOSE. Thats why Wikipedia is not a blog. If it bothers you that much, then bring the Yamato class battleship article up to FA status, that should solve the whole issue entirely by giving you a place to put your well cited information (whatever that may be, and given your comments on the subject I trust it will be reliable) where the nature of that information will not be called into question. The solution is not to try and mess with succsess, the solution is to duplicate the succsess of this article elsewhere and bring attention to a point that you feel needs emphasis. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (De-boled by BillCJ (talk) - a whole bodled paragraph is really unnecessary)

All that should be put in is that the Yamato had bigger guns and was bigger than the Iowa. This is a misleading thread because it gives the impression that this ship was invincable and the best battleship ever. ITS A FACT that the Yamato was better in some fields than the Iowa and this should be stated so people are not mislead. There should be NO comparison between the two ships but just state the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiowa (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The article is about the Iowa class battleships, their design specifications, technical data, ship's history, etc. It is not about any other ship or how they compare/contrast with any other ship. That's simply not the purpose of the page. I don't agree with your opinion, but feel free to quote from the article the passages that give the impression that the Iowa was invincible. It's fine if there are things that you don't like about the article, but you need to provide a solution instead of constantly harping on the problem. --Dukefan73 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Iamiowa, in all seriousness, did you bother to click on any of the numbers int he intro paragraph? The note for #6 specifically states "Although it is frequently cited as the ultimate battleship class, other battleship classes did outclass the Iowas in certain fields; for example, the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato-class battleships had larger guns (46 cm (18 in) and more armor than the Iowa’s.", and in that you have your point in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why cant

"Although it is frequently cited as the ultimate battleship class, other battleship classes did outclass the Iowas in certain fields; for example, the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato-class battleships had larger guns (46 cm (18 in) and more armor than the Iowa’s."

be in the opening paragraph? I can understand how some people who feel very patriotic about the ship dont want their ego bruised but all i reccomend is that this statement is put into the opening paragraph and then the rest of it is about the Iowa. Usually this wouldnt be the case, for example i dont think it should be in the Bismarks page. But lets admit it, the Iowas have a long and magnificant history and that can be misleading into making people think that the Iowas where the best. Now not everyone is going to click on the numbers to look at the bottom. I think it should be included so theres no confusion. Im not asking for anything like 'Even though they where great ships, the Yamato would kick the shit out of them and totally rape them in combat'. Even though thats my opinion, we will never know. But what we do know is that the Yamato did have bigger guns and armor and people should know this. I think what you are doing here is hiding knowledge to glorify the Iowas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk • contribs)

I think I have finally realized your problem, User:58.160.169.244: You do not know how to read complicated sentences. On Nov 27, User:58.160.170.118 (presumably you, since you don't sign your posts, and won't use a registerd username) began this discussion by saying:
In the opening paragraphs it states that these battleships where the ultimate capital ship. This is obviously untrue, the Yamato class far more powerful.
Your statement This is obviously untrue actually better descibes what you wrote! The correct statement in the article is:
Built with no regard for cost, the Iowa class was arguably the ultimate in the evolution of the capital ship. (emphasis added)

Do you not know what aruguably means? It means the point can be argued, that is, not everyone agrees. But we didn't just make up the statement: It is from a source, which is cited. That is how information is supposed to be placed into Wikipedia. Nothing else needs to be added to "clarify" the statement, as "arguably" says all that needs to be said. The word evolution also is a key word here, as it's not saying there weren't better designs, but as a whole, the Iowa class was the ultimate. This is certainly born out in there longevity, where as the Yamatos were't around for long. So, can we please move on to other issues to improve the article? - BillCJ (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, I would argue that, in WW2, the Midway class was the ultimate capital ship class. :) - BillCJ (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, it was the Essex class in the Pacific that was the most important, while the most important in the Atlantic would be the Liberty Ships :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the Midway class did not see combat during WWII. Note they were designed with the lessons of WWII in mind, but the war ended before they could see combat. Boy, going off-topic is fun. -MBK004 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • At the risk of more deletions by Eleland, Yes, I know the Mids didn't serve in WW2. THat's the point here! Iowas and Yamatos didn't face each other either, and with the advent of the Essexes and Midways, had the war continued, they would not have either. By the end of WW2, the era of the BB supremacy was a moot issue. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy of the Aldenata

The Iowa class battleships are featured in this series of science fiction books being used as fire support against the invasion of the alien Posleen horde. They're successful at that because the aliens' battle computers aren't programed to deal with unpowered, ballistic weaponry. The Iowa herself accidentially and spectacularly destroys a Posleen lander, which is the size of a skyscraper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gray Ghosts of the Viet Nam coast

Several ships are referred to by their crew as "Gray Ghost" during the Viet Nam war. Oklahoma City and Edson are two such ships. I can't find any reference for the Iowas being called "Gray Ghosts" by either the South or the North Vietnamese. I deleted the "Gray Ghosts" mention here. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably becuase New Jersey was the only active Iowa for the war. I didn't find any information to suggest that New Jersey was ever a "grey ghost", nor am/was I aware of any mention of it in this artilce. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed from teh article body, and can be reinserted when a source can be provided for it. "She was referred to as the "Gray Ghost" by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, who feared her because they had no weapon that could reach her, much less harm her; and the deadly accuracy of her 16-inch shells was famous throughout the war zone." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter for Kirov class

I noticed this article and Kirov class battlecruiser assert that the reactivation of the Iowas was to counter the Kirov class, but neither has a source. I figured that since this in a featured article, there must be a source for the statement in here somewhere. The Kirov class article says "The appearance of the Kirov class was a significant factor in the U.S. Navy recommissioning the Iowa class.", but I think saying "significant factor" may be an over statement. Anyone know where this came from? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a naval warfare expert, and I don't want to get in to one of these silly "ship vs ship smackdown" debates, but I find it difficult to see how an Iowa could have countered the threat from a missile cruiser that can strike it with impunity from much longer range. <eleland/talkedits> 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand it was one of those "American Pride" exercises, the USN did not want the soviets to have a ship they couldn't match (if not outright beat), so the battleships came back to show ivan that uncle sam could play the surface action game as well. I will look into tracking down a source for the infomation. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly worth noting in this context that the reactivated Iowas were equipped with Tomahawks and Harpoons, which would have given them a more than adequate standoff capability in any surface action. In combination with AEGIS-equipped escorts, you have to like the chances of missile-armed Iowa, especially given that modern anti-ship missiles aren't really capable of dealing with armored targets.71.75.4.252 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I relaise that this is not a reliable source, but I did find the answer to the information you questioned here, about 1/2 down the page. I will continue to look for a reliable source for the info. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me since the Iowa's don't seem to directly compare with the Kirov class in any statistic except maybe number of CIWS mounts. I made an attempt to find sources with ProQuest for 1980 newspaper articles, but I didn't find any for 1980, but in 1981 only one mentioned both Kirov and the battleships, and it was very critical of reactivation.


I did find two sources that vaguely confirm the Kirov counter statement:


and this


There are quite a few 1980 articles focusing on the debate over reactivation and criticizing the lack of AAW weaponry. The debate makes for some interesting reading, and included doubts the Navy would be able to man the ships or procure 16 inch shells. The debate on manning is amusing in that the battleships seemed to be used as recruiting tools and former sailors came back to the Navy just to man them. I don't see the Kirov class as a "significant" factor, since the gunfire support role and the goal of a 600 ship Navy seem to be much more important factors as evidenced by the numerous articles from 1980 that view the Iowa's in that light and never mention Kirov directly. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the it looks like I called it when I wrote that they provided a counter to the Kirov class, but I agree that the Kirov class was likely not a "signifigant" factor in Iowa reactivation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Billion

I think I would just use $1.8 billion since you only have three significant figures on the $125 million cost. Adding that amount of digits might give a false sense of precision and just saying 1.8 billion would better reflect that it is an estimate. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will go ahead and round the other one, too. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mastiff

Since the Mastiff UAVs never operated from the Iowa class ships, I would suggest removing that section and integrating some of its contents into a brief lead-in to the acquisition and deployment of Pioneer UAVs. I only make this proposal as my sense of the article is that it centers mostly around the characteristics of the Iowa class; the Mastiff, while definitely a precursor to the fielding of the Pioneers, wasn't directly a part of the Iowas' history or operation. Given that the other weapons and aircraft mentioned in the Contents were all actually used on the Iowas, including the Mastiff caught me as a bit out of place. I'm wide open to opposing views though; I just wanted to see what the consensus is. Kj1631 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That may not be true. Mastif was operational in the 70s, the RQ2 didn't reach operational status until the mid eighties. It therefore stands to reason that the battleships may have carried the Mastif for operational deployments, although I find it odd that TomStar81 hasn't addressed this since the template implies he is familar with the subject. 129.108.96.45 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion as well, so I reviewed all of the sources given in the Mastiff section of the Iowa class page, as well as the Mastiff article itself.[1] [2] [3] [4] There were reports that a Mastiff was deployed on at least one amphibious assault ship for testing and demonstration purposes, but I can’t find a source that the Mastiff was deployed on any of the Iowas. It would seem that the Mastiff played a major role in the procurement and deployment of the Pioneer, but I don’t believe it ever saw any use on these battleships. Kj1631 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It would not be for all of the Iowas, just New Jersey and Iowa; only they were operational before the formal introduction of Pioneer. Iowa would be a long shot at best, but there is a good chance that New Jersey would have made use of the Mastif system for her Lebanon deployment if no use air spotter was available for spotting duty. Have you tried contacting the New Jersey meuseum? They would know for sure if the Mastiff system was ever used aboard an Iowa. 129.108.230.178 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All of my research points to the fact that the Mastiff was never deployed on any American battleships. Since no one has come forward with any citations that indicate otherwise (and I've been unable to find any in my good-faith searches, either), is anyone opposed to me removing that section and integrating some of its contents into the Pioneer section?Kj1631 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm suprised that nothing materialized for USN Mastiff use for battleships, I thought that they did in fact use the Mastiff to locate targets for New Jersey while she was in Lebanon. If you can't find anything then go ahead and remove the section; if I manage to locate evidence of Mastiff usage by battleshps I will readd the section later. (And I've been busy with school, in case anyone was curious). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to our sisters, but I'm not aware of us ever carrying Mastiffs aboard USS Missouri. ---B- (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

This is a very good article but the tense it is written in is incorrect. This ship-class is now historical and should be written in such a manner...it 'was' capable of xyz, not it is 'x', it does 'y'....the tense is more appropriate for a time when the ships were still on the national naval register....they were removed back in 2006. this article should now reflect that there capabilities are historical and not actual in the here and now.

I'm waiting to implement this change until I get word that the two remaining battleship struck in 06 have officially been donated for use as meuseums; until that happens, they are still technically with the navy, but not in the navy. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The USS Missouri (BB-63) is featured heavily in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4, captained by Mei Ling. Should this be mentioned on this page, as pop culture references are not allowed on the individual ships' pages?

I brought this up a few weeks ago over at WP:VG becuase mentions of the MGS4 Missouri appearence kept creeping into the USS Missouri (BB-63) article; input from VG contributers established that Missouri was not a "main character" such as it were, therefore, we decided not include a mention of the MGS4 apperence on the USS Missouri article or here in accordance with the milhist MoS.


Although I can't speak for Winds of War which was filmed while Missouri was in mothball, I can say for sure that USS Alabama (BB-60) was used in War and Remembrance the follow-up mini-series. This is according to Dan Curtis, Director/Producer on the Bonus Disc of the DVD set. Art Rice 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity of source?

Can anyone provide some more detail about this item appearing the "References" section?

  • The Floating Drydock. United States Naval Vessels, ONI 222-US, Kresgeville, PA 18333

I can't identify if it is a book, an article, or a website. Any information on it would be helpful. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's a company that produces detailed schematics for model builders. http://www.floatingdrydock.com/books.html#PB ---B- (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"planned class"

What does the phrase "planned class" mean in the first sentence? To a layman like myself, that means "The class was planned but never actually built"; is this poor wording, or does 'planned class' have a specific meaning in naval terminology, like it was a class planned from day 1 to have certain aspects, and not just a class designation tacked on after-the-fact? --Golbez (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The plan line refers to original plan to build six of these battleships, but that plan fell apart after WWII, leaving four completed ships and two ships that would eventually be scrapped. I can reword this for you if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. The way it is now, it's not clear at all that 'planned' applies only to the number. --Golbez (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
How about now? Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. --Golbez (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Zumwalt Cancellation

On July 23, 2008, the USS Zumwalt article was updated with a line stating that only the first two Zumwalts would be constructed (out of the twenty or so that the Navy had hoped for). Apparently the Iowa Class Battleship article has not been updated with this information yet, since the Zumwalts are still described as the Navy's future 'backbone', without any reference to the events of July. I'll be looking around to see if this recent development positively affects the reactivation potential of the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin. FirepowerforFreedom (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's only two at the moment, but the Navy hasn't specifically said they will not order more Zumwalts in the future. They could end up as stepping stones to bigger and better things though like the CVN-65 Enterprise or to cheaper and more efficient ships like the Seawolf-class. Anyway, I'm not sure if it should be removed, since unless the Navy's announced another replacement, or that they definately won't build more than two Zumwalts, they are still the slated successors. the_one092001 (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I rechecked the Zumwalt article and found that the Navy says that the Zumwalt class will be 'discontinued' after the two DDG-1000s are completed. FirepowerforFreedom (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Turret Crew

The turret crew number is a bit inaccurate. It said "94" in the article but our turret one crew in the late 80s aboard Missouri was actually 89. Also turret two is one deck taller (has an extra magazine deck) and thus has a slightly larger crew - closer to 110. I've heard that the turrets could be operated with as few as 80, but I don't know of instances aboard Missouri where that actually happened. ---B- (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Flagships/New Technology

I found this article on Google: [5]. Some of the technology, such as the AA shot shells, is proven from WWII (IJS Yamato), but it sounds like it would have some use in the modern world, e.g. the 16" AA rounds could be 'fired blind' as an excellent defense against gen 5 stealth aircraft. The scramjets also sound legit, and would provide a major boost to both the 16" shells and the cause to reactivate the battleships. But I'd like to know if any of this information would be a good candidate for inclusion in the Iowa Class Battleship article here. Any opinions? FirepowerforFreedom (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at this site...if the website is reliable, then at least some of this should be included in this article. the_ed17 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, it is a very interesting read. =D the_ed17 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There are so many inaccurate claims on that page I wouldn't even know where to begin. NONE of it should be mentioned or linked to in this article. --Dukefan73 (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I took a gander at the page and some of hte information is interesting, but as Dukefan73 notes the page is too exotic to qualify as an RS for WP. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why i added my mini-disclaimer of if nothing else, =) because I didn't know if it was accurate! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Incident

For the record a lot of Missouri crew and experts on the Phalanx that I've spoken with have serious doubts about the official story about the Jarrett's CIWS engaging Missouri's Chaff. Among the problems; the Jarrett was nearly 2 miles away at the time and that's outside the range of the CIWS (i.e. it shouldn't engage at that range) and the Phalanx uses a number of criteria to determine what it will and will not engage and among these criteria are inbound velocity. Chaff, as basically strips of wafting tin foil, would have nearly no inbound velocity. Bottom line: very few people who know the technologies involved and the facts of the incident really believe that the Jarrett's CIWS actually engaged Missouri's chaff. There isn't any dispute that Missouri got hit by CIWS rounds and I'm not aware of disagreement that they came from USS Jarrett. The only question seems to be why they were fired and at what. ---B- (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked about this a while back at Talk:Phalanx CIWS#Friendly fire incident. I was looking for a link to a full report on the matter, but still haven't found one. Uncited speculation is not encyclopedic, but SRBOC is basically a mortar before it explodes into chaff at a certain distance from the ship. It could appear to be a threat in the form of a mortar. FAS says SRBOC is 130 millimetres (5.1 in) in diameter, I would think CIWS would consider that a threat if shot in a ballistic trajectory from Missouri towards Jarrett. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that people were looking into this, otherwise I would have focused some attention on the matter. There are a few a sources in the article already, but I will see if I can find an official report on the matter. I am busy at the moment though, so it may be a while before anything materializes. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Math, Davis

Who is this "Davis" being cited? I can find no indication on the page.

I ask because the two formulae for maximum ship speed are exactly the same, mathematically; the square root of 1.408 is 1.19 (rounding up). No amount of research will change that, so I'm questioning how the David Taylor Model Basin is relevant here. SeanWillard (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical Formulae

What have the above (regarding speed) to do specifically with the Iowa class? Surely that useful information should be moved to the "battleship" and "fast battleship" articles, as they look well out of place here and are too much off the subject.bigpad (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the formula is part of the background info. Without the formula, it would have been much harder to build the battleships of the Iowa-class. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not necessarily in dispute: it's that mathematical equations are not appropriate here, although they could be referred to.bigpad (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Why provide a link to another article when you can just have them here? (I.e. why drag people away from a FA to a stub/start/B/whatever that article is?) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I said above that they could be better placed in the "battleship" or "fast battleship" articles: are these stubs? I repeat that the use of the formulae here is a distraction and takes away from this article. No one else have any views?bigpad (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I forgot the part where you said where you wanted the information moved too. My apologies... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have an opinion: these formulas were developed specifically for the Iowa class battleships, and moving them to the battleship or fast battleship articles would be miscarriage of information since the formulas appear to apply only to the Iowa class, not to any other fast battleship class. If you would like to move the information to another article you had best demonstrate that these two mathematical formulas do in fact apply to other battleships beyond the four completed and two planned Iowa class battleships, otherwise we will be guilty of spreading misinformation to those who read either article.

Armor Misinformation.

Greetings.

I have removed an inaccurate statement about the Iowa class' armor scheme. The text removed is as follows:

"but unlike earlier WWII-era battleship, the Iowas benefited from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which produced a much higher-quality, stronger and more elastic armor."


It was reinserted with the notion that it is a cited reference, but the cited reference itself provides no reference to this statement, and various other texts on the subject directly contradict this statement.

Specifically, US Class A armor plate (of which the Iowa had a 9' upper belt) has been found to be of inferior quality to UK naval face armored plate, (some estimates as high as 20% less effective, a more conservative [Read: probably more accurate] assessment using Nathan Okun's Facehard calculations suggest it is perhaps 3-8 % less effective. Class B plate is of inferior quality to Class A plate, as the nomenclature would suggest.

Secondly, there was concern that production of several Iowa class ships would be delayed due to defects in the armor, specifically, cracking as a result of over-hardening.

Thirdly, "more elastic" is certainly an oxymoron when it comes to discussing naval face armor plate, the whole basis of which is to provide a surface hard enough to decap, deflect, or absorb the blast of an armor piercing projectile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianPhaedrus (talk • contribs)

Please remeber to sign your posts, and also to leave an edit summary, especially when you remove text. Otherwise it just looks like vandalism, and will be reverted. At this point, just wait until the other editor who reverted you has responded before tying to remove the text again, and until some consensus has been reached on what to here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but it will not mean anything until you find sources for your statements. Until then, what you have is original research, and what Tom wrote is cited facts, so Tom's version will always win by default, even if it contains "inaccurate statements".

True enough.

Bob Henneman, of "All The World's Battlecruisers", says it best:

"It is generally accepted that US face hardened armor was the finest in the world when cast and hardened in a thickness less than 7 inches. But due to the US practice of hardening up to a depth equal to 40% of the plate thickness, which resulted in a transition layer of another 15-20%, plates thicker than 7 inches were somewhat inferior to other nation’s plates when struck with shells over 8 inches.
The US was quite aware of this, and this is why the US used class B homogeneous armor in the turret faces in WWII era battleships, rather than the class A face hardened other nations used. The reason for this is that the US had exceptionally good AP shells, which were used to test the armor at low angles of oblique, where the metallurgical properties and design of super-heavy shells performed best. The US and was stuck on the notion that they had to break up these shells with an increasingly thick hardened layer.
This ultimately proved impossible, and eventually the US told testers that if a US shell penetrated the US armor intact in tests, just forget about it and move on to other tests, as the shells were impossible to defeat at the ranges and oblique possible with testing. So test standards were lowered, as it proved impossible to make armor that could defeat any known projectile in a test. But the standards were still considered high enough to allow the armor to defeat the foreign shells that would actually be fired at it.
So it is safe to say the US went down slightly the wrong path with class A face hardened armor, creating a product with too much hard layer and not enough soft layer. They created an armor that when cast in thicknesses over 7 inches was inferior (and we are talking about maybe 5%) to German and British face hardened armor when it came to defeating large shells, but one that was superior against smaller shells. They also chose to ignore this deficiency, as they knew that results with foreign shells would be acceptable. In the one place they used really, really thick armor, the turret faces, they simply used unhardened class B armor instead, relying on pure thickness to stop the shell rather than a hard layer.
The quality of the actual steel was top notch, and quality control in the manufacturing process was generally good. But casting any bit of steel that large is a problem, and the heat treating process was very difficult to master. Midvale, which had only recently returned to making armor after a couple decades of manufacturing only shells, had some issues with large, thick plates of class A armor: their’s tended to “crack” much more than the other's. This led to obvious concerns about the manufacturing process, and about the quality of the armor.
The ‘cracks’ are actually laminar separation, the separation of the hardened face from the unhardened back. You make face hardened armor by heating and hardening once side while keeping the other side cool. Midvale used a different process from the other two US armor manufacturers, and they tended to quench the hot side of the plate plate too quickly, and the rapid cooling caused the laminar separation as the retracting upper layer pulled away from the lower layer. The armor from Bethlehem and Carnegie-Illinois has some laminar separation also, but not nearly as bad more a prevalent as with the Midvale.
Obviously the Navy was concerned, and there was talk of rejecting the entire production run. This was unacceptable, as it would have basically meant a two year delay in constructing the ships using Midvale armor, and also delays in the ships using the plates from other companies which had lesser degrees of laminar separation.
However, while the cracking looked bad and obviously affected the structural strength of the plate, the US never used class A armor structurally: it was always bolted to the structural steel, simply hanging on rather than being part of the ship’s strength. Also, the hard face of the armor, as long as it was there, did not have to actually be completely fused to the unhardened backing to work. Just as an AP cap on a shell does it job by sitting on top of the shell body, the hardened layer would break up a shell just as well despite the laminar separation. Examination also showed that the ‘cracks’ never went deep enough to effect the unhardened layer (the worst went 6 inches deep into a 17-inch thick plate, so they did not in fact even go all the way through the hadened layer).
So the US Navy looked at the cost-benefit of replacing the armor. It would be expensive, it would cost a lot of time, and even the new plates, if manufactured absolutely perfectly, would not defeat the latest US shells in tests. They considered the quality of foreign shells, the fact that even with the laminar separation the ‘flawed’ armor would perform well enough. Testing was done, some plates were rejected, but those deemed 'good enough' were accepted.
The key to understanding why the Navy would drop standards and accept 'good enough' is two fold. First, in pre-computer days the standards were set considerably higher than actually needed, just to be safe. And secondly, statistics tell us that if 100% of a production run is to meet a certain minimum specification, then the target has to be set much higher than even that, so that the entire bell curve lies to the right of the minimum target level. So even if you back off the minimum level to the left of the bell curve, the overwhelming majority of the bell curve will still be well to the right of the original target, and only a tiny, tiny portion will be to the left of the original target. So when the US Navy backed off the target specs, the bell curve probably shows us that about 98% of the production run would have met or beat the original target anyways. So instead of think of it as backing off the specs, we should see it as giving the manufacturer a pass on the "if 2% fails we reject the whole batch" rule.
There was a lot of hub-bub right after the war, when Congress went after companies that had either made unacceptably high profits, failed to deliver on contracts, or delivered inferior equipment/ materials. In the end I guess they decided the Navy knew best, and if it was good enough for them it was good enough.
The issue came up again every time the battleships were considered for reactivation, especially during the reconstruction of USS Missouri in the 1980s. Tests were again performed, including material sample analysis, x-rays, and the research of all the old records from the time of manufacture. Once again the Navy deemed the laminar separation to be irrelevant, and in fact found that the cutting away of samples weakened the armor more than the laminar separation did. A little epoxy was applied, sanded smooth, and the cracks were painted over.
I guess this is just a lengthy way of saying that the US class A armor (and not the class B nor the STS) was, in fact, somewhat inferior to British and German armor of the same face hardened type when cast over 7 inches thick. And yes, the US chose to lower their standards rather than try and correct this, as they felt it was good enough to do the job. And yes, some of the material had a laminar separation problem, but the US Navy accepted it anyways, as they felt that this problem would not have a real effect on the performance of the plates. Without a war on, maybe they would have decided otherwise. "

The Nathan Okun article Mr. Henneman refers to is contained in the 1989 edition of Warship International. His FaceHard calculations are also available online.

D.K. Brown covers the subject in "The Eclipse Of The Big Gun: The Warship 1906-1945", Raven & Roberts mention it in "British Battleships of World War Two: The Development and Technical History of the Royal Navy's Battleships and Battlecruisers from 1911 to 1946"

The subject is also covered in "US Navy Bureau of Ordnance in WW2" by Buford and Boyd.

CanadianPhaedrus (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Thanks for bringing this up, but as BillCJ has stated, if you keep removing this before there is consensus, you are being disruptive. Please don't do it again since you could be blocked for 3RR. When I have a moment later tonight I'll comb through what you've wrote. -MBK004 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Response

I have taken some time to thoroughly read your argument, check with the sources I have available (many of which were used to write this article), and confer via email with the author of the article, TomStar81 (who is on wikibreak). I have a few points:

  • Have you read this article's FAQ? — Talk:Iowa class battleship/FAQ
  • The reason being that there are two to three questions that are somewhat related to what you bring up. They are the fourth, fifth, and possibly the sixth question asked there.
  • It seems to me that you wish to introduce a paragraph or section to the article comparing the class' armor scheme to that of contemporary warships of the time period. After reading the FAQ you would see that it has been decided by prior consensus that comparison sections have no place in this article in the interests of preventing edit wars.
  • If you really want to pursue this, I suggest that you create an article detailing this very subject, which could then be linked into this article in the appropriate place.

Also, since the statement in question is a comparison:

but unlike earlier WWII-era battleship, the Iowas benefited from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which produced a much higher-quality, stronger and more ductile armor.

Is it possible that this segment just be removed altogether like you originally did since it in and of itself is a comparison to British and German battleships by default since the Iowa's and South Dakota's shared the same armament scheme. I don't see that the article gains anything from this statement since it is just an invitation to further comparisons which we have already decided do not belong in the article. -MBK004 06:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If this compares the exact previous class then it could be considered an exception since the next class always improves on a previous class. Did TomStar81 include anything in his email about how the comparison section was to be interpreted? We may need some clarification before proceeding with any editting.

Impervious to Exocet?

Just read an article on wiki that said the Armour of these Iowa class ships made them "impervious to Exocet". The only real problem with that sentence is the "impervious" bit, but what I'm interested in is; is it true the old style armour can afford protection against modern anti-ship missiles? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "impervious" either (I'm pretty sure that a hundred would sink one of them =]), but yes, very much so. Today, ships are designed with less armor because a surface battle has an almost 0% chance of happening (same percent with a shore battery hitting a ship). [paraphrasing Friedman, U.S. Battleships, p. 395 here] In this regard, the Iowa's obsolescence is a benefit to them - with anti-ship missiles now being designed to take out minimally armored ships (i.e. not armor-piercing) because there are almost no armored ships left, sinking one of the Iowa's would be "no easy matter." —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
According to one blog post the USN rated the Iowas to withstand 21 hits from the exocet without sustaining serious damage. Of course, this number depends on the armor present at the time of the hit. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Impervious is just the wrong word. An exocet or similar could easily damage say radar equipment, missile launchers and other lightly armoured areas. On the other hand an exocet would stand little to no chance of sinking any battleship. Impervious implies that it cannot be damaged, which is patently untrue. The ship would certainly sustain damage, it is just the damage that it would sustain would be unlikely to render it unable to continue its mission and stunningly unlikely to cause the ship to be lost completely. May I suggest "impervious to sinking by exocet" --LiamE (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hence my comment about depend above. Obviosly the bulk of the hull is going to withstand the missile hit, but radar system, EW system, ABL, MK-141 mounts, R2D2s, drones, men, and anything else without about a foot of class B armor plate protection will end up badly damaged, if not outwrite destroyed, by such a hit. Also, I do not know where the original claim cited above is; I doubt very much that it is on this page since someone would have caught it by now. TomStar810 (Talk) 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speed Revision.

I have edited to the operating speeds to the historically accurate figures. The full passage, from Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships - An Illustrated Design History (P. 317) reads as follows:


The New Jersey ran her standardization trials in shallow water in October 1943. At 55, 500 tons she required 162, 277 SHP to make 29.30 knots. She did not run such trials at higher speeds because results in shallow water were considered unrepresentative. In December, she attained 31.9 knots at 56,928 tons on about 221, 000 SHP. On the basis of model tests these results were equated to a trial speed of 32.5 knots at design power (212,000 SHP) at a designed trial displacement of 53,900 tons..... All of these data taken together suggest an operating speed of about 31 knots, bottom fouling and sea state having been taken into account. In the Pacific Fleet the Iowas were considered good for 30.7 knots under average conditions. It appears that none of the ships ever ran full-power trials over a measured mile in deep water.

By the time the New Jersey had been recommissioned in 1968,standard practice was to run machinery up to full power but not to run formal measured-mile trials. The power plant was designed for up to 20 percent overload, that is, up to 254,000 SHP, which might have allowed a fully loaded Iowa to reach about 33.5 knots or a lightly loaded ship to touch 35.4 (51, 000 tons). Certainly the latter speed would be an unusual performance. In October 1948 BuShips estimated that, at full load, adding or subtracting 1,000 tons was equivalent to a quarter-knot, which suggests that 35 knots could be attained without grossly overloading the boilers only at a very light displacement indeed.


Regards,


CanadianPhaedrus (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Independent research from my sources and the article sources seems to suggest you are correct. The engineering plant section has been updated accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Crew

What were the departments on the Iowa class? How were they structured? (i.e.; what jobs were in each department, what rank was typical for each job, how many people were typically assigned to each job, did they work in teams/shifts and if so, who ran them and who did they report to?) I don't have the answers, but I would like them, I think it would make a better article; and, I wish all these articles answered these fairly basic questions.

Finnbjorn (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have cruise books for 1986 and 1987 which give breakdowns (and pictures and names) of the crew in each department/division. Going through all of it and giving a detailed summary would be a lot of work, but I could get started on it if the interest is there. Ehbowen (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: This project is in progress. Friendly edits welcome at: User:Ehbowen/Iowa class battleship manning

Engineering Section

The Engineering section of this article needs major work. As a former MMOW (engineroom supervisor) on Missouri during the 1980s I could probably contribute a good deal of it although I will be going on memory; I have no published sources.

Question 1: How detailed do you want it? Ideally I would like to take the reader through the entire main steam cycle from boiler to superheater to throttle to turbines to condenser to pumps to DFT to main feed pumps and back to the boiler in order to show the true picture of what's going on.

Question 2: If you do want all the details, would it be better to move them into a separate article?

I'll check back in a few days to see if there is any consensus about this.----Ehbowen (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to finally find someone who is familiar with the engineering block on the battleships, as I have had very little luck locating information on the subject. Ideally, we would like this to be as detailed as necessary, having too many details and being forced to tone them down is preferable to having little to no details. As for the second question, best to start here; if need be we can split the material out to its own article later.
The problem though is that we need to be able to source the information, otherwise the article risks losing its featured status. In this particular case there would be no question that going from your memory would produce factual information, but unless we can cite the information its liable to removed. To get around this would require that we either locate published sources for your information prior to that information being added to the article or forgo the inclusion of the material altogether. I'll wait to let others weigh in on the matter, this article is covered by a working group, and the others editors in it may have some ideas about what we can/should do. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Broadsides

I've been asked about the ships sideways movement resulting from a broadside. In several articles I've read that it does move sideways and this Wiki article on the Iowa Battleship disputes that. The reference page that is cited in the Wiki article does not accurate calculations, but someones fanciful mathematics to calculate the ships sideways velocity resulting from the recoil of the 9 16" guns firing simultaneously. The resulting calculation was that the ship would be moved sideways with a velocity of 6 feet/second on a frictionless surface. If this were true, over a time span of just 5 seconds the ship would have moved 30 feet. It claims Water would impede velocity over time but it does not calculate the time it would take to overcome the inertial force of a 57,000 ton ship moving sideways at 6 feet/second. The formula they used to calculate the velocity, however, would not give a result in "feet/second" but would give you a result in "Pound foot/second" which is actually a unit of FORCE not velocity. This article referenced is a mishmash of physics and can not be used as factual data. It then shows 2 pictures of a full broadside where you can barely see the aft wake patterns. The reference article claims the wakes are straight and true. The wakes on the pictures (even with them being small chopped off sections at the edge of the photo) distinctly show a side movement in the wake. Even the photo shown at the top of the Wiki article shows the side draft of the ships bow on a full broadside. The photos show the ship moves sideways and eyewitnesses aboard the ship testify that it moves sideways. Unless you can come up with an article that has definitive accurate numbers calculating the force of the guns on the inertial mass of the ship and the inertial resistance of the water against the ship and how it effects sideways movement, this part of the article is just spreading misinformation.

99.132.70.110 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Mark Miller

From a strictly technical standpoint, firing any shipboard mounted gun (even a 20mm Oerlikon) produces an opposing momentum within the ship and some displacement against opposing frictional forces. The popular question carries an implication that such displacement (particularly perpendicular to normal ship's movement) could be observed or even detected. Hull shape would require less momentum per unit of fore and aft displacement than broadside displacement and would tend to translate non-perpendicular horizontal momentum into fore or aft displacement. The broadside displacement might be translated into rotational rather than transverse displacement depending on the perpendicular distance between the axis of the gun barrel and the roll axis of the ship -- temporarily displacing a portion of the ship's hull deeper into water. Thewellman (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In simple english then, could what you just said be simplified to 'the ship tilts to one side as a reult of the force of the guns'? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, should this comment even be included in the article when the referenced source uses faulty mathematic equations to validate their claim? Personally I don't believe the ship moves any significant distance sideways, but my personal beliefs are not a cite-able source.

99.132.70.110 (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Mark

The relevant policy here is WP:V, or "Verifiability, not truth". The material is cited to a reliable source, and since no other sources have been provided to counter the sources here the article defaults to its current version because the allegations of faulty math, regardless of whether they are true or not, have no reliable source and thus are ineligible for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Here's a source:[6]

The specific physics that govern it fall under the law of conservation of linear momentum (think expanded Newton's Third Law: every action and equal, opposite reaction).

Battleships, and any ship, will move sideways when guns are fired.

Just because it can't necessarily be accurately measured by the naked eye doesn't change the laws of physics.

Assume a 2600lb shell fired from a 16 inch gun, flying out of the barrel around 2500 feet per second. Multiply that for each of the nine guns and you have 29 250 foot tons of energy. Or: enough energy to lift 29 250 tons a distance of one foot.

Put a war-load Iowa (we'll say 60 000t) in a frictionless environment, fire the guns each at precisely zero degrees elevation, and the ship would move side ways a little less than 6 inches.


However, obviously the ship is not in a frictionless environment, it's in water.... and it has a wetted surface 890 feet long, and 36 feet deep. In addition, the guns are never fired at zero degrees elevation, so energy will be lost when the ship is subject to roll (because it floats like a cork).

Though the distance itself would be small, fractions of an inch maybe, it does move. Just as a housefly landing on one of the turrets will increase the ship's displacement, the discharge of nine 16 inch guns most certainly would move the ship sideways.

Unless of course the contention is that the ship is somehow in a bubble and not subject to the laws of physics.....


CanadianPhaedrus (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Yes CanadianPhaedrus, that is the source which I am refuting. The math done to calculate this is incorrect. It uses a calcualtion of force (ft tons/second) to determine how much tonnage the guns can move on a frictionless surface the distance of one foot. That is erroneous. The result would be how far it would move that tonnage 1 foot/second. The calculated 6 feet on a frictionless surface, would be actually 6 feet/second. Over a 5 second period the ship would have traveled 30 feet sideways. The source then uses it's faulty data to explain latteral motion through a viscous (water) material. It doesn't address the inertial force required to overcom the ships lateral movement and how long before it stopped moving sideways. It doesn't adress that the ships hull is curved and has a round bottom designed to allow passage of water against the side of the ship to prevent it being effected by side currents and eddies. A tug can push a battleship sideways through the water without exerting anywhere near that ammount of force because the resistance of the water against the hull is not as drastic as is illustrated. The hull is not a flat plane as the writers of the article cited would have you believe. The only thing that is proved is that the ship has to move sideways due to newtons law, but the authors of these articles who claim it is an insignificant ammount have no proof and are speculating on the distance that the ship moves using incorrect formulas and calculations. This is not a reliable source of information. It's speculation using faulty calculations as its platform. Its a bold claim to refute a common belief. It shouldn't be made without sufficient reliable information. This information is not reliable. 99.132.70.110 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Mark Miller

The equation that applies here, since the action/reaction is inelastic, is the momentum equation, . If you take the weight of a nine-gun broadside of 2300 lbm shells, fired at an initial velocity of 2500 ft/sec., you obtain a total transfer of momentum of 51,750,000 ft-lbm/sec. Divide that by a 52,000 ton ship, at 2000 lbm to the ton, and you arrive at an initial velocity of less than one-half of a foot per second immediately after firing (and that initial velocity would be immediately damped by the action of the water). I also strongly take issue with the statement that "eyewitnesses aboard the ship testify that it moves sideways". I am an eyewitness and I dispute this claim. A displacement of 30 feet to the side in five seconds (and an acceleration from zero to 6 feet per second in the fraction of a second it takes the guns to recoil) would have people falling over and slamming against the bulkheads all through the ship. It would be like living in a carnival ride! Certainly the firing of the guns can be felt, all through the ship—but when you are down in the engineroom or other spaces which are sufficiently distant from the gun blast, all you feel is a slight shudder and perhaps a puff of air from the ventilation system.-Ehbowen (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit to add amplification: While it is obviously impossible to place an object as large as a ship on a frictionless surface, it is eminently practical to put a (effectively) frictionless surface, such as an air hockey table, aboard the ship and observe what happens to the free-floating puck when the guns are fired. Yes, there will be some displacement; as I said above, the firing of the guns can be felt throughout the ship. But I would be very much surprised if the puck traveled enough to cross the face-off circle, let alone the side rails. It should be obvious that this experiment could only be carried out if the ocean was glassy smooth; any effect from the guns would be greatly overshadowed by the normal movements of the ship were there any wave action at all. The acid test in real life is this: Could an observer down below the waterline determine on which side of the centerline the guns are being fired, purely from the reaction and movement of the ship? If not, the lateral displacement is too small to matter. Again, I speak as an eyewitness, and I say that I never could.-Ehbowen (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the ship is not immediately picked up and abruptly moved to a location 30 feet away. The belief is that it is PUSHED sideways. The push over time, (4 or 5 seconds) results in the ships sidways movement. Traveling 30 feet over 5 seconds isn't going to knock anyone off ballance, that distance could be covered in that time at a slow walking pace. In this video you can see that the sip moves sideways for about 3 or 4 seconds after the inital gun blast. The ship is underway and you can see that after a few seconds she has regained her even cut in the water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GODl9KR9kw&NR=1 (time stamp 3:45-3:55) The water would resist initial change in movement, but it does not absorb kinetic energy it just delays the transfer of it. Fluid dynamics are very complex and cannot be solved with simple kinetic equations of force and velocity, which by the way are incomplete. Your calculation of 51,750,000 ft-lbm/sec of force to move the shells is only the first part of the equation. You then have to take that force and multiply it by the surface area that the calculated force is acting against in order to get the pressure of force against the ship. This is part of the law of dynamic pressure in a gas and conservation of linear pressure. The 16 inch diameter surface of the breech plug has a surface area of 5.58ft^2. Making 288,765,000 lbs of force acting against the ship in one second. That force is then divided up between the weight of the ship, surface area, water displacement, surface tension, drag coeficiencies... etc etc. Its very complicated and there are a lot of different laws of physics governing it that can't be calculated with non-complex formulas. Unless its an abrupt shift it won't be detectable below decks. Again there multiple laws of physics to take into consideration. The volume of air that you are in is moving with the ship. If there is a fly in your car and you change lanes on the freeway, the fly will not smash into the side window. The volume of air in the car shifts with the vehicle. The ship's slight roll 4 or 5 degrees when it fires would help counter any inertal motion felt from a gradual shift sideways which wouldn't be any more sever than a lane change in traffic. So I can understand how it would be dificult to tell below decks if you shifted. You would need to be above decks with a visual reference point to notice the roll or shift in position. Or you would need to be off ship. 99.132.70.110 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Mark Miller

If your argument is that the ship is pushed, then you need to identify where the push comes from. The entire transfer of force from the broadside—shells, powder, everything—comes through the gun barrels and their mounts. Once the guns finish recoiling, there is no more "push" to be had. This takes a mere fraction of a second, but I'll be generous and say that it takes a full second. If your estimate is correct, then the ship and everything in it experiences a lateral acceleration of a full fifth of a gee for that second—and more if the time is less. I think that you also need to go back and look up inertial reference frames, because your argument seems to be that this can pass unnoticed because you are within the ship. Uh-uh. That lateral acceleration needs to be transmitted to every object and person within the ship—by the steel hull if you are welded to it, or by whatever part of your body is in contact with it. If you are standing upright, that means the push comes solely through the contact patch at the sole of your shoes.

Look, I am not saying that there is no effect. I have said repeatedly that everyone aboard can feel the guns being fired. I am simply saying that your math is off by an order of magnitude and that the effect is too small to matter. I'm sure that if you used sufficiently sensitive instrumentation, you would record a lateral acceleration and displacement from the firing of a battleship broadside. It's just that the net total displacement would be on the order of 6 to 10 inches, not 30+ feet.—Ehbowen (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that the math referenced is incomplete and inaccurate. Our speculation on the matter or theories are not valid points since I don't believe any of us are physicists. I've posted a link to a video that shows the ship transfering sideways after a broadside. I'm trying to point out that there is sufficient evidence to show the ship does move and the only theory that Has been provided so far about it NOT moving sideways uses faulty mathmatic equations. Your 6-10 inches that everyone keeps falling back on is actually, according to that equation, 6-10 inches/second. Are you saying the ship abruptly stops after one second? The equation also assumes the force required to project the shell is acting on one square foot of surface when it is actually acting on a 5.58 ft^2 area. Then your result turns into about 3-6 feet/second. The resulting push would then require a few seconds to slow to an unnoticeable shift. A few yards instead of a few inches are picked up by that one mistake in calculations. The whole equation is irrelivant anyway since the author throws in his estimations of inertial resistance which aren't calculated but some whimsical ammount that results in a few inches of movement. It's missinformation and it shouldn't be in this article. Whether the ship moves or not, there is no evidence to prove it doesn't move. I refute the reference (Landgraff, R. A.; Locock, Greg; DiGiulian, Tony (2006-08-22). "Do battleships move sideways when they fire?". Navweaps.com. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.) as inaccurate. I don't think there needs to be a note about it being able to move sideways, but there's no evidence supporting the comment about "Contrary to myth, the ships do not move noticeably sideways when a broadside is fired" 99.132.70.110 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Mark Miller

  • Almost everyone here is sidestepping the issue. The number one tool of scientific research has always been, and will always be, observation, and not mathematical calculations. The leading photograph of the article clearly shows the article's statement to be false, since the observer can easily see that movement has been caused by noting the marks in the water near the ship's side. Whether caused by actual sideways-only movement or more of a rocking motion may be open somewhat to debate. However, that they appear predominately on one side seems to support actual sideways-only motion. Enough said. I am removing the statement. - KitchM (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The leading photograph of the article shows no such thing. The "marks" which you refer to are caused by the gun blast to the starboard side of the ship. The one small "mark" which appears at the bow is the bow wave; it is visible on the starboard side only because the port side of the ship is in shadow. Ehbowen (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Would this be a good time to copy/paste an email I received from Tony DiGiulian on 25 June? —Ed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain what he's talking about. He mentions "6 feet per second"

but the actual calculations in the NavWeaps essay show 6 INCHES per second. His error here is compounded by his conclusion that the ship thus "Over a 5 second period the ship would have traveled 30 feet sideways" as he is multiplying by the wrong number. But, he makes a more basic mistake as to what the essay says. The calculations in the essay do not derive distance as he states but instead derive velocity vectors - please note, the result of the calculations show, quote, '6 inches per second' unquote, which is a velocity unit of measurement, it is not a distance unit of measurement.

His example of a tug is misleading, as it ignores the non-compressibility of water. Due to water's non-compressibility, a slow, steady pressure applied over time will move a ship further than will the same amount of force applied in the instant that it takes for a shell to travel down the gun barrel. For that reason, his statement 'A tug can push a battleship sideways through the water without exerting anywhere near that ammount [sic] of force because the resistance of the water against the hull is not as drastic as is illustrated' is wrong in another area as well as the tug actually applies more force over time than does the ship's broadside, which applies a great deal of force but this only lasts for an instant. He needs to calculate the force that the tug applies over time to make a meaningful comparison with the force created by the gun fire over the time it takes for the shell to travel down the barrel. Greg Locock does understand the physics involved in this, which is why he simplified them by assuming that the gunfire impulse force only lasts for a split-second and calculated for ice rather than for water.

I do agree with his point that the essay doesn't address inertia, but that's obviously because the essay does not calculate acceleration nor distance, but instead calculates velocity vectors.

One last point: Contrary to what is implied on this talk page, nowhere in the essay on NavWeaps is it stated that the ship does not move when her guns are fired. Quite frankly, I am at a loss as to how anyone reading the essay would come to that conclusion. In fact, it is clearly stated in the essay that the ship does move.

Sincerely yours,
Tony DiGiulian

NavWeaps at http://www.NavWeaps.com

Importance criteria

By no means do I want to start a shit storm (I am aware of Op Majestic Titan), but I don't believe this article meets the "Top" importance criteria in WP:Ships. The criteria states "Top" is for "Ship types, like aircraft carrier and galleon", whilst "High" importance is for "Ship classes, like County class cruiser." The Battleship article is a Top, however this is a High. Additionally all the individual ship articles in this class are rated at High, when they should be Mid; "Individual ships, like USS Fletcher (DD-445)." Ryan4314 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you bring this up at WT:SHIPS instead of here? -MBK004 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Its possible the article has an honorary ranking being as how its the center piece of the WP:SHIPS specific FT, however if you think the importance rating is in error it would probably be best to ask there and not here because I'm not familiar enough with there importance ranking to offer an opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Beaucoup problems with miles

This article has, for years, expressed the range of the 16-inch guns in a number of ways:

up to 20 miles (32 km)
in earlier versions this was 24 nautical miles (39 km) for a couple of years. Before that it was up to 24 miles (39 km)<!--I find it unlikely that this range would be in statute miles. Source?-->. That comment was added by me in 2005, just before the article was featured on the main page.
Note that the "24 nautical miles (39 km)" version had two numbers that did not agree with each other. Was it really "24 statute miles (39 km)", or was it really "24 nautical miles (44 km)" or really "45 kilometers (24 nautical miles)"?
The change to "20 miles (32 km)" was done by an anonymous editor, with no discussion here, no references added, and no an explanation in edit summary.
16-inch (410 mm) guns' 24-mile (39 km) range
this is, implicit in the conversion, statute miles. If they are used out of context in an article like this, they should be specifically identified as such, by saying, for example, "24-statute-mile (39 km) range".

Lots of different numbers, not agreeing with each other in different places in the article, nor over time.

Yet, strangely, none of them ever used the units the United States Navy most often uses to measure range. See, for example, the units in this recent edit by Sturmvogel 66 to express the range between the Iowa and the Nowaki. That's more like the units in which I'd expect to find the range of these 16-inch guns expressed.

There are many other miles used in this article which need to be verified and specifically identified. I think there is a good chance (but by no means a certainty) that at least one of them is really in statute miles, in which case it should be identified as such.

It looks like the ambiguous "gallons" are identified when used here.

However, Wikipedia uses "tons" to stand for at least ten different units of measure. All sorts of things, from energy and power, to a whole plethora of different units of volume and of mass, and uits of force, and who knows what else. At least a couple of them are used in this article, though one is only mentioned as a unit. But in general, all of them appear at some time or another in the various articles about ships and shipping. There should never be any "tons" standing around naked in an article like this. Identify them; convert them to appropriate units as well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

This is related to above, so subsection.

Why in the world anybody would ever want to measure a range in miles at a speed in knots is a real befuddler. Let's see now: 9,600 statute miles at 25 knots—what's that range expressed in hours? Does it agree with the number of hours you get for 15,000 kilometers at 46 km/h?

Furthermore, if those numbers are indeed accurate statute-mile and kilometer numbers, then those out-of-context miles need to be specifically, explicitly identified as such in the article, and converted to nautical miles as well as to kilometers, with the speed given in three units as well (group range/speed numbers for readability, too).

I haven't checked who the responsible editor is in this case, nor how long this problem has been present in the article; if somebody wants to go to the trouble track that down and let us know here, I'd appreciate it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

“Built With No Regard For Cost”

I find this comment confusing; ¿Is there any source that they were “built with no regard for cost”? It seems a highly subjective comment, especially since there is no comparison with how much they did in fact cost. (It may be true, but should be properly referenced and the comparison added.) 71.34.70.241 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

Its double cited, but at the moment I am otherwise engaged at an FAR/C and cannot commit the time to look into the matter. I will check back and see about addressing the issue when I find a free moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the report; There were three citations, but without even know what the name of the source is only the authors (further it gives us no idea what they actually do say), it remains rather subjective. I did however find this: “Congress had not expected the Iowa class to be so costly; with a price tag of $125 million per ship, the Iowas were 60% more expensive than the previously authorized battleship classes. Moreover, some policymakers were not sold on the U.S. need for more battleships, and proposed turning the ships into aircraft carriers by retaining the hull design but switching their decks to carry and handle aircraft.” This contradicts the “no regard for cost” comment. It’s very confusing, especially now. (Again, I’m not saying it’s not true, but needs to be clarified, especially to know what specifically was said, and by whom, to know what the bias really is).71.34.70.241 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON.
For what it is worth in this discussion, $125 million in 1944 would equate to $2,164 million today adjusted for inflation. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iowa-class_battleship/Archive_4&oldid=1150587338"