User talk:Vepr157

Welcome!

Hello, Vepr157, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tang class[edit]

On 18 April 2021 you removed a new section of mine that described the evolution of the Skate-class from the Tang-class. I have now restored this section will additional supporting text and reference. I would like to point out that the original post of mine (that you deleted) was a verbatim quote from the Skate-class article's introduction that dates from the creation of the article in 2004. I would humbly submit that if you have a good reason to delete this from the Tang-class article then you must also delete it from the Skate-class article. BTW, from a high-level design perspective these statements are not incorrect.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I will change that Skate article as well and include sourcing for both. I have copies of the preliminary design documents prepared by BuShips for both classes, and I can say categorically that there is no direct design connection between the two. I will quote from the 13 July 1954 BuShips document "SSN Small Summary of Preliminary Design" (i.e. the preliminary design summary for what would eventually be built as the Skate): "This is a design for a nuclear powered submarine of about the displacement of a GUPPY submarine." This is the only substantive mention of a connection between the Skate and earlier diesel submarines, and it is merely one of size, not design. This is what Friedman, who drew from the same exact documents at the National Archives as I am, is referencing.Vepr157 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbel-class submarine[edit]

Hello
I notice you reverted my edit here: Why is this overlinking? Bow planes are not the same as fairwater planes; and not everyone is familiar with the term 'fairwater planes'. So linking it makes sense (to me, anyway), even if they are both on the same page. Thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the issues is that both redirect to the same page, which is generally considered overlinking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Duplicate_and_repeat_links Vepr157 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Characteristics Board edits[edit]

First, congratulations on finding a new and valuable source of SCB projects. It looks like it will fill in many gaps. Your Halibut text change in particular was suspected and only required the new source for confirmation. But...

Many of your edits are not warranted. Yes, the new info calls onto question Friedman's implication of a block number being assigned to the Guitarro sinking repair, but in no way does it justify your removing his argument for the 3 to 4 year absence of a SCB project number for Lipscomb. Your new text for SCB 2A is simply wrong: all that needed to be done was to change "Improved Tang SS concept, became SCB 116" to "Improved Tang SS concept, became SCB 116 and SCB 124" because 2A had nothing to do with any SSG design, other than parentage. I can go on and on.

You should be aware that I was very careful to label unbuilt projects as 'concepts' and this convention should be respected. After all, one reason I created this page in the first place was to document the "roads not travelled" in ship design.

Also, some of the wiki links you added are non-functional, i.e. broken.

So, I'm going to revert your changes and then manually add them back in. If there is a conflict between Friedman and the new Roberts info I am NOT going to just throw out Friedman, as you often did, I will rather try to reconcile them and will leave endnotes for both where possible. Friedman is after all the more scholarly RS, and his sources are extremely well documented in his books. I have been careful to note any mistake he might have made on the Talk page, and if your new info warrants I will add more notes there.

I will get back to you when I am done so you can review my changes. I will likely be adding more info from Roberts than you did BTW (it is a gold mine), so it may be a few days. Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC) @Vepr157:[reply]

BTW, before I do anything I am going to read and digest the new source. It seems to me that there is a lot of convoluted and contradictory narratives there regarding the SSGs. If the last project entry describes "cutting them in half" then the previous projects were not definitive. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that my edits on SCB 2A and SCB 124 are 100% correct and supported by original Bureau of Ships documents (and Friedman, I will point out). As you know, Wikipedia is not a place for primary source research, so I did not feel that I could cite these documents, but I was able to find reputable sources which are indeed correct on these project numbers. But for your personal interest, here is a document spelling out the SCB numbers for the Grayback, Darter, and Growler before two of those submarines were converted to SSGs on the ways:

https://i.imgur.com/5WFu16J.jpg

If you look on Navsource, you can very clearly see photos of the Grayback as an SS and the SSG bow later being grafted on. It is not clear to me how far along the Growler was when this happened, but certainly she was laid down as an SCB 124 SS.

As for the Lipscomb SCB number, the idea you had about a relation to the McNamara-Rickover animosity was completely unfounded. That's just not how SCB numbers worked. You have to understand that an SCB number corresponds to a specific memorandum laying out the desired characteristics laid out by the SCB. For submarines, it was usually the case that concept design studies would be undertaken by BuShips/NAVSHIPS before a formal SCB number was established. And for modifications to an existing design (e.g., the SSN 605) even significant changes sometimes would not necessarily warrant a separate SCB number. In light of these facts, and the fact that the Lipscomb's SCB number was assigned the year she was authorized, any discrepancy between the start of concept designs for the turboelectric drive submarine and the date of the SCB requirements can be easily explained without any relation to Rickover or McNamara.

As for Friedman, please do not blindly trust him. Although he is an excellent researcher, he does make mistakes, as you have noted. Also, he has (in my opinion) issues with the organization and writing/editing of his books, which make some of his statements difficult to interpret.

I think we should work together given our common interest, so I would hope that you look at these edits as building on your previous work. Right now you seem extremely defensive. Vepr157 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regard to the "concepts" convention, you should know that that word has a very specific meaning in ship design. The stages are concept design (usually done by the Navy before any SCB requirements), the preliminary design (usually done by the Navy after SCB requirements), the contract/detail design (usually done by the shipyard after authorization), and the final design (the design of the ship as built). So some of these SCB numbers correspond to projects that only got to the concept design phase, some got to the preliminary design phase (e.g., SCB 137), and some made it all the way to the final design stage (e.g., SCB 166A). So I do not think it is accurate to uniformly call unrealized project "concepts," but instead use language to reflect (if possible) the stage to which a design got. Wikipedia is a community, collaborative effort, and I hope that you are willing to change such "conventions" if they do not properly suit the material.

Also, I went back and fixed the broken links and typos, thanks for pointing that out! Vepr157 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment again, this sentence surprised me: "Friedman is after all the more scholarly RS, and his sources are extremely well documented in his books." I have to disagree, his older books like U.S. Submarines since 1945 are pretty poorly cited. Although he does mention briefly the archives where he gets his material, he rarely cites specific archival documents (i.e., no author/recipient, title, date, serial number, etc.) and almost never denotes their location (i.e., box, record group/collection, and archive). For example, that document above was in Box 67, Entry P62 (Item S-13), RG-19, NARA, College Park, Md. In his new books about British submarines, he does do a much better job at identifying the archival documents.

Although this is somewhat besides the point in terms of our discussion of the Wikipedia article, I just wanted to emphasize that Friedman's level of citation is not acceptable if judged from academic perspective. I say this to emphasize that I think you ought to be looking at the broader picture instead of focusing specifically on the work of a single author. Friedman's books certainly are good references, but they are certainly not the end-all and be-all on the subject of U.S. naval development. Just because Friedman does not mention that the Growler originally was built to the SCB 124 design does not mean that it's not true. For an examples of more scholarly work on submarines, I would refer you to books by Norman Polmar, Gary Weir, and Francis Duncan.

As for why I did not add more from the Rogers' source, I am only interested in and knowledgeable about submarines, so did not care to edit the entries for other ship types. Vepr157 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tfdavisatsnetnet I suspect you may think that I am singling you out or something with my edits. Funnily enough, I think this is the result of a good thing: your substantive and much-needed edits on submarine pages. Because so much new information has been added to some of these pages (including the creation the SCB page, which is very welcome), inevitably there will be information that is not correct. Please do not think that any correction is personal, it's not. I want to work constructively to improve these pages. Vepr157 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]