Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1

2682:

things. In 1906 'fast' meant 21 kts, during WWI, it meant anything faster than 21 kts, typically 23-25 kts (The Queen Elizabeths were considered fast). By WWII, if it could keep up with carriers or nearly so, it was 'fast', generally meaning at least 27 kts or so. While 27 kts did not really match the flank speed of the fast carriers, that would not be a typical formation speed for them, and even if practical to cruise at 30+ kts, they would want the BBs to hang around, and would surely slow to accomodate them. To the best of my knowledge, the Iowas were the only BB's built as such (ie not converted from battle cruisers) that could make over 30 kts (though maybe Vanguard too?) and as late as the 80's all 4 Iowas could still make over 33 kts (35-36 reported) --

1328:

Brit) I think including Vanguard is a stretch (15 inchers versus 16 inchers is not a great start) and shows the lack of POV of the editors, as they go that extra bit to include more ships that could compare. Maybe just say that the Iowa was the second largest class of warship ever constructed, behind the Yamato class? Or some other wording if Vanguard should say. Like it has one of the largest displacements of any Battleship constructed, along with the Yamato and Vanguard. If we go on size rather than any combat ability then the need for an expert is removed, hrm?Vanguard would need to be removed in favour of something else, mind, as I doubt at 48,000 it has a large enough displacement to be in the top 3 there --

2816: 951:"The design weakness of super dreadnoughts, which distinguished them from post-Great War designs, was armour disposition. Their design placed emphasis on vertical protection which was needed in short range battles. These ships were capable of engaging the enemy at 20,000 metres, but were vulnerable to the angle of fire that came at such ranges. Post-war designs typically had 5 to 6 inches of deck armour to defend against this dangerous, plunging fire. Lack of underwater protection was also a weakness of these pre-World War I designs." 964:) introduced the so-called "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which protection of vital areas was optimized against heavy caliber guns, leaving other parts of the ship essentially unprotected. This reflected a growing awareness that improved gunfire controls would drive battleship engagements out to long ranges, where smaller guns would only serve to defend against torpedo and air attack. Thus, armor intended to counter those guns would be, at best, a waste of valuable weight. The basic concept of the 477:, and that process will make them unable to serve as war ships. For example, much of the control room wall over the Ammunition Loading Equipment has been replaced with Plexiglas so that visitors can see the works, and yet remain separated from them. Likewise, the large caliber guns have been spiked, and the barrels filled. The small caliber guns were retained by the Navy for use elsewhere. I've seen that New Jersey gets all of her utilities from the shore. Her plant no longer operates. 1821:

failure in the aircraft caused by penetrating projectiles. I suppose it could be argued that the 20mm weapons didn't shoot many aircraft down anyhow but that it didn't matter as much when the aircraft weren't attempting to crash into the ship. Still, stopping power has two basic components and one of those components is the mass of what you're trying to stop. A 45mm pistol may stop an oncoming man but not suffice to stop an onrushing elephant, for example. --

31: 1635:, 18 century battleship. It is obvious that any 20 century one would defeat it in battle. But what you are trying to say is like "find me a quote of an expert that state, that 18 century battleship would be definitely defeated in battle by 20 century one, otherwise it just your point of view". Logically, it makes some sense. But in reality there no need to refer NPOV in both cases. You just don't want to understand that. 1785:, v14, p1459}) sez so {quoting Preston?}). Re the "statute mi" Q: Fitzsimons puts the Mk7 mount's max range 42345yd @45° elevation; since sailors think only in nm, I'd mention it in km & offer a sm convers, too. Also, "the guns are never fired directly forward"? Oh? So what are "A" & "B" turrets for, decoration? Also, the Oerlikon was ineffectual less due to "bigger, heavier aircraft" than determined ( 2933: 1681:"among the finest class ever" isn't POV, but comparing her to her likely opponents (or her peers) is? I don't need to be a "battleship expert" to know any BB is measured by her ability to throw fire & withstand punishment; weight of broadside, maximum range, & thickness of belt & turret armor are the metrics, & have been for over a century. On that basis, 2536:

draft, the previous being a simple "some of their competition", but TestPilot requires that other battleships except the ones HE agrees with be excluded. He is attempting to make sure his POV is the one that is in the article. However I will edit this article for the rest of my life if that is what requires it, as he is unwilling to compromise on the issue. --

213: 1017:), with a massive columnar mast replacing the familiar "cage" mast, main armament in two triple turrets forward, one aft, and dual-purpose secondaries along the sides of the superstructure. The most important advance of the class was one that could not be seen from outside: The integration of the first computer at sea, the Mark I fire control computer. The 721:"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow..." This means that the shape of the bow is such that it will dive into high waves (porpoising), and thus there will be significant spray left on the deck. These ships have a high speed bow, but it is not wide enough to be self-supporting, and thus the porpoising. 2233:. Anyways, I changed it to "some of their competition would be..." because that is not a point of view, it's a statement of fact. Saying that these are the ONLY competition is a point of view, and wikipedians are not allowed to do original research. You can add "only series competition" if you get a verifiable source that says this. -- 325:-class battleships to remain in reserve. The general consenus among battleship fans who operate internet sites is that when China reaches superpower status it will attempt to take Tiawan back into itself, and pose a serious threat to both Japan and South Korea. Many websites on the net point to the US 2916:

There has been some talk of creating an article entitled "Naval Gunfore Support debate (1992-present)" to touch on the retirement of the Iowas and the concern that the Zummwalt class destroyers wont adequately meet the offshore fire requirements. If such an article were created I would suggest moving

2873:

Item 1: Yes, we can use this in an artilce. Fair use provides for a limited number of web resolution images, of which this is one, for "identification and critical commentary" on or about specific things. In this case, our ID and critical commentary is on the weapons systems the battleship(s) use, so

2398:

It's absolutely a POV. You are excluding all other battleships except those listed as being "serious competition". Why not just say "some of their competition"? That's a good compromise. Using my example, you are saying that the Argentine battlship is not serious competition. that's fine to have

2375:

No, those sources do not qualify as expert testimony. Secondly neither presents all battleships in the comparison, only a comparison of some battleships. Therefore you drawing the conclusion that these are the only serious competition is inserting your POV. Again, for the sake of argument, I think

1210:

And reader of Iowa article could research topic further by reading Yamato and Vanguard articles, so did I. I believe a lot of ppl who read that sentence, did the same. Sure, the sentence state that those was “the only” competitors. You know another battleship that also was serious competitor to Iowa?

1194:

Tom, you don't have to convince me. I believe you. That doesn't stop it from being POV. You just made your own argument there. You can't do your first-hand research on wikipedia. Knowledge (XXG) is about information, not about making arguments. If you can find a battleship expert and then quote

1161:

s have enough armor to protect them from 16-in shells and nine of their own 16-in guns to bring against other battleships. There fore does it not stand to reason that, in the absence of the never completed American Montana class battleships and on the basis of armor, guns, and speed, the only serious

932:

dispensed completely with the smaller calibre secondary armament carried by her immediate predecessors, allowing her to carry more heavy calibre guns than any other battleship built up to that time. She carried ten 12-inch guns mounted in five turrets; three along the centreline and two on the wings,

386:

The 16 inch guns are also described as 50 caliber, which is half an inch. 50 caliber is typically portable or used against small targets like rafts, jeeps, persons, floating barrels, etc.. at a mile or less. 16" can fire from many miles offshore and might have been used to damage enemy shore defenses

157:

Yes, the high pressure turbine is first in order and it is so-named according to input pressure. The input pressure on the HP turbine is around 600psi if I recall correctly. It's less than 50psi for the LP turbine after passing thru the crossover. Again I'm working from memory there but I'm in the

2905:

I seem to recall one thing Knowledge (XXG) is NOT is a link farm. 15 External links seems excessive. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate all of them. Perhaps some can be pushed down to more specific articles, like the Drone video, or that link to someones trip to the New Jersey. It occurs

2535:

Nope, I have no problem with that draft of the article. However user TestPilot continues to edit it to make sure that all other battleships are excluded as competition. He did so just now and said "Some of their most serious competition". This is a POV, of course. This is now the 2nd compromised

1950:

Well there are actually 2 problems. 1) it makes it appear that the designers of this ship had the competition of the HMS Vanguard and Yamato in mind at the time. It makes that statement of fact. Do we know that they had these in mind? also 2) It should be weakened to acknowledge that these were

727:

This one deals with the fact that since the ship has a narrow, high speed, bow, there is not much room inside the bow section. Indeed, I've been in the bow of the USS New Jersey, and the only equipment space found there is the Anchor Room. The armor starts behind that room. I had the impression that

367:

108'3" is what we've been told aboard USS Missouri and I'd be surprised if there is any significant expansion in the ship's beam due to temperature. You're talking about a 887' ship with a substantial hull thickness. I doubt any beam expansion would be measurable. I'm travelling at the moment but

2681:

I think you'll find that USS South Dakota (BB-57) and her sisters are rated for 26-27 kts whereas the earlier South Dakota class (BB-49 through 54) were designed for 23 kts (but were of course cancelled for treaty compliance). Also, 'fast' is a relative term, and at various times it meant different

1869:

There is still problems with the opening paragraph. User TomStar81's addition was very good and solved the problem, but then user TestPilot had to once again insert his POV into it, unsourced. Again, saying that those are the only 2 competition is an insult to all other battleships (maybe I think

2940:

Is it accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck? I always understood that the turrets were like big gun boxes that rotate on top of barbettes which are like heavily armored farm silos that provide protection for the shell and powder hoists that bring ammunition up from the

2851:

Given the copyright, can that be used in the article. I'd also color code the key. Actually to help out colorblind readers, a small number in the corner of the boxes and in the key would be better. And lastly, I'd add a more "common" name in each key (e.g. turrets, turrets, tomahawk, harpoon).

2161:

and discredit me pretty much shows that you're not interested in resolving this. I put the tag of "original research" because it seems to be the best one that applies. It is your point of view that the HMS Vanguard, Yamato, etc are the "only serious competition", yet you attribute this belief to

2067:

The same guy got banned for some time for keep deleting same info from the article and installing NPOV tag. He was so desperate, that he tried to modify one of WP:policy in his favor. Now he come up with Original Research tag. Most ppl do not see that phrase as a POV, and original research was not

2026:

Not to throw more fuel on this fire but the new paragraph, about the ships still under design ("Super Yamato" and "Montana") makes me slightly uncomfortable. It says that these new ships would have "outclassed" the Iowa-class. They would have out-gunned the Iowa-class to be sure, but there are a

1338:

User Tomstar81, you can say that the battleship Yamato and Vanguard would be able to compete. That's fine. You can't say that no other battleship is a "serious competitors", that's a POV. Reword it if you like to not make sound like the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are the best battleships of all

391:

With battleship guns caliber is used as an indication of length, not the diameter of the barrel. As regards the 16 inch guns the caliber is an expression of the ratio of the length of the gun to the diameter of the bore of the weapon. The gun is 66 feet long or 800 inches long and the bore is 16

2052:

I removed the paragraph about the "unsubstantiated rumor" about the barrels needing to be re-rifled. The problem with it is that the barrels of the 16" guns aren't rifled. The Mark 7 guns have liners in them and the liners are rifled. This was explictly done to substantially reduce the need to

1646:

Here is what I do not get: I am sayin that the Iowa class can go toe to toe with the Vanguard and both of the Yamatos; In saying this I agree that Yamato was powerfull enough to go toe to toe with Vanguard and the Iowas, and the Vanguard could go toe to toe with the Iowas and the Yamatos. This is

1327:

Isn't there a wiki-policy on removing patent nonsense though? And that would be. No-one could possibly make the argument that the HMS Victory (love her as I do) could stand up to 'modern' battleships. What other battleships should be mentioned? Bismark class? King George V? Even with my POV (as a

2831:

launchers, so ABLs were explained, etc. Anyway it got me to thinking if a picture is worth a 1000 words.... A nice schematic diagram of the Iowa class with key items identified, might be useful. Probably want one for the 1940's configuration and one for the 1980's configuration. The top view

1820:

Finally, regarding the effectiveness of the 20mm guns, while determination may have been a factor I don't see how that really changes whether or not the guns can stop the incoming aircraft. I've never known a pilot who got shot down due to lack of determination; usually it was due to mechanical

1804:

The U.S. Navy is one of the few military organizations, even within the U.S. Military, that operates in yards rather than meters. A&B are British turret designations in the U.S. Navy the forward turrets are "1" & "2". The forward turrets rotate thru about 300 degrees range of motion so

1351:

Mateo, your opinion is completely irrelevant. The article is not here to describe the views of Knowledge (XXG) contributors, it's here to describe the views of people who know about the Iowa class battleship. You haven't produced any evidence that the statement is contested among such people.

179:

suggests the naming of the turbines in the article is correct and that the first turbine is known as the high pressure turbine despite the gas passing through it being low pressure as per the article's velocity/pressure diagrams. If naval egineers use this nomenclature the article is correct to

146:

would suggest the first of 2 turbines would be a high speed / low pressure device followed by the low speed / high pressure turbine. As far as I know, and I don't claim to be an engineer, turbines are named high or low pressure relative to the gas / liquid pressure passing through them, not the

968:

s' armor system was ultimately adopted by all naval powers. The ships marked the end (in the USN) of the midships turret, which had traditionally proven to be problematic because of the necessity of having the midships magazine surrounded by extremely hot boilers and pressurized steam lines.

2137:

Hmm. I read that comparaison quite some time ago. Too bad it do not include Vanguard. But. Could we use it as a reference? Yamato and Richelieu got top rating after Iowa. So lets replace Vangaurd with Richelieu, also a nice battleship. And sine Mateo trying to attack phrase based on builders

1800:

It's hard to believe that any navy would rate a 58,000 ton warship as a "large cruiser." If the Iowa-class are CBs then what would be a BB? There are few surface combat vessels that are larger or more capable than the Iowas -- and note I'm excluding aircraft carriers there. Note that the

1808:

1. Post-modernization particularly there is a tactical antenna array which we call "The Christmas Tree" located way up on the bow and a directly forward shot wouldn't be very good for that apparatus. Not to mention the possible adverse effects on the forward deck when the shock-blast and

2170:

have had these ships in mind, that would constitute original research. You have to find sources. The best thing would be just to leave this part out, as it's unnecessary anyways. User TomStar81 already resolved this dispute by finding a verified source which said that "The Iowa class

2383:

04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) What wrong with saing "Some of their most serious competition"? You had beed proveded with sourses!!! What else do you want???? And it absolutely nothing exclusive in that statement. It is absolutely not a POV. Think for a moment and stop enforce edit war.

1555:

Uhm...yes, because having 'The finest battleships ever built' without providing examples of alternatives isn't NPOV? I'm sorry, but the removal makes the sentence most definatly POV. Anyway, a quote was found and so it looks like this is solved without the need for deletion of sections

2433:

If that's the case then there must be some reason for adding ONLY these ships as "serious competition". By excluding other ships, you are presenting a POV that these ships are special enough to warrant mentioning. However in a NPOV article, you can not state opinions. Get a blog.

2734:

The concept of the "600-ship Navy" was introduced by Defense Secretary Harold Brown during President James Earl Carter's term of office. Planning was begun under Brown and actively pursued by Lehman during the Reagan administration. The goal of six hundred ships was never actually

906:

to say that. If you hadn't put "arguably" in the first part of the sentence, that would be POV also (it still sort of is, but made to sound more vague so it's NPOV enough for me). But that line in the parathesis is clearly POV, no matter how much you believe it to be correct.

1895:

Part of the problem is that unless they face each other in battle it's always going to be opinion as to which ship would win the fight. I happen to think the Iowa class would have the advantage against any battleship ever surged, but I may be a little biased. <grin:

749:

Basically that's what it means. In the case of the Iowa class the lenght of the ship is a factor as well -- especially in the Pacific the distance between the swells in medium seas are such that as the ship crests one swell, the bow tends to plunge into the next swell.

640:

c : the land-to-land diameter of the bore of a piece of ordnance used as a unit of measurement for stating the length of the tube of the piece -- now used only of naval and coastal defense guns <a 3"/50 cal. gun is 3" in bore and 50 calibers or 150" or 12'6" long:

2376:

the argentine battleship was it's only serious competition. While I might be (and probably am) wrong, we're not here to make arguments. Only to state facts. That statement is not a statement of fact, unless it turns into a quote from an expert. I'm removing it.

2629:

Specifically, Iowa and South Dakota both had guns of 16-inch caliber. Iowa's gun barrels are longer however, having a length equal to 50 times their caliber (ie 50 times 16 inches equals 800 inches). South Dakota's guns are only 45 caliber lengths. (720 inches).

2667:

Both: The Iowa class battleships were four of only ten battleships designed with speed and firepower in mind. In America, the South Dakota and North Carolina classes had also been designed with speed in mind, and could also keep up with the aircraft carriers.

102:

I'm afraid I don't really see that the South Dakota class is considered a serious competitor to the Iowa-class as best battleship ever. The South Dakota doesn't have any capability that the Iowa's don't and the Iowa-class are faster and have better guns.

2138:

believes, I will remove reference to that. I will do neceseraly edits shortly and we see what happens. But, my opinion, he just trolling. Article was modified one time to please him, but that did not take any affect. So, this most likely pointless.

2193:

Actually, I am saying that more for your protection. If an administrator or someone of that caliber were to come along and not see a reason for the tag they would remove it. I am asking that you provide a valid reason to keep that from happening.

728:

they took that into account when they planned the armor. It seemed to me that - with the door to the Anchor Room fully dogged, a hit to the bow tip would not do much damage to the rest of the ship. The bow tip might be lost, but not much more.

472:

I've recently been all over the USS New Jersey, and she is in great shape, but is in no condition to return to active service. I doubt that any of the others will ever return to active service either, because the goal now is to convert them to

2991:

I'll have to look. It's been empiracally demonstrated, though not with an Iowa. If you see the documentary on the Bismarck you'll note that the wreck on the bottom is minus its turrets - they having fallen out on the way down when the ship

828:

If that's not point of view, nothing is. It shouldn't be there. The whole sentence is a little suspect, but it's not TOO bad. Unless you can come up with some battleship expert and quote him saying this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.

644:

In other words, to arrive at the caliber number for a naval or coast gun, you must know the actual length, and divide that by the bore diameter. From then on, you know that a naval gun that is 50 calibers, and is 3", is 150" or 12'6" long.

2725:

Unique. At this point in world history the Iowa class were the only remaining battleships still considered to be in good enough shape to be reactivated. These four ships were the only battleships recommissioned anywhere in the world after

2716:

All four of the Iowa class battleships were recommissioned and refitted under the Reagan Administration as part of Navy Secretary John F. Lehman's "600-ship Navy" plan, particularly in response to the Soviet Navy commissioning the Kirov

2595:) and frankly no information is lost from the dispute over TestPilot's POV information. The important parts are still clear; that the Iowa class was one of the best ever, as shown by TomStar's quote and the reference to the carrier. -- 2861:

Given the rest of the page (english cutaway diagrams on otherwize CZ site) you grabbed the image from, I doubt it's original to that site. Seems a little too nice to be a US Navy PD doc though. Should be a Navy line drawing somewhere

1762:

Minor point of interest -- being designed to fit thru the Panama Canal doesn't make the Iowa-class unique. Most US Navy ships with a comparable beam were designed to fit thru the canal. Smaller ships didn't have to worry about it.

1099:

were intended to carry twelve 16-inch (406 mm) guns of 50 calibers in length, three more guns than the earlier class. Protection against underwater weapons and shellfire was also greatly enhanced; they would have been the only new

278:

Under the most extreme of circumstances I would imagine that all four would be recomissioned; however, it doesn't look like that will be the case. A more likely senario would be using the two mueseum ships as spare parts caches for

113:

I'm going to have to check on the Armor info posted -- the deck figures seem too thick. The turrets are (off the top of my head) 16" of class A on the front over 2.5" of STS. On the sides they're 9.5" and on the rear around 11".

2216:), here is no consensus that see phrase as POV. In fact most ppl do not believe that phrase POV, and think that it belong to an article. The one and only problem is one person, that trying to enforce edit war for unclear reasons. 2027:

lot of other factors in the effectiveness of a battleship than simple gun-size/number. Fire control, speed, range, survivability, manueverability, etc. Maybe we should change "outclassed" to "outgunned" to be more accurate? --

352:

transits, I was wondering whether this takes into account thermal expansion due to being in the tropics — ie. is this the shipyard's documented beam, or the figure from the canal admeasurer? I assume that there would have been

2068:

even mentioned until today. It worth to say, that the only contribution of same very guy to an article is an edit war he started to promote his opinion. He never introduced any other edits. What could be done with that troll?

2671:

No, the SoDak's could only make about 23 knots and Showboat (North Carolina) only made about 27 knots. WWII aircraft carriers would typically make 31+ knots. Only the Iowa-class could run with the carriers at flank speed.

1479:, I agree with MateoP. "The only serious competition" is a POV, and not very necessary anyway because it is a parenthetical statement in an introduction. Take a look at what information is gained or lost in both versions: 599:

USS Iowa is not in Rhode Island. She's currently moored in Suisan Bay, San Francisco, California. Last I heard she is expected to be moved to a new home in Stockton, CA where she will be placed on display, shortly.

1207:

But why that is not an NPOV? That sentence you have removed do not state that Yamato or Vanguard any better or any worth than Iowa. It just pointing out the fact that Yamato and Vanguard was a serious competitors to

2336:"Their most serious competition among battleships of the WWII era were the Japanese Yamato-class, the single late war British battleship HMS Vanguard, and the French Richelieu-class." Is not a POV. Here is sources. 682:

The paper cited in the endnote for the surrender of Iraqi troops to a UAV (endnote 4) states that it was Missouri's UAV that spotted the surrendering troops, as opposed to Wisconsin's as stated in the Wiki article.

1566:

Saying that they are the "only serious competitors" is a POV. I agree though, and think the option of removing the entire sentence and replacing it with the quote proposed by a user above would fix the problem.

563:- is better than the British spelling for a class of American battleships. This is especially true since the British spelling is currently an American Registered Trademark for a company that produces canned meat. 2279:

I may fiddle with that wording some, it seems... ackwardly phrased. If I find a better way to state that information then I will present any modified version I come up with here before placing it in the article.

1598:

I have been playing around the text of that line since it became a controversial issue; for what its worth (and its probably not worth much) my best draft version of the sentence was as followed: At the time the

941:

in a calm sea, allowing her to outrun existing battleships (with a typical speed of 18 kts). Her armour was strong enough that she could conceivably go head-to-head with any other ship afloat in a gun battle and

2948:

According to this picture we have the turret is considered to be the whole shell holding, powder handeling kit, which would mean that the it is accurate to describe the main turrets as extending far below deck.

2579:

I will never concede that we can make a list. Doing so is inserted our own opinions into the equation. This isn't a blog. Simply eliminate the "serious competition" portion and i am fine with the statement.

2251:

Yes, I'm the one that made that addition. It seemed like a reasonable compromise. It is TestPilot who reinserted the POV phrasing of "the only serious competition". Notice that this has happened with him now

2973:

Is there a citation for the "turrets aren't attached to the ship and will fall out if the she capsizes" fact? I've heard it said before, and don't doubt it, but it would be nice to have a credible reference.

1195:

or cite them, it stops being POV. You can't just make judgment calls on what are the "best" of something, that's completely subjective, unless you are an expert at the field. In that case, quote yourself. --

1972:

The U.S. suspected the Japanese were building a new, larger, battleship when they ordered the Iowas but they didn't know the details and I'm pretty sure they didn't know the Japanese were planning 18" guns.

141:

Can someone please confirm the ordering of the turbines to be correct? High pressure then low pressure may seem sensible enough but throw in a bit of fluid or gas dynamic physics and it looks rather shakey.

1429:

by Ian Johnston and Rob McAuley that reads as follows: "The Iowa class fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." Does this work, or should I try harder?

1370:

That was might point, it's POV. The burden of proof is on the people who want to include the POV statement. You must cite sources. Show proof that battleship experts believe that statement is correct.--

1290:

a dispute about the correctness of this statement. If everyone agrees that the Yamato, Iowa and Vanguard were in a class of their own, then there's nothing wrong with us saying so. (For more on this, see

2171:

fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." You have only contributed with opinions, and seem to have no problem pushing them into the article. --

990:" hull design. As a result of extensive experimentation and testing, her underwater hull protection was much greater than that of previous battleships; and both her main and secondary batteries had 1400:

Yes, there is a NPOV dispute. It is not a NPOV for a non-expert to make unsourced assertions. By removing the tags you are giving the impression that the article is not under NPOV dispute, it is.

2515:

What is original research or POV about that? Are you seriously suggesting that a WWI-era Chilean battleship is comparable to the Yamato or Musashi, Iowas, or Vanguard? Or are you just making a

1855:, v14, p1459. Not stated, I presume this was vetted by "contributing editor" Anthony Preston before publication; I don't doubt Preston would know if there was something really wrong with it... 674:"arguably" is one of those words like "factoid" - two meanings, each the opposite of the other. In this context, "arguably" means "defensible by argument" not "something we'd argue over". -vmy 2609:

GraemeL was right the first time -- the guns on the Iowa-class are of a large caliber than the guns on South Dakota. The Iowas have a 50-caliber main battery; the SoDak's have 45-caliber. --

2379:

Also, what is wrong with saying "Some of their competition"? Why must it be an exclusive statement eliminating all others? It's clearly POV. If you keep adding it, I will put POV tags. --

2633:

The extra barrel length allows the Iowa's shells to develop slightly higher muzzle velocity than South Dakota's, giving them greater range, flatter trajectory and better penetrating power.

317:

A naval war between the US and PRC would be strong cause to activate at least two IOWAs. I suspect that's exactly why the Navy still has the IOWA and WISCONSIN in a more "readied" state.

1063:

were the largest, heaviest battleships ever constructed, weighing 65,027 tons and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns. The class was designed to be superior to any ship that the

1234:. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. It doesn't matter if people can add their own point of views to the article. Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of points of view. It's 287:. According to a General Accounting Office report I obtained from the UTEP Library, the USN has absolutely no intersest in (or plans to) recomissioning either of the two battleships. 610:

The aircraft section seems to have a wrong date. I don't feel like they would have used helicoptors in 1949. I'll leave it to someone with background in this subject to fix this.--

2556:

Gentlemen please, It does us no good to fight amongst ourselves. Lets start with something really simple: what ships do we all think would qualify as potential competition for the

2941:

magazines. I've been in the bottom of the Alabama's barbette, and while some might say it's part of the turret structure, I think the distinction is valid and well worth noting.

2906:

to me that a "Fate of the Iowas" article might be a good place to give the whole firepower debate a look see, as well as move the "what happened to the spare barrels" link to.--

620:

Yes, in fact they did use helicopters in '49. The Bell 47 was licensed for civilian use as early as 1946. The catapults for the floatplanes were removed around May of '49. --

1817:

You don't really have to fire them directly forward, it is not only easy, but desirable, to change the ship's relative bearing to target away from zero degrees before firing.

1874:. You can change it to "some of the competition would be" but just so you know, if you do that, I'm going to add other ships to the list other than just the two listed. -- 1013:. The class was completely different from all previous US battleships, and set the pattern for all subsequent vessels (as well as the reconstructions of vessels wrecked at 714:"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow, and the narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult." 2256:. The first time TomStar81 found a quote which showed the ship's excellence and I was satisfied, but TestPilot insists on adding his POV to an encyclopedic article. -- 1138:

decided to build a new battleship that would use four spare twin 15-inch mountings... A design for a 40,000-ton battleship was produced, intended to be the core of a

841:

With such logic you can remove whole article, it also could be considered as point of view. You need to come up with the reason, if you wish to delete someone work.

556:

The use of ships as targets is also a legitimate use of old ships, but the ships that were expended in the Nuclear tests produced a lot of controversy in the Navy.

296:

Admiral Yamamato commented over 60 years ago that in modern war, the battleship will be like unto a sammurai sword - a weapon of the past that has become useless.

2659:

These ships were designed as "fast" battleships, able to rely on an even mix of speed and firepower and capable of sailing at the same speed as the carrier force.

2891:

Jane's says, first of all, that while you are correct about the Standard Displacement, the full load displacement was 52,000 tons. I will post what jane's has.

1440:

Yes, that's a good quote. Remove the disputed sentence and replace with that quote (in quotes, attributing the author). If fixed, the dispute is dropped. --

969:

Instead, Turrets I and IV had an additional weapon added, becoming triples instead of doubles and allowing the same amount of firepower with one fewer turret."

2759:

Unique. The Iowa class ships were active in the Korean War (1950-1954), the Vietnam War (1968), the Cold War (1986-1991) and the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991).

2786:

All four of the ships still exist, which is unusual because the US Navy typically scraps older, decommissioned ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests.

449:

would indicate that the ships have been abandoned at sea, and that is not so. All four are tied up, three of them at their permanent homes. Those homes are:

329:-class battleships as being instomental in the protection of Japan, S. Korea, and Tiawan when that time comes. Some even suggest that the 16" guns on the 227: 87:

General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333.

1906:

I think that perhaps You and Testpilot and I ought to work on the paragraph here before we reinsert it out in the text. When removed it read as followed:

1409:

Do not decide for other users if they believe there is a NPOV dispute. I clearly stated time and time that if that segment of that sentence is not POV,

1021:

fire control system allowed the ship to maintain a constant fire control solution even when steaming at full speed and performing drastic evasive turns."

1955:

competition is POV. So saying something like "it was believed that the HMS Vanguard and Yamato would be major competitors" works better, i think. --

2399:

that opinion, but this is not a blog. This is not for opinions. If you managed to find expert testimony from people published in scholarly journals

1603:-class battleships were commissioned into the United States Navy it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship 2700:

Although they had to be designed to fit through the Panama Canal, they took that to the limit with less than a foot (30 cm) to spare on either side.

2960:

Yes, we always consider the turret to extend all the way down into the magazines. That's four decks for turrets 1 & 3, 5 decks for turret 2. --

2708:

Both. The Iowa class were not unique in fitting tightly through the canal, but they would have been among the largest warships ever built to do so.

1462:

Note that my last revert is not a violation of 3RR as it was vandalism. You can not remove NPOV tags while actual discussion is taking place. --

785:

Have to remember, "naval" is a second lang even for native Eng speakers. (It was clear enuf to me, tho, after 25yrs reading in naval matters...)

1273:-class battleship due to a percieved point of view conflict, unless such a view can be substatiated by a "battleship expert". Is this correct? 110:

The British battleship Vanguard although a one off was said to be a master of sea handling at the time. Shame we scrapped it. GDL 3 Feb 2005

3015: 2162:

the ship builders of the time. Can you prove WITH VERIFIABLE SOURCES that the shipbuilders specifically had these ships in mind? Remember,

1836:

were 6000 ft so to be easily divided into yards, and gunnery ranges were recently (10 years ago) still commonly found as yards in the USN.--

1286:

Mateo, I think that you are misunderstanding NPOV. NPOV requires that we not take sides in a dispute. I see no evidence here that there

79: 71: 66: 2827:

someone asked why they couldn't spot the missile launchers in the lead 1990 picture. I suspect they were looking for something like the

1238:

period. Stop vandalizing. Either find a quote from a battleship expert or let it go. It's one, clearly POV, segment of a sentence. --

1385:

on the talk page for a source, and give the writers a reasonable time to respond. Since there's no NPOV dispute, I'm removing the tag.

665:

If its arguably the finest then its also arguably not and thus this rather meaningless sentence has no place in an encyclopedic entry --

2619:

However its not so clear that it is larger calibre length and not calibre diameter. The important point is that the guns fired further

2107:

is the only ship I can not find statics for, and even under those circumstances the statement would only need to be ammended to remove

368:

when I get back to the ship I can probably look over the engineering documents which should list the official, shipyard-measured, beam.

2490: 695:

s. I thought I fixed this one, but no matter. I get it corrected asap. For the record, a more detailed account could be found on the

469:

It is the USS Iowa herself that is not yet preserved, and - even then - she is currently at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island

2842:

Here is a 1980 modernization look. I color-coded the weapon systems so people would have an easier time IDing them. Does this work?

2004:’s, Great Britian and the US were allies after all; however, do not think that was the case. On note 2) I agree with you completly. 2496:, which were all more or less comparable in terms of armament, fire control, armour, and range. Their true rival, however, was the 634:

a : the bore diameter of the barrel of a weapon (as a firearm) measured in rifled arms from land to land -- compare LAND DIAMETER

589:

I agree that derelict is a misleading and inaccurate word. I'm going to replace it with the much more appropriate "decommisioned"

529:. Large areas are open to the public. She is the only first-generation dreadnaught (WWI era) battleship to survive to this day. 2180:

And sorry, you don't own this article or wikipedia, you don't get to decide what a "valid" reason is for tagging the article. --

1381:

Then your complaint isn't an NPOV problem at all- it's a complaint about the sourcing of the statement. For that you should ask

480:

Secondly, the Navy has had a long standing tradition of preserving as many of its historical ships as possible, which is why the

418:

No, in the case of United States Battleships the caliber designation is the ratio of length to bore as I have indicated above. --

1075:

to construct a battleship with the same caliber guns without severe design restrictions or an inadequate defensive arrangement."

2895: 405:

of calibers of length: bore diam =1, barrel length 50x→50caliber(s). The MG is actually erroneously called "50cal", 'cause the

2815: 180:

follow. They are named after input pressure not flow pressure. Anyway I'm sure my old physics teacher would be proud of me. --

2008:

would have been the biggest competitor, but not the only one; Japan did have other battleships. It stands to reason that the

1318:

and every other battleship ever created is pushing a POV. Unless you get an expert quote, it will continue to be a POV. --

1104:-era U.S. battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own. To achieve these advances, the 2418:

Could you see word "OME" It not exlude any ship from being serious competitor or wahtever. So shut up ans stop trolling!!!

2347:- both have highest rating after Iowas. This edition of the phrase introdused by GraemeLeggett and totaly supported by me. 2645:

s "5 point" uniqueness. Are these qualities unique ones and if so is it terms of all battleships, US battleships or what?

307:

Possible? Yes. But extremely unlikely. It's prohibitively expensive and there really is very little to gain from it. --

1314:

is clearly better than the Iowa, Yamato, and Vanguard and would defeat them handedly on the battlefield. Excluding the

919:

Battleship experts would look at several thing to make these statements. Let me make the case for reinserting this line:

2343:

So statement is true as to Vanguard. As to Yamato-class and Richelieu - please take a look at battleships comparison at

2338:

Vanguard was probably the finest of all the allied battleships, with the possible exception of the American Iowa class.

928:"Partially as a consequence of this new philosophy, and partially as a consequence of its powerful new turbine engine, 147:

pressure of the gas or liquid driving them. In effect high pressure gas drives low pressure turbines and vice versa. --

95:

Engineering plant information that I've provided comes from my own experience as a current volunteer crewmember aboard

2361:

I added "Some of their" to make statment even less controversial. It was fine without that modification - but anyway.

1059: 1884:

I think TomStar had it right. I don't think it's really necessary to add in the references to Yamato or Vanguard. --

1721:

is a function of that comparo, & omitting it is omitting important facts. So is omitting the main competition to

1701:

armor. Comparing them isn't POV. It's a reasoned assessment, which ought to be included. Or do you suggest comparing

1067:

was likely to produce. The 46 cm (18.2 inch) main guns were selected over 40.6cm (16 inch) because the width of the

2824: 1611: 1495: 1174: 1117: 886: 819: 47: 38: 17: 2450:- I can see no justification for tagging the article as original research or POV as it stands - it currently says: 1812:

2. The effect of turret 2, firing over the top of turret 1, is not a good experience for the men inside turret 1.

1008: 432:"Lastly, all four of the ships are still in existence, which is unusual because the Navy typically scraps older, 1389: 1356: 1310:

You are taking sides. That's but 3 of many battleships. For example, for the sake of argument, I say that the

1299: 1928: 1652: 1226:

that aren't either the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are not "serious competitors" for being the best battleship.

222: 2469: 1921: 1054: 961: 1996:-class; Japan had gone to extreme lengths to prevent the world from seeing its massive battleships. As for 1386: 1353: 1296: 1742: 1545: 1265:-class page, while MateoP maintains that any nation who operated battleships comaparble in any way to the 1211:

No problem. It could be added to the list. But I’m not aware of any. So I see no point of removing that.

1046: 1014: 242:

I know I'm being nit-picky, but shouldn't the phrase "Iowa class" in this article's title be hyphenated? —

143: 2832:

drawing would be the clearest, if all three drawing views aren't available or would look too cluttered.--

2819:

Breakdown of the weapons systems installed on the Iowa class battleships during their 1980s modernization

1859: 1805:

they're always rotated off to one side or the other. They're not fired forward for a couple of reasons:

1537: 158:#4 engine room on USS Missouri at least once a week most weeks so I'm fairly confident that's correct. -- 2306: 1089: 773: 696: 373: 308: 159: 2053:

replace the barrels to account for wear. The barrels are rarely replaced; the liners are replaced. --

2243: 590: 96: 763:". That term unclear for me (and, english is a second language for me, as it is for many wikiusers) 2683: 2480: 2229:

You don't need consensus to remove POV phrasing. The fact that you said "only serious competition

1914: 1604: 1488: 1167: 991: 879: 812: 741: 611: 176: 2892: 2646: 2620: 2321: 2158: 1910: 1533:

I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. --

1072: 1003:"Before this class, the United States Navy favored staying power and fire power over speed. The 731: 718:

Actually, this is a compound sentence that should have been divided into two seperate sentences.

648: 581: 358: 2516: 740:

Sorry, so does wet forward just mean, that the front of the deck gets wet in heavy ocean waves?

2996: 2978: 2964: 2953: 2921: 2910: 2878: 2866: 2856: 2846: 2836: 2802: 2774: 2686: 2676: 2649: 2623: 2613: 2599: 2584: 2572: 2540: 2530: 2438: 2426: 2411: 2392: 2369: 2355: 2324: 2284: 2260: 2246: 2237: 2224: 2198: 2184: 2175: 2146: 2115: 2057: 2041: 2031: 2020: 1977: 1959: 1941: 1901: 1888: 1878: 1840: 1825: 1794: 1767: 1751: 1670: 1659: 1639: 1593: 1582: 1571: 1560: 1550: 1542: 1534: 1487:

s are among the finest battleships ever built (their only serious competition was the British

1466: 1453: 1444: 1434: 1417: 1391: 1374: 1358: 1343: 1332: 1322: 1301: 1277: 1242: 1215: 1199: 1187: 987: 933:

giving her twice the broadside of anything else afloat. The first large warship equipped with

911: 895: 845: 833: 789: 780: 767: 754: 744: 734: 703: 669: 651: 624: 614: 604: 593: 584: 573: 515: 506: 422: 413: 396: 376: 361: 337: 311: 300: 291: 263: 253: 193: 184: 171: 162: 151: 130: 1647:

very fair, I think. In your example of HMS Vistory, I am saying she could go toe to toe with

1292: 1235: 903: 2874:

this fits the parameters. Item 2: I will see about revising the image per your suggestions.

2828: 2497: 2087:

class and five other WWII-active battleship classes, and based on his research assessed the

1934:, which had been authorized but not laid down (they would be cancelled before construction). 1648: 1519: 1501: 2751:

These ships were active, if intermittently, throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

2407:

add an opinion statement without qualifying whose opinion it is. This one is your own. --

2527: 1856: 1790: 1748: 1038: 1018: 786: 503: 410: 260: 249: 127: 274:

Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned

2340: 1116:

also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling Japan's massive

2950: 2918: 2875: 2843: 2799: 2569: 2476: 2420: 2386: 2363: 2349: 2281: 2218: 2195: 2140: 2124:

he tagged the page with the original research templete. I will wait 24 hours, and if a

2112: 2070: 2038: 2017: 1938: 1667: 1656: 1636: 1590: 1579: 1450: 1431: 1274: 1212: 1184: 1147: 1139: 892: 842: 777: 764: 700: 334: 288: 1913:, it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship 3009: 2798:

of ships have never been completely spared, yet the Iowas look to achieve that goal.

2103:’s, so it stands to reason they would be able to compete evenly with each other. HMS 1064: 934: 2993: 2975: 2961: 2907: 2863: 2853: 2833: 2771: 2673: 2610: 2054: 2028: 1974: 1898: 1885: 1822: 1764: 1526: 1523: 1508: 1505: 1261:

would be able to compete on a relativly fair field and thus should be mentioned on

1101: 1068: 938: 751: 621: 601: 570: 512: 419: 393: 349: 297: 115: 104: 88: 1518:

s are among the finest battleships ever built, but were rapidly superseded by the

532:

BB55 - USS North Carolina The USS North Carolina is preserved as a museum ship at

2242:

Is last edition fine with you? It do not contain "the only serious competition".

511:

No, that's a common misconception. USS Arizona was decommissioned 12/29/1941. --

2596: 2581: 2537: 2520: 2501: 2500:, which proved its title as the most important naval vessel during World War II 2447: 2435: 2408: 2380: 2257: 2234: 2181: 2172: 1956: 1875: 1837: 1697:

but probably not defeat her, because her broadside was insufficent to penetrate

1632: 1568: 1557: 1463: 1441: 1414: 1371: 1340: 1329: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1239: 1196: 908: 830: 666: 539:

BB59 - USS Massachusetts The USS Massachusetts is preserved as a museum ship at

321:

Interestingly, that is exactly the reason why so many non-naval people want the

190: 168: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2932: 2524: 1617: 1042: 243: 181: 148: 2016:’s would pose the largest threat, but they were by no means the only threat. 1801:

Alaska-class CB had roughly half the displacement and a smaller main battery.

724:"The narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult." 2000:, there is a possibilty that the US had the ship in mind when designing the 1142:, where her high speed and armament would be a match for Japanese warships. 1135: 1050: 333:-class could be used in an ABM role, although that is disputed information. 2403:

we could possibly upgrade the statement to "some experts think" but we can

2344: 1747:

page doesn't say something like it, it damn well should!) So? POV or N?

348:

The stated beam is 108 ft 2 in (32.98 m). From the point of view of the

874:’s on near equal terms. As far as other nations battleships go the four 212: 99:

and a variety of the engineering sources made available to us on board.

760: 463: 1988:

On note 1) There is no way that the U.S. could have had either of the

2487: 2212:

There is no consensus here as to delete that phrase (so it should be

1589:

I lost my place on the article. Sorry, this remark was uncalled for.

1084:"With an intended standard displacement of 60,500 tons, the proposed 1007:

class had a speed of 27 knots versus the 21 knots of the pre-treaty

772:

Thanx. Article written. Please check "wet forward" hyperlink in the

546:

BB60 - USS Alabama The USS Alabama is preserved as a museum ship at

392:

inches in diameter. 800 divided by 16 is 50 -- hence 50 caliber. --

167:

I don't know, but I do have a suspicion that you are right there. --

807:

I took this out of the opening paragraph, someone reinserted it...

2931: 2814: 2466: 1035: 2079:

An anon recently placed a tag leading to a website comparing the

1108:

class was designed for a slower maximum speed than the very fast

525:

BB35 - USS Texas The USS Texas is preserved as a museum ship at '

1624:-class, which at the time had been authorized but not laid down. 1476: 878:

class battleship’s "...only serious competition was the British

870:’s, hence both of these ships could have challenged any of the 1293:

Knowledge (XXG):NPOV#How_can_I_tell_if_my_article_has_a_POV.3F

458: 207: 25: 1689:, because she'd come under fire beyond her ability to reply; 858:

article. Both of these battleships posses large enough guns (

453: 2654:

My reasoning for the inclusion of the points is as follows:

1249:

Let me get this straight then: TestPilot and I believe that

637:

b : the diameter of the projectile fired from such a weapon

2591:

For the record, I'm perfectly happy with the current edit (

1666:

after thinking it through I decided not to borrow trouble.

687:

Thats my fault. I came across that and thought that it was

231:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. 1088:

class ships were nearly a third larger than the preceding

691:

s UAV, when in fact several other sources cite the UAV as

2568:

was the worlds biggest battleship. Are there any others?

2305:

was a one off using what was available instead of the 4

126:, "Iowa" (v14) puts the turret armor @432mm, belt 307. 2592: 1951:

2 noteworthy competition but saying that they were the

1269:-class should not be mentioned or credited on the page 1809:

accompanying 35-foot fireball comes out of the muzzle.

559:

On another note, I think that the American spelling -

2341:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships.htm

986:

were the first American battleships built to a "post-

441:

In the first place, none of the Iowa Class ships are

1992:-class battleships in mind when they authorized the 1339:

time. That's a POV. Unless you find an expert. --

1222:

It's not a neutral point of view. It's saying that

1737:could actually deliver the same broadside, because 2111:. In my opinion this tag is POV, pure and simple. 1166:-class would have had were the British battleship 811:(their only serious competition was the British 438:ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests." 1232:It doesn't get any more point of view than that 1146:was unique among British battleships in having 2886: 2128:reason is not given then I’m removing the tag. 1851:I added the section based on Fitzsimons (ed), 1631:MateoP, lets take a look at your example with 2641:I'm not over happy with the paragraph on the 2301:Is it worth mentioning at this juncture that 1781:be rated CB in some navies? (Fitzsimons {ed, 8: 1257:-class battleships, and the battleships HMS 2944:Good article! Wish I could write so well. 1522:as the most important naval vessels during 1504:as the most important naval vessels during 1500:class), but were rapidly superseded by the 678:Endnote 4, UAV Surrender: minor discrepancy 2519:? Is there anyone else that agrees with 225:by Knowledge (XXG) editors, which is now 2345:http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm 1870:the Argentine battleship can compete?), 464:The National Maritime Center (Wisconsin) 177:This naval engineering training document 2564:and her sister, owing to the fact that 2157:It is original research, and trying to 1425:I found a quote on page 11 in the book 902:I did come up with a reason. It's not 543:. Large areas are open to the public. 2120:He also failed to give a reason as to 1080:The American Montana class battleships 710:what on earth does this sentence mean? 550:. Large areas are open to the public. 536:. Large areas are open to the public. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2887:JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS OF WORLD WAR II 2852:Other than that it's excellent. ;-)-- 1026:The Japanese Super Dreadnought Yamato 7: 1865:Opening paragraph issue not resolved 1741:s wing turrets were masked. (If the 1157:: Built with cost as no object, the 1071:would make it impracticable for the 960:"Even more significantly, they (the 409:is .5"; bbl length is about 68cal. 2794:Unique: To my knowlage, any entire 1937:How therefore should we reword it? 924:The "All big gun" armorment concept 854:article, niether have you read the 662:'arguably the finest battleships ' 553:Many other ships are so preserved. 492:is at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 1927:, and the five battleships of the 1832:Just a range note- nautical miles 1514:Built with cost as no object, the 1483:Built with cost as no object, the 1150:for both main and secondary guns." 956:The "all or nothing" armor concept 759:Please write short article about " 24: 2560:s? I think we could all agree on 1616:-class battleships, and the five 866:18.1 in) to pose a threat to the 459:USS Missouri Memorial Association 401:It's actually a reference to the 2316:s were contemperaneous with the 1677:Am I missing something? Calling 850:Evidently you have not read the 631:Definition of the word Caliber: 211: 29: 2917:the associated material there. 2743:- Penguini, 20:52, 08 Jun 2006. 2465:class in the WWII era were the 2461:Amongst the competitors of the 219:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1 189:Thanks for sorting that out. -- 1: 2979:01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2965:07:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2954:02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2803:10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2775:17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2677:17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2650:09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2624:09:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2614:20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2600:22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2585:20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2573:10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2541:02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2531:22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2439:02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2427:01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2412:20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2393:04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2370:04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2356:04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2325:11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2285:05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2261:22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2247:04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2238:03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2225:03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2199:05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2185:02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2176:02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2147:03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2116:01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2099:’s would have outclassed the 2042:04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2032:02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 1472:Section break:My take on this 999:The "Fast Battleship" Concept 745:22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 735:18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 704:22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 670:10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 652:17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 625:20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 615:06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 605:04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 594:16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 585:01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 397:20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 377:04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 362:16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 312:04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 301:01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 292:23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 238:"Iowa class" or "Iowa-class"? 194:04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC) 185:14:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC) 172:13:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC) 163:04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 152:13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC) 3016:Old requests for peer review 2893:SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 2502:naval battles in the Pacific 2210:There is nothing to resolve. 2058:09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1578:How would you word it then? 974:The Post Jutland hull design 484:is still in commission; the 454:Battleship New Jersey Museum 387:prior to a landing in WWII. 254:00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2997:08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 2922:00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 2911:21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 2021:01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1978:06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1960:01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1942:23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1902:06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1889:06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1879:17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1860:12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1841:04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1826:18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1795:12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1793:10:51, 11:33, 11:37, & 1768:06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1752:11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1685:would have trouble against 1671:01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1660:22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1640:22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1594:22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1583:22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1572:22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1561:22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1551:22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1467:22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1454:22:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1445:22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1435:22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1418:22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1392:22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1375:21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1359:21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1344:21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1333:22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1323:21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1302:21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1278:20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1243:19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1216:17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1200:16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 1188:08:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 912:07:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 896:06:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 846:06:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 834:05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 790:11:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 781:04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 768:03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 755:17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 574:00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 516:18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 507:10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 423:18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 414:10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 264:10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 131:10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 3032: 2825:Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) 2770:Some of them were, yes. -- 2687:20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 2312:. Both her design and the 2164:you can't make an argument 1155:Now Consider the following 1057:. She and her sister ship 1034:, named after the ancient 534:Wilmington, North Carolina 18:Talk:Iowa-class battleship 2896:20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 2879:23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2867:15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2857:15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2847:00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2837:13:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 2091:’s to be on par with the 1733:4, but neglecting to say 1725:. It's a bit like saying 541:Fall River, Massachusetts 107:21:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) 91:02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1846: 962:Nevada class battleships 338:00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 118:5 July 2005 07:48 (UTC) 1872:unless it can be proven 1729:had five turrets & 569:Armor taken care of. -- 445:. In American English, 2937: 2820: 2475:, the single late war 2063:Original research tag. 1936: 1655:. Where is your beef? 1651:and the civil war era 1047:Imperial Japanese Navy 947:The Super Dreadnoughts 488:is a museum ship; the 2935: 2818: 1907: 1853:Weapons & Warfare 1783:Weapons & Warfare 774:Iowa class battleship 697:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) 144:Bernoulli's principle 124:Weapons & Warfare 42:of past discussions. 1253:-class battleships, 1236:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV 992:fire-control systems 982:and her sister ship 937:, she could make 21 2048:Rifling the barrels 2037:I am cool with it. 1920:, the two Japanese 1758:Panama Canal Design 1610:, the two Japanese 502:, don't forget... 2938: 2821: 2231:IS A POINT OF VIEW 1925:-class battleships 1179:class, and the US 527:San Jacinto, Texas 2811:Schematic Diagram 2310:class battleships 1773:Arguably factoids 1653:USS Constellation 1494:and the Japanese 885:and the Japanese 818:and the Japanese 486:USS Constellation 235: 234: 137:Engineering Plant 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3023: 2936:A 16" Gun turret 2637:Unique qualities 2498:aircraft carrier 2423: 2389: 2366: 2352: 2221: 2143: 2073: 1649:USS Constitution 1520:aircraft carrier 1502:aircraft carrier 1162:competition the 1127:The British HMS 482:USS Constitution 246: 215: 208: 122:Fitzsimons (ed) 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3006: 3005: 2930: 2903: 2889: 2813: 2639: 2607: 2553: 2551:Project Rewrite 2421: 2387: 2364: 2350: 2219: 2159:poison the well 2141: 2083:class with the 2071: 2065: 2050: 1867: 1849: 1775: 1760: 1474: 1427:The Battleships 1224:all battleships 1173:, the Japanese 1039:Yamato Province 805: 712: 680: 660: 548:Mobile, Alabama 384: 346: 272: 270:recommisioning? 244: 240: 206: 204:Old Peer Review 139: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3029: 3027: 3019: 3018: 3008: 3007: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2968: 2967: 2957: 2956: 2929: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2902: 2899: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2789: 2788: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2754: 2753: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2738: 2737: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2720: 2719: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2703: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2684:ThirtyOneKnots 2662: 2661: 2638: 2635: 2627: 2626: 2606: 2603: 2593:permalink here 2589: 2588: 2587: 2576: 2575: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2442: 2441: 2415: 2414: 2373: 2372: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2240: 2202: 2201: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2166:as to why the 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2064: 2061: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2024: 2023: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1945: 1944: 1904: 1892: 1891: 1866: 1863: 1848: 1847:You're History 1845: 1844: 1843: 1829: 1828: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1802: 1774: 1771: 1759: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1735:South Carolina 1731:South Carolina 1713:) is POV? Why 1674: 1673: 1643: 1642: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1575: 1574: 1531: 1530: 1512: 1473: 1470: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1395: 1394: 1378: 1377: 1366: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1337: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1281: 1280: 1246: 1245: 1228: 1227: 1219: 1218: 1203: 1202: 1191: 1190: 1152: 1148:remote control 1140:Far East Fleet 1124: 1077: 1049:, and was the 1023: 1010:Colorado Class 1005:North Carolina 996: 971: 953: 944: 935:steam turbines 917: 916: 915: 914: 900: 899: 898: 826: 825: 804: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 757: 716: 711: 708: 707: 706: 679: 676: 659: 656: 655: 629: 628: 627: 608: 607: 579: 578: 577: 576: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 467: 466: 461: 456: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 383: 380: 370: 369: 345: 342: 341: 340: 315: 314: 305: 304: 303: 271: 268: 267: 266: 239: 236: 233: 232: 216: 205: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 165: 138: 135: 134: 133: 93: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3028: 3017: 3014: 3013: 3011: 2998: 2995: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2980: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2942: 2934: 2927: 2923: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2900: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2880: 2877: 2872: 2868: 2865: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2855: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2830: 2826: 2817: 2810: 2804: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2787: 2784: 2783: 2776: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2688: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2670: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2647:GraemeLeggett 2644: 2636: 2634: 2631: 2625: 2622: 2621:GraemeLeggett 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2612: 2604: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2586: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2542: 2539: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2478: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2390: 2382: 2377: 2371: 2368: 2367: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2346: 2342: 2339: 2326: 2323: 2322:GraemeLeggett 2319: 2315: 2311: 2309: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2286: 2283: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2222: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2186: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2148: 2145: 2144: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2062: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2047: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1979: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1935: 1933: 1931: 1926: 1924: 1919: 1918: 1912: 1905: 1903: 1900: 1894: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1864: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1819: 1816: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1789:) pilots... 1788: 1784: 1780: 1772: 1770: 1769: 1766: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1693:could engage 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1609: 1608: 1602: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1573: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1528: 1527:naval battles 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1509:naval battles 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1471: 1469: 1468: 1465: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1428: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1303: 1300: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1165: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1151: 1149: 1143: 1141: 1137: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1123: 1121: 1120: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1103: 1096: 1094: 1092: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065:United States 1061: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1037: 1031: 1027: 1024: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1004: 1000: 997: 995: 993: 989: 983: 979: 975: 972: 970: 965: 963: 957: 954: 952: 948: 945: 943: 940: 936: 929: 925: 922: 921: 920: 913: 910: 905: 901: 897: 894: 890: 889: 884: 883: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 847: 844: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 832: 823: 822: 817: 816: 810: 809: 808: 803:point of view 802: 791: 788: 784: 783: 782: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 766: 762: 758: 756: 753: 748: 747: 746: 743: 739: 738: 737: 736: 733: 732:CORNELIUSSEON 729: 725: 722: 719: 715: 709: 705: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 685: 684: 677: 675: 672: 671: 668: 663: 657: 654: 653: 650: 649:CORNELIUSSEON 646: 642: 638: 635: 632: 626: 623: 619: 618: 617: 616: 613: 606: 603: 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 587: 586: 583: 582:CORNELIUSSEON 575: 572: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 562: 557: 554: 551: 549: 544: 542: 537: 535: 530: 528: 517: 514: 510: 509: 508: 505: 501: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 491: 487: 483: 478: 476: 475:Museum Pieces 470: 465: 462: 460: 457: 455: 452: 451: 450: 448: 444: 439: 437: 436: 424: 421: 417: 416: 415: 412: 408: 404: 400: 399: 398: 395: 390: 389: 388: 381: 379: 378: 375: 374:72.129.68.251 366: 365: 364: 363: 360: 359:Johantheghost 357:expansion. — 356: 351: 344:Tropical beam 343: 339: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 319: 318: 313: 310: 309:72.129.68.251 306: 302: 299: 295: 294: 293: 290: 286: 282: 277: 276: 275: 269: 265: 262: 259:Absolutely. 258: 257: 256: 255: 251: 247: 237: 230: 229: 224: 220: 217: 214: 210: 209: 203: 195: 192: 188: 187: 186: 183: 178: 175: 174: 173: 170: 166: 164: 161: 160:72.129.68.251 156: 155: 154: 153: 150: 145: 136: 132: 129: 125: 121: 120: 119: 117: 111: 108: 106: 100: 98: 92: 90: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2943: 2939: 2904: 2890: 2822: 2795: 2785: 2750: 2733: 2715: 2699: 2658: 2653: 2642: 2640: 2632: 2628: 2608: 2590: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2491: 2482: 2470: 2462: 2419: 2417: 2416: 2404: 2400: 2385: 2378: 2374: 2362: 2348: 2337: 2335: 2317: 2313: 2307: 2302: 2253: 2230: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2167: 2163: 2139: 2125: 2121: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2069: 2066: 2051: 2025: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1953:only serious 1952: 1929: 1922: 1916: 1911:commissioned 1908: 1871: 1868: 1852: 1850: 1834:tradtionally 1833: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1776: 1761: 1743: 1739:Dreadnought' 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1645: 1644: 1621: 1612: 1606: 1600: 1577: 1576: 1554: 1546: 1538: 1532: 1524:World War II 1515: 1506:World War II 1496: 1490: 1484: 1475: 1461: 1426: 1424: 1410: 1382: 1365: 1336: 1326: 1309: 1287: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1231: 1223: 1206: 1180: 1175: 1169: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1145: 1133: 1128: 1126: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102:World War II 1098: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1069:Panama Canal 1062: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1015:Pearl Harbor 1009: 1006: 1002: 998: 985: 981: 977: 973: 967: 959: 955: 950: 946: 931: 927: 923: 918: 887: 881: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 827: 820: 814: 806: 730: 726: 723: 720: 717: 713: 692: 688: 681: 673: 664: 661: 647: 643: 639: 636: 633: 630: 609: 588: 580: 560: 558: 555: 552: 547: 545: 540: 538: 533: 531: 526: 524: 499: 489: 485: 481: 479: 474: 471: 468: 446: 442: 440: 434: 433: 431: 406: 402: 385: 371: 354: 350:Panama Canal 347: 330: 326: 322: 316: 284: 280: 273: 241: 226: 218: 140: 123: 112: 109: 101: 97:USS Missouri 94: 86: 60: 43: 37: 2479:battleship 2244:24.42.80.51 1744:Dreadnought 1727:Dreadnought 1633:HMS Victory 1618:battleships 1449:Its fixed. 1316:HMS Victory 1312:HMS Victory 930:Dreadnought 761:wet forward 591:Gulfstorm75 490:USS Olympia 223:peer review 221:received a 36:This is an 2992:tumbled.-- 2486:, and the 1857:Trekphiler 1791:Trekphiler 1749:Trekphiler 1411:nothing is 1043:battleship 984:California 787:Trekphiler 776:article . 742:the iceman 504:Trekphiler 411:Trekphiler 261:Trekphiler 128:Trekphiler 2951:TomStar81 2919:TomStar81 2901:Link Farm 2876:TomStar81 2862:though.-- 2844:TomStar81 2800:TomStar81 2570:TomStar81 2492:Richelieu 2422:TestPilot 2388:TestPilot 2365:TestPilot 2351:TestPilot 2282:TomStar81 2220:TestPilot 2196:TomStar81 2142:TestPilot 2113:TomStar81 2072:TestPilot 2039:TomStar81 2018:TomStar81 1939:TomStar81 1777:Wouldn't 1668:TomStar81 1657:TomStar81 1637:TestPilot 1591:TomStar81 1580:TomStar81 1451:TomStar81 1432:TomStar81 1275:TomStar81 1213:TestPilot 1185:TomStar81 1136:Admiralty 1073:U.S. Navy 1055:her class 1051:lead ship 980:Tennessee 893:TomStar81 862:15.0 in; 843:TestPilot 778:TestPilot 765:TestPilot 701:TomStar81 693:Wisconsin 335:TomStar81 289:TomStar81 285:Wisconsin 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3010:Category 2823:Over on 2735:reached. 2517:WP:POINT 2483:Vanguard 2467:Japanese 2303:Vanguard 2109:Vangaurd 2105:Vangaurd 2095:’s. The 2012:and the 2010:Vanguard 1998:Vanguard 1917:Vanguard 1787:kamikaze 1715:Bismarck 1703:Bismarck 1683:Vanguard 1607:Vanguard 1491:Vanguard 1383:politely 1259:Vanguard 1170:Vanguard 1144:Vanguard 1134:"...the 1129:Vanguard 1114:Montanas 1112:s. The 1097:Montanas 1041:, was a 1036:Japanese 882:Vanguard 860:Vanguard 856:Vanguard 815:Vanguard 689:Missouri 658:Arguably 447:Derelict 443:derelict 435:derelict 228:archived 2976:J Clear 2928:Turrets 2908:J Clear 2864:J Clear 2854:J Clear 2834:J Clear 2829:Terrier 2477:British 2097:Montana 1930:Montana 1622:Montana 1620:of the 1547:phoenix 1183:class. 1181:Montana 1106:Montana 1095:. The 1086:Montana 1060:Musashi 1045:of the 988:Jutland 891:class" 612:Butters 571:J Clear 500:Arizona 298:Raul654 39:archive 2717:class. 2597:MateoP 2582:MateoP 2566:Yamato 2562:Yamato 2538:MateoP 2528:(Talk) 2521:MateoP 2494:-class 2488:French 2473:-class 2471:Yamato 2448:MateoP 2436:MateoP 2409:MateoP 2381:MateoP 2258:MateoP 2235:MateoP 2182:MateoP 2173:MateoP 2093:Yamato 2014:Yamato 2006:Yamato 1990:Yamato 1957:MateoP 1932:-class 1923:Yamato 1876:MateoP 1838:Mtnerd 1705:& 1699:Yamato 1695:Yamato 1613:Yamato 1569:MateoP 1558:Narson 1497:Yamato 1464:MateoP 1442:MateoP 1415:MateoP 1372:MateoP 1341:MateoP 1330:Narson 1320:MateoP 1251:Yamato 1240:MateoP 1197:MateoP 1176:Yamato 1119:Yamato 1032:Yamato 1019:analog 966:Nevada 909:MateoP 888:Yamato 864:Yamato 852:Yamato 831:MateoP 824:class) 821:Yamato 699:page. 667:Narson 498:So is 403:number 382:Errors 191:Apyule 169:Apyule 89:Joshua 2796:class 2726:1960. 2525:ALoan 2523:? -- 2405:never 2254:twice 2168:might 2126:VALID 2085:Yamto 1909:When 1717:sank 1413:. -- 1208:Iowa. 1093:class 942:win." 939:knots 561:armor 245:Saric 182:LiamE 149:LiamE 16:< 2643:Iowa 2605:Guns 2558:Iowa 2481:HMS 2463:Iowa 2401:then 2318:Iowa 2314:Lion 2308:Lion 2214:kept 2101:Iowa 2089:Iowa 2081:Iowa 2002:Iowa 1994:Iowa 1915:HMS 1779:Iowa 1723:Iowa 1719:Hood 1709:(or 1707:Hood 1691:Iowa 1687:Iowa 1679:Iowa 1605:HMS 1601:Iowa 1516:Iowa 1489:HMS 1485:Iowa 1477:FWIW 1387:Mark 1354:Mark 1297:Mark 1295:). 1271:Iowa 1267:Iowa 1263:Iowa 1255:Iowa 1168:HMS 1164:Iowa 1159:Iowa 1110:Iowa 1091:Iowa 904:NPOV 880:HMS 876:Iowa 872:Iowa 868:Iowa 813:HMS 407:bore 355:some 331:Iowa 327:Iowa 323:Iowa 283:and 281:Iowa 250:Talk 2994:-B- 2962:-B- 2772:-B- 2674:-B- 2611:-B- 2320:s. 2122:why 2055:-B- 2029:-B- 1975:-B- 1899:-B- 1896:--> 1886:-B- 1823:-B- 1765:-B- 1711:PoW 1543:ath 1053:of 752:-B- 641:--> 622:-B- 602:-B- 513:-B- 420:-B- 394:-B- 116:-B- 105:-B- 3012:: 2974:-- 2672:-- 2580:-- 2434:-- 1973:-- 1897:-- 1763:-- 1567:-- 1556:-- 1288:is 1132:: 1122:." 1082:: 1028:: 1001:: 994:." 976:: 958:: 949:: 926:: 907:-- 829:-- 750:-- 600:-- 372:-- 252:) 114:-- 103:-- 76:→ 2504:. 1539:e 1535:D 1529:. 1511:. 1030:" 978:" 248:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index