Talk:Broadside (naval)

Military history: Maritime / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Disputed

The weight of the Iowa broadside should include the shells from the six 5" cannon that can bear, and are seen firing in the image. Also they need to be discussed since only half the 5" batteries bear on a given broadside.--J Clear 19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is agreed the 5" cannon can be fired in such a manner, their range and destructive power is significantly inferior to the main guns. Using the the above logic, the weight of all armaments -- even antiaircraft guns and other "light" guns -- ought to be included in the broadside calculation. Clearly this isn't the case, and a "broadside" is almost universally understood to mean the maximum tonnage of the main (and therefore heaviest) armament of the warship. -- J. E. Smith, 10:37, 13 Aug 2006 (UTC-5)

Please site a reference that "clearly this isn't the case". It may be that the original light guns added a negligble amount to the broadside, but I doubt the 5" batteries fall off the scale that way. Nor is their range that shabby. The dictionary definition of broadside is all the guns on an entire side, no mention of range. Traditionally the heaviest weapons, smashers or carronades, had the shortest range.--J Clear 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages ago when I was in the military, I thought I understood that a full battleship broadside actually caused the battleship to slide laterally. Is this true and is it significant? Should this information be included in this article? Veriss 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian WP has a picture of the Iowa ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg ) which gives the impression this is true and significant. 194.174.73.33 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

16-inch (410 mm)

Iowa-class battleships carried a main armament of nine 16-inch (410 mm) main guns
16 inch correspond to 406.4 mm. It is laudable to round the figures for us ignorant mob, but I wonder whether an almost 4 millimeter larger shell would not be problematic. Or there are some sort of copper rings to compensate for this? 194.174.73.33 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

I have adjusted the conversion template for more precision. (Hohum ^@) 11:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rounded off to 406 mm. Artillery calibers are not measured in decimals of mms.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept template, with same rounding. (Hohum ^@) 12:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big hole

The history section proceeds to the 1590s, and then jumps to the 20th century. The whole period from 1600 to 1900 is entirely omitted--the Age of Sail essentially doesn't exist here. Never mind that the great broadsides of naval history occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. What gives? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]