Jump to content

Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1939)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSouth Dakota-class battleship (1939) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 12, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the South Dakota-class battleships are considered to be the best "treaty battleship" ever built?

Deletion/Revision of Opening Para.

[edit]

"These ships are considered the best Treaty battleships ever built, and quite possibly the finest battleships ever built on a ton-for-ton basis, due to their armament, protection, and excellent fire control."

I don't see how claiming anything to be "the best" - unless discussing that which is irrefutable, eg. Academy Awards for Best...,etc - contributes to the article. Moreover, the two sources for this claim are dubious to say the least, coming from personal, non-peer review websites. Note that there is a precedent for not accepting citations from http://www.combinedfleet.com given its mostly fictional content and anecdotal (at best) criteria for choosing what it (or the author) considers "the best".

(for that see [[1]]

Also, I'd be hesitant to accept anything from Navweaps.com - the "citation" gives no evidence, proof or justification for this rather grand claim.

There is much else that could be added - the position of the SoDak as Treaty battleships at all, given that they commissioned six years after the US effectively began circumventing the Treaty in relation to the Japanese violation - but the above is enough anyway.

This isn't a busy page, but if there is no objection to the rev. I'll go ahead at a later date. 84.64.197.103 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Cohaagen[reply]

That seems fair to me. I have no objetions to removing it entirely.Parsecboy 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"SoDak"

[edit]

I don't know where this came from, but I don't remember reading anywhere that the class was referred to as such historically, and as such I don't think that it belongs here. --Lord Kelvin 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion

[edit]

According to this source, the outboard screws were aft of the inboard pair, an arrangement that I read somewhere is referred to as a "tunnel stern" (I am relying on memory, so don't quote me). I know of no other ships like this, so I think it is worth a mention. This could open a whole new can of worms: why was it done?, and was it successful?

I have one more very trivial comment, which you may disregard without prejudice if you wish. In the section describing the sloped armor, this phrase appears: "...plunging shells would strike it at an angle closer to the perpendicular, which increased their striking force." As a physicist and not a naval architect, I find that this use of the word force makes me cringe. I would refer to their ability to penetrate, which is what it is all about anyway.
By the way, I think that this is an excellent article. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at the article. I fixed the "force" bit you mentioned, and will look into the propulsion stuff. I thought I had mentioned it in the article, but I guess I lost track of it. If I can find enough material, I'd like to write a separate section on the propulsion system, and it would have the analysis of it you're talking about. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:South Dakota class battleship (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Not Yet
    1. The "Development" section should be partitioned into subsections, preferably one for the hull and one for propulsion- just to get rid of the large block of text there.
      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Some of the more obscure nautical terms should be linked. I recommend going through the article and linking to any terms that the average person doesn't immediately recognize.
    3. The external link needs a title, though with only one link, be sure that it is very useful, otherwise it isn't really necessary.
      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    4. The "See Also" Section: Isn't there a wikimedia commons template that we can use to link to a page there? It would eliminate another short header.
      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass no problems there.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass no problems there.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass no problems there.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass no problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Not Yet
    1. The images should be rearranged so they are evenly distributed on both sides. Currently they all seem bunched together on the right.
  7. Overall:
    On Hold while a few minor issues are resolved. -—Ed!(talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Regarding images, I am not really sure if it is possible to move any left; to do so would mess with a lot of section headers. I thought about moving the #Secondary battery picture down a paragraph (to avoid being under a 4th-level heading) and to the left, but that would sandwich text between that and the AA gun picture, which I would consider worse. The problems with the ship pictures under #Service is that every picture corresponds with the ship on the right (sort of like starting out an article with a right-aligned image, I guess). What do you think? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then the images should be fine where they are. The other issues look resolved to my satisfaction, so the article now meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!(talk) 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement

[edit]

I know this was supposed to be a 'Treaty' battleship but 35000 tons standard seems way off.

Displacement: 35,000 tons (standard) 44,519 tons (full load)

Even the fat Yamato did not have a near 10k difference between standard and full load.

My Jane's 'Battleships of WW2' gives a figure of about 41,000 standard displacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.112.22 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This figure (35,000t) is completely made up and is not based on anything other than a lay understanding of Washington's limits & subsequent treaty adherence to this. The notion that these were 'Treaty Battleships' is just that - notional - and they were in fact finalised as designs in a period where the international arms limitation treaty system was rapidly unravelling.
There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever in acknowledging that, at this time, the USN was not interested in strict adherence to the 35,000t limit in the same way that Tennyson d'Eyncourt's team had been in the 1920s viz the Nelson design process and goals. It is quite plain for all to see that, while the preceding North Carolina was initially aimed at staying within the in-force 35,000 ton limit, the modifications to the design were in line with anticipated escalation and the resultant overweight nature of the North Carolinas as completed to 16-inch paradigm was not viewed as controversial in the slightest either.
By the time the South Dakotas are authorised for construction, the treaty system is toppling. Accordingly, this design, intended from the keel up to fit the 16-inch paradigm, anticipates the imminent total failure of the treaty system and incorporates an overweight margin within what would still be seen as acceptable percentages. Thus, a ten percent 'over' is settled upon and construction commences on the basis that this will not be a 35,000-ton std battleship, but 'designed for' the 35,000 category in principle only.
Most importantly, every single battleship design of the period came out with 'untidy', real-world displacement figures which were in no way 'round'. In this regard, the "35,000t" figure triggers Occam's Razor, which determines that such a round and precisely accurate-to-the-limit figure is less than likely, while a figure differing from the treaty limit is more likely to be the correct one.
Friedman in Conways (1980) gives a standard displacement of 37,970 tons. He is perhaps the single most authoritative American naval historian to the present day. His figures are well-known and are preferable to the absolute chimera of a 'true 35,000t std' design (which never existed anywhere other than in a paper concept). 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:52D:8196:8CE5:CFF5 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is, unfortunately, a discrepancy with Friedman; his U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History gives the figures as 35,412 standard, 42,782 full load for South Dakota as of 15 March 1942. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complement

[edit]

Suggest addition of crew size details to article and table? Noble Korhedron 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939)&oldid=1212907544"