Talk:USS Iowa turret explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Casus belli

Casus belli does not apply here. It's not a war, it's an accident. The template should be fixed ASAP... I don't know how, just pointing it out. RavenStorm 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't a "disaster" or non-aviation accident infobox. Casus belli should read "caused by" but if I change that in the infobox, it won't show. Cla68 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Casualty list

Several sailors are mentioned in the article, (maybe I didn't read it closely enough), but of those named its hard to tell who died in the incident and who survived. Maybe an external link to a list or something ([1] for example or maybe an official US Navy list page). The article kind of hints around that Blakey dies, based on his sister's description of their conversation. Thompson, Zeigler and Buch are mentioned and they also died in the explosion. The reason they are mentioned by the source material is probably because they died, but that's not really spelled out in the wikipedia article. Maybe the further reading links have a casualty list, but nothing stuck out to me when I skimmed over them. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom actually provided us with the answer before his break: take a look at this link (pdf) from the rewitten Iowa page, it has a list of all those who died as a result of the blast. It should help the casualty count for this page. 76.243.165.120 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, that PDF is 20 MB. We probably should link something a bit smaller. Since wikipedia is not a memorial, I suppose a list article is out of the question... --Dual Freq (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still building the story, but almost the entire crew of Turret Two was wiped out, including Ziegler, Buch, and the gun crewmen mentioned already. Only the powder room crew, including Truitt, survived. I'll probably place the names and ranks of those killed in a footnote in the "explosion" section. Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons dumped the Image:USS Iowa (BB-61) ramming powder bags.jpg image, I reuploaded it. Not sure what happened, but it did kick out an error yesterday when I uploaded it. No errors today though. Sorry about that. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll readd it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Image

Was this the image you were looking for? Sorry for the delay, unadvertised wikibreak. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Cla68: why don't we use this image in the article

Anti-homosexual Propaganda and criticism of the inital investigation

I remember after the incident there was a lot of criticism levelled at the US military for what appeared to be a propaganda attempt aimed at twisting the accident into validation of the US navy's policy of not allowing homosexual men to serve aboard ships. The ultimately false (and quite suspicious) initial investigation results were used by various military and political personalities to imply "this is why homosexuals shouldn't serve in the navy".

Various newspapers ran quite a few stories on this and it was quite a big story. Unfortunately the age of the incident means I cannot find direct on-line references to much of the original articles and the wide ranging criticism of the entire investigation but they would make an important addition to the article if correctly sourced. Canderra 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shilt's book, Conduct Unbecoming is listed in the references section and I believe that book explores the issue that you're talking about. I believe that book is a credible source and if anyone wants to purchase it or check it out from the library and then use it as a source for a section in this article, that would be very helpful in this article's development. Cla68 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I own and recently reread Conduct Unbecoming. The naval investigators had not one but two hidden agendas for producing predetermined spurious results implicating Gunners Mate Hartwig. One was clearly to reinforce their own prejudice against gays and to justify the continued exclusion/expulsion of gays from the Navy. However the other, and possibly more compelling, motivation to frame Hartwig was, "Save the battleships." The investigators realized that if the armaments of their cherished battleships were demonstrated to be unstable and unsafe that the battleships would be taken out of service and "mothballed," which is exactly what happened when the truth came out. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a page number about the assertion that the cover up was to protect the battleship program I can use that as a source in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on p. 702 of the copy I own, but it's the paperback and lists no ISBN. "By March [1990], she had heard of a meeting the previous winter, which a number of top officers from the Iowa and the surface fleet had attended. For all the criticism of the Navy's reports, the officers had decided that they must stand behind its conclusions, because to do anything else would risk the continued use of the battleships. Said one captain, 'the future of the battleships rises and falls on this story.'" The "she" is Hartwig's sister, Kathy Kubicina. I don't find anything in the book indicating that there was a conspiracy before the fact. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo log

Sandy, please record your latest finding of a typo in your typo long > Findings: found". WP:PUNC) (You want to be fair about this typo thing don't you? Or do you only record typos for out group persons? —Mattisse (Talk) 09:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, please record in typo log > The rest of the article uses p. rather than pp. on multiple pages, consistency. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Samdu. [;ease record in typo log for each person > →Media: named ref) Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments above appear to be garbled, or at least I can't make heads or tails of them. Could you rephrase? Cla68 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

May help?

While surfing around, I found this here (second-to-last para):

On 19 April 1989, while operating in the Caribbean, Coral Sea responded to a call for assistance from USS Iowa (BB 61) due to an explosion in the battleship's number two gun turret in which 47 crew members were killed. The explosive ordnance disposal team from Coral Sea removed volatile powder charges from the ship's 16-inch guns and flooded powder magazines. Coral Sea also dispatched a surgical team and medical supplies. VC-8, using SH-3G helicopters, also performed medevac and logistical support to Iowa.

Hope that it helps something. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

There's almost nothing in this article about the explosion itself, including the notorious poor condition of the ship including rust, jury-rigs, and aged gunpowder, nor anything about how the sailors died (cyanide gas asphyxiation). The investigation section has nothing about the massive criticism the Navy faced when they tried to peddle the cover-up story, then had to eat crow. Weren't there Congressional hearings, and didn't some flag officers suffer penalties? --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The references are there and many of them are free web links. This article is on my "to do" list but it will probably be a couple of months before I get to it. If you'd like to get started, please feel free to do so. By the way, few flag officers suffered any penalties in this incident. That's one of the many controversies surrounding it. I think only one flag officer had his promotion canceled because of the cover up. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By "on my to do list", do you mean like bringing this up to FA-class? I ask because if you plan on bringing this up to FA-class then I can take USS Iowa and then with any luck by the end of this year we will have our 1st ships based featured topic. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on nominating it for FA once complete. Cla68 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there any mention of the nonsense about "cyanide gas" killing the gun crews? Several thousand pounds of gunpowder had just ignited inside a sealed compartment. The extremely high temperatures and extremely high pressures were what killed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.1.193 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the sources, several of the turret crewmembers appeared to have died from aphyxiation or from exposure to toxic gasses, not from burns or pressure injuries. Some of them were found wearing their gas protection masks (which failed to protect them) and clustered around the turret's exits, showing that they had time to try to escape before being overcome. Note that Milligan's investigation report falsely claimed that all 47 crewmembers were killed "instantly". Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Explosion.

The unit conversion used in this section is the wrong one. An inch IS about 2.5 cm, but a square inch is about 6.5 square centimeters. 174.16.57.39 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the number. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Unit conversion error

In the article 16 inches is converted to 410mm. In fact, 16 inches is equal to 406mm. I tried to correct it, but I don't know how to fix the conversion template "{{convert|16|in|mm|adj=on}}" which is incorrect somehow.
The conversion ratio is 2.54 cm per inch. Thus 16in*2.54cm/in= 40.64cm= 406.4mm, not 410mm. TolarisTango (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Surviving a life of torment

My how the years pass and we the surviving crew members of this horrifing day still are around too tell others some of us like had too come grips with the guilt of living on and asking the question why did i am i still alive and they died but comming too this is harder then i thought and 20 years later i needed help bad you see drinking was a very dangerous way too get rid of the night mares of that day what i saw and heard and picked up while in the turret was just horrifying and i will never forget my fellow ship mates and the stories from the trials senate hearings people making dissions about the Captian and of ship members what a joke what if this would have caused some one to take there life no one thought at all about this huh.Signed in Truth Boiler Tech second class Thomas Murdock iii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.107.235 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Based upon my own over 27 years of military experience, coverups are not unusual, especially regarding Naval incidents. Senior officers are protected, even if it endangers entire ships and crews. So, no. Those senior officers protect their precious reputations and careers and don't care a bit if someone kills themselves or others.76.98.121.53 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Biased content violating wikipedia standards

This article seems to be arguing a point of view. The official cause is "undetermined", yet the article seems heavily weighted toward suggesting an accidental detonation resulting from poorly stored/maintained powder and or equipment. That is one valid theory. However, the detail that small wires embedded in carbonized powder bag material were found and images of the same broadcast over military satelite feeds while Iowa was still at sea which were never explained could be argued to support some form of sabotage. It cannot be proven or disproven. Likewise, it cannot be proven or disproven that impacting a powder bag caused the detonation, though the potential existed.

All that can be considered factual is that there are several ways it could have happened and that those related to poor safety conditions and inexperience should have been disclosed as a failure on the part of the Navy regardless of the cause of the blast. Perhaps the issue of cover-up & media/congressional controversy should be explored seperately from the event of the blast itself. That might remove emotion and bias from what should be a more fact-based account of the actual blast. Should this be 2 pages ?

Also, there are a few likely biased inclusions in the verbiage. It is stated that tests at Dahlgren proved that a timer did not cause the explosion. Actually, those test only proved that another source was possible. The statement in the header "Sandia's technicians also found that the physical evidence did not support the Navy's theory that an electronic or chemical detonator had been used to initiate the explosion" is another such example. With only a distantly located multi-source and questionably applicable reference, it is stated "Cyanide gas from the burning foam jackets had killed many of the turret crewmen" - Does anybody honestly believe anyone in that turret could survive an explosion of that severity ? These should be removed, stated objectively, or at least provided proper references to the source of the opinion.

While I recognize that this was a recent event filled with emotion not just for those affected, but for many who felt their personal causes were impacted, this is an encyclopedia and political commentary/bias really does not belong here. --Rwberndt (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article repeats what the sources stated. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

History should be factual, not based on the popular view, or that of the victor, etc. Conclusions such as stating the dis-proof of a hypothesis based soley on the existence of another valid one, is, at best, logically flawed on its face. Such simply is not fitting for a factual historical docimet - and certainly not without direct attribution. What really happened aboard Iowa remains uncertian, just as the cause of the TWA Flight 800 crash does when viewed from a dispassionate scientific viewpoint. There is an article on the Gaspee affair (a precurser to the American revolution), that seperates the factual events from a very lengthy and detailed analysis of all of the historical perspectives then and since. Following that responsible model would make this a more valuable article for the future (once the generation that felt the sting of the ms-deeds well documented in this case has passed).

Just because this page with its bias toward one conclusion has been popular while its historical context remains close to daily life, does not mean that diminishing other possibilities for the actual event is valid.--Rwberndt (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia's rules, we don't have the authority to decide what is true or not. We're only allowed to repeat what reliable, verifiable sources, preferably secondary sources, are saying. If you have any sources which could be used to add or change anything in this article. That is, of course, welcome. Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't delete or rephrase someone else's work when that author feels passionate about it. I believe you are in error, but as the party making issue of this, would not feel it any more appropriate to edit this myself. A neutral 3rd party would be best. Otherwise, I would simply ask that you review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, making note of guidelines such as "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views" and at least consider rephrasing some of the specific examples I noted.--Rwberndt (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of the lead section should say that nobody knows for certain what caused the explosion, but the likeliest explanation is an accidental overram of five bags. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, if it came down to trusting Sandia or the US Navy's findings in this disaster, I'll stick with Sandia. Largely due to a far better reputation in finding fact.76.98.121.53 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your personal distrust of the US Navy, or someone else's unquestioning acceptance of the same are not material to what constitutes appropriate NPOV encyclopedic content. I too would listen to Sandia, but to what they actually found, not the inference others choose to draw from it. "possible" does not mean "certain" and does not inherently exclude other possibles. This article is a biased view of a historical event. While there can be a "likeliest" cause in someone's opinion, such as the "most likely cause" of TWA 800 being detonation of fuel vapors in the center tank - although that could never be duplicated, this encyclopedia is supposed to be factual and unbiased - at least to the extent such is sourced to reliable and reasonably NPOV sources, or otherwise acknowledged POV sources. This event was, and is, controversial and those facts should be presented in appropriate balance. This article, and comments like that above, lean toward what is appropriate on conspiracy theorist blogs.--Rwberndt (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary

The article states, "Vice Admiral Joseph S. Donnell, commander of Surface Forces Atlantic, appointed Rear Admiral Richard Milligan to conduct an informal one-officer investigation into the explosion. An informal investigation meant that testimony was not required to be taken under oath, witnesses were not advised of their rights, defense attorneys were not present, and no one, including the deceased, could be charged with a crime no matter what the evidence revealed." This is not correct with regard to the scope of an "informal one-officer investigation. I am a retired naval officer and I have conducted a number of what were formerly called "JAG Manual Investigations" and are now known as "Command Investigations." The investigating officer can take sworn testimony from witnesses, can advise them of their rights, and permit the presence of attorneys. The investigating officer can also recommended that legal action be taken. There are any number of copies of the JAG Manual on-line where this can be verified.Oldbubblehead (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gunnery training and experiments

Having been an officer in the US Navy, it has always been my understanding that when any commissioned US Navy vessel (I presume there has to be an exception for shallow-water craft like Swift Boats) runs aground the commanding officer is immediately relieved of his command in disgrace. This occurred in Newport, RI in (I believe) 1970 when a destroyer scraped its sonar turret on the bottom, a fact that was only discovered by the routine underwater inspection by divers. The very next day, that destroyer's captain (a courtesy term, since I believe his actual rank was Commander) was relieved and his career was essentially over. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a retired naval officer. While relief for cause is often the result, it is not a hard fast rule and usually comes only after legal proceedings. Several years ago a submarine careened off an underwater seamount. The seamount was uncharted and the captain stayed in command without any blemish on his record.Oldbubblehead (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictures in the references

Are there supposed to be pictures in the references section? It looks kind of odd. —howcheng {chat} 03:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

Most of this article quotes Mr. Thompson and his book "A Glimpse of Hell." Mr. Thompson's book has been questioned on its facts and has been found to be in many ways a fabrication. Because of this, he and the publisher were sued by Fred Moosally, who won his lawsuit several years ago. Any material which quotes Thompson should be removed as unreliable. The investigation into the explosion is a part of public record and can be obtained at the Naval Historical Center. Bgoforth (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth", therefore even if elements of Mr. Thompson's book were fabricated as you claim the information can be here if the material can be backed up by second and/or third party sources. Also, the investigation into the exposion was be all acounts very poorly conducted by parts that quite frankly could have cared less about what the outcome was. A check of the public record would therefore be nearly useless, I suspect. The man involved in this rewrite is Cla68, so any objections shoud be taken up with him. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly using Thompson's book right now to get the article outlined, then I will use the other sources to add more or confirm the material. Moosally did not successfully sue Thompson several years ago. The court dismissed the suit against Thompson, restricting it only to the publisher. As this article shows, the suit was settled out of court with the publisher pointedly refusing to retract anything that was printed in the book. I'll be mentioning the lawsuit in the "Aftermath" section of the article and may quote the backhanded, asteistic "apology" that the publisher provided to Moosally and Miceli. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The sad truth is that most of this article is fabricated based upon unreliable sources!!! If you wanted a REAL accounting you would not have deleted my comments. As the Fire Control Main Battery Officer on board USS Iowa from July 1988 - August 1990...my personal accounting refutes most of your opinions. It is a shame that you have chosen to leave a substandard and inaccurate reporting on this site. FICTION is exactly that...made-up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Prokopis (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

While it would be a shame to lose the article, I do agree that it probably should be deleted since it mostly seems to be based on a single source, the Thompson book, and that book's reliability is highly questionable. Certainly direct quotes should be deleted immediately and facts from the actual investigations used to prop up the article. Scottca075 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal to delete this article is a bad and counterproductive idea.  We do not properly support intellectual inquiry by hiding or removing concepts, ideas, or interpretations merely because we dislike them or disagree with them.  That's what the book burners did in previous eras, and that's what a few of them still do or try to do even now.

No – absolutely not – no – let's not delete the article.  If anyone wishes to improve the balance of the competing ideas, then let that person insert additional material from appropriate sources.  Let's compare and contrast the competing recitations, explanations, and interpretations, but let's not hide any of those views merely because we disagree with them.

One critic has alleged – incorrectly – that the article "mostly seems to be based on a single source, the Thompson book".  However, of the 130 references at the end of the article, only 26 of them (20 percent of them) name the Thompson book.  Further, 21 of them (16 percent of them) name the Schwoebel book.  Beyond that, many other references name a number of additional sources.

By the way, let's not kid ourselves by thinking that the reports of the official investigations have a monopoly on accuracy, candor, completeness, correctness, truthfulness, or neutrality.

Again:  If anyone feels that the article is not good enough, then let that person help to improve it, but let's absolutely not delete the article merely because several people dislike it.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Comments on gunnery training and readiness

"Between September 1988 and January 1989, sailors aboard the Iowa conducted little training with her main guns, in part because of ongoing, serious maintenance issues with the main gun turrets." These statements are blatantly false. I served as the Fire Control Main Battery Officer from July 1988 until being transferred form the USS Iowa during her decommissioning (~Aug 1990). During my tenure, as the Fire Control Main Battery Officer, I was personally responsible for coordinating gun shoots that resulted in ~500 rounds being shot from the 16" main battery. Many of these gun shoots were coordinated and executed during the USS Iowa's Operational Readiness Inspection from October-December 1988 and then operational work-ups in preparation for our planned North Atlantic & Mediterranean cruise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Prokopis (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 April 2014

If you can supply us with the paperwork - electronic or otherwise - to prove this than we can update the material accordingly, but in its absence we are required under the editorial guidelines here to report what we can verify, even if it is untrue. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

USS Iowa - 25th Memorial....It's time to set the record straight

Hello All...after living with memories from April 19, 1989 it is time to honor the Fathers/Sons/Brothers/Friends of the 47 sailors who died during our gunnery exercise. I was the Fire Control Main Battery Officer from July 1988 until the ship's decommissioning on August 1990. I live every day with memories and can think of no better way to honor my fallen shipmates/friends than to share my accounts where the record is blatantly wrong. I have copied the paragraph in question with a full and factual rebuttal of what really occurred!!

Between September 1988 and January 1989, sailors aboard the Iowa conducted little training with her main guns, in part because of ongoing, serious maintenance issues with the main gun turrets. According to Ensign Dan Meyer, officer in charge of the ship's Turret One, morale and operational readiness among the gun turret crews suffered greatly.

These statements are blatantly false...during my tenure, as the Fire Control Main Battery Officer, I was personally responsible for coordinating gun shoots that resulted in ~500 rounds being shot from the 16" main battery. Many of these gun shoots were coordinated and executed during the USS Iowa's Operational Readiness Inspection from October-December 1988 and then operational work-ups in preparation for our planned North Atlantic & Mediterranean cruise.

Master Chief Stephen Skelley (center, facing camera). Iowa's Turret Three is in the background.

In January 1989 Iowa's Master Chief Fire Controlman, Stephen Skelley, and Gunnery Officer, Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Michael Costigan, persuaded Moosally to allow them to experiment with increasing the range of the main guns using "supercharged" powder bags and specially designed shells. Moosally was led to believe, falsely, that top officials from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) had authorized the experiments. In fact, John McEachren, a mid-level bureaucrat with NAVSEA, had given the go-ahead to conduct the experiments even though he had no authority to do so. McEachren concealed his approval of the gunnery experiments from his superiors.

Again...I have to take exception to the characterization noted here [Ensign Michael Prokopis]. NAVSEA sent messages back and forth providing explicit permission for the gun shoots noted. This included identifying and transporting, to the USS Iowa, all required projectiles and gun powder bags necessary to perform the stated gunnery exercises. It is incomprehensible, and beyond the realm of imagination, that a "mid-level bureaucrat" could somehow procure and transport the required munitions without more approval and then to "conceal his approval..." As the Fire Control Main Battery Officer, I fully supported all gunnery shoots and encouraged Master Chief Skelley to continue to push us to be the best 16" gunnery battery in the United States Navy. In many instances, we exercised the 16" guns on a daily basis even if it was to shoot just 3 rounds from one gun of each turret.

Several of the officers and petty officers in charge of the main gun turret crews believed that Skelley's and Costigan's proposed experiments were dangerous, especially because of the age of, and numerous maintenance problems with, the main guns and gun turrets. Meyer complained to Commander Robert John Kissinger, Iowa's chief weapons officer, about the proposed experiments, but Kissinger refused to convey the concerns to Moosally or halt the experiments.

Again I take exception to these characterizations [Ensign Michael Prokopis]. All gunnery exercises were presented in a pre-gunnery briefing with all required officers and senior enlisted personnel. These briefings were scripted during out ORI during Fall of 1988 and all briefings followed the same form and presented the necessary information to ensure all parties were briefed about the mission and expectations. I personally gave every one of these pre-gunnery briefings and kept strict attendance. There was not one single meeting, during my entire tenure on the USS Iowa, where anyone expressed concerns about the frequency of shooting and/or the combination of projectiles and powder. This is a true statement whether in a formal meeting or behind closed doors. In the cases where a senior officer was not available for the briefing, I personally traveled to their duty station and/or stateroom to ensure they were adequately briefed and to acquire their signature to formally annotate their participation.

Also on 18 April, Iowa's fire-control officer, Lieutenant Leo Walsh, conducted a briefing to discuss the next day's main battery exercise. Moosally, Morse, Kissinger, and Costigan did not attend the briefing. During the briefing, Skelley announced that Turret Two would participate in an experiment of his design in which D-846 powder would be used to fire 2700 lb (1224.7 kg) shells.

Yes this is accurate in fact but purposely excludes the fact that I personally [Ensign Michael Prokopis] conducted briefings in the Weapons Office (Commander Kissinger and Lt. Commander Costigan) as well Captain's Quarters [Captain Moosally] and Bridge [Commander Morse]. Additionally, as part of our standard gunnery briefing form, we specifically spelled out the projectile/powder combination as well as specifics of the mission including all variations.

References

...more to come.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Prokopis (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, so has this been updated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

New photo

@Srich32977: I found a photo that I think would look good in the article. Its a photo of the turrets condition while returning to Norfolk.

Look at: April 22 1989 on

https://pacificbattleship.com/learn-the-history/the-cold-war/

A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dating convention

I see that all the dates are day/month/year? Is this because this is a military related article? Thanks in advance. --Malerooster (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

See: WP:MILDATE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)