Jump to content

User talk:Kevin Murray/USS Connecticut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USS Connecticut (BB-18)
Class overview
NameConnecticut class battleship
Operators United States Navy
Preceded byVirginia-class battleship
Succeeded byMississippi-class battleship or South Carolina-class battleship[A 1]
Completed6
Retired6
Preserved0
General characteristics
TypeBattleship
DisplacementStandard:16,000 tons
Length456 ft 3 in
Beam76 ft 8 in
Draft24 ft 5 in
Propulsionlist error: <br /> list (help)
triple-expansion reciprocating engines
two propellers
16,500 horsepower (12,300 kW)
Speed18 knots (33 km/h)
Complement827 officers and men
Armament
  • (Main Battery): four 12"/45 guns in two twin turrets
    eight 8"/45 guns in four twin turrets (four guns per side)
    twelve 7"/45 guns in single casemate mountings (six guns per side)
  • (Secondary Battery): Twenty 3"/50 guns in single mountings

The Connecticut-class battleships were among the last United States Navy pre-dreadnought battleships to be built, and considered to be the ultimate U.S. pre-dreadnought design. They were well armed, well protected, with good performance and range, along with superior sea keeping attributes.

The six ships of the class were authorized over three budget years (1902-1904), with the latter three ships being built at the same time and after the two smaller Mississippi class ships. While Missipppi class ships were the last US pre-dreadnought class to be designed, the USS New Hampshire, of the Connecticut class was the last US pre-dreadnought to be built.

These ships were similar to the preceding Virginia class but fifteen feet longer, slightly wider, and 1,000 tons heavier. The main batteries remained as four 12 inch rifles, but guns were slightly longer for better range and penetration. The intermediate batteries remained as eight 8 inch rifles, but the controversial superimposed turret system was dropped, and all these guns were mounted in twin turrets on the side of the ships. The secondary guns were increased from the 6 inch guns used in the prior three classes to a new rapid-fire 7 inch gun. Armor was increased while engine size and horsepower was decreased, thus the ships were one knot slower than the Virginia class, but consistent with the prior Maine class, and faster than all other previous U.S. battleships.

Five of the six ships participated in the cruise of the Great White Fleet, After the cruise, the ships were stripped of their fancywork, their bridges were cut down to reduce their target profile and their hulls were repainted from the attractive (but militarily useless) white-and-buff paint scheme to a dull but functional haze gray. Despite being outdated against modern dreadnoughts, they were kept on in the fleet as force levels rose over the early 1910s in the build-up to World War I. In this form, they served the fleet until they were discarded following the Washington Naval Treaty in 1921.

Design

[edit]

The Connecticut class battleships were the second to the last pre-dreadnought U.S. battleship class to be designed; however, USS New Hampshire (BB-25), was authorized and completed after the Mississippi class ships, and was thus the last U.S. pre-dreadnought ship to be built.[1] However, the Connecticut design represented the ultimate in U.S. pre-dreadnought design, because the Mississippi class was a step-down in size and function, mainly as a cost savings measure.

While Congress had authorized three vessels in the 13,000-ton range, the design was not specified in the 1903 naval budget. Three approaches were initially considered: a scaled down version of the preceding 16,000-ton Connecticut class, five of which had been approved with the 1902 and 1903 budgets; a scaled-up version of the 12,500-ton Maine class, an 1898 design, three of which were commissioned from 1902 to 1904; and a completely new design which might incorporate new ideas and technology. Interesting adaptations were considered for new designs, [Note 1] and weight-saving technology could allow increased efficiencies to be achieved from the older Maine class design, [Note 2] which was closest to the weight goal.[1]

As with most U.S. naval designs, coal storage and engine efficiency were more important than in European designs. U.S. ships might have to fight far from their home shores, especially in the Pacific.[3] Even in the Caribbean, U.S. forces might be farther from their coaling stations than a European power with colonial bases.[1] Draft was a concern, since southern U.S. harbors tended to have shallow entrances, and some proponents felt that all ships should be able to egress all major harbors.[4] Beams were typically limited by the width of dry docks.[4]

Armament

[edit]
two large rifled cannon pointing out of a turret, aimed over the side of the ship.
USS Mississippi – 12-inch (300 mm) main battery.

In 1902, there were differing concepts of the ultimate combination of guns, with many ideas based on various experiences and interpretations from recent naval battles. Recent U.S. battleship designs had included primary guns, intermediate guns, secondary guns, and tertiary guns. The U.S. Navy had pioneered the use of intermediate guns, but had not used these consistently in their previous designs because opinions and experiences varied.[5]

The quality of guns, armor, ordnance, and design was changing rapidly, so experience could quickly become irrelevant. Combat experience in the Spanish–American War had shown the value of many smaller guns at close range, where the larger guns had been inaccurate. [Note 3] In the Russo Japanese War of 1904–1905, just six years later, decisive effects were obtained at long ranges, well beyond the limits of 8-inch (200 mm) ordnance.[1] However, by this point the designs were established for the Connecticut class and the keels had already been laid down.[7][8]

Main batteries

[edit]

Recent American designs had continued to use large primary batteries of either 12-inch (300 mm) or 13-inch (330 mm) guns, along with several intermediate 8-inch (200 mm) guns for faster fire in close combat with armored vessels. The lighter intermediate guns were considered valuable for penetrating upper level armor, where the heavy guns were more effective on the main belt and heavy turrets. The former was likely to diminish the fighting ability of the opponent, while the latter was more likely to sink her.[9]

Earlier U.S. battleships had used 13-inch (330 mm) guns with black powder propellant; the 1898 design of the Maine class had shifted to more powerful but smaller 12-inch (300 mm) guns using smokeless powder, giving a greater velocity and flatter trajectory.[10] The 12-inch (300 mm) rifles available in 1903 had a range of 9,000 yards, about double the range of the black powder main armament used in the Spanish–American War.[11] These were considered an excellent compromise between weight and firepower since limitations in gunnery control made longer range guns impractical.[12] The contemporary consideration was not whether to go larger, but whether to go with more. [13] In 1902 naval officers, with the backing of President Theodore Roosevelt, began to develop superior fire control techniques and equipment. The development of better spotting and range finders led to improvements in range capacity and accuracy.[12] At the same time, superior training and systems significantly reduced the time required to load and fire the large guns, from three minutes to one minute.[14]

Intermediate 8-inch (200 mm) guns had been discontinued in the Illinois class, but based on experience in the Spanish–American War, 8-inch (200 mm) 45-caliber guns were included in the Virginia class and continued in the Connecticut class.[15] Typically these were carried in two-gun turrets, but the placement of the turrets had been inconsistent in prior designs; in two prior designs the turrets for the 8-inch (200 mm) guns were superimposed over the turrets for the 12-inch (300 mm) guns (see Kearsarge and Virginia classes).[16] Some designers felt that 8-inch (200 mm) guns were redundant to the new faster firing 7-inch (180 mm) 45-caliber guns carried in casemates.[17] Others argued that increases in the rate of fire and accuracy of the 12-inch (300 mm) guns eliminated the need for any smaller guns in the main battery.[1]

Secondary batteries

[edit]

In 1903 secondary batteries were typically considered to be a combination of torpedo defense—defense against smaller boats armed with torpedoes, such as torpedo boats or destroyers—and weapons to attack the lightly armored upper structures of capital ships. [Note 4]

Recent U.S. warships had mounted a combination of a few 7-inch (180 mm) or 6-inch (150 mm) guns and many smaller guns in the 2-inch (51 mm) to 3-inch (76 mm) range (6 pounder to 12 pounder in the traditional terms). The larger of these guns were typically protected in casemates[19] and the smaller ones open on the deck or in lightly protected casemates.[20]

A fast-firing 7-inch (180 mm) 45-caliber gun had been designed and was available to replace earlier 6-inch (150 mm) guns;[14] these brought a significant improvement in ballistics, expanding the potential beyond torpedo defense, but came with drawbacks. There were various opinions on the best combination of guns: all 8-inch (200 mm), all 7-inch (180 mm), or a mix of 7-inch (180 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm). [Note 5] Though considered to be quick firing, the propellant for 7-inch (180 mm) guns was loaded in bags, making them slower than contemporary 6-inch (150 mm) guns.[14] The Navy considered these to be excellent for the intended role; however, in WW I North Atlantic convoy duty the disadvantages in seakeeping outweighed the utility; they were removed from battleships remaining in U.S. service in 1918.[22]

Beginning with the Maine class vessels, commissioned in 1902, the 3-inch (76 mm) 50-caliber gun (12-pounder) was used on most U.S. battleships as an anti-torpedo-boat weapon. These and smaller weapons are frequently referred to as tertiary guns. This role was filled back to the earliest U.S. battleships, including the Texas and first Maine, by the 6-pounder 2.24-inch (57 mm).[23] Most 3-inch (76 mm) guns were removed from U.S. battleships, before combat operations in World War I. [Note 6]

Competing designs

[edit]

The future of battleship weaponry was at a crossroads. There were varied opinions among top naval leaders; some U.S. naval leaders were discussing the all-big-gun concept in parallel with the British HMS Dreadnought, while other designers felt that the torpedo would completely replace the gun, and battleships should become heavily armored launch platforms.[25] Other proposals included even more but smaller primary guns, in the 11-inch (280 mm) size to save on weight. In 1903, analysis of war games had determined that one battleship with twelve 11-inch (280 mm) or 12-inch (300 mm) guns, in a hexagonal turret placement, could be superior to three conventional battleships in individual actions. [Note 7] Other analysis suggested that in fleet actions, only broadsides were effective, thus maximizing the number of centerline guns was the most efficient approach.[27] While neither approach was incorporated in the Connecticut class or its derivitave the Mississippi class, the centerline maximum broadside concept was followed in all subsequent U.S. battleship designs.[28]

photograph of a cannon mounted in an armored bulge in the side of a ship, just below a deck with a number of sailors.
A casemate mounting of a secondary gun on an early 20th century U.S. battleship

Final design

[edit]

In the end, these ships were built with main batteries similar to the Virginia class, while reconfiguring the location of the imntermediate 8 inch guns and replacing 6 inch guns of the secondary batteries with 7-inch (180 mm) guns, The 12 3-inch (76 mm) guns. The first four ships were not built with torpedo tubes; however, four tubes were added later, and included in the USS New Hampshire.[29] The 7-inch (180 mm) guns and most of the 3-inch (76 mm) guns were removed before combat in WW I[28]

The main battery consisted of four 12-inch (300 mm) 45-caliber guns, meaning that the gun is 45 times as long as it is in diameter. These were considered quick-firing guns and were arranged in two twin turrets, one forward and one to the rear of the main superstructure. There were eight 8-inch (200 mm) 45-caliber guns arranged in four twin turrets outboard of the main superstructure on each side of the ship.[30]

The remaining eight 7-inch (180 mm) 45-caliber guns were distributed four per side, in casemates on the side of the ship, below the main deck. [Note 8] [15] Four 3-inch (76 mm) 50-caliber guns were mounted in the upper casemates (on the main deck), two per side, behind 2-inch (51 mm) of armor plate.[31] Another two, one per side, were mounted in blister casemates on the gun deck, near the bow.[32] The remaining eight guns were on open mounts on the upper deck, the bridge, and other deck spaces.[33] Two submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the broadside.[15]

Armor

[edit]
cross section of a battleship hull showing armored sections with approximate thicknesses. The thickest armor is at the waterline, tapering up to the lease on the top deck.
Simplified drawing of armor scheme for early 20th century U.S. battleships

Prior to the mid 1870s armor was made of wrought iron plate, sometime backed with wood. In the 1870s compound armor was developed, where a hardened steel face was cemented to a softer iron backing, which prevented cracking. During the late 1880s nickel-steel armor was devised and in 1890 the Harvey process was developed,[34] where a nickel-steel plate was treated with carbon and hardened in cold water. This process allowed one homogeneous steel plate to have both a hard surface and a softer back which was less likely to crack. During the 1890s Krupp armor further refined the process by including additional metals in the alloy and developing a system where the hardening process penetrated more deeply into the plates. Test showed that 5.75-inch (146 mm) of Krupp armor was equal to 7.75-inch (197 mm) of Harvey armor, 12-inch (300 mm) of compound armor, and 12-inch (300 mm) of wrought iron plate, while in thinner plates Harvey armor was basically equal to Krupp.[35]

The Mississippi class ships used a combination of Harvey and Krupp style armor (American-made), with much of the side armor backed with teak wood,[36] consistent with other U.S. capital ships of the decade.[35] The amount of armor and its strength was consistent with the preceding Connecticut class and in some cases was more complete in coverage and was thicker, especially compared to the earliest ships in that series. The belt armor was thinner, 9-inch (230 mm) compared to 11-inch (280 mm) but longer, 244 feet (74 m) compared to 200 feet (61 m), despite the Mississippi class being shorter, 382 feet (116 m) compared to 456 feet (139 m). The primary turret armor was thicker by an inch—12-inch (300 mm) thick—as opposed to 11-inch (280 mm) on the USS Connecticut.[37]

Machinery

[edit]
A drawing showing the exterior of a triple expansion engine with exposed crankshaft and piston rods.
U.S. Navy Triple expansion engine

When these ships were designed the older technology of reciprocating steam engines was slowly being replaced by the newer technology of steam turbine propulsion. While turbines generally meant more speed, they were less efficient and limited the range of the ships unless more fuel could be stored. Early Dreadnought designs, which were in simultaneous development with the Mississippi, used primitive direct drive turbines. The U.S. Navy was slow to fully adopt turbines, and only used them exclusively in battleship production when indirect transmissions became refined (gear reduction or turbo-electric).[38] Several subsequent battleship classes were built where otherwise identical vessels had different types of engines (for example, the Delaware class and Nevada class).[39]

Mississippi and Idaho were equipped with two-shaft vertical triple expansion steam engines, which drove two propellers. These were reciprocating engines where the steam was used multiple times (triple expansion) for greater efficiency. Steam was provided by eight Babcock and Wilcox boilers. Their engines were rated at 10,000 indicated horsepower (7,500 kW), which produced a top speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph).[40] On trials Mississippi reached 13,607 ihp (10,147 kW) and a maximum speed of 17.11 kn (31.69 km/h; 19.69 mph).[41] In terms of speed this class of ships was inferior to several preceding classes, and was only slightly superior to the Illinois class which was laid down in 1896.[42]

The ships carried 600 long tons (610 t) of coal in purpose-designed coal bunkers and up to another 1,200 long tons (1,200 t) of coal could be stored in voids in the sides of the hull.[40] This provided the ships with a range of 5,800 nautical miles (10,700 km; 6,700 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph).[41] The range was less than the previous class.[43]

General characteristics

[edit]

The final design was a scaled-down version of the preceding Connecticut class. By comparison, these ships were a knot slower and had a lower freeboard, so they did not perform as well in heavy seas.[44] The two Mississippi class ships were 382 feet (116 m) long overall, had a beam of 77 ft (23 m) and a draft of 24 ft 8 in (7.52 m). The ships were designed to displace 13,000 long tons (13,209 t) at normal displacement and up to 14,465 long tons (14,697 t) at full combat load.[40] Each ship had a crew of 34 officers and 710 enlisted men.[41]

The World Cruise of 1907–1909 tested the seakeeping of the U.S. designs. Even the earlier designs, including the Connecticut class with their higher freeboard, carried their secondary armament too close to the waterline.[45] The ships initially carried a pole mast above the conning tower, though shortly after commissioning, both ships had lattice masts added aft. In 1910, the forward masts were also replaced with lattice masts.[46] After the successful trials, the ships were refitted with cage masts.[45]

The reduced length while retaining the same beam as the prior Connecticut class resulted in a disadvantageous length-to-beam ratio, causing reduced performance relative to that class. Not only was their top sped a knot slower, but their economical speed was reduced by one and half knots. They also had 25% less coal storage, further reducing their operating range.[44]

The Mississippi ships had poor seakeeping qualities making them poor gunnery platforms underway in Atlantic waters. Their motion was irregular, and their low length-to-beam ratio caused excessive rolling and pitching, which made it difficult to keep the guns on-target. The reduced length, significantly cut-away from the aft, made it difficult to keep the ships on a consistent course, even in smoother waters.[44]


List of Connecticut-class battleships

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The chief constructor considered two radical options: Combine battleship armor and secondary batteries but reduce the size of the four guns in the primary battery to 10 inch guns, similar to a large armored cruiser such as the USS Tennessee; or reduce the size of guns in the main battery to 10 inches, but increase the number to twelve guns, and eliminate the 8 inch and 7 inch secondary batteries (the all big gun concept). Either of these options would have saved weight and allowed for larger engines and an increase in speed.[2]
  2. ^ Scaling up from the Maine would have included replacing the 6 inch rapid fire guns in casemates with 7 inch rapid fire gins in the same mountings. Hull depth would have increased to accommodate the 7 inch guns and armor would have been increased to standards consistent with the Connecticut class, including the use of lighter Krupp armor and superior coverage.[2]
  3. ^ In July 1898, based on analysis of naval battles during the Spanish–American War, a U.S. Navy Board released the following conclusions: "loaded torpedoes above the water line are a serious menace to the vessels carrying them..." and "The value of rapid fire (Also known as: quick fire or QF) batteries cannot be too highly estimated." As a result the 8-inch (200 mm) guns which had been very efficient in the battle of Santiago were reintroduced in the preceding Virginia class. Above-water torpedo tubes were discontinued on U.S. battleships and those on existing ships were removed.[6]
  4. ^ This was a time of rapid change in the perceived purpose and tactics for capital ships; while the purpose of smaller weapons, sometimes called tertiary guns, was clearly to ward off and destroy torpedo boats and destroyers, there were mixed and unclear objectives for the larger secondary guns (see Note 6). As the effective range of the main armament increased, the effectiveness of the secondary batteries against capital ships diminished.[18]
  5. ^ In planning for the Connecticut class the Board on Construction favored a ship on which 6-inch (150 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm) guns would all be replaced by newly designed 7-inch (180 mm) guns, which were the most powerful guns with shells that could be handled by one person. The 7-inch (180 mm) guns fired a much heavier shell than 6-inch (150 mm) guns of earlier classes, but were faster firing than the 8-inch (200 mm) guns. The shell for the 7-inch (180 mm) guns weighed 165 lb (75 kg), whereas a shell for the 6-inch (150 mm) gun weighed about 100 lb (45 kg), and the shell for the 8-inch (200 mm) gun weighed about 250 lb (110 kg). These 250 lb (110 kg) shells could only be moved by machines or by several men, making the 7-inch (180 mm) "the largest [gun] capable of really rapid fire in the context of existing technology". In the end, only the 6-inch (150 mm) guns were replaced, and the 8-inch (200 mm) batteries remained. The 6-inch (150 mm)guns could be fired six times per minute, but the 7-inch (180 mm) required separate powder bags and could only be fired four times per minute. The guns had improved ballistic performance over the 6-inch (150 mm), but there was a problem: The splashes of the 8-inch (200 mm) and 7-inch (180 mm) guns could not be distinguished at a distance. This confused the gunners, who would watch the splashes to gauge accuracy while trying to adjust their fire. The uniform intermediate battery proposed by the Board on Construction could have been more practical.[21]
  6. ^ During World War I there was a desperate need to arm merchant ships; the 3-inch 50-caliber guns were useful in that role. On March 3, 1917, the removal of 38 such guns from battleships and cruisers was authorized, and the removal of 304 more was authorized on April 26–28, 1917. It was determined that the removal of these guns allowed for the sealing of dangerous openings for a gain in military efficiency.[24]
  7. ^ The June 1902 issue of Proceedings of the US Naval Institute contained comments by the U.S. Navy's leading gunnery expert Prof. P.R. Alger proposing a main battery of eight 12-inch (305 mm) guns in twin turrets. In May 1902, the Bureau of Construction and Repair submitted a design for the battleship with twelve 10-inch (250 mm) guns in twin turrets, two at the ends and four in the wings. Lt. Cdr. H. C. Poundstone submitted a paper to President Roosevelt in December 1902 arguing the case for larger battleships. In an appendix to his paper, Poundstone suggested a greater number of 11-inch (279 mm) and 9-inch (229 mm) guns was preferable to a smaller number of 12-inch (300 mm) and 9-inch (230 mm) guns. The Naval War College and Bureau of Construction and Repair developed these ideas in studies between 1903 and 1905. War game studies begun in July 1903 "showed that a battleship armed with twelve 11-inch (280 mm) or 12-inch (300 mm) guns hexagonally arranged would be equal to three or more of the conventional type."[26]
  8. ^ Casemates are similar to turrets, but in the case of U.S. capital ships, there is only one gun per casemate. In naval gunnery a casemate is a vertical armor plate with openings for guns. It is less protected than a gun turret and allows for a smaller field of fire. It is much cheaper to build and far lighter in weight for a given level of armor protection. In late 19th and early 20th century battleships, casemates were used to mount secondary guns for defending the ship against torpedo boats. In practice, these guns were generally quite useless; usually mounted close to the water, casemate guns were often awash in spray, and were sometimes swamped completely by the ship's rolling. More modern designs did away with casemate weapons entirely, favoring extra topside mounts for their secondary batteries.[15]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e Friedman 1985 p. 44
  2. ^ a b Friedman 1985 p. 45
  3. ^ Friedman 1985 p. 5
  4. ^ a b Friedman 1985 p. 20
  5. ^ Gardiner & Lambert p. 163
  6. ^ Hovgaard. p 106
  7. ^ Cressman Mississippi
  8. ^ Cressman Idaho
  9. ^ Friedman 1985 pp.44 & 53
  10. ^ Friedman 1985 p. 38
  11. ^ Alden p. 211
  12. ^ a b Friedman 2008 p. 176
  13. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 42–60
  14. ^ a b c Friedman 1985 p. 43
  15. ^ a b c d Hovgaard pp. 104–109
  16. ^ Reilly pp. 140–141
  17. ^ Reilly p. 162–163
  18. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 44, 56, 76–77, & 176
  19. ^ Reilly p. 164
  20. ^ Reilly pp.149, 166-167 & 169
  21. ^ Friedman. 1985 pp. 44–45 & 55
  22. ^ U.S. Navy Department. Bureau of Ordnance pp. 203–205
  23. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 424–430
  24. ^ U.S. Navy Department. Bureau of Ordnance pp. 41–42
  25. ^ Friedman 1985 p. 143
  26. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 52–53
  27. ^ Friedman 1985 p. 54
  28. ^ a b Friedman 1985 pp. 51–65
  29. ^ Reilly p. 191
  30. ^ Reilly pp. 106–203
  31. ^ Reilly pp. 165–167
  32. ^ Reilly pp. 164–165
  33. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 42–47
  34. ^ Rose p. 11
  35. ^ a b Sondhaus pp. 165–166
  36. ^ Reilly p. 194
  37. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 430–431
  38. ^ Friedman 1985 p. 62
  39. ^ Hore 2007 pp. 153 & 155
  40. ^ a b c Gardiner & Chesneau p. 144
  41. ^ a b c Friedman 1985 p. 431
  42. ^ Friedman 1985 pp. 427–431
  43. ^ Hore 2006 p. 95
  44. ^ a b c Reilly p. 197
  45. ^ a b Gardiner & Gray p. 111
  46. ^ Hore 2006 p. 63

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Alden,John D. (2008). American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 087021-248-6.
  • Bellou, Fotini; Couloumbis, Theodore, eds (2003). Greece in the Twentieth Century. London: Frank Cass Publishers. ISBN 071465-407-8. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (viewable online)
  • Cressman, Robert J. (2007). Idaho, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Washington DC: U.S. Navy Department, Naval History & Heritage Command. published online, Retrieved 2010-10-5
  • Cressman, Robert J. (2007). Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Washington DC: U.S. Navy Department, Naval History & Heritage Command. published online, Retrieved 2010-10-5
  • Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal, eds. (1984). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870219073. viewable online
  • Reilly, John C., Jr.; Scheina, Robert L. (1980). American Battleships 1886–1923. Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 087-021-524-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • U.S. Navy Department, Bureau of Ordnance (1920). Navy Ordnance Activities, World War, 1917–1918. Washington: Government Printing Office (GPO). (viewable online)
[edit]

[[Category:Battleship classes]] [[Category:Connecticut class battleships| Connecticut class battleship]] [[Category:World War I battleships of the United States| Connecticut class battleship]] cs:Třída Connecticut fr:Classe Connecticut it:Classe Connecticut ja:コネチカット級戦艦 pl:Pancerniki typu Connecticut
Cite error: There are <ref group=A> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=A}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_Murray/USS_Connecticut&oldid=1148413027"