Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 2

Number of Boilers
The number of boilers is given in the article as 12. Norman Polmar, in Ships and Aircraft of the U.S Fleet (Naval Inst. Press, 12th ed. 1981) gives the number at 8, as does the webpage for the Missouri Memorial, []. Which figure is correct?
 * As there is no attestation for the number 12, and two sources give the number as 8, I have made the change.Kablammo 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can confirm it's 8. My source is actually being aboard the Missouri. :) ---B- 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can second that confirmation, that it's eight boilers. I served on Iowa. Nolefan32 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Boilers operated at 600 PSI and not 650 as stated, also the maximum superheater outlet temp was 875 Deg F. If there is any more info about the boilers anyone would like to see put it here. SteaminDemon

A problem with the armor
The article says "The Mark 7 was intended to fire the same 2,240 lb shell as the 16 inch/45-caliber gun but as the design was being completed a new 2,700 lb shell was developed. This led to problems with armor protection since the current armor was only designed to resist 2,240 lb shells."

I understand the general principle that a warship should be able to resist gunfire from an opponent of the same general class, but why does an improvement to the Iowa's guns present a problem, in and of itself, for the Iowa's armor? Kaleja 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Beacuse the Iowas only had sufficient armour to resist 14" shells, and all the other Navies in the world were rushing to build warships which significantly bigger guns than that. Had the Montanas, Lions and more Yamato's been constructed before everyone gave up on the battleship the Iowas would have been considered seriously deficient in protection.  As it was the Royal Navy was pretty confident during the 50s that HMS Vanguard could sink an Iowa using her 30 year old guns...  Getztashida 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Getztashida, your information about the protection of the Iowa class is incorrect but does apply to an earlier class of U.S. "battleship". In general battleships are supposed to have armor that protects against their own caliber guns. A ship with 16" guns and armor to protect against 14" shells is technically a battlecruiser, no matter what their navy labels them. The U.S. did have a "battleship" class with the 16" gun/14" armor combo; the North Carolina class. They (the North Carolinas) were designed under the limits of the naval limitation treaty which was still in effect, limiting gun size to 14". Because of this they were designed to have twelve 14" guns in three quadruple turrets. In 1936 Japan announced their intention withdraw from the treaty (I think it was the 1922 Washington Naval treaty). After this development the main battery of the North Carolina class was changed to nine 16" guns in three turrets, while the armor protection was left as originally designed to protect against 14" shellfire. The next class, South Dakota, was designed from the start with a 16" battery and protection against 16" shells. A change of weapons also happened with the Iowa class, but in a slightly different and more complicated way. The guns on the North Carolina, South Dakota, and originally planned for the Iowa class were 45 caliber (length of barrel). Instead the Iowa class was completed with 16" guns of 50 caliber with no changes to the armor. This allowed her to fire shells at higher velocity than the original 16"/45 guns. The first three links are to each battleship class from the U.S. Naval Historical Center, the last link is from battleship.org with some more specific data about the differences between 16"/45 and 16"/50 guns. Does anyone have any objections over including these references in the article? Anynobody 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are already in my Iowa overhaul article, so I have no objections to there inclusion here for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-wrote section about the Iowa class having armor suitable for 14" shells or less. Also added link to www.history.navy.mil page on the Iowa class. Anynobody 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the revised section's claim that the Iowas had armour balanced to their firepower (or indeed the firepower of a North Carolina or South Dakota) is just plain wrong. The Iowas were specifically designed for high speed in order to keep up with Carrier Task Forces and as such some compromises in protection were made. That is a verifiable, citeable fact.

You appreciate that most WWI battleships had 12" armoured belts? The Iowa has an armoured belt no thicker than that of HMS Hood or SMS Lutow.  Are you seriously claiming that the armour scheme of the Iowas was designed to resist 16" guns when every other navy in the world though that a belt thickness of at least 14" was needed for the task?  The Armour belt of the Iowas is identical in thickness to the armour belt of the North Carolinas, which were generally considered to be inadequately protected.  Worse still, the Iowas had similar underwater protection to the South Dakotas, which was considered highly deficient and markedly inferior to that of the North Carolinas (the Montanas would ahve reverted to a North Carolina style internal layout).

Bluntly, it doesn't matter whatever way you cut it - the Iowas did not carry sufficient protection against 16" guns - neither the 50 cal nor the 45 cal version. I know there is a terrible urge on Wikipedia to claim that anything American is indisputedly the best of it's type, but let's be realistic here - it doesn't detract from the ships in any way to acknowledge a deliberate design consideration.  The Iowas were special purpose warships designed with some (limited) compromises in protection in order to gain additional speed.  In any other Navy they would have been called Battlecruisers...  Getztashida 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. To get some perspective I contacted Dick Landgraff whom I consider to be one of the top experts on the subject of Iowa-class armor (since he was the Hull and Structural Configuration Manager at Long Beach Shipyard for the reactivation of USS Missouri and has worked in that capacity on all of the Iowa-class ships).  It is his opinion that not only would the Iowa-class armor be sufficient against the 16" guns but he quoted Admiral Snyder as saying that at ranges in excess of 25,000 yards it would be effective against 18" guns.  I'll try to dig up some more specific information on it. ---B- 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Getztashida I totally agree with you that the North Carolina class ships should accurately be called battlecruisers, after all their armor was only able to offer protection against the 14" guns they were designed with. I'm also open to discussing calling the Iowa class battlecruisers since they were designed with the 16"/45 caliber guns and armor, but ended up with a battery 16"/50 guns with armor protection for 16"/45. What I don't understand is your belief that the Iowa class ships were armored to protect against a maximum of 14" shellfire. I'm willing to believe you, but I need to know where this knowledge comes from. My information comes directly from the United States Navy, please take a few moments and check it out this link to the U.S. Naval Historical Center information about the Iowa class.


 * I noticed that you cite the actual thickness of the armor belt as proof of what it will protect against. This isn't entirely accurate for a couple of reasons.
 * First because the quality of steel varied from country to country, 12" worth of country A's milled steel could provide the same protection as 15" worth of country B's milled steel.


 * Second, steel production had also been improved in general since World War I. 12" of country A's steel made around WWI would not have the same characteristics as 12" worth of country A's steel from WWII.


 * In summary, to answer your rhetorical question: Yes, I AM saying that the Iowa class had armor which offered protection against most 16" shellfire because this is what the U.S. Navy says. The U.S.N. also indicates that the Iowa's high top speed was not a design trade-off between speed and armor; It was because the Iowa's had more engine machinery, and a longer more narrow bow section to reduce hydrodynamic drag.


 * Please understand, I am open to the possibility that this info could be incorrect, the US military in general does their best to be accurate about history but they are not immune to error. I only ask for some references I can verify, especially because it sounds like you believe they wanted a less capable battleship class to follow up the South Dakota class. Anynobody 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not less capable, only with a different emphasis. I'm aware that my comparison to the Hood or Lutzow is fallacious, but the comparison to the North Carolina's is not.  The South Dakotas protection scheme was derived as much from their compact size and internal layout as their belt thickness.  Features which the Iowa Class did not share - therefore as the Iowa had the same thickness and type of steel as the North Carolinas and a similar internal layout, where does it follow that it was better protected?  I don't understand how a class of ships with a virtually identical protection scheme to an earlier class that was correctly considered underarmoured can be claimed to be better protected?  The Iowas were designed to be carrier escorts, capable of taking on a defeating the Kongo's (who were faster than any capital ship in the US Navy) - a distinct "Fast wing" of the fleet - there were a few design compromises required...


 * On the subject of references, will you accept essays published online (by reutable authors). US warships are not one of my special fields of interest - WWI is more my field - so I have not purchased in any reference works on them (although I have borowed a few from the library)...  Getztashida 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your last question first; Essays are definitely acceptable, the more reputable the better as long as the essay lists it's sources of course. I always enjoy reading a good essay on a subject I am interested in.
 * On the subject of U.S. warships, specifically battleships, each new class is built to improve upon the previous class. In the case of the Iowa class, they essentially took the South Dakota class a step further. I don't mean to disrespect you, but it seems like you didn't look very carefully at the link I provided in my last post. Here is, what I believe, the information most germane to our discussion
 * "Built under Fiscal Year 1940 (BB 61 & 62) and 1941 (BB 63-66) appropriations, the Iowa class were much longer, more powerfully engined and considerably faster than the preceding North Carolina and South Dakota classes. Their main battery, nine 16"/50 guns in triple turrets, was also somewhat more powerful than the 16"/45 armament of the two earlier types. The Iowas' internal armor protection scheme was similar in arrangement to that of the South Dakota class, and was designed to keep out the armor-piercing shells originally intended for their guns, though not the heavier (2700 pound) shells ultimately used." Anynobody 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't believe you but rather that I don't believe the US Navy ;-) They are, after all, the Navy who tried to convince us that the Iowas had 16-19 inch belts for 20 years...  Will get back to you later today with references.  Getztashida 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the Navy lie about the Iowa class being under protected, after previously being honest about the fact that the North Carolina class didn't have armor built to protect against 16" guns? Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government, like all governments, can and does sometimes lie. The lies though tend to be about current top secret, spy stuff like Project Mogul that suddenly become public. In that case the government lied and said it was a weather balloon, when it actually was a high altitude spy balloon to look for atmospheric disturbances caused by nuclear tests. Since the government didn't want the Soviets to know they were developing systems like this, a lie was necessary at the time. The government now admits what Mogul was really for, so it will admit to misinformation when the security concerns fade. Back to the Iowa class, all four ships have been retired from the active fleet and at least two are now museums. It seems baffling to me that they would carry a lie forward so long, yet release more sensitive information about the class like it's armament of conventional and nuclear cruise missiles during the Cold War. I do know that nuclear weapon information security is taken much more seriously than the as built armor configuration, especially because the advent of anti-ship missiles made the armor on all WWII era battleships obsolete. Anynobody 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Getztashida, I really do want to be accommodating, so I have brought a quote from www.battleship.org that is both very specific and not from a navy.mil site. Even though I believe the Navy wouldn't give disinformation about this topic, doesn't meant they aren't so a second source does make sense. I also don't want to give the impression that I am cherry picking, so I have included the whole section and put my specific points in bold text."''With the exception of its guns, the most awe inspiring aspect of the battleship is the huge amount of armor employed to protect the ship. The overall design of the Iowa class armor system is essentially the same as that of their predecessors, the four South Dakota class battleships. Both feature an internal main belt which represents a significant change from the previous two North Carolina class battleships and was adopted only with reluctance. First of all, an internal belt is difficult and costly to install and secondly, it is difficult to reach for repairs. The armor on the North Carolinas was designed with an external belt designed to protect against a 14in shell. The South Dakotas and later the Iowas were designed to have protection against the 16in shell. To achieve this level of protection, the belt incline would have to be increased to 19 degrees. An external belt inclined at the steeper angle would have required a wider beam to maintain stability, but would have precluded passage through the Panama Canal. Therefore, an internal belt was adopted. Armor distribution on any warship is a trade-off between protection and weight. If the armor is increased, the weight also increases, which results in slower top end speed and maneuverability. The vertical side armor consists of an upper and lower belt which is inclined to an angle of 19 degrees. The total depth of the belt is 38 feet 6 inches and extends from just before turret 1 to just aft of turret 3. The upper belt is Class A armor, 12.1 inches thick, while the lower belt is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom. The deck consists of three parts, the bomb deck, the main armor deck, and the splinter deck. The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate. The bomb deck is designed to detonate general purpose bombs on contact and arm armor piercing bombs so they will explode between the bomb deck and the main armor deck. Within the immune zone, the main armor deck is designed to defeat plunging shells which may penetrate the bomb deck. The splinter deck is designed to contain any fragments and pieces of armor which might be broken off from the main armor deck. Turret armor is constructed from a combination of Class A and Class B armor and STS plate. The faces of the turrets are 17I inches Class B armor over 2.5 inches STS plate. The side plates are 9.5 inches Class A armor on .75 inch STS plate. The back plates are 12 inches Class A armor and the turret roofs are 7.25 inches Class B armor. The conning tower is constructed from segments of Class B armor 17.3 inches thick. BB61 is three levels and BB62 on had 2 levels (the flag level was omitted). Roof plates are 7.25 inches Class B and the floor is 4 inches STS. The conning tower is connected to the citadel by a communications tube with a wall thickness of 16 inches of Class B armor.''" Anynobody 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to decide which source is correct. We can report them both. It's OK to have differences of opinion or fact covered in the articles. In fact, the WP:POV policy just about demands it. So let's find a way to say summarize all viewpoints: i.e. "Janes states the armour plate was designed to withstand 16" shells while the Encyclopedia of Naval Ships says it was only rated for 14" shells." Ot whatever. -Will Beback · † · 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to temporarily retract by argument on the grounds I cannot find the corroborating evidence I intended to present. Unfortunately essay I wanted to link up seems to have been removed from the internet. However, I still think we should on the whole resist claiming that the Iowas had a balanced armament scheme. Their armour was nothing to write home about, whatever way you cut it. As to why the US Navy might lie? Don't ask me. Presumably the same reason that the Royal Navy claimed the Renowns were capable of 40 knots during WWI. However, if you take a look at contempoary issues of Janes you will find the armour belt quoted at 16". This familiar article breifly discusses the issue...
 * http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships2.htm
 * Getztashida 10:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion and your attempt to mediate what might seem like an argument, Will Beback. Please understand that the discussion I am having with Getztashida hasn't become hostile or contentious and I think we both have the same goal in mind to have an article with the most accurate information possible. We just happen to find ourselves in a situation where our information contradicts and a thorough discussion is needed to sort out the facts. Since we don't have the benefit of being able to see each other's body language or hear the tone we intend our words to have, it can be easy to think a statement is an insult when it was not intended to be. For example when I ask a question I really want an answer, I've tried to make the questions NOT read sarcastic or flip and I'd seriously like to apologize to anyone who may have thought this was anything but a good faith discussion about a question of fact. Applying what I said above, the point you made about POV though doesn't apply to this type of information where there is an actual fact (either the Iowa class had armor meant to protect against 16" shells, it had lighter armor meant to protect against 14" shells, or Getztashida and I are both wrong). WP:POV, as I understand it, applies to less tangible subjects such as religion or politics where there is no way to determine the actual fact involved and all perspectives should be given equal discourse. Subjects like which religion is right or what political outlook is best would violate WP:POV. Getztashida I really am interested in your information, so when you locate it please let me know. I have actually looked over a few volumes of Jane's Fighting Ships with articles about the Iowas from various periods; 1940's, 1980's, and the early 90's. I think I remember one from the 80's or 90's where it mentioned that the since the heavy armor of the Iowas was not designed with cruise missile attacks in mind which is part of the reason many modern warships have less armor than their WW2 ancestors. As I understand it using armor to defend against anti-ship missiles is impractical because so much is required to be effective it would actually result in a less effective ship, and the development of CIWS systems which offer active protection means that today's warships are more vulnerable to gunfire (unless the CIWS can be made to shoot down incoming projectiles too). Is it possible that you may have confused it's vulnerability to cruise missiles in later Jane's versions with it's ability to withstand gunfire? Anynobody 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CIWS can be made to shoot down incoming projectiles; The US Army, among others, has been looking into this as a defense against enemy artillery (though it should be noted that this is still in its infancy); however I doubt very much that a 20mm CIWS gattling gun would be able to alter the path of a 16in 2,700lbs projectile. And it is technically possible to design ships with armor to withstand a cruise missile attack, but the armor would have to incorporate other factors as well (like stealth technology) if it was going to withstand such an attack; otherwise the ship you would end up with would have a hull with something like 8-12 feet of armour to withstand such an attack. By the way, I put my rewrite of this article on hold until this gets resolved, so when something gets worked out drop me a line and let me know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

TomStar81 thanks for the info, I had read that the Israelis are developing a kind of mini-CIWS to shoot down RPGs and grenades to use on their tanks and APCs. As to 20mm CIWS vs. a hypothetical 2700 lb shell in flight I'm undecided. On one hand a 20mm shell is much smaller than the 16" shell, to say the least. On the other, it was my impression CIWS is supposed to destroy incoming missiles that weigh as much or even more than 2700 lbs. Also, counter-intuitive though it may seem, why wouldn't 20mm depleted uranium rounds penetrate the 16" shell and cause it to detonate? I agree that a 20mm projectile fired from a CIWS isn't going to be fast enough to gain enough kinetic energy to alter the course of a 2700 lb shell in a ballistic fall. If one or two 20mm shells hit it seems like there would be a decent chance of exploding the shell in midair. Anynobody 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Found the section I could not find earlier: Land Based Phalanx. These is a broad look at adopting CIWS were land use. As for the tank based CIWS, info on that can be found here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with the Yamato Class
Why does this article make no comparison with the Yamato class battleship? I thought that would have been the closest comparison to make in both terms of armament and time period, especially when you talk about the Iowa class being the "the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship". Thoughts? Pluke 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look in the archives, you can still see the smoldering riuns of the edit war(s) fought over the inclusion/exclusion of certain battleships when compared to the Iowas. In this case Yamato does not appear here because the Montana class battleships were felt to be a higher pillar to measrue U.S. and IJN battleship power with; however, if you wish to add Yamato to the that small list go right ahead. Be forewarned though that the ship may not be listed there long; this article is under scrutiny for to little citations, and information added without a cited source can (and usually is) removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is likely to come up over and over, I'll take a moment to add something. Will researching 16 inch Coast Gun M1919, I came across this rather graphic demonstration of what one of the 16" shells would do to a Yamato turret. The associated page, with an interesting story about the test, is here.--J Clear 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the Iowas would fare any better facing 18inch shells? In any case I have serious doubts about that test you linked. What is a simulated 30,000 yard impact meant to mean? I suspect the test range was a fraction of that. A real 30,000 yard hit would involve the shell coming down at an angle and hitting that plate obliquely which certainly does now appear to have happened in that test. Unless of course 30,000 yards is the sweet spot where the angle of shell fall and the angle the plate on the turret were fitted coincided to allow a perfect 90 degree impact. If that is the case well, how many turret faces were hit at 30,000 yards, give or take a mile, during the whole of WWII? Not many I'd wager. Its a relatively small area to hit on a moving target from a moving platform at 17 miles! --LiamE 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Armour
I have added a section on the armour distribution of the class, seeing as it was entirely absent from the article. However, the infobox states the deck armour is 7.25" thick, whereas all my reference material indicates maximum thickness was only 6". Can anyone confirm the correct figure? I will adjust the infobox if no-one can source the 7.25" claim as I have citable references stating 6" as maximum. Getztashida 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is as follows:
 * Johnston, Ian & McAuley, Rob (2002). The Battleships. London: Channel 4 Books (an imprint of Pan Macmillian, LTD), pages 108-123. ISBN 0752261886.
 * &mdash; TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, would you mind providing a source for your aror information? It would really help me with my overhaul of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work at the moment so can' quote you ISBN numbers yet, but my most reputable sources are Conways all the Worlds Fighting ships and Janes fighting ships of WWII. I have a couple of other resources which ar not so detailed, and will be happy to add them later if you wish. Getztashida 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Competition section
What the hell is that competition section at the end of the article all about? If we are going to indulge in speculation over who built the best warships thn do do so from the assumption that the Iowa's are the ultimate is at the very least biased, if not the very height of arrogance.

For example, claiming that HMS Vanguard had "inferior speed and firepower" not only neglects to mention that the Vanguard was built on a budget using 20 year old guns - fundamental to understanding the design compromises inherent in that particualr ship - but also ommits that rather important fact that the Iowa's armour was only designed to be proof against 14" projectiles whereas the Vanguard was designed to be proof against 16". What does that mean? It means that an Iowa would have had to close to within the effective range of Vanguard's 15" guns in order to defeat the Vanguard's armour - at which range it would be more vulnerable to the Vanguard's weapons than the Vanguard was to hers.

Similarly, bragging how the Iowas fire control system was superior to the Yamato's, and how this is likely to be decisive is rather missing the point. The Yamato was designed to be proof against 18" projectiles, ans as such it is highly unlikely her improved fire control would have made the blindest bit of difference. A single salvo from a Yamato would likely have been decisive, whilst it is arguable as to whether the Iowa's 16" guns would have been able to significantly damage a Yamato at all...

Don't get me wrong, the Iowas were fine ships and no one will dispute that, but to make the claim that they were the somehow the "best" battleships ever built at the very least demonstrates a lack of understanding of the relative advantages and drawbacks of the vessels of the era...

Bluntly, I would like the section completely removed, but int he interim I've edited the entries to be a little less biased... Getztashida 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be removed. I am working on a major overhaul of this article to bring it up to what is now considered featured status. As part of this ongoing effort I intend to remove the competion section in its entirety. Since the section does contain some useful information I am considering whether to split the section off into its own article or simply add the beast battleships features in with the article contents (ie "Yamato had the biggest guns of any battleship put to sea", "The Iowa class were the fastest battleships ever built", etc). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the section doesn't belong. There is a link at the bottom ("A comparison of seven battleship classes during WWII") that seems to do a very thorough, thoughtful, and unbiased analysis of the respective differences; thus, it does what is necessary without subjecting the article to original research. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Super Toilet
"All of the urinals and all but one of the toilets on the Iowa class flush with saltwater in order to conserve fresh water." Which toilet gets the extra-special freshwater, and more importantly, why just that one? That's a REALLY bizarre fact. JDS2005 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The one that gets the fresh water is the one in the brigg. This john flushes with fresh water to prevent those incarcerated in the brigg from drinking the water to make himself/herself sick, which would entale transfering that person from the brigg to the medical room. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that should be explained in the text. -Will Beback · † · 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I've read about this topic and I believe that the information is accurate. It should be included in the article, but does anyone know where this can be cited as I have forgotten. If it is included without a source, someone is likely to add a "citation needed" flag to it. Anynobody 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it. Its in blue right under the question about fresh water (near the top of the page). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely be added into the text...if the question occurred to me, it's probably occurred to SOMEBODY else.

Good thinking, too. I probably never would have thought to pipe fresh water into the brig's toilet, I just woulda assumed that a crewmember would be given a large stick and tasked with smacking the prisoner away every time he tried to drink the saltwater out of it... JDS2005 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a pretty good example of simple genius, but I am trying to find more info about whether the freshwater is limited to that toilet or what other special considerations it might have before I add it.(Kinda defeats the purpose of saving water if resentful sailors in the brig can flush, flush, flush it away given enough time.) Anynobody 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the man-with-a-stick approach would work well here ;)


 * But yes, I see your point, losing your fresh water is probably even WORSE than giving the man in the brig a comfy cot in sickbay. JDS2005 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Worth mentioning that the toilet in the brig is NOT in a cell. So a sailor wishing to use it would have to be let out of his cell by a guard.  Presumably the guard would not allow the sailor to stand there and flush, flush, flush.  Also those these are fairly low flow toilets.  USS Missouri makes about 60,000 gallons of fresh water a day so any sailor wishing to somehow cause a problem by flushing too much would have to do a LOT of flushing.  The shower in the brig, indeed all the showers on the ship, use fresh water as well, but a resentful sailor couldn't abuse that either.  At least not the one in the brig. ---B- 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case you may want to consider dropping a note on the talk page of User:Bschorr, who is a volenteer crewmember aboard the battleship. He would likely have the answers you seek. (Incidentally, he is apprently the man behind the website refernce I gave.) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., I'm here. :) Yes, the toilet in the brig is the only one with freshwater and the explanation WE were given was that it was to prevent the prisoners from drinking the salt water.  I have one other possible factor - if I recall correctly (and I haven't been down to the brig in a few weeks so maybe I should go look again when I'm on board tomorrow) the drinking fountain in the brig is connected to the top of the toilet and maybe it's just easier to plumb it to flush fresh water.  Also the showerhead in the brig is directly over the toilet so again, perhaps easier plumbing?  However, since the Navy rarely does things the easy way, I'm pretty sure the salt-water/sickness story was correct.  I will attempt to re-verify with Master Chief Lancaster tomorrow. ---B- 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., I asked Master Chief Lancaster last night and he confirmed that the toilet flushes fresh water to prevent the prisoners from making themselves sick so they can get transferred to medical. ---B- 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort, -B- and I understand what you mean about the Navy doing things, for instance I understand they "discovered" a machine shop in the 60's-70's on board the USS Kitty Hawk that had somehow been given four walls without an entrance. Does the BB-63 museum keep technical records and reports about the ship? Anynobody 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have quite a bit of technical documentation on board. Was there anything specific you wanted to know about? (Other than the toilet?) ---B- 08:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I just like to browse through old documents, especially military history, and specifically USN warships. Just another reason to visit the museum :) Anynobody 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought there was something else, do the documents include anything about Missouri's 1950 grounding? Anynobody 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. We do have some information on that -- did you want to know anything specific?---B- 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grounding
I was curious to know who the Navy blamed for the ordeal and how they got her free. If what I have heard is correct, getting her afloat again was difficult to say the least. After they were unable to use tugs to get her free I was told they took provisions, fuel, and ammo off to try to lighten the ship enough to get buoyancy. I also think, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Missouri's bow was damaged and removed. Rather than build a new one they took the bow from the completed hull off the U.S.S. Kentucky BB-66. Thanks for any info. Anynobody 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The last part about the bow is technically correct; however it was USS Wisconsin whose front end was replaced. This occored shortly after Wisconsin collided with the destroyer Eaton in heavy fog. Supposedly, this gave rise to Wisconsin’s nickname "WisKy", which is supposed to be a combination of the names Wisconsin and Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TomStar81 has it right about the bow (though I can't confirm or deny the origin of Wisconsin's nickname). Missouri's bow is original and was never seriously damaged.  The grounding was blamed, rightfully, on Captain Brown who ignored the advice of his navigator and quartermaster and instead directed the ship to run outside the buoy lane and thus hard aground.  Captain Brown was relieved of command and dropped about 200 places on the command list, which effectively meant he was never going to command a ship again.  It was very difficult to refloat her, took about 3 weeks as I recall and they did have to unload a considerable amount of weight in an effort to lighten her.  Ultimately they had to dredge the bottom a bit and use a lot of tugs before they finally got her free.  She did not, however, contrary to a number of rumors to the contrary, suffer any significant lasting physical damage from the incident.  ---B- 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct as I discovered when I decided to answer my own questions at the Naval Historical page. The Kentucky was involved in both incidents, in 50 when Missouri needed it's spot in the shipyard to repair, they moved the unfinished Kentucky to make room. Six years later they took Kentucky's bow to repairUSS Wisconsin. The Navy's logic on Captain Brown seems sound, did anyone question his direction to leave the buoy lane? Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it. Anynobody 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the quartermaster and the navigator both said that they thought they were out of the lane and should be passing to the STARBOARD side of the buoys. But Captain Brown insisted that the lane was to the port side of the buoys.  That factored heavily into their decision to relieve him of command I suspect. ---B- 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia. Just started this a few days ago, and am still learning protocols. Just wanted to let you know I made a bunch of spelling corrections and a couple of grammar corrections. Did nothing to change the meaning, and in fact all the changes I made had already been flagged by the checker. In the future I will sign everything. By the way, this is great work. Busaccsb 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad you like it. My only regret is that my spelling and grammar suck, I woul like to be able to find and correct more of my spelling errors before putting new/improved maerial out onto article spaces. I am therefore extremely grateful to contributers such as yourself who fix spelling and grammar mistakes; without you, I would be in spelling hell. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Iowa design shaped by naval aviation?
The "History" section starts by saying the Iowa design was shaped by the rise of naval aviation, but no evidence for this is given. So I have removed several sentences about naval aviation:


 * These treaties stopped U.S. construction of battleships and battlecruisers, but not the development of aircraft and aircraft carriers. In 1921, United States Army Air Service Brigadier General Billy Mitchell proved aircraft could sink ships by attacking the German battleship SMS Ostfriesland, which had been given to the United States at the end of World War I under the terms of the Armistice. The Navy downplayed the sinking, saying Ostfriesland was unmanned, yet the demonstration foreshadowed the role such aircraft would play in World War II. USS Lexington and USS Saratoga, originally laid down as heavy cruisers, were thereafter converted to aircraft carriers.

These can go back if someone can link them to the Iowa design. PRRfan 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of evidence are looking for with regards to naval aviation and the Iowa class? I could probably cite this with ease, but I need to know exactly what you are looking for. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, anything that shows how naval aviation influenced the design of the Iowas. All this info about the Ostfriesland, the Lex, and the Sara seems otherwise beside the point. (Thanks for the barnstar, by the way.) PRRfan 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You earned the barnstar, so don't mention it ;) The main extent that Naval Aviation had on the Iowas was to demand the ships could do two things: first, keep up the carriers. The Iowas could do that since they were capable of steaming at 33 knots. The other influence that naval aviation had on the Iowas (and all WWII era US battleships in general) was the need for a floating Anti-Aircraft platform. The Iowa's were equiped with 120 AA-guns partly for defense against enemy aircraft and partly because the US carriers did not mount a large collection of Anti-Aircraft guns, meaning that other ships had to screen US carriers from enemy air raids. The part about Mitchells experiments was included to show the gradual shift from battleships to carriers, and Lex and Sara were included on account of the fact that they mark the birth of US Naval Aviation. Its not like the world will end if the information is excluded, I just thought it might be of interest to readers. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The need to keep up with and protect the carriers makes sense (and, I see, is expanded upon in the "birth of the Iowas" section), so I've readded a clause about naval aviation. I think the stuff about the other ships is still a bit extraneous what's already a long article. PRRfan 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get a cite for that? The 'fast battleship' program started well before the Iowa class.  The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were both 'fast battleship' classes and the extra AA armament didn't get added to the design until after the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.  The way it's currently written suggests that the class was designed as an AA escort from the onset and that just isn't true.  When the class was designed the guns vs aircraft debate had yet to be decided.--Lepeu1999 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Expressed myself poorly above. Not disputing they were designed to keep up with the Essex class what I am saying is the article suggests that they were designed as primarily an AA platform.  THAT didn't come into play until after they were well on the way to launch or launched.  They were designed to protect the carriers from other battleships - their role as an AA defender didn't come in until after the war started.  I've added a fact to the section I refer to here.--Lepeu1999 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying; I will lokk into citing that as soon as I can. I believe I pulled that information from a book though, so some reading will be in order before I can "fact" it for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I finally found it, it was in my WWII encyclopdia which resides in the back on book closet. The info is cited now, so you can check the citation if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)