Talk:Mahan-class destroyer

Dunlap class
See "by which passed a shell hoist that revolved with the gun." I do not understand what action is being described here. Please clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unlike the Mahans, the Dunlaps differed in their incorporation of a base ring for each forward 5”/38 caliber gun through which passed a projectile hoist that rotated the gun. Pendright (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dunlap
See the sentence beginning ”In the Battle of Vella Gulf". The person quoted should be named in the text. Folklore1 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Theodore Roscoe said, ”In the Battle of Vella Gulf, as this engagement was called, the enemy had not laid a hand on the American ships.”[86] Pendright (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

B-class assessment
G'day, as per the request on my talk page, I've have assessed this article as C-class on the Milhist rating scale, although it is very close to B-class, IMO. If you could add citations to the following areas, I'd be happy to upgrade the assessment:
 * the paragraph ending with: "At that point, she proceeded to the west coast for overhaul, leaving the yard in July 1944 for Pearl Harbor."
 * the paragraph ending with: "After participating in the bombardment of Iwo Jima in November 1944 and January 1945, she escorted an ammunition ship to the newly invaded Iwo Jima. There, Cassin did radar picket and air-sea rescue duty."
 * the "Ships in class" table - these could either be added by including a citation at the top of each column, or by including them in each line. For instance, please see the tables in List of light cruisers of Germany (which is currently rated A-class on the Milhist assessment scale).

Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks for your efforts on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated the assessment now. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Engineering Plant
"The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery. This change ushered in a new steam propulsion system that combined increases in pressure and temperature with a new type of lightweight steam turbine, which proved simpler and more efficient to operate. These changes led to a ten percent increase in displacement over the Farraguts." Anyone know what pressure and temperature these boilers operated at. Most U.S. Navy ships built during the war, and survived into the Cold War, had boiler that operated at about 600 PSI, were called M-type separate sides/furnaces one for steam generation, one for superheat of the steam- the design allowed them to control the amount of superheat, and could get above 700 degrees Fahrenheit for the superheat. Was this perhaps the first class with this type boilers. Wfoj3 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm working my way through improving USN destroyer class articles. I'm including steam conditions for each class in an "Engineering" subsection in those cases where I have a good reference for them. Basically, steam conditions increased rapidly from 300 psi saturated in the Clemsons of the 1920s through 600 psi/850 F in the Fletchers. In the 1950s this was further raised to 1200 psi/950 F. A guide to the increase with each class is at 1500 ton comparison at DestroyerHistory.org. This site also includes the shipyards' General Information Books for many of the lead ships, some of which give steam conditions. The steam conditions for the lead ships are listed in the appendices of Friedman's US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. There seems to be some variation among ships of a class, as some Mahans are listed at 400 psi and others at 465 psi.RobDuch (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured article?
I find this article lacking in significant ways. Ok, it's the first destroyer class type article to make it to FA status, so perhaps there's some work to be done to understand how a class with many members in it (as opposed to all the battleship class FAs ("BFA" from here on)) should be structured. I find this article to be completely overwhelmed by the Service History section breaking out all 18 ships of the class. This is not unprecedented in the BFAs, but is uncommon. Far more useful would be discussion of the class in general with regards to their service history. In service, were they tough? Under/over gunned? Maneuverable enough? Fast enough? How did they fare, as a class, in combat? Better than predecessors? The service histories of each ship are not very relevant in this context. Further, what about a specifications section? Perhaps something like this or this. The new steam turbine changed the propulsion picture for a few ship classes, but we spend just _one_ sentence on this propulsion plant. What? This article I think could be improved when compared to the battleship class brethren already in FA. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mahan-class destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905181826/http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ to http://destroyerhistory.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Greyhound, or George?
I just checked my copy of The Good Shepherd. In the novel the codename used for the Keeling on the escort's short-range radio is George. George, Harry, Dicky and Eagle are the codenames used in the novel. Forester even has his hero reflect on how they had been chosen to they each used different phonemes, phonemes that could be distinguished, even if distorted by static, etc.

Greyhound does make for a better name for a movie. But the names are distinct in the two media.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Keeling
A USS "Keeling", codenamed Greyhound (in the film) or George (in the novel), was introduced by nautical author C.S. Forester, for his 1955 novel WWII novel The Good Shepherd, and also appears in its 2020 cinematic adaptation Greyhound. This Mahan-class Keeling serves as flagship of a North Atlantic convoy flotilla in 1942 during the Battle of the Atlantic, having to fend off U-boat attacks on the convoy. In the 2020 film, it is portrayed by USS Kidd, a Fletcher-class destroyer.

-- 70.51.47.127 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)