Talk:Nevada-class battleship

Off target?
A few things.
 * "a tight tactical radius" I'm presuming this is turning radius (being 700yd), but a bit more clarity would be appreciated.
 * "girder strength" A bit more clarity?
 * "bigger" girders?
 * " Combining main and splinter decks into one, and raising it" I find this awkward, but I don't know how to fix it.
 * Same problem.
 * "covered by the mid grade casement armor" I find this awkward & unclear. I don't know enough to fix it.
 * Same problem.
 * " thick armor end bulkheads" I find this unclear. I don't know enough to fix it.
 * I don't know what this is talking about either...just rm it?
 * " turret roofs and decks" British deck armor is widely reported as inadequate; does Friedman confirm it at the cited page, or is he only talking about turrets? Can he be used to support with a different page-cite?
 * I'll check it...after class...unless I get a chance during... =D (I found that book on Google books, and that's how I am checking the sources)
 * "number 2 turret" Am I going too RN saying "'B' turret"?
 * I think so. I've only heard stuff about #'s for USN battleships...

More generally, I find myself wondering if "armor" & "armored" are being used interchangably, when they shouldn't be. Also, Fitzsimons has Pennsylvanias, New Mexicos, Tennessees, & Colorados following the Nevada scheme (without describing them as "standard", tho). He also has Nevada with 4 TT, while the page says 2 (& I'm betting 2 is correct...). TREKphiler  hit me ♠  06:55 & 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * DANFS has 4 too, but all of the other sources state that the Nevadas had 2.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- ' 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll bet that's where it came from in Fitzsimons (tho I confess I'm surprised Preston didn't catch it). I'll fix it in Nevada. A couple of others.
 * "faces were thickened to 18” (46 cm). This jump in armor"
 * How much was the increase? And is "jump" the most encyclopedic word?
 * Um, I think that the increase is compared to the armor on the New York class (I didn't add that part!)...and no, jump is not the right word...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Even so, the cost of the bare hull (no armament) was US$5,895,000. "
 * I saw this as a "bare hull" number, but now I can't find it again... If it's sourced elsewhere, or if you're satisfied just putting in a cost as an indicator... (On the other hand...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  17:21& 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The cost is sourced farther down in the Nevada article, under 'Construction' somewhere. ;D Some journal from like 1917 or something.... and out of curiosity, can Fitzsimons cover ref #30 in the Nevada article? (There are questions about its reliability...)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A good, solid RS for the section dealing with how they are 'Standard' battleships? ...maybe. There is a bibliography towards the end, but is it self-published?  -talk-  the_ed17  -contribs-  18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I spotted that (a bit late... :. If the ships are costed on their pages, I'll leave it off here, but I'd be interested knowing the total program cost, with some reference to the Navy budget at the time, so we get a sense of the scale & importance of BBs. (Contrast the cost of a CVN to an '08 budget of US$400 billion or so to see what I mean.) And while it may be a touch OT, in costing, don't omit ref to the cost of supporting CCs & DDs (& maybe crew, fuel, ammo...), 'cause they didn't operate solo.
 * No, Fitzsimons is much more design-oriented. Have a look at Daniel Madsen, Resurrection-Salvaging the Battle Fleet at Pearl Harbor. (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2003), & E.C Raymer, Descent Into Darkness (Presidio Press, 1996). They're mentioned here (Raymer cited); I'd bet they've got it, if it's true, or refute if not.
 * Re "standard". I think that qualifies as self-published, but his sources are solid, so it shouldn't be too hard to track if paper is preferred. I'd rather see specific cites for claims (which this doesn't offer), myself, but I'm not fanatic about it. If the website, & the mentioned sources, are enough, I'd say good to go. On another POV, tho, if we've got a cited claim for the classes being "standard", & support for them being a more/less common design, is that enough to say they're all "standard"? Or am I into synthesis?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  18:08 & 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, sorry. So would I, but I haven't seen a source for that anywhere...Hmm. I'll look for it this afternoon!  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I go online and search the library, and it's in the LSSU basement, not here. Ugh...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I do that all the time. ;D It makes citation a bear, tho. =] That's why I try to look at only one source at a time (here, that's a real problem!).  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thing. "not a good recipe" is based on what I understand is RN doctrine, heavy shell/lo vel, so Preston's (or Brit) bias may be coloring that; perhaps it should be taken out?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they don't have it...frustrating. I think that I'll make a pilgrimage over to my library tomorrow and request the first book from them...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, have either of you have any background whatsoever in Naval/Maritime matters? Turret roofs/deck armor aka horizontal armor, please check armor systems pre-Nevada and check the article on all or nothing armor. Girder vs. Girth either may be used but for different reasons, Girder strength is a specific engineering phrase used for a specific purpose.  Folks you are delving into naval architecture here and thus that phraseology comes into play.  That isn't jargon but the language used by ship builders and naval architechs to describe various parts of a ship. Tirronan (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an entire article on Jutland full of sources and citations on the battle and on the ships as well as dozens of books writen on the subject. Point of fact it was not just the British ships that lacked horizontal protection, EVERY SINGLE DREADNOUGHT TO THIS POINT IN TIME HAD THE SAME ISSUES FOR THE SAME REASONS. What you are missing in this is that the armor system was in fact a revolution in armor suites to that time. Once the lessons of Jutland were absorbed and the armor system of Nevada understood, nothing classed as a battleship ever left the design boards without considering plunging fire ever and the protection against it again. Both guns and fire control had now advanced to the point that this had to be considered and as such Nevada was the 1st answer. Tirronan (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument. The problem is translating the technical into layman's language, by people who aren't technicians, & who themselves may not have full grasp of the complexities. If you do, I invite you to fix it.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Casting oil upon the water

 * Copied from Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)‎

I can't source it (so what else is new? ;D ), but I recall the headaches Rozhestvensky had en route Tsushima. Is it worth mentioning oil firing made fuelling at sea easier? Gong to far to say it made fuelling feasible? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  08:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (No, I didn't try & spell it... ;D)
 * Possibly, but I wouldn't be able to source it ether. :/ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And here you are claiming you got it to FA. =]  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming? What does that star meant then? :D
 * When was the practice fueling at sea even began/thought up? I mean, if it wasn't an issue in 1912, then it actually shouldn't be included, as it had no bearing on the General Board's (or whoevers) decision! —  Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs) ' 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean as a design issue/decision, I mean as an operational/service life matter. I don't doubt extending range & ease of operation were primary for the General Board, but given Orange anticipated transpacific ops, I have to think the need for at-sea/en route fuelling had crossed their minds. If not, it certainly played a part in the careers of oil-fired BBs.
 * As to when the idea was first mooted, I couldn't say, but it was first trialled (by USN, anyhow) in the '30s, FWI read, & I think USN was first to try it. (This may be source bias...)
 * What I'm getting at in raising the issue is, Nevadas stayed in service through that period, & I think the issue deserves mentioning, given a) its importance to the Pacific War, b) the chance the typical reader doesn't know it was done, c) the chance the typical reader didn't realize it could be done, & d) the chance the typical reader didn't know en route fuelling hadn't been invented by USN (whence ref Baltic Fleet, which I'd try & work in, to illo the difficulties of coaling at sea & contrast ease with oil). Now, maybe this belongs more properly on the class page, granted, but I thought of it here ;D, & I do think a passing ref might be useful.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So a "Background to my oil fuel" section (with a better title =]) is in order? I don't see any problem with that - there is enough about 'why oil is/was better' oil in the "Design" section of USS Nevada (BB-36) anyway, but it's just too short for a new section...but with this added, it would be enough IMO. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I found this (presumably a DANFS copy) that shows that refueling was done during WWI... — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Reading that, it's not completely clear that's underway refuelling. It's likely to be, but it's written assuming knowledge I don't have, namely, the state of play in 1918. This, by contrast, specifically says "fuelled at sea". I think War Plan Orange gives the genesis of underway fuelling. And Google Books search under Power at Sea by Lisle Abbott Rose says the need was shown by the Great White Fleet circumnavigation 1907-9 & reveals a certain Lt. C. W. Nimitz (never heard of him ;D) developed over-the-stern fuelling, sufficient for USN DDs to transit the Atlantic alone. Looks like enough for a new section, for sure. And before you rush out to find Rose, let me say my local has all 3 (yes 3) vols. Oh, crap; the 1918 vol is on loan... *sigh* Maybe you can get it first.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  03:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) Doubt it. My university library doesn't have it, and I seriously doubt that my hometown library has it (though that is so small, you can't search through their books online that I know of... -_-) However, I will help with whatever I can. You wanna start a drive to get this to FA? ;D — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Can't even search online? And I thought mine was bad. -_- I put in a request, we'll see. I was going to look for WPO, too, but WorldCat's down. I'm pretty sure my university main branch has it, tho; I'll have a gander in a day or two.
 * FA, huh? Why not? I'm not doing anything for the next year. ;D Tell you what, you point me at the sources & watch the standard needing met, you're better at it, & let me see if I can write it up to pass, k?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  04:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol I'll try. I will probably use many of the sources that I used in Nevada. :) I'll start in mid-January though, because my mother hates Wikipedia - so I can't go on very much at home. -_- — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Source
Comparison between the Queen Elizabeths and the Nevadas. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Errors in previous Version
The previous version had several errors in the second paragraph. First the prior version cited a design flaw in their lack of Deck Armor. Friedman's book (US Battleships an Illustrated Design History) cites that they were designed with two decks totaling 4.5 to 5" of armor. The Nevada class at the time of their contruction had more Deck Armor than any of its contemporaries and the basic armor scheme they introduced continued unchanged through the standard class well into the era of long range gunnery and plunging fire. When modernized the deck was strengthened adding 80lb STS (Friedman page 197) tot hge second deck incerasing the thickness to 4.75 or 5"

With respect to the quote about watertight integrity the source is quoted correctly but a reading of the actaul damage report written after the ship was salvaged (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB36/PearlHarborDamageReport/) does not support the assertion that older ships in general had deficient watertight integrity. To quote "The flooding from damage could have been isolated from a material standpoint, assuming effective closures, Condition Zed fully set, and the ship completely manned." This report should be considered definitive and does not support the original statement regarding the watertight imtegrity of older warships.

Finally to state that older ships did not have the same staying power as new designs no matter how well modernized is self evident and not related to the Nevada class. That a clean sheet new generation design (especially one begun 20+ years later) would be better is self evident. In fact a survey of how the standard class performed in WWII (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm) indicates that the standards performed well and considerably better than their foreign contemporaries.

The edit offered (Friedman Chapter 5 as a source) emphasizes design features that made the Nevada's unique and in fact the prototype of the modern battleship. Ships designed post Jutland employed many of the same features (oil fuel, all or nothing armor, the elimination of mid-deck turrets, significant deck armor, and a focus on long range fire) that the Nevada's introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.141.221 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have Dr. Friedman's book and I believe that all the comments above are correct. Tirronan (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nevada-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918094229/http://www.battleship.org:80/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm to http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the picture in the design section really the Texas?
The picture labeled as the USS Texas has three turrets before any superstructure. The Texas though has a turret amidship

I think that image is of another ship Fdr2001 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re looking at it wrong - the photo is from astern, not ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, may be thinking that there should be a mast in between turrets #3 and #4. Which isn't wrong later in the ship's life! But early on, that aft mast was ahead of the #3 turret. See Navsource for some chronologically ordered photos. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy has it right. I had the ship backwards Fdr2001 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve done the same thing too! Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)