Talk:USS South Dakota (BB-57)

Copyright question
Is it just me or does this article appear to have been directly lifted from this site:

http://www.navy.mil/palib/ships/battleships/sdakota/bb57-sd.html


 * That page is gone in Web site reorg, but probably it's similar to: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/sdakota/bb57-sd.html, in turn taken from a text from the Naval Historical Center. I didn't see any copyright notices, and given the source, it's probably in the public domain. I.e., copying is ok. 24.130.129.35 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It also closely (but not completely) matches the narration in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1mX_K9lFbA - the city of Sioux Falls could hold the copyright on this material. OTOH, if it's a Navy video it might be OK. Probably worth a check before someone takes umbrage. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.105.247 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Battleship X
During the early years of WW2 the USS South Dakota was known in press reports as Battleship X. It wasn't until October 2, 1943 that the name of the vessel was finally revealed to the public. I'm adding this to the articale FortheCats (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) my father will not talk about serving on south Dakota proud sailor. thank you dadbb57 flag ship south Dakota leads the American fleet home USA welcome home all free people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.238.13 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Santa Cruz and Guadalcanal
This article does not seem to give a complete picture of the South Dakota's role in the battles of Santa Cruz and Guadalcanal, especially the planes shot down in defense of Enterprise and the power failure during the engagement with Kirishima.

-The article doesn't mention the power outage at the beginning of the Guadalcanal engagement November 15. Also not mentioned is the accepted theory that the South Dakota silhouetted herself as she passed in front of a burning destroyer, attracted most of the Japanese fire, and became a soft kill. Is there a reason for this?Hughespj 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence about the power outage (darn, I came here hoping to read more about it, not to add to the article!) The battle is a little complicated for my non-nautical background, so I'll leave integration of some other promising material from "Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle" to another. 24.130.129.35 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will agree with the statements. To get a fuller thought of those battles, go to the Wikipedia pages for those battles. I will give my own really short synopsis- For the Battle of Santa Cruz SD was positioned close to the USS Enterprise (CV-6) and provided extremely intense and effective anti-aircraft to protect Enterprise. For the page on the battle one of the few surviving Japanese pilots was quite shaken by the experience of such intense anti-aircraft fire. I think this was also first occurrence in the was when a battleship was in support of a aircraft carrier for anti-aircraft during an attack. - And broken apart - at bottom of page -significant enough that a mural of the battle is present at the United States Naval Academy (in ceiling in rotanda of Bancroft Hall I think) Then in the second event, engagement with the Kirishima, a second US battleship was present, USS Washington. This is a night engagement, which previously Japan was very effective, and bad results for the United States. But in this case 2 relatively new battleships, and equipped with Radar. South Dakota was seen and identified by the Japanese, and took a fair amount of punishment. The power outage was also quite detrimental (now added in the article) Some where I read that what occurred was the electrician had tied the breaker closed, created a worse issue when the breaker attempted to open as designed. had this not been done, the breaker would have opened, loss of power, then briefly later the electrician could manually re-close it, restore power and radar back up in a few minutes. During this time with radar USS Washington came under almost NO return fire, and she is credited with sinking the Kirishima a Japanese battleship.   Also- give some more perspective battles in October and November 1942 (less than a year after  Pearl Harbor)        11:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)  Wfoj3 (talk)

World War II Service in Europe
This section does not appear to belong. Cannibalism mistake? Hue White 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
I'm sure that the section tagged for expansion could be expanded, the info is out there, someone just needs to find it. I will after I get done with inline citations. mynameinc (t|c|p) 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the lead a little to make it beefier. Please fix/revert whatever is inappropriate.  Roger Davies  talk 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
This could use a mild copyedit. The date formatting is inconsistent, sometimes Day Month, and sometimes Month Day. Best to pick one and stick to it. Day Month is apparently the usual US military format. Times are a bit consistent too: sometimes 10:49AM, sometimes 1028. Here the 24:00 clock might be best: 10:49, 18:50 etc. All the best,  Roger Davies  talk 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Nameless
Wasn't the book Old Nameless by Sidney Shalett about USS South Dakota? Worth mentioning? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Error
Other accounts list human error as the cause of the electrical failure. Can anyone verify and add it? "On South Dakota, crews were patching minor holes from 5-inch hits by Ayanami when at 11:33 the chief engineer tied down her circuit breakers, violating safety procedures. The system instantly went into series, and the big ship lost electrical power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.161.209 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently these ships were initially equipped with faulty circuit breakers, and USS Massachusetts also suffered similar power failures during the Naval Battle of Casablanca. This website has a except on the complexities of the 440v AC power system in the South Dakota class battleships: Battleship Turret ArrangementDamwiki1 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletions of content - South Dakota at Santa Cruz.
I have had to revert several times now, information regarding South Dakota's ammunition expenditure at Santa Cruz and Captain Gatch's assessment of AA effectiveness during that action. This information and the succinct summary of it, is well within the scope of this article and should not be excluded. Please discuss any planned changes to that information here.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , there are several problems with the material you want to include. First, this should be a summary of the topic per WP:SS. Minute details like ammunition expenditures stray into the realm of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; just because something is true doesn't mean we need to include it. At some point, the article becomes too long to warrant that level of detail. Next, the source is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; encyclopedia articles should not generally be quarried from such sources. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Parsecboy, it's too minor to mention Lyndaship (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ammunition expenditure, especially when it is exceptional in nature is not minor. The very purpose of these ships is to act as floating gun platforms. If you don't feel that this information is important, then you probably shouldn't be editing the article. The ammunition expenditure is a short summary as is Gatch's observations. The source of this information fully meets the definition of a secondary source as it is book published by the USN whose very purpose was to analyze the effectiveness of naval AA via the study of primary sources.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, you seem quick to point out that this is not my article, but that comment seems pretty WP:OWNy to me. Perhaps the pot ought to examine its own color.
 * No, this sort of ammunition expenditure is not at all exceptional in context.
 * You seem to be mistaken - are we writing an encyclopedia article in summary style or a specialist compendium of all trivia about a given topic? And is this article for general readers or specialists? If you think the latter choice is correct for either of those questions, then you probably shouldn't be editing the article...
 * In what way is an after action summary a secondary source?
 * In any event, let's see what other editors have to say on the matter. Parsecboy (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are taking about 2 sentences that have been in the article for nearly 10 years and surely these can be retained. South Dakota's ammunition expenditure during the Santa Cruz engagement was exceptional, and I know that based upon studies of AA actions during WW2 including the source for this information which summarized AA ammo expenditure by ship and type for all naval AA engagements in 1942. No USN warship fired more AA ammunition during a single engagement than South Dakota did at Santa Cruz. Warships exist to carry weapons and the use of those weapons is not trivia but central to their primary function and should not be excluded, when known, from an article. The information is presented in summary style and similar information is certainly not out of place, when known in articles about warships.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you need to either take these two sentences out, or add a third, detailing how this number is outside the norm. As it is, it looks like trivial minutia. Qwirkle (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Who cares how long the material was there? That's not an argument.
 * Dunno about that - SoDak fired 4,000 rounds of 40mm at Santa Cruz - Tennesse fired 25,000 rounds of 40mm at Tinian in 1944.
 * On trivia - yes, ammunition expenditure figures are trivial - we don't need a tally to know the ship shot at enemy aircraft. You will not that the reader's understanding of what happened at Santa Cruz is not at all undermined without the accountant's bean-counting. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is from the article on USS Tennesse:
 * Tennessee returned to Tinian on 24 July, this time cruising off the island's northwest coast in company with California, Louisville, and several destroyers. The bombardment group unleashed a flurry of shells from a range of around 2,500 yd (2,300 m) from 05:32 to 07:47, at which point the marines made their assault on the beach. The ships remained on station through 26 July, providing support to the marines as they battled the Japanese defenders. During the bombardment, Tennessee and California flattened Tinian Town with a barrage of 480 rounds from their main batteries and 800 shells from their 5 in guns.
 * Do you propose to remove trivial information like the above from every article on Warships? BTW, Tennesse fired that 40mm ammunition you refer to, over many weeks, not in a single afternoon.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument either. I'll throw you a line - can you explain how the aforementioned accountant's bean-counting is not trivial to average readers? Which is to say, in what way does it enhance a reader's understanding of a battle that a given ship fired X number of shells.
 * No, Tennessee was off Tinian for two days - if you want to include the whole Marianas campaign, you get to around 70,000 rounds of 40mm alone. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way - the article has grown by nearly 10k bytes of prose since this argument began, and we're not even into the Marianas campaign yet, let alone the Philippines, Iwo, Okinawa, and bombardments of Japan. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ammo expenditure by warships is not trivia and is rightly part of many other articles and there is nothing that would preclude similar inclusion here. I can certainly add another sentence or two to explain the significance of South Dakota's ammo expenditure and Gatch's comments. Given the central role of gunfire to a warship's existence, if cuts to the article have to be made, then it should be elsewhere. Tennessee's fire mission lasted for over a week when supporting operations at Tinian and her 40mm guns were primarily used for shore bombardment.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So special pleading, then? I think we can let others decide if that's convincing.
 * Why does one care what Tennessee used her 40mm guns for? Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Why does one care what Tennessee used her 40mm guns for?" If you don't care then you shouldn't be editing articles on naval history. Shore bombardment is generally a relatively slow and deliberate application of fire to destroy or suppress enemy land targets. South Dakota's AA expenditure at Santa Cruz was exceptionally intense and Gatch's comments provide valuable information regarding the relative effectiveness of the different weapon systems. I note that you removed one of the few actual references in the article, which is now mostly unreferenced.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we drop the BS about who should and shouldn't be writing articles? And if you want to pull them out and measure, I've written 70 FAs on warships, how many have you written?
 * As for the article being now mostly unreferenced, I suggest you check again - I've actually significantly improved the inline referencing of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then don't ask questions like the above about caring about content or about how many articles I've edited. BTW, you are editing articles on a collaborative basis not writing them. The articles you edit don't belong to you and it is incumbent upon editors to try and be inclusive of other's edits and so far you've made no effort to do that. You imply, thereby that further appropriate, referenced, edits by others will not be welcomed; do I have to quote wikipedia policy on that?
 * Now that we've cleared the air, why don't we work collaboratively and decide how to include, rather than exclude appropriate content? I would be agreeable to simply adding the two sentences in question into a footnote.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I roll my eyes any harder? You're the one who has consistently brought up the question of who should be working on the article. Funny, I could quote your little lecture right back at you - you haven't even considered that your understanding of what constitutes "appropriate edits" might not reflect what the community thinks (which, arguably, I'm in a much better position to judge, having had the articles I've written reviewed by literally hundreds of other editors).
 * That's what we've been doing this whole time - you have just taken the position that the details are prima facie "appropriate content", and I assert that they aren't. So far, you haven't provided any basis for your argument besides what amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When I read that quote from USS Tennessee (BB-43), I was sure that it had been lifted in toto from DANFS (the unleashed a flurry of shells hyperbole) but I think that this is one of those rare cases where the DANFS article is more professionally written than the Wikipedia article. See the DANFS article for Tennessee.  Yeah, sorry about that ...
 * On the main topic, I concur with Editor Parsecboy; as a reader, I don't need to know the details from the supply officer's books nor do I need to know the captain's opinions regarding the various effectiveness of this one vs that. Were this an article about expenditures of ammunition by the fleet during the war or some sub-period thereof or about effectiveness of different AA technologies then perhaps it would be important; here, I don't think so.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments should be added to the bottom of this section. This is an article about a floating gun platform, a warship, and ammunition expenditure and weapon effectiveness is part and parcel of the article.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments should be added to the bottom of this section. This is an article about a floating gun platform, a warship, and ammunition expenditure and weapon effectiveness is part and parcel of the article.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points. Excessive ammunition usage isn’t a matter of “beancounting;” it can mean resupply problems, it can indicate training or doctrinal shortfalls, it can interrupt a mission or endanger it. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication. If there was a known issue here, there should be decent cites for it. Detailing the particulars is way to illustrate a point, not to make an argument. The argument should already be made in a decent source, preferably a secondary one. Qwirkle (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but listing totals without cluing the reader in to their significance basically is just bean-counting. We write articles for average readers, not experts. And how many of the latter even know the standard allotment of 40mm rounds on a SoDak? Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier it is easy to add a couple of explanatory sentences. Also new content is to be added to the bottom of this section. Editor Parsecboy has contributed edits to other warship articles where ammunition expenditure is stated. I know of no wikipedia policy that forbids adding this information to an article and I'm at a loss to understand why it is only noteworthy when he deems it so, see WP:ILIKEIT:

'':This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) In fact, by the Law of Chance, everything will have likes and dislikes.''
 * quoted from above: " (which, arguably, I'm in a much better position to judge, having had the articles I've written reviewed by literally hundreds of other editors)" Editor Parsecboy is not here to judge anything and his opinion doesn't count more than anyone else's. I have tried to work collaboratively in editing this article but I will not accept edits based upon the whim of the editor.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whim or not, this does not really belong in the article without a purpose. Do you have a decent source discussing the matter? Not the numbers, but someone authoritative explaining their implications. Qwirkle (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Damwiki, like it or not, judging is exactly what we should be doing here. We do not include every single fact about a topic, as that would lead to WP:UNDUE levels of detail and an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. In some cases, ammunition expenditure is acceptable, in some cases, it's not. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Came here from Milhist. Re: the above, my view is that while main battery ammo expenditure in a battle may be an appropriate level of detail for a battleship article, detailed AA ammo expenditure is not. You could perhaps summarise the information in a single short sentence by saying that the 20 mm was found to be the most effective, but that would be about it. Anything more is an undue level of detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * South Dakota claimed 26 AA kills at Santa Cruz, and as I stated earlier fired more AA ammunition in a single action than any other USN Battleship. In AA actions, which were the primary function of USN fast battleships during WW2, exceptional expenditure of AA is noteworthy, as is the observed effectiveness of weapon types. The effectiveness of AA at Santa Cruz is a controversial topic (See Lundstrom's First Team, Vol 2) as was the effectiveness of South Dakota's AA in particular.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So why not cite that, rather than simply adding some raw data? Qwirkle (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This "raw data" has been in the article, without controversy, for almost 10 years. I've been told that the article is already too long (see above) so my ability to add to this part of the article seems like it might be limited, but I would be happy to expand upon this. Lundstrum has carefully analysed the action and it is his assessment of 13 Task Force AA kills that currently appears in the article. This is from Friedman's Naval Anti-aircraft guns and Gunnery, p.224:
 * This time praise for the supporting battleship was less emphatic.(20) However, South Dakota was widely publicised as an example of the renaissance of the battleship, North Carolina’s success having received little or no publicity (due to security) after the Eastern Solomons. The report now seems exaggerated, but at the time it seemed a vital confirmation that the new ships and the new weapons worked as intended. According to the ship’s after-action report, her 5in battery was handicapped due to inability to track targets through low-lying cloud. That also affected her heavy anti-aircraft machine cannon, though to a lesser degree. It was estimated that 20mm guns had accounted for 65 per cent of aircraft shot down, heavy (40mm and 1.1in) for 30 per cent, and 5in for 5 per cent. The ship had a mix of Mk 45 and Mk 51 directors. This action showed the superiority of the latter; the Mk 45 was too slow and too difficult to operate an to keep in proper condition...
 * So the action has received wide attention from various authors, including Friedman who paraphrases Gatch.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that something has been here for 10 years is not an argument. Your argument basically amounts to "the Great Pacific garbage patch has been floating around for at least 30 years, so that means we need to keep it without question".
 * As for Friedman, do you not see that he discusses the effectiveness of the ship's fire without listing numbers of rounds fired per gun type? Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think you need to either take these two sentences out, or add a third, detailing how this number is outside the norm. As it is, it looks like trivial minutia. Qwirkle (talk) 9:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" This seems fair enough and perhaps the placement in the article? Put these bits in a note with the reason for it being relevant. There are several operations in the Mediterranean where ammunition expenditure influenced decisions. It seem s a bit doctrinaire to rule it out. Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on the consensus above, I have rewritten the lines in question to focus on the effectiveness of the ship's weapons. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I add ammo expenditure numbers when I can put them into context like in my Soviet DD articles where they provide a useful way to estimate how intense the bombardment or whatever was. Without context, even if coupled with contemporary assessments of relative effectiveness, which equate to WP:PRIMARY, they're essentially trivia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So your opinion is to retain the numbers and add context. This seems to be the consensus opinion.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an odd reading of what everyone here has said... Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Four of the editor's (myself included) have stated that retaining the numbers with explanatory comments is appropriate, so yes this does seem like a consensus opinion. However, I am quite amenable to adding this info in as a footnote. I'll produce a proposed ammendment and post it here for discussion, in due course.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you counting? Four editors (myself included, along with Lynda, Trappist, and Peacemaker) agree that the figures should be left out regardless of context - 4 vs. 4 doesn't seem like consensus either way on numbers in or out. Qwirkle seems to think that the figures should only be included with context that you have thus far not provided (and based on a subsequent comment, would be fine with omitting the figures and just discussing effectiveness, which is what I did in the diff I posted above), and only from a secondary source (i.e., not the after action report) and Keith seems to have signed on to that opinion. Sturmvogel's position is somewhat ambiguous, but appears similar to Qwirkle. What there is consensus for is a discussion of the effectiveness of the ship's fire, and since Friedman sees fit to discuss it without citing specific figures, I followed his example. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus then the removed content should be retained, as is. The last three editors to comment have all stated that retaining the numbers is fine, with context, and I will do so via a footnote, in due course. Sturmvolgel 66 makes it clear that he includes ammunition expenditure on a regular basis in his edits. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is consensus for a comment on the effectiveness of the ship's anti-aircraft fire is acceptable. There is no consensus that specific ammunition expenditure be included without context, and so far, you have not provided any source that discusses the context. And those who have stated that they think the figures can be included have only said that they should if there is context on what makes that expenditure significant (for example, that it created supply problems). And no, Sturmvogel said he includes figures when context warrants them, not that he includes them as a matter of course.
 * Who cares in what order the comments of those who agree with you came? Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Radar/directors
Friedman states "From 1943 onwards, all but the Massachusetts had Mark 3 main battery fire control radars..." on page 296 and "Radar was first specified in the summer of 1941...they were fitted with SC, and later SK-2." on page 297. Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Friedman, p.297 states: "Radar was first specified in the summer of 1941 as a CXAM air-search set on the foremast. They were actually fitted with SC, and later with SK or the dish shaped SK-2." Specified does not mean fitted, and as we both should know the ship was not completed until 1942. Here are photos of South Dakota in Jan 1942:  and as you can see the ship has no radars because she is not yet completed.  South Dakota received Mk 3 (FC) radar upon completion, and you can see it atop her main battery rangefinder but Massachusetts received a Mk 8 in 1942. Friedman p.298: "By February 1942, each ship was to have been fitted with a pair of Mark 8 main battery radars and four Mark 4 for her Mark 37 secondary directors. The South Dakota herself was too far advanced to wait for the Mark 8, so she was fitted with a pair of Mark 3 instead. The Indiana was the first ship fitted with Mark 8 (August 1942)..." South Dakota used the MK 3 in combat at Guadalcanal.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to affirmatively state 1942 for the SC, you need an actual source - using a photo is not good enough. As for the Mk 3, as you well know, "was to have been fitted" doesn't mean "was fitted" - when exactly was SoDak to have been fitted with the Mk3 in 1942? Friedman only says "from 1943 onwards" - presumably this means during the repair period after Guadalcanal. But again, without a more specific date, we have to go with what Friedman actually says, not what you want to read into it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going by what Friedman says. He states that CXAM was specified in 1941 but SC was fitted, but does not state when, but as the ship was not completed until 1942, it could not be before then. Are you really going to insert statements into an article when you know, from another source, that they are wrong? Isn't it possible that you've misread Friedman? Friedman states that South Dakota was slated for a MK 8 in Feb 1842 but was fitted with a Mk 3 radar instead. This is all pretty clear and the photos should help you to understand Friedman's meaning.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does he say affirmatively that the SC was installed in 1942? Again, you're taking a statement that says they were ordered in 1941 and combining it with the fact that we know the ship wasn't finished until 1942. Try clicking on the blue words to see why that's not acceptable.
 * Why don't you re-read your comment on the SC radar but with the line about the Mk3 in mind? Friedman doesn't actually say when the Mk3 was installed, only that "from 1943 onwards" every ship except Massachusetts had them. You seem to think you can interpret photos (that may or may not be dated correctly) to come to a conclusion. Again, click the link. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * South Dakota used Mk 3 radar in 1942 at Guadalcanal:
 * "The Mark 3 was employed in almost all the early Pacific battles. In October 1942 operations in the Solomons, for instance, the Mark 3 controlled the Boise's guns in a night action when she blazed away at a vastly superior fleet that had to pay 10 to 1 for its inferior fire control. Within a fortnight the Mark 3 won acclaim again when the big guns of the South Dakota used its information..." Rowland and Boyd, U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II, p.422. So you've misread Friedman as he is stating that South Dakota received Mk3 in 1942.
 * And there we have it - was it so hard to provide a source that actually states the ship had the Mk3 in 1942? Though one has to wonder about its accuracy if it says that SoDak sank anybody at Guadalcanal - we sure they're not talking about Washington? But no, Friedman clearly does not state what you think he does. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he does and I guess you missed this: "As for the test of battle, the only battleship-on- battleship engagement one of them experienced was the night battle of Guadalcanal, 14-15 November 1942, in which the South Dakota herself engaged the Japanese battle cruiser Kirishima as well as lesser craft, in company with the USS Washington. At this time she had only a single SG surface-search radar. The ship sustained at least twenty-six hits, including one 14 inch, eighteen 8 inch, six 6 inch, and one 5-inch. Although her main armor was never pierced, she was badly damaged topside, particularly in her fire control tower structure. Her air-search radar antenna was torn away. More significantly, damage to cabling in the superstructure put most of her internal communications and fire control circuits out of action. All radars except the Mark 3 atop her after main battery director were knocked out. Short-circuits resulting from this damage temporarily overloaded her interior communication (IC) switchboard, and interior communication circuits throughout the ship were disrupted for about three minutes." Friedman, p303. And no, he's not talking about Washington as she was not hit during the engagement. But what is really apparent here is the lengths you will go to to make it difficult for others to edit articles that you feel you own. My edits on this were all correct and all were supported by their original citations, but then I am forced to jump through these kinds of hoops to make even the simplest of edits and to defend the edits I have previously made.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not cite page 303 in your original edit. Go back and check the edit history - you might find I don't ask you to "jump through hoops" if you could be bothered to correctly cite material in the first place. What is apparent to me is you're either too lazy or don't care to do things correctly the first time, hence my badgering.
 * And by the way, my reference to Washington was to Rowland & Boyd, who are seemingly confused about which ship sank Kirishima, not Friedman. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't need to cite it because the original cites were clear. Edwards Chap.1 states the use of SC-1 radar in 1942 but again Friedman is clear that it was installed in 1942.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of "'was to have been installed' != 'definitely was installed'" is not clear to you? Do you not speak English as a primary language? Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Friedman states that BB-57 was completed in 1942. He also stated: "Radar was first specified in the summer of 1941 as a CXAM air-search set on the foremast. They were actually fitted with SC, and later with SK or the dish shaped SK-2." So the ship was completed in 1942 and SC radar was first fitted, ergo SC radar was fitted in 1942, unless you interpret that Friedman is stating that BB-57 went to sea with no radar. This is clear except if you don't want it to be.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Um...SC is search radar, the Mk 3 is gunnery control radar...you realize the two aren't the same? Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated above: "If you're going to affirmatively state 1942 for the SC, you need an actual source" I have explained directly above that Friedman, as I originally cited him, was a sufficient source. Again, you're being deliberately obtuse to make editing the article difficult for anyone but you. Your original edit on this was that SC radar was fitted in 1941 and that Mk3 radar was fitted in 1943. Those original edits are a clear misuse of Friedman and show a deep lack of understanding of the history of naval radar and BB-57.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How much have you been drinking? You can't seem to keep anything straight. Nowhere in Friedman on the pages you originally cited does he confirm what you asset he does - you did not reference page 303 until today. That you are seemingly incapable of stringing together a coherent understanding of a discussion does not equate to me being deliberately obtuse. You jump around from topic to topic, repeatedly contradicting yourself and conflating issues. If anyone is being deliberately obtuse, it's you, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Having had this same discussion with a fellow over the exact type of 37 mm guns Romanian destroyers were fitted with only a few months ago and having struggled to figure out what Hornet's radar suite was, it's hard to figure out exactly any US warship was fitted with at any given date. That said, statements about what a ship was supposed to have and facts when a radar was deployed or entered service cannot be combined to be considered equivalent to a definitive statement that a ship was fitted with X on Y date; doing so is a classic case of WP:SYN. I've gotten around that by weasel-wording it by using phrases like "the ship was intended to be fitted with X" if I can't find confirmation.
 * Photographic evidence is usually not definite enough regarding dates to be trustworthy, although official photographs are usually dated, and an editor is limited to the information in the caption or drawn on the photo; he cannot ID equipment or make presumptions about what is happening in the photo without violating WP:OR. Not least because many radars used different antennas without changing the actual electronics or vice-versa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Escalator clause"?
It mentions an "escalator clause" in the opening sentences of the article, but doesn't give any definition of what this means. Is the average reader expected to know what this term means? I find an article about Escalation clause on Wikipedia, but it's not immediately clear how it allows a battleship to have 16" guns, unless there is something missing from the definition as given on that page. I personally can get a pretty good sense of the meaning from the context, but that might not be true for all readers, and I always feel like a reader shouldn't have to try to decipher a wikipedia article. Obviously sometimes you just need to know the meaning of technical words to understand a certain article, but in cases where it can be easily stated in plain English, I feel that is preferable. I know a fair about about warships and guns, but I've never heard of an "escalator clause" before. Couldn't this same information be included in words that will be more familiar to the average reader? I assume in this case it means that once a vessel is above a certain tonnage, it is allowed to increase gun size above a certain arbitrary amount. That's the only thing that seems to match the definition as given.

Idumea47b (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, ! Let me know what you think of the lead now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

See the article on Second London Naval Treaty Wfoj3 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)