Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Australian light destroyer project


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian light destroyer project

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This relatively new article has recently been peer reviewed (albeit with few comments) and I think that it now meets the A-class criteria and would like to submit it for the consideration of other editors. Comments on how to further develop the article would also be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - (this version)
 * One disambig and zero external links need attention.
 * Link to the specific 5" gun in the infobox? What caliber was it going to be?
 * Are Willis and Loxton the same? (different titles, but both have "Royal Australian Navy. A Survey of Future Needs August 1972. Parliamentary Paper No. 138. Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia."
 * "$A355 million" - is there a link for the Aussie dollar? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments. None of the sources specify which type of 5" gun the ship was going to be fitted with. The model used to illustrate the entry in the 1972-73 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships appears to be armed with a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, but the design was never finalised and none of the sources specify this or any other weapon. Willis and Loxton wrote different sections in a pamphlet put out by the Australian Government (no editor is credited for the pamphlet) - I've used the chapter field of the citation template to distinguish this. User:Ottre has now added a link to the $A. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ gun) - there would have been only two options for a five-inch gun; the Mark 42 or the Mark 45 (25 cal were meant as AA weapons for pre-WWII treaty cruisers, 38 cal is not as good against surface targets (and who cares about AA effectiveness when you are in the missile age?), and the 51 cal were mounted on pre-1920's battleships. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The extent of the information I've been able to find is a statement that "the armament will be a single 5 in using the same ammunition as the DDGs [the RAN's Perth class destroyers, which were armed with two 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 guns] with a fire control system developed from that already fitted in the later River Class destroyers and recently fitted in the Darings" (Loxton, p. 21). As such, while it strongly appears that the gun would have been the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, this isn't stated anywhere - presumably as the project was canceled before the design was finalised. It's not impossible that the RAN would have used 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 guns as a cost-saving measure given that the DDLs costs were becoming a major concern even at the time initial approval was granted. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, I didn't finish my thought above. :-) I think that you could put something like this in the article: "The destroyers would have utilized either the Mark 42 or the brand-new Mark 45 5"/54 caliber gun. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found two very useful cabinet submissions in the National Archives of Australia. The description of the gun in the final submission on the DDL in 1976 is that it was going to be a '5"/54 caliber light weight' gun. Is this another name for the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45? Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, according to Wikipedia it is. The cabinet submissions are full of all kinds of neat stuff, though there's nothing which requires major revision to the current article. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :D That works slightly better than my solution. :) I believe that it is past time for my support. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good.  An article that project managers involved with any kind of weapons system acquisition should read. Cla68 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - An extremely enlightening article, and I also echo Cla's comments in that regard. One thing, there is still a disambig link to be fixed found here. -MBK004 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.