Talk:North Carolina-class battleship/Archive 1

August 2004

General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333. Joshua 03:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of the Fast Battleships?

I think you will find that the Royal Navies Queen Elizabeth class battleships of 1914 claim that particular honour - and if they don't then HMS Hood most certainly does, and if you won't accept that then there are the King George V class battleships and the Japanese Kongo's to consider... Suffice it to say that the North Carolinas were only the first American fast battleships, and I have altered the article to reflect that. Also, couldn't the Dreyer fire control tables used by the Royal Navy in all their Dreadnoughts throughout the First World War, justifiably claim to have been computers at sea long before the North Carolinas were even laid down? Getztashida 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you bring up good points, and I think that the article was written from a biased American perspective. While I disagree that the Queen Elizabeths were the first fast battleships (realistically only capable of 23-24 knots), or HMS Hood and the Kongos (battlecruisers, with relatively light armor), the King George V class predates the North Carolinas and they were undeniably fast battleships. There are way too many contenders to allow the statement to go without the qualifier you added.

As for the first computer, that statement could probably use additional clarification and qualification. It is my understanding that the great accomplishment of the American Mark 1 Fire Control Computer was its ability to actually perform differential calculus, where previous fire control computers merely made estimates.

I've had the privilege of getting to examine and play with an actual American Mark 1 computer, and it was incredibly interesting; I'm a computer scientist, and it's fascinating to me that they were able to build such a powerful mechanical computer. TomTheHand 03:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a fascinating (and highly technical) article on the Dreyer Fire control table at www.dreadnoughtproject.org and they are undeniably mechanical computers... I shall once again adjust to the article to reflect the fact that the ships carried the most advanced gunnery computers afloat, rather than the first... Getztashida 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, U.S. Battleships did not use the Dreyer system. The were designed from the Ford Computer. This system actually was built to solve differential equasions (sp) and was fundementally better than the Dreyer system. This needes to be addressed in this article. Tirronan 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Getztashida's point is that the article previously said the North Carolinas had the first mechanical computer at sea, but they didn't: the Dreyer fire control table predated the North Carolinas and was definitely a mechanical computer. The article has been updated to say that the North Carolinas had the most advanced mechanical computer, which was far more accurate than the Dreyer system. TomTheHand 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes Dreyer tables and Ford computers had been around since Dreadnought. Tirronan 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vibration problems

I've recently read that the North Carolina class were plagued with vibration problems which limited their speed to about 24 knots for several years. I will adding this information shortly. Getztashida 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "several years" is an exaggeration; the vibration problems were fixed during shakedown, within 6-8 months of commissioning, by adding bracing and trying various combinations of propellors. TomTheHand 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My undertanding was that the problem was not completely solved until 1944, but I'll double check my facts and modify my latest edit if I'm mistaken. 88.97.244.253 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check my sources when I get home too. TomTheHand 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft differential

I looked but didn't see an explanation as to why the Washington had a significantly deeper draft than the North Carolina (~11'). It's probably not important, but I was curious about it and if anyone knows why might be worth including in the design section. croll (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

Maybe I'm going nuts but I don't see any dates for these ships being ordered or laid down. 67.168.238.184 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excised content

Content from heading labeled "Unreferenced/unincorporated" excised from article and relocated here - where it belongs until it can be appropriately referenced and rendered down into proper encyclopedic format. As follows:

Unincorporated/unreferenced

All prior battleships of the United States Navy favored staying power and fire power over speed. The North Carolina class had a speed of 27 knots (50 km/h) versus the 21 knots (39 km/h) of the pre-treaty Colorado class. The class was completely different from all previous US battleships, and set the pattern for all subsequent vessels (as well as the reconstructions of vessels wrecked at Pearl Harbor). New features included a massive columnar mast replacing the familiar "cage" mast, main armament in three turrets (two forward, one aft) instead of four, and dual-purpose secondaries along the sides of the superstructure.

The most important advance of the class was one that could not be seen from outside: The integration of the most advanced computer at sea, the Mark I fire control computer. The analog fire control system allowed the ship to maintain a constant fire control solution even when steaming at full speed and performing drastic evasive turns and was far more accurate than the Dreyer or Ford type mechanical computers used during World War I.

A weakness of the class was that it had been designed as a balanced 14" battleship design, being a close contemporary of the Royal Navy's King George V class. Both classes were designed to carry twelve 14" guns in three quadruple turret mountings. After Japan withdrew from the Washington Treaty, the North Carolinas were modified to carry and fire 16" guns, as a result its protection was substandard against the 2,240 lb Mark 5 shells that their 16-inch (406 mm) guns were originally designed to fire. This was rectified in the following South Dakota and Iowa classes, which used an internal protective belt, nonetheless all three of the battleship classes' armor schemes were not proof against the new "super-heavy" 2,700 lb Mark 8 shells that they actually used. However, the only US battleship adequately protected against the Mark 8 shells would have been the never built Montana class, whose external armor belt would have made it too wide to pass through the Panama Canal.

Initially the North Carolinas proved prone to severe vibration problems at high speeds and had to be limited to about 24 knots (44.45 km/h) for much of their service lives - at higher speeds the ships vibrated so badly the rangefinders and radar at the top of the mast could shake to pieces. This problem has been variously attributed to the propeller and skeg design and was ultimately solved by replacing the original propellers.

The United States Navy built two North Carolina-class battleships:

• USS North Carolina (BB-55)
• USS Washington (BB-56)

This excerpt if full of POV content, a writer's opinion not documented citations. Anyone interested please take up the challenge of overhauling it to Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I was planning on removing it myself now that I am pretty much done with the article. ;-) Cheers, — Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}15:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

I copy edited as well as I could, given that it is a very technical article out of my area of expertise. In general, it seems to be in good shape and well written on an interesting topic. Some of the MoS issues regarding hyphens and endashes etc. I am just not sure about. (I read the relevant MoS sections to try to clarify.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FTP218

War Service Fuel Consumption of U.S. Naval Surface Vessels FTP 218 Why in the world is this being removed? This document is perfectly formatted and has a very legible index to help the reader find the pages relevant to the NC class. The data in the document is very easy to understand, and would be of great interest to anyone who wants detailed info on the fuel consumption and range of this class of BB. In any event an external link never detracts from an article, which is why I linked it externally rather than using the data directly. I really cannot fathom why you would remove it! Damwiki1 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it's too general—it would be much better in Battleships in World War II. Much of the information there appears in the infobox anyway. — Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to have an opinion about an external link, other than the fact that it provides additional material about this BB class! This document has specific speed, fuel consumption, and range data for this class and every other, but each class has it's own section. This is very valuable data for anyone who wants to understand the capabilities of USN ships in WW2. In fact it is one of the most valuable documents available online for the USN. I will add it to the article you suggested, but removing it from this article does not make sense, and your argument is so weak as to be nonsensical. One of the most valuable things about wikipedia is the provision of external links to that the article serves as a central point for data about the topic in question. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The other thought is that it probably shouldn't be put into every article about U.S. battleships in WWII. How about we add it to all of the class articles, e.g. Nevada-class battleship, Colorado-class battleship, Iowa-class battleship, etc.? It's more relevant there—as the articles (should) discuss the propulsion systems on the ships, whereas the individual ship articles focus on their service histories. — Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, placing a link in the class articles is probably the way to go. Sorry to be so adamant about this, but this is a very valuable article for naval history buffs. I only wish I could find something similar for all the WW2 navies.Damwiki1 (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Washington at Guadalcanal

Some unclear details about the original version, as the two Japanese battleships together were met by the US in the previous evening, so I would still give mention to that engagement, although less material. Also, regarding the second battle where Washinton took part, it is possible to give a more detailed version of events without adding much length, particularly what Washinton accomplished in the battle, so we can omit the # of shells fired and some names of the Japanese ships (aside from the Kirishima).

Over the coming months, Washington would be focused upon the safe arrival of supply convoys to the men fighting on Guadalcanal. On 13 November, three formations of Japanese ships were discovered, all on course for Guadalcanal. One of the forces was reportedly centered around two battleships. Lee, with Washington, South Dakota, and four destroyers, intercepted the Japanese force on the next night. It was actually composed of the fast battleship Kirishima, the heavy cruisers Atago and Takao, two light cruisers and nine destroyers; they were planning to bombard American troops on Guadalcanal while night gave them protection from aircraft. However, in a furious night battle, the American ships managed to turn the Japanese back, sinking Kirishima and a destroyer, though at the cost of three destroyers sunk and heavy damage to South Dakota. Washington, which had not even been detected by the Japanese ships, suffered no damage. She fired 75 16-inch and 107 5-inch rounds during the melee.[64][68][69]

GoldDragon (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like mentioning the first battle because this isn't a synopsis of the battle, it's what Washington did in the battle. Hence why I have the shell numbers as well. We can remove a couple ships' names, though. — Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The first battle, where Washington was too far away to take part, is worth mention as the loss of cruisers (according to Combined Fleet) did result in Washington being deployed (as a last resort) for the next night. Indeed, that first battle Also, it would be better to mention what Washington did in the battle, accurately hitting the Kirishima (as it gives an indication of the North Carolinas capabilities), rather than just a tally of shell totals. GoldDragon (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

repeated text

In between, she received advanced fire control and radar gear in March, April and September 1943 at Pearl Harbor in March and April 1943

Not sure whether it should be 2 or 3 months mentioned, but only one of the two sets should be present. --86.162.171.226 (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that and letting us know, I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

second graph in intro confusing

I was confused by a few parts of the second paragraph in the intro. The board chose the XVI-C while the acting sec-nav chose the XVI? These are two completely different designs? Also, it says that they changed from 9x 16" to 12x 14" and then back to 9x 16" but first they say going from 9 to 12 is increasing firepower, then they say that they're upgrading back to the original, and that they have to use the escalation clause of the treaty to go back to the configuration they started with? It seems to be pretty confusing.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange claim

"After the end of the First World War, many navies continued and expanded naval construction programs that they had started during the conflict. "

This seems like a very strange assertion. Which ""many navies"" was this supposed to be ? The Germans and Russians certainly didn't. The French and Italian governments were broke. The British cancelled almost all of their existing work in progress.

There's the Japanese. Not sure if their objectives is really enough to validate the sweeping assertion that "many" navies "continued and expanded" naval construction programs.

Various plans and proposals were made by navy planners, but that is quite different to getting the actual Government to agree to implement them.Lathamibird (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The British, American, and Japanese all did before canceling them, but it's definitely true that "many" carries a connotation of more than three (at least in my mind). I'll alter this in the text. Thanks, Lathamibird! Hope you get involved more with naval history on Wikipedia. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)