Talk:Battleship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Iowa

The Iowa is still in reserve, isn't it? 71.244.157.67 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how one defines "reserve". There is a large section at the bottom of the page Iowa class battleship which discusses the reactivation potential for the ships if you would like to read the entire story, but a sumerized version would be that Iowa has been struck from the Naval Vessel Register and will be donated for use a museum on condition that the USN keep Iowa battleworthy should she be recalled for action again. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't read this article in detail, but don't think it's clear that Iowa (BB-61) is still around as it doesn't qualify (rightfully so, at least yet) to be in the list of battleships preserved as museum ships near the end of the article - perhaps it should be included as a parenthetical to that listing? jmdeur 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly there was a footnote mention of that fact here, although I may be mistaken. If there is no mention of this ambigious fact then I will get one in here over the weekend. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Battleship to Cruiser?

Considering that no battleships of the conventional sense are in existence anymore, can it be argued that the modern cruisers of today are essentially battleships? They fill practically the same role as the fast battleships of WWII: anti-air protection and surface engagement....and they're the biggest such ships left around. The only difference is that they're armed with missiles instead of guns and as a result have been "downsized". The definition of a battleship underwent a lot of changes throughout history, from ironclads to pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, modern battleships, and now....cruisers perhaps? Masterblooregard 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern missile cruisers are almost unarmoured. And anyway we need reliable sources which make this comparison, or else it's original research. <eleland/talkedits> 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One important property of a battle ship is that it can stand up to approximately what it can dish out. No modern cruiser is able to do that. --Stephan Schulz 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, does that mean that a battleship armed with nuclear warheads stops being a battleship? <eleland/talkedits> 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Iowa class was armed with nuclear warheads for a time during the Cold War and were still called battleships. See: Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship#Ammunition. The Tomahawk missiles were also nuclear-capable.-MBK004 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I asked. <eleland/talkedits> 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandfathered in. We don't reclassify Hood as a submarine either ;-). --Stephan Schulz 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! The Land 09:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If navies referred to their guided missile cruisers as battleships, yes. As they don't, no. The Land 09:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're leaving out the most important differnce of all: psychology. A cruiser is design to scare planes and ships with its missiles, whereas a battleship was built for the sole purpose of putting the fear of god in any plane or ship with its guns. Compared to the fear of god, everything else pales in comparison. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I thought battleships had big guns so they could shoot things. Um, I really don't know what you're talking about. <eleland/talkedits> 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the aircraft carrier and ballistic missile submarine are today's capital ships, the successors to the battleship as the projector of a nation's power. They have more than enough capability to put the "fear of God" into anyone. jmdeur 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"We don't reclassify Hood as a submarine either" Ah, but she's not on the active list anymore, either. ;D And if we're talking about ability to dish out, isn't RN's approach the right one...? Christopher T. April, RCN (rtd) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New battleship articles

Should'nt we make an article about new battleship designs or ifs and buts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.202.177 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source discussing such ships, or stating if any navy is actually studying them. Anything else would just be conjecture, and as such is Original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some defence blogs are trying to argue that the proposed nuclear-powered version of the CG(X) is similar to a battleship. If a more reliable source turns up it might be worth including this article, but I wouldn't hold my breath for this - the USN isn't going to call the ships anything other than cruisers. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

World War I

"The course of the war also illustrated the vulnerability of battleships to cheaper weapons. In September 1914, the potential threat posed to capital ships by German U-boats was confirmed by successful attacks on British cruisers, including the sinking of three British armored cruisers by the German submarine U-9 in less than an hour. Sea mines proved a threat the next month, when the recently commissioned British super-dreadnought Audacious struck a mine. By the end of October, the British had changed their strategy and tactics in the North Sea to reduce the risk of U-boat attack.[27] While Jutland was the second and last major battleship engagement in history(the first being Tsushima), the German plan for the battle relied on U-boat attacks on the British fleet; and the escape of the German fleet from the superior British firepower was effected by the German cruisers and destroyers closing on British battleships, causing them to turn away to avoid the threat of torpedo attack. Further near-misses from submarine attacks on battleships and casualties amongst cruisers led to growing paranoia in the Royal Navy about the vulnerability of battleships. By October 1916, the Royal Navy had essentially abandoned the North Sea, instructing the Grand Fleet not to go south of the Farne Islands unless adequately protected by destroyers."

This section innacurately reported that Jutland was the only major battleship engagement in history, I have made an edit to correct this, but I have serious problems with the rest of this paragraph. Particularly this sentence:

"While Jutland was the second and last major battleship engagement in history(the first being Tsushima), the German plan for the battle relied on U-boat attacks on the British fleet; and the escape of the German fleet from the superior British firepower was effected by the German cruisers and destroyers closing on British battleships, causing them to turn away to avoid the threat of torpedo attack. Further near-misses from submarine attacks on battleships and casualties amongst cruisers led to growing paranoia in the Royal Navy about the vulnerability of battleships."

This is one long, rambling, run-on, uncited, and highly dubious piece of swill. If anyone has suggestions for improving it I will be much obliged.--Ironzealot (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually the best thing to do with such sections is to take the time to write what really happened - and then replace the rubbish paragraphs/sections with properly cited text. Unfortunately you then find what you have written gets obsessively edited, and you have to defend the truth against accidental distortion by word-engineers and reformatters.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The part in question was I believe added by The Land just to expand the section a bit, well over a year ago, and it hasn't been properly redone since. That part about the Farne Islands is mentioned in Kennedy, yet he seems to fail to realise that the battlefleet wasn't going anywhere without destroyers anyway. That order by Jellicoe was in direct response to the loss of a light cruiser if memory serves in the 19 August sortie in 1916. It should be removed as it is misleading to say the least, quite apart from being uncited. And the escape (or flight, would be more appropriate) of the German fleet at Jutland most certainly was due to many other factors than the torpedo attack Harlsbottom (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear god someone is referencing Kennedy, I don't think that man's opinion should be considered a reliable source on any subject.--Ironzealot (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to that paragraph if someone can come up with a better version. Probably worth updating Battle of Jutland on the same basis as well. The whole article has many imperfections, and it is my intention to give it a thorough going-over once dreadnought, treaty battleship and Battleships in World War II are in a more complete state. What's wrong with Kennedy, by the way? The Land (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

nothing inherently wrong with Kennedy, he's just a political economist more than a military historian. He also has some very controversial views amongst more mainstream military historians, and i constantly find myself defending accepted doctrine against Kennedy's revisionist attacks.--Ironzealot (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations Tag

There are 48 citation needed tags as of now and the article only has 91 in-line references. If this doesn't warrant attention being called to, then I don't know what would. Have these "unsourced" claims always been in the article or have they just recently accumulated? The lack of citations I see here doesn't seem to be characteristic of a FA. Dwr12 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has grown since it was featured, and I think the bulk of the citation needed tags are in the more recent material. The Land (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article contains a great number of general references, and it is likely that many of the claims that are tagged "citation needed" may be in the general references. If the claim is not controversial, a direct quote, or a derogatory statement about a living person, an inline citation is not required.

One citation needed tag that I "fixed" yesterday was "these last battleships were removed from the U.S. Naval Vessel Register in March 2006." Whoever was sprinkling these "citation needed" tags apparently was incapable of realizing that something does not have to be between <ref>...</ref> tags to be a reference; saying that the informantion came from the Naval Vessel Register is a reference. This makes me question the competency of whoever placed all these "citation needed" tags. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the tags which are currently in the article seem justified to me given that this article needs to have FA-standard referencing at all times to maintain its status. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the tags are also in the "Battleships in World War II" section, which goes into far more depth than any other sections, which have other main articles. I propose ( and have been for some time but haven't got round to it yet) to move this material to battleships in World War II, and summarise it here. This is the right thing to do in any case, as every other period of battleship history has its own section. It also conveniently moves all the referencing problems into another, non-featured, article. The Land (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a great idea (and an excellent article). It's odd that the WW2 section is so much longer than the WW1 section. Battleships after World War II would also be a good topic. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall do it when I have enough tuits. The Land (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Vessels

Might I ask why O'Connell's Sacred Vessels even warrants a mention in this article? I'm sure that there are far better and reputable examples of "some historians and naval theorists [who] question the value of the dreadnought" that could be used in the lead. I've read the book and found its arguments to be flawed and many of the details to be inaccurate. Then see the negative reviews on amazon and place some of the names of the reviewers. O'Connell's work was apparently based on a master's thesis, then a doctorate and then somehow he found a publisher. How these things happen, I have no idea. --Harlsbottom (talk|library) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Satsuma

The status of Japanese battleship Satsuma is not entirely clear. The three best sources I have on Japanese battleship construction (Dentchura, Jung and Mickel; Breyer; Evans & Peattie) stop well short of saying "Satsuma was laid down as an all-big-gun battleship and the armament was changed (solely) because of financial/logistical pressures". All that is certain in these sources is that a design for the 1903-4 battleship had all-big-gun armament. This in itself is unexceptional as Britain and the USA had similar designs drawn up. Exactly what the designs used when the ship was laid down stated, I do not know, but I do not see a lot in the sources to say that it was definitely a viable all-big-gun design. The Land (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to a discussion I have been having with User:PHG on this subject, I just remembered that an acquaintance of mine has a copy of Illustrated Ships Data of IJN 1868-1945: Vol. 1 Battleships and Battle Cruisers by Ishibashi Takao, a Japanese book published last year which is apparently the last word on Japanese battleships. I've contacted him to see what information that provides. Every book I've seen on the subject of Satsuma fails to provide a decent reference as to why they would conclude that she was laid down as an all-big-gun ship, which to my mind is a preposterous omission from naval history. Hopefully Ishibasi Takao has brought something new to the record. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That will be interesting to know. When there is more to say we should probably update the ship and class articles on Satsuma. In the meantime I have copied over the relevant (and relatively new) section of dreadnought to this article. The Land (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evans & Peattie, Kaigun, p.159:"The battlehsips Aki and Satsuma laid down May 1905 could have been dreadnought "all-big-gun" battleships, since they were originally intended to carry twelve 12-inch guns. But as Japan was in the midst of the Russo- Japanese War and the extra cost involved in this increased armament was considered too great, they remained pre-dreadnoughts. In the history of Japanese naval construction, the Satsuma and Aki are noteworthy for only one face: they were the first capital ships to be built in Japan...."

Jentschura, Jung & Mickel, Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy p.23: "Under the 1903 Programm a large but lightly armoured battleship was planned but the design was totally recast and became the Satsuma." (This design is attributed 8x12-inch guns).

Breyer Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, p. 331: "In 1903/4 plans were drawn up for a 17,000-ton capital ship which was well ahead of its time: not only was the mounting of the 8-30.5cm QFG planned in two double turrets fore and aft each but 75% of the MCG was to be mounted in double turrets. The armour was, however, exceptionally weak and it was therefore decided to revide the design which led to the Satsuma class.... ..... the 1903/4 design formed the basis for the design of Satsuma and the improved Aki. When laid down in the spring of 1905 - before Tsushima - they were the first "all-big-gun battleship" in the world. Their HG were to consist of 12-30.5cm QFG arranged as follows (Diagram:: 1 double turret centreline each end; two single turrets each end port and starboard; 2 double turrets amidships, port and starboard). However, ... only 4-30.5cm QFG could be fitted because otherwise no funds would have been availalbe for paying for the turbines ordered in the USA for Aki. This is how these two units came to be completed only as 'pre-dreadnought battleships.

NB that the line drawings of the 8-heavy-gun 1903 design in Breyer and Jentshura et al are similar but differ in detail, e.g. the level of mounting of the secondary gun turrets. This suggests they are not copying one another...

Also, Evans and Peattie cite Jentschura et al, while they do not cite Breyer.

Evidently I was wrong in my statement above, because Breyer does directly say the ships when laid down were the first "all-big-gun" battleships. However it is interesting that Jentschura et al, and Evans & Peattie, remark on the discontinuity between the "all-big-gun" design and Satsuma, rather than the continuity. Evans and Peattie cite Preston Battleships (not terribly helpful) but also Hayashi Katsunari, Nihon gunji gijutsu shi, Haruki Shobō, 1972. Which sounds a little more hopeful.

Jentschura et al say their principal source was material gathered by Erich Groener (German naval historian) and Shizuo Fukui, a Japanese naval constructor. One might imagine that if the Japanese had a strong claim to the title of "first dreadnought" it would have come to light. However, they do note that "original documents were notavailable for research, enquiries could not be made of individuals involved, and no visits could be made to builders.".

It is also interesting that Jentschura et al's English translation was co-edited by Anthony Preston. The editors of the English edition note that they included work that had come to light since the original German publication. They would certainly have been able to take account of Breyer's book, which was published in Germa at the same time as Jentschura et al, but was translated into English much more quickly. The Land (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one concern. Aki is listed here as having triple-expansion; Fitzsimons' Ency of 20hC Weaps & Warfare (on which Preston was naval consulting ed), V.1, p55, says she completed with turbines. Trekphiler (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

She had turbines. The Land (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources on the Satsuma's early development (and laying down) as an all-big-gun battleship:

• "Nevertheless, the Japanese were the first to place orders for all-big-gun battleships, contracting for two late in 1904, several months before Tsushima, and a year before the British laid down their Dreadnought... The Kure Navy Yard laid down the Satsuma in May 1905, five months before work began on the Dreadnought, but the vessel and its eventual sistership (the Aki, laid down in 1906) were completed without their intended armament owing to the prohibitive cost of importing the necessary artillery from Britain." Navies in Modern World History, Lawrence Sondhaus, p.203 [1]
• "In fact, the Japanese Satsuma Class (laid down in 1903, completed in 1909) should be credited as the world's first all-big-gun battleship laid down." Battleships: An Illustrated History of Their Impact By Stanley Sandler, p.90 [2]
• "Laid down before Dreadnought and intended to carry 12-inch guns, she should have been completed as the world's first all-big-gun battleship. However there were not enough Armstrong 1904 pattern 12-inch guns available, and 10-inch guns had to be substituted for all but four of the weapons. Thus, it was that future all-big gun battleships were to be called "Dreadnoughts", and not "Satsumas"." Jane's Battleships of the 20th century. PHG (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sondhaus quote is interesting. The other two contain errors. The Satsumas were not laid down in 1903; nor were they completed as a class in 1909 (Satsuma was, Aki took until 1911). It is also odd to say Satsuma "should have been completed as the world's first all-big-gun battleship": she was not completed before Dreadnought and it is unlikely that if she had been completed with 12-inch guns she would have completed any faster. So we should not rely on either Sandler or Jane's. The Land (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My acquaintance has given me a preliminary answer, I am now waiting for a page reference from the book I mentioned above. Satsuma was laid down to design A 9 by constructor Kondô Motoki on 15 May 1905 and no changes were made during construction. By the way, Soundhaus is wrong as well - Satsuma was laid down at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal, not Kure. Not one of those quotes cites an original source, so they're nothing better than hearsay in print. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that source has details of the construction of the ship at such a fine level (which prelimiary design, contract documents, presumably the equivalent of the British "Ship's Cover") I think it is probably authoritative unless something with an equivalent level of precision contradicts it. The Land (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on "should have" is a bad idea, but I'd guess (not having read it) the belief was, delay in delivery (which the constructors waited for) delayed completion, a reasonable conclusion. If there's evidence for it, I'd say it bears mention (at Satsuma, if not here, since it's still a bit speculative to go in here). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten about this little discussion, so time to fill in what I know. My acquaintance Mr. Ahlberg, who is the co-author of a couple of books on Taiho and a paper on Kawachi and Settsu wrote back and told me that from correspondence with the above mentioned Ishibashi and p.168 of Illustrated Ships Data of IJN 1868-1945: Vol. 1 Battleships and Battle Cruisers, it is fairly clear that the Satsuma and Aki were based on the British Lord Nelson class, although the official records are "murky". So there still isn't a definite answer to the Satsuma's genesis, but the page reference is there should anyone wish to change anything in the article. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Rise of Air Power

The current (Dec 2008) WP article states: ""The Japanese had neutralized the U.S. battleship force in the Pacific region through an air attack, and thereby proven Mitchell's theory, showing the vulnerability of major warships lying at anchor....."" But it earlier quotes Mitchell: ""No surface vessels can exist wherever air forces acting from land bases are able to attack them.""

• First of all, Japanese carrier aircraft attacking ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor do not support the Mitchell quote at all: these were not air forces from land bases.

• At the Battle of Midway, US land based aircraft did very little damage to the attacking Japanese fleet at sea, and the US carrier aircraft sank four Japanese carriers at sea.

I think this shows the vulnerability of all ships to the aircraft carrier, not to land based bombers. The ideal derived from Mitchell's theory: no navy, no army, just fortress America isolated and protected by land based air forces, is not practical. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You're right that Mitchell did not anticipate aircraft carrier power to the degree used in WWII. He was seeing land-based defensive bombers that would keep enemy ships from invading. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It actually proves nothing (tho the ignorant often cite it as if it does). The better e.g. is PoW & Repulse 10 Dec, which was by land-based bombers, & on maneuvering ships, at sea... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we should probably change the article. The Land (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I added "finally settling the argument begun by Mitchell in 1921", to give due credit, since it was his demo that triggered the debate. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I-6 = Miss. B-3 = ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.87.5 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted final para

The final para of the article seemed to be both OR and incorrect/meaningless. Most obviously, the suggestion that a sea denial strategy is impossible "outside the range of airplanes and missiles, and assuming no use of submarines" is about as valuable as saying that cavalry charges are irresistible assuming no use of any weapon invented after 1800. The claims that the alliances between the US, UK and France were driven by relative naval power seem to be pure speculation, and, as noted in comments, the underlying assumption that the US was a stronger naval power than UK in 1921 was wrong. I've deleted it.JQ (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph he deleted was:

The problem for a maritime nation that does not maintain a balanced fleet, with at least some ability to contest a set-piece battle, is that it surrenders the use of the sea for its own purposes, whether economic or military. In addition, outside the range of airplanes and missiles, and assuming no use of submarines, such a nation lacks the ability to interdict enemy shipping movements. Such a strategy exposes the nation to blockade or even, in the worst case, invasion. In addition, while a navy optimised for sea denial operations may maximise its potential against a stronger opponent, it will be at a disadvantage against nations of similar strength of its own, but which have invested their resources in a more conventional fleet. For this reason, maritime nations which are unable to compete with the dominant naval power have usually sought to achieve an accommodation with that power, thereby allowing them to resource a balanced fleet with which to deal with their more direct rivals. Examples of this strategy are the French entente with Britain in the decade preceding the First World War; and the British withdrawal in 1921 from its alliance with Japan, in order to avoid a confrontation with the United States.

--Toddy1 (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/ FA review

This article has changed - a lot - since it was initially featured. Also, the general quality of work on battleships on Wikipedia has increased quite a bit. I wonder whether going through a peer review or FA review would help here? The Land (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FAR needed

Urgent cleanup is needed here, (see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing), or this article should be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll handle the updating and the FAR concerns

My team will be working to bring this article up to the current FA status, but doing that will require some weeks of hard work. During this time we ask that you remain patient as we sort through what needs to fixed and move to address the issues brought up. When all is said and done we will have this article back up to par. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some historians and naval theorists

The article says:

Some historians and naval theorists question the value of the battleship.

But it only quotes one source. I think for such a statement is should quote at least three sources. If there is only one source we should perhaps edit it to say:

One historian/naval theorist questions the value of the battleship.

I am going to add a dubious tag, to stay there until there are adequate citations to support the assertion.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems a fairly fatuous statement. In WWI if one side had had battleships and the other had not, the side with them would have enjoyed total naval supremacy, submarines aside. BB's were top of the food chain, and could easily defeat anything other than another battleship. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for submarines, mines, or perhaps destroyers. However, the relative merits of battleships vs folitlla craft in the period pre-WWI is quite a sublte point to make. The section really needs to be rewritten. The Land (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather esoteric and a bit like discussing the value of the spear. Brilliant in its day, but no match for the machine gun. The only real issue over the battleship seems to have been whether it was possible for anyone to build more of them than Britain, which started the battleship era already holding world naval supremacy and maintained it through to the point where battleships became obsolete in the face of new weapons. Thus a question whether the German or French or anyone else was simply wasting money, because Britain would never let them get ahead. (until the US finally did it). But then, No one ever knew for certain when British supremacy would finally break until it did, so there was always the chance. Sandpiper (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to show that other nations were often not wasting their money buying battleships by quoting a few examples:

• Chile in 1879 had two modern battleships - a key asset in the war against Peru.
• The USA in 1898 had six modern battleships - lost one in an accident - the other five played a key role in the war against Spain.
• The six modern Japanese battleships in 1904-05 were important in the Russo-Japanese war.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro currently says 'Historian Robert o'connel claims.... Is this man really the pre-eminent all-time world authority on battleships such that we should be promoting him in a FA article summary? I think not. This is considerably worse than saying some historians... etc. It certainly should not be put like this in an intro. Sandpiper (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was saying it was one author's opinion, instead of a group. I don't like naming someone like that either. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is the O'Connell I think it is, I'd question his reasoning. He's got a "thing" about "big ships' that just doesn't jibe with what I've read of the operational demands on construction. I certainly wouldn't want to quote him as a main critic in an FA. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ISBNS

Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905 [3]

U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated History [4] Tom B (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And your point is ? --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation, some books have several isbns for different editions. Sandpiper (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - so when people make citations, a full quotation the first time including ISBN is helpful, because different editions have different pagination. Wikipedia would do well to get rid of References Sections and have the complete references in the citations for this reason. Remember Wikipedia is collaborative, unlike paper books that have one author or one editor. Wikipedia authors in different countries at different dates are likely to use different editions of the same books, so the page numbers of citations that you added in 2007 will not necessarily lead someone to the right part of the text if they do not know what edition you quoted from.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult though. If I add forty references to the same book I am heartily sick of typing -ref- fredp.99-ref- never mind anything longer. It just becomes a hugely irritating chore when you are trying to get something right and are tired. Also, particularly in an article like this which seems to be getting citation-itis, if there are longhand refs at the end of every sentence the markup becomes completely unreadable. It is possible much more easily to skip over the shorthand version as you try to edit it. I have noticed that many reprints follow faifthfully the typeset arrangement of the original printing even when the result is different size or different covers. It is also standard convention in texts to only cite a source in full one time and then refer to it in short, this isn't a uniquely wiki issue. Sandpiper (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreadnoughts and Secondary Armament

I keep hearing about how HMS Dreadnought was revolutionary for its "all big-gun" design, and yet by the time World War II came around, all battleships had secondary batteries of lower caliber. If focusing on large guns was supposed to be a decisive factor in battleship design, why was it done away with? Masterblooregard (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an advantage carrying more heavy guns. But you also need other things too. Dreadnought carried more heavy guns than previous British designs for a modest increase in size - but there were sacrifices.

• Unlike the Lord Nelsons, Dreadnought's thick armoured belt was completely below the waterline when her fuel tanks were full.
• Dreadnought had an inadequate secondary armament.

But battleship sizes continued to increase - and a satisfactory secondary armament was gradually restored.

By the way, in US battleship design the pre-dreadnoughts had many very unsatisfactory design features that occurred in part as a result of trying to put more fighting power into a hull of given size than European nations. US dreadnoughts (starting with Delaware) tried to avoid this.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is misunderstanding "all big-gun" & "secondary batteries of lower caliber". Before Dreadnought, the main battery would typically be two calibers, with a third or fourth for defense against small ships like MTBs/MGBs & DDs. Dreadnought went to 2: one for heavies (BBs & CCs, the main battery), one for light craft (the 2dry battery). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, at the time the "Big Gun" ships were being built the airplane had not yet proved its worth as a combat machine. By WWII that had changed, so battleships adopted smaller calibur guns to deal with the aircraft hreat in addition to the threat of other nations gunships and shore batteries. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, keep in mind that the calibers matter a lot; pre-dreadnoughts had 6-10 inch secondary batteries, which were not all that far from the 12-inch guns of their main battery; they were basically cruiser-caliber guns. As Trekphiler noted, the main distinguishing feature was what guns were intended for use against other capital ships. The 5-inch guns on an Iowa-class or even the 6-inch guns on a Yamato-class were not ever intended to be fired at another armored warship, but were designed as point-defense weapons. This is also why, say, aircraft carriers carry the symbol "CVN" rather than "CVGN"; they do carry guided missiles, but they are entirely defensive armament.

Another way to look at it is design; pre-dreadnoughts, as HMS Dreadnought demonstrated, were not fitting as many full-size barbettes and turrets as they could. Meanwhile, later post-Dreadnought designs like the aforementioned Iowa- and Yamato- classes literally do not have the space within their hulls to fit a fourth barbette of the same massive scale they use. Hence, all their smaller guns, even the 5-6 inch ones, are deck guns; unlike the 9.2-inch guns of the HMS Agamemnon, they might have had armored turrets, but they lacked full rotating barbettes beneath, and hence, could readily be exchanged for other things, as was demonstrating during the refit of the Iowa-class in the 1980s. Nottheking (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The last battleships before HMS Dreadnought typically carried four main guns of ten to twelve inch bore on the centerline in twin turrets fore and aft, with eight or so secondary guns of eight to ten inch bore on the sides, and/or eight to sixteen guns of six to eight inch bore, all intended for engaging other battleships. Plus a number of lighter quick-firing guns for pests like torpedo boats. To the gun layers in the fire control tops, the splashes of shells of 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-inch guns at battle ranges looked alike, making spotting and correcting fire for a mixed main and heavy secondary batteries much harder than necessary. HMS Dreadnought introduced all-big-gun for use against another battleship: ten main guns three twin turrets on the centerline, one twin turret on each side, with a very light secondary armament for handling lesser threats. When firing at another battleship, there was only one battery of heavy guns to spot and correct for. While later battleships introduced heavier secondary armament than HMS Dreadnought, those were 4* 5" 5.5" or 6" guns for use against destroyers, torpedo boats or aircraft, not for engagement against other battleships. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say about the the secondary armament is true of Fisher-era British battleships - it certainly was not true of German battleships, where the secondary armament was also used against battleships.

By World War II, British capital ships were engaging enemy capital ships with their secondary armament. In concept, these ships were quite similar to the pre-dreadnoughts.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I find the use of "Pre-Dreadnought" in pre-1905 history anachronistic. The older battleships did not become "Pre-Dreadnoughts" until after the introduction of HMS Dreadnought in 1905-1906. Up until then they were battleships. There were "Pre-Dreadnought battleships" and "Dreadnought Battleships" after 1905, not before. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

apparent contradiction

Article says France and the United Kingdom were the only countries to develop fleets of wooden steam screw battleships, although several other navies made use of a mixture of screw battleships and paddle-steamer frigates. These included Russia, Turkey, Sweden, Naples, Prussia, Denmark and Austria.

I don't follow: britain and france were the only countries with wooden steam screw battleships. But then it says several others had screw battleships. Is that screw metal battleships, which seems redundant because lots of people had this? Or screw wood but also paddle and wood, which is worth making as a distinction because some of their ships had paddles? This is a complicated way of saying it seems to say only britain had screw wood ships, but some others had screw wood ships. Britain never had a fleet exclusively screw wood. Sandpiper (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The text at Ship of the line#Steam power indicates Britain and France built a lot more than everybody else. Though it repeats that same text at the bottom. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandpiper - Britain and France built large enough numbers of wooden screw battleships to form fleets of them. Many other nations built a few of them. For example Russia built nine, Turkey built three, Sweden two, Austria one, Denmark one, and Naples one. Prussia did not build any - though the Navy of the North Germany Confederacy (which included Prussia) bought one from Britain in 1870 for use as a gunnery training ship (HMS Renown). See Professor Andrew Lambert's first book:Battleships in Transition.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the text slightly - is it clearer?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

yes. it doesnt strike as quirky when i read it. youve ditched the mention of paddle wheel ships, which was interesting but I have no idea if they were significant or not: don't recall mention of them as significant anywhere. I am bothered over another issue, which is that britain often had as many ships as everyone else put together. So while britain might have had a fleet of screw wood ships, it had a lot of others too. In a small navy one ship or just a couple might be the same proportion of the entire fleet. Sandpiper (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

naval arms race a cause of WWI

There is a line in the intro The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century was one of the causes of World War I,. Hmm. The global arms race in battleships was not a cause of WWI. The specific arms race between germany and britain may have have been, but I would take a lot of convincing that the other navies mattered much. Even restricting it to Germany/Britain I think this statement too sweeping. The naval arms race turned britain from being broadly friendly to Germany into being broadly antagonistic. However, the main aim of Germany was the conquest of France. The consequence of the naval arms race was not so much that there was a war, but that we decided to join in as an ally of france (so maybe the line ought to read that the naval arms race led to Britain deciding to take part in WWI, though had we not joined and France had fallen maybe there would have been no WWs to discuss, just a 'german annexation of France'). If anything, surely the result of the arms race in that it turned Britain into a potential enemy rather than a neutral, was to make German aggression less likely. Suggestions?Sandpiper) 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "German annexation of France"? Where does this come from? WW1 was a general fuck-up - all of the major continental powers were hoping to get something out of it, and all thought it would be cheap and quick, as in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71. But I'm not aware that any of the powers tried to completely annex any of the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Germans expected to roll over France blitzkreig style and that would be that. Long standing battle plan Sandpiper (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg was a WW2 invention. But yes, Germany planned to knock France out fairly quickly - see Schlieffen Plan. But that does not imply a plan to permanently "conquer" France or even significant parts of it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So they would just have said 'see!' and gone back home?Sandpiper (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. They might have annexed some strategically valuable land, they may have extracted reparations, they may possibly have put in a friendly government, but its unlikely that they would have permanently occupied France. Note that this did not happen after the Napoleonic wars, or after the war of 1870/1871, or, they other way round, after phase 1 of the Napoleonic wars, or WW1 or WW2, either. Historically, annexation of a large European nation seems to be very rare ever since nation states came into being. The partitions of Poland in the 18th century (and again 1939) are exceptions, and they required multiple participants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century was one of the causes of World War I, should be removed, because it is a false statement. Arguably there wasn't a global arms race of any kind, much less specifically one involving battleships. There was a clear naval arms race involving England and Germany, and the argument has been made that it was one of the precipitating causes of WWI. However, the primary reason for the eventual decision by the English to enter on the side of France was the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. --Dukefan73 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I may now be arguing against myself, but I think the invasion of Belgium in 1914 was to Britain as weapons of mass destruction were before the recent invasion of Iraq. It formed the legal justification for taking part. I have no doubt the final decision turned on perceived national interest generally. Fisher proposed sinking the German fleet before it grew too big to be tackled with impunity. I think perhaps I am looking at this from the perspective of rising power Germany antagonising most of the rest of the world and maybe ignoring the possible belligerent interpretation of Britain seeking merely to maintain the status quo, ie her on top. Rather similar to whether you believe current US militarism acts towards maintaining world peace or provoking world conflict. It has been argued that the German/British arms race in battleships was the cause of Germany losing WWI. It may dependend whether the sentence is intended to mean the start of a world spanning war (it did get Britain involved) or any kind of war (the factors for a European land war were in place regardless so navies made no difference to there being a war, just a smaller one) Sandpiper (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The questioned statement is still here 9 Mar 2010. While the statement The global arms race....was one of the causes... might fit a "chick or egg first" model, my read of history sees it as a "cart before horse" model: The political rivalries that led to the first World War (and to an extent the self-defense responses to those rivalries) caused the global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest change adding Dreadnought strikes me mistaken. Admittedly far from expert, I've always understood her to be (as intended) a game-changer, to "reset" the building race, which the Germans appeared to be intent on winning. In effect, it was the Brits saying, "We can build better and more, if you want, so stop it." Also, as I understand, the naval building race was a product, less than a cause: Wilhelm II was determined to show Germany equal to Britain, & the stupid naval race was the way he chose, not realizing the Brits could never accept parity, given the implicit hazard to British trade. (This, notice, is a lesson Japan didn't take....) The building race exacerbated tensions, but didn't actually cause them. As to "huge" fleets at Jutland: really not. The numbers were pretty small by contrast even to some fairly minor WW2 engagements. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:28 & 01:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The latest change seems fine to me[5]. The naval arms race began before the end of the nineteenth century; the launching of the Dreadnought simply renewed and exacerbated that race. While it may have been a symptom of one of the other causes (i.e. imperialism), the race itself became one of the causes of the First World War by encouraging belligerence. The name itself is provocative - I don't imagine it would have been used if the RN didn't perceive some threat against which to posture. As for Jutland being "pretty small" compared to WW2 engagements... you're joking right? The only WW2 battle that comes close is Leyte Gulf, and that is only comparable if you call it a single battle (which it wasn't) and include all the ships on the US order of battle. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of perception more than fact on both points. I've understood the naval race to have peaked before Dreadnought, which effectively set it to zero again (per her being revolutionary); it was this intent to reset I understood as the basis of her name: as I said, the Brits saying, "See?" As I understand, her design & the willingess to accept such a major change was a realization of the need to overcome the growing threat from Germany, the need to reset the race to zero, in effect to stop it, not accelerate it; whether that worked may be debatable, but IMO it had at least one desired effect: it gave RN superiority for the immediate future, having the best BBs, & made the threat of large numbers of pre-dreads far less significant. I also understood Jutland minor by numbers, not importance. (I recall some dozen major ships engaged on both sides, & IIRC, there were fair numbers in the Pacific exceeding that.) I by no means suggest Jutland's signficance was small. And, as noted, I claim no expertise on WW1 or its naval matters... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the launch of the Dreadnought did "reset" the race to some extent, although older ships were still employed (e.g. the German High Seas Fleet had six pre-dreadnoughts at Jutland). However, the issue of when the competition "peaked" is more difficult. The Two Power Standard and the expansion of the 1890s (which was really aimed at Russia and France) implies British competitiveness was higher before 1906, but I think that's like comparing apples and oranges. The race continued after 1906 and the ratio of capital ships continued to tilt in Germany's favour after Dreadnought was launched (although it was still 2:1 in favour of the British by 1914) so they were certainly no less competitive. By restarting the race the British had to step up their shipbuilding to stay ahead of their own game, and - returning to the question - that meant more rhetoric ('We want eight and we won't wait!' etc) in favour of a military build-up. I don't think anyone believed the Germans would stop - the changes Dreadnought 'introduced' were already in consideration by naval architects in other countries. The British just got there first, laying down a gauntlet for other nations.

On Jutland: by tonnage it was the largest naval battle in history. By number of ships... more difficult: there were about 60 capital ships compared to 40 in the battles around Leyte Gulf. Again, a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but to state it was "minor by numbers" is really quite wrong! Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to beat it to death... (But to be clear, ed, I do enjoy debating you. ;p A thoughtful & thought-provoking exchange always.) Counting obsolete ships is a bit like saying the Red Army tank corps in June '41 was stronger than the Germans', when most of them were obsolescent or obsolete, & Dreadnought had effectively made the German High Seas Fleet in '06 obsolete.

I'm too ignorant of it to debate if the rhetoric was extra jingoistic (it certainly wasn't aimed at reducing tension), but that needs judging how much was real policy & how much pure hot air (or posturing to intimidate hostile foreigners). Did the Brits believe the Germans would stop? Did they just hope so? Foreign affiars is sometimes based on the hope your target will read your posturing the way you intend & be deterred; viz the leadup to the attack on Pearl, a perfect example of how it can blow up on you. Did jingoistic Brit rhetoric make it worse? Again, how do we know at this remove? I suggest the only way to say for sure is in the military budgets. Did Britain's spike in/after '06? Not AFAIK. QED.

In counting ships, I'm thinking there were maybe a dozen capital ships actually engaging; counting the rest (even tho technically on strength) strikes me like counting Yamamoto's Main Body at Midway. I will stand correction on it, however. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of ships actively firing their guns, the entire German fleet was heavily engaged, which means 5 battlecruisers, 16 dreadnoughts, and 6 pre-dreadnoughts (though they didn't see as much action), and that's just the German line.

Britain's naval budget did go up considerably after the dreadnought revolution; I don't recall which year it was, but there was the infamous "we want 8 and will not wait" campaign, where (IIRC) Churchill said something along the lines of the Navy proposed 6 new BBs, Parliament offered 4, but they compromised with 8. Holger Herwig's Luxury Fleet gives exact figures, which I can dig up at another time. The German budgets went up considerably more than the British as a direct result of the naval expansion. Parsecboy (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Which just goes to prove I should stay out of things I really don't know much about... ;p I will withdraw any objection. My thanks for the clarification, sir. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No not at all. Simple introductory phrases sometimes conceal complicated topics and it's worth discussing them - it certainly made me rethink what I thought I knew. There are some good articles on Wikipedia on this topic if you want to refresh your memory. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As always, a gentleman. ;D My objection was over the nature of the race, & has been demonstrated wrong, so must needs be withdrawn. I must call it happy accident if it had a beneficial effect. :) Further reading is definitely warranted. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time (and for many years thereafter) Britain had the world's largest Merchant Fleet (the Merchant Navy) and so having a large navy was thought justifiable, made more-so by the worldwide extent of the British Empire, trade needing to be protected anywhere on the world's oceans, however for Germany the justification was, in effect, almost nil - Germany had few overseas possessions compared to Britain, and had only a minuscule merchant marine, therefore in British eyes the expansion of the German Navy (the Kaiserliche Marine) had no practical purpose other than provoking confrontation with Britain. It was thought that the visit of Kaiser Wilhelm (Queen Victoria's grandson) to Britain and his inspection of the Royal Navy had invoked feelings of envy in him which had led him to want to compete with Britain by building a navy for-which it was thought Germany had no practical use. This expansion of Germany's navy was perceived in Britain as being solely to challenge Britain's naval supremacy, and understandably was not welcome, and various people in the Admiralty and some vociferous Members of Parliament became determined not to be out-built by anyone. At the time (circa 1900) the UK had by far the largest shipbuilding capacity in the world, and in fact I have seen it stated in reputable publications that at the time nine out of every ten of the world's ships were British-built and eight out of ten were British-owned/registered. The result of this was the 'naval arms race' that led up to World War I, in which the British in-effect would match every new German naval shipbuilding programme and in most cases double it - if Germany built two new battleships, Britain would build four - and so-on. At the end of the War in 1918 the Royal Navy had 500 destroyers alone, and has been described as being vast. Britain still had 200 destroyers at the start of World War II in 1939. In contrast the Kriegsmarine had 20 (twenty). At the same time the UK's merchant fleet consisted of around 12,000 ships, with approx 4,000 being lost during the war, the majority due to U-boats, the remainder because of air attack, mines, and other causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.186 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine - Fleet in Being

To quote the article

• A related concept was a "fleet in being:" the idea a fleet of battleships could simply by its presence tie down superior enemy resources. This in turn was believed to be able to tip the balance of a conflict even without a decisive battle. This suggested even for inferior naval powers a battleship fleet could have important strategic impact The failure of commerce-raiding German submarine forces between 1939 and 1945 can be contrasted with the success of American submarines against Japan. As Mahan would have predicted, Germany, without a strong navy, failed to achieve victory at sea by commerce-raiding alone. Meanwhile in the Pacific, American submarine groups devastated Japanese commercial traffic, sinking millions of tons of shipping.

I am a little confused as to what point the comparison between the American and German submarine operations is trying to illustrate and how it relates to the idea of a fleet in being. I can see that "Germany, without a strong navy, failed to achieve victory at sea by commerce-raiding alone" seems consistent with Mahan's ideas as presented. "The failure of commerce-raiding German submarine forces between 1939 and 1945" seems at odds with my understanding of events, which is that until 1943 the U-boats represented a substantial threat to North Atlantic trade and could well have ended the war in Europe in favour of the Axis powers. The final paragraph "Meanwhile in the Pacific, American submarine groups devastated Japanese commercial traffic, sinking millions of tons of shipping" is true - but what is the comparison intending to show? A someone inexpert in maritime strategy I am reluctant to edit or remove these paragraphs - perhaps someone more expert could give them their attention. WhaleyTim (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I venture to say it's an inelegant effort to say Mahan got it wrong. True, the Germans had substantial success; in the event, the U-boat was overcome by superior tactics, technology, & construction (Liberty ships in particular). Japan had none of the advantages the Allies did, & lost. Hence, Mahan was wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and delete the paragraphs as they seem to be confusing and out of context. WhaleyTim (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article?!

I would expect an article on the development of the battleship, particularly one elevated to the status of FA, to at least mention the introduction of breech loading guns!--Ykraps (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

see Ironclad warship - because battleship is such a big topic this article only summarizes many things! The Land (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless , it is such an important development, it ought to be mentioned here. One of the criteria for FA status is that "it neglects no major facts or details".--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would expect a featured article to have a consistent reference system, but in this article, some sources are listed in the References section while others are only mentioned in the Notes section. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Status of USS Arizona

There have been a number of recent edits relating to the status of USS Arizona. According to this source [6] she was stricken in 1942, and so, even technically, cannot be described as being in commission. The source seems authoritative, claiming to be the "Official Inventory of US Naval Ships & Service Craft" and its .mil address would indicate an official US Dept. of Defense website.

I haven't seen that. My understanding was she remained on the books. If not, take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source indicates that she is still "on the books" in the sense that she remains the property of the US Navy, but she does not have any active status. I have edited the article accordingly. WhaleyTim (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems

• The prose is very messy throughout. I see many one-sentence paragraphs, such as in "Ships of the line", "Origin" and "Dreadnought era".
• Standalone sentence in "Interwar period." Can this not be moved?
• Several unsourced paragraphs in "World War II" section.
• Reference section is cluttered — some of the footnotes are merely commentary on the article, and these should be separated from the citations.
• The references are largely missing page numbers. I also see one that does not have author or work information, and at least one op.cit.
• One ref says just "Beesly" with no context or page number.

If these problems are not fixed, I will send the article to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Two modern battleship arms races: 1897-1905 ending at Tsushima & 1906-1914 ending with World War I

There were two Naval Arms races. The first began in 1897 (Herwig p. 35, 41, 42) and ended with the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.(Mahan (1890) p. 2, 3 & Preston p. 24). The launching of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 started the second (new) naval arms race which ultimately led to WWI.

The first modern battleship race began in 1897 when German Admiral Tirpitz pushed for naval supremacy; using A. T. Mahan's 1890 publication "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783" as a guide (Herwig p. 35, 41, 42). Mahan's 1890 book is primarily strategic in content, but does touch frequently on tactical matters when used to support his main topic. Stategy, being the big picture, contrasted with the often smaller military portions, deemed as tactics, entailed the elimination of some of Europes naval competitors; in Germany's case it would be Russia. (Pleshakov p. 73, 74, 319). Great Britain would be Germany's chief adversary. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was related to Russia's Tsar Nicholas II, they were cousins! And with the promise of support, such as providing coaling stations, often at sea, for the Russian battleships enroute to the front(Pleshakov p. 181-183)...cousin "Willy" (the Kaiser) goaded his cousin "Nicky" (the Tsar) into war with Japan in 1904. (Pleshakov p. 319).

When Russia was defeated in 1905, Europe gained the knowledge of modern battleship warfare (Mahan p. 2, 3) (Preston p. 24) (Breyer p. 115) (Massie p. 471) and in addition to eliminating a European naval competitor, the Imperial Russian Navy, they were able to proceed with the construction of HMS Dreadnought only 3 months and 1 week after the Tsushima fight. As Mahan stated in 1890, there existed no lessons in modern battleship warfare...until 15 years later at Tsushima. (Mahan (1890) p. 2, 3). As for Germany, they were free to concentrate on England alone, Russia was out of the race.(Ireland/Grove p. 66 & Pleshakov p. 66). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.147.142 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

last US battleships

since the Iowa and Wisconsin were last to be stricken in 2006, wouldn't they be the "last US battleships"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.212.124 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

20th Century battleship

While I agree with Toddy1's edit in general, Mikasa was launched in 1900, and is hence, strictly speaking, a 19th century battle ship. What seems to be the intention is "turreted, sea-going, self-powered battleship" (otherwise HMS Victory and HMS Warrior would refute the claim). The whole section is unsourced, too. Can we find a source for this statement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the century Mikasa was not commissioned until 1902. As I understand it, ships of that era were often launched before they were fully completed, and the remaining construction was completed while the ship was afloat. So she would qualify as a 20th century ship. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ye Gods, arguing Mikasa is a 19th century ship is a level of hair-splitting I never expected even on Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Spitting hairs was a major part of my academic education ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

....and more seriously, if Mikasa is included in the class of ships we only have very few examples of, shouldn't the clearly 19th century Royal Sovereigns and possibly even HMS Dreadnought (1875) also be included? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The useful way to classify Mikasa is as a pre-dreadnought (I suggest consulting that article along with ironclad for a discussion of how the 1875 Dreadnought differed from Royal Sovereign and from Mikasa). "20th century" is a little misleading because the dominant type of battleship in the 20th century was the dreadnought. "19th century" is both inaccurate and even more misleading ;-)

Regarding sources I am sure it's possible to find one, but I don't regard that statement as particularly likely to be challenged. The Land (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please define what qualifies as a battleship? The article mentions 'heavy-calibre' armament, so how heavy is that? Original battleships of the 20th century seem to have been armed with 12-inch guns. In WW2 certain German warships were described as 'battleships' by the German Navy, although their armament was far inferior to that of allied battlehips, and the same vessels were described as 'battlecruisers' by their contemporary opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)