Talk:North Carolina class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North Carolina class battleship article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)