Talk:Ironclad warship

WikiProject Military history

(Rated FA-Class)

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has passed an A-Class review. Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

WikiProject Ships (Rated FA-Class)
	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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

CSS Stonewall

The paragraph on the Stonewall says it made it to the US Civil War in time for the Battle of Galveston. But the article on the ship itself (titled with a later name of the ship) says it only got as far as Cuba before being met with news of the end of the war. The article on the ship certainly seems more authoritative on the subject on first reading, but the article here does cite a reference (which I've not time to read). Perhaps someone with the time and inclination can track down and correct the discrepancy. Dvd Avins (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

The article's currently titled Ironclad warship; however, the full term "ironclad warship" is used only seven times in the text, whilst "ironclad" on its own is used twelve times in the lead alone - I didn't feel enthused enough to count the whole article! - as well as appearing as the bolded term in the first sentence.

Given this, and that ironclad redirects here anyway, should we perhaps think about moving the page? Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Srnec (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Ironclad is the abbreviated usage, easily understood as such after the initial and title full usage, and so is much handier usage for a multi-word subject. Featured bios often refer to the subject by his or her abbreviated name (i.e. family name, as in Eads or Ericsson). This situation is not so dissimilar. Seems particularly poor timing for such a move discussion, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying we need to do it now, far from it! But I noticed the article a couple of days back, and I was a bit surprised it had got this far with an odd name - I figured better to mention it now, and start a discussion, than forget about it for a year. Shimgray | talk | 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sold on the idea. "Ironclad warship" seems like an appropriate formal title for the article, with "Ironclad" as an appropriate contraction for ease of reading, once we have specified 'what' kind of ironclad we are talking about. It is natural for the subject of an article to rarely be referred to by the article's title after the first couple of appearances... As a couple of counterpoint examples:

1. the full name Abraham Lincoln only appears in the text (not captions or mainarticle links) of the article 5 times (or 15 if you count mentions of things named after him), but this is not a case to change the name of the article to "Lincoln".
2. The formal name "HMS Royal Oak" does not appear in the body of the aricle HMS Royal Oak (08) at all: there is one appearance of "His Majesty's Ship Royal Oak", while all other references are simply "Royal Oak". -- saberwyn 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is: What else does "ironclad", unmodified, refer to? An ironclad is a warship. There is no need to disambiguate. All other meanings of "ironclad" are derivative or minor. Srnec (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would assert exactly the opposite: that ironclad refers to the installation of iron cladding, which may or not be on a device, but certainly preceded the maritime application. A human could be clad in iron, a horse, a train or a "war wagon" might well be ironclad. This pagespace has undergone pretty thorough vetting through the FAC process. IMHO. we'd have to see some serious consensus demonstrated before we could allow such a page move. BusterD (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the review process mentioned the title exactly once, where it was noted that "...it's been like this since 2003 and there is no overwhelming reason to change it". Otherwise, it's not been brought up on the talk page other than as part of an (interminable) discussion over whether the scope should include Korean armoured ships, and whether or not they got to be called "ironclads". This seems to be the first intentional discussion about what to use :-) Shimgray | talk | 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no benefit in moving the article. The name reflects current common usage. At the time there were a variety of names for such ships.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, in my experience, people just say "an ironclad" and leave it at that, without disambiguating; is this perhaps a geographically variant thing? (The OED gives it as an unmodified noun, I note.)

Determining common usage is pretty tough, but we have a kind of proxy for what our readers use in the stats.grok.se data, which counts hits "via redirects" seperately from those on the main article. Using this, over the last year or so both headers tend to be of about the same level in terms of routine traffic - this is a bit surprising, since normally redirects get substantially fewer hits than the main title. Shimgray | talk | 13:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes remarkably little difference. The Land (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Really good article

This is a really good article! Thanks to all that worked so hard on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justan Observation (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just stopped by to toss a thanks and congratulations to whichever fine Wikipedians are responsible for this gem. –jacobolus (t) 07:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The article states that the RN started looking at iron hulled ships in 1856, however the RN had experimented with iron-hulled ships before this time, e.g. HMS Birkenhead (1845). Also, the Birkenhead article mentions concerns about the effects off cannon against iron, after some famous tests conducted at Arsenal in 1845 (i.e. in the early days, wood was considered a better material). Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean Turtle Ships

I believe at least some mentioning of the Korean Turtle ships as the first iron-armored warships should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.207.24 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Torpedoes in the American Civil War

This is a fine article, and the people who have worked on it have really done their homework. I have only one very minor quibble: in the subsection concerned with torpedoes, it states that torpedoes were used "with dubious efficiency" in the Civil War. In fact, more ships were lost to torpedoes than to all other weapons combined. General Gabriel Rains, head of the Confederate Torpedo Bureau, asserted that something like 50 vessels of all types were sunk by torpedoes. (He wrote this in an article for the Southern Historical Society Papers, and I am sorry that I cannot lay my hands on the reference right now.) This number can be taken with a large pinch of sodium chloride, as it includes some very minor craft, but certainly some major losses can be ascribed to torpedoes. These include USS Cairo, Baron De Kalb, Tecumseh, and Housatonic, and CSS Albemarle. All of these except Housatonic were ironclads. I don't think that this information needs to go into the article, but I would like to see the adjective dubious replaced if not removed. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The word torpedo has changed in meaning. In the 1860s it included underwater mines. In current English, underwater mines are not considered to be torpedoes. Spar torpedoes, towed torpedoes, automobile torpedoes and wire-guided torpedoes are still encompassed by the modern meaning of the word torpedo.

When General Gabriel Rains, asserted that something like 50 vessels of all types were sunk by torpedoes, he included underwater mines as torpedoes, because that was current usage.

However your point is correct. If you look at the efficiency of spar torpedoes against ironclads, as compared guns against ironclads, it is difficult to criticise spar torpedoes as less effective.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When they first became practical, today's torpedoes were called "automotive torpedoes" as to distinguish them from the other kind(s). Even land mines were called torpedoes during the American Civil War. [1] (excuse the polemical book, it was the first convenience hit in Google Books, but the block quotation in it from Sheridan is accurate, and a bit famous). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WHERE'S THE TURTLE SHIP??

Hello? the first ironclad warship (officially) is the Turtle ship by Yi Sun-sin, a Joseonese dude. the Ironclad warship only talks about the western hemisphere. DON'T YOU DARE LEAVE OUT THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE!!! They contribute a lot!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea2013 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three Things:
  • Please do not yell;
  • We need reliable sources to back up this claim;
  • There is nothing stopping you from adding this information. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's at turtle ship, not hard to find. If the reconstruction models are accurate, it's clear it doesn't fit the scope of this article. Perhaps some Korean authors see such a connection, but it seems tenuous and not made by any source I've read. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wierd edits

For reasons that I cannot understand people keep deleting "$2 million" from the following statement, saying that it does not make sense:

"The Confederate Congress voted $2 million in May 1861 to buy ironclads from overseas"

There is nothing odd about this statement.

• The Confederate Government has a congress. A congress is a kind of parliament.
• The congress voted money to buy ironclads from Europe. That is how parliaments work; they vote money for different purposes. This money then has to be raised through taxes and government borrowing. Note that governments may not have the power to vire money from one vote to another.
• The amount of money they voted in May 1861 was two million confederate dollars. That might have been a sensible amount.

If somebody still does understand what the statement means, please come back and explain what you don't understand instead of reverting.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason it does not make sense is "voted $2 million in may" is not a complete thought
if you want to leave the $2 million in there then add "to spend" in bettween voted and $2 million (ie. Congress voted to spend $2 million in May 1861)
otherwise just leave it out, it relly is fine as is with "The Confederate Congress voted in May 1861 to buy ironclads from overseas".
---The lost library (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I also saw this stament by good Friend waga99lo which I feel sums it up perfectly
"After a vote in May 1861, The Confederate Congress allowed $2 million for the purchase of ironclads from overseas. Something along those lines,
the way it is worded now, how do you vote $2 million dollars? They could vote to use $2 million, they could pass a vote allowing the use of $2
million, but not vote $2 million. When I vote, I vote yes or no, not numbers.--Waga99lo"
I hope this helps you understand why it does not make sence
The lost library (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded to a less accurate wording, which I hope you guys will understand. I despair sometimes.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better I like how it turned out very good choice of wording The lost library (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the benefit of discussing things.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Lissa the largest naval battle between Navariono and Tsushima, or was it Weihaiwei

The text currently claims that the Battle of Lissa (1866) was the largest between Navariono and Tsushima. This is simply not true, at lissa 52 ships were engaged while at the Battle of Weihaiwei 56 ships were engaged, a full ten years before tsushima.XavierGreen (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your figure of 56 includes torpedo boats.--Toddy1 (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The battle of lisa numbers include gunboats, some of which had lesser tonnage than the torpedo boats at Weihaiwei.XavierGreen (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Brassey's Naval Annual 1894 page 349 says that the Japanese had 1 torpedo boat of 190 tons displacement, and that all the rest were between 30 and 90 tons displacement. (Conways gives slightly different figures for some of these - for example the one of 190 tons is credited by Conways with a displacement of 203 tons.)
• Brassey's Naval Annual 1894 page 344 says that the Chinese had 1 torpedo boat of 128 tons displacement, 3 whose displacement was not stated, and that all the rest were between 27 and 69 tons displacement.
• WL Clowes' Four Modern Naval Campaigns, page 12, lists Austrian ships present with their displacement. The smallest Austrian screw-gunboat listed had a displacement of 852 tons; through there were 2 screw schooners of 501 tons and a paddle aviso of 770 tons.
• WL Clowes' Four Modern Naval Campaigns, page 13, lists Italian ships present with their displacement. The smallest Italian screw-gunboat listed had a displacement of 262 tons; through the displacement of one hired paddle vessel was not given.

Your statement that the gunboats present at Lissa had a lesser displacement than the torpedo boats at Weihaiwei appears to be mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does one draw the line on tonnage sizes, 10 tons, 50 tons, 100 tons? Regardless, there still needs to be a citation for the claim.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a citation for the claim from Sondhaus.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does Sondhause specifically say on the matter? Does me make a distincition of what he considers the difference between boats and ships is? There are also a couple other examples ive found of engagements where more vessels than lissa were engaged, such as the 1857 Action at Fatshan Creek (over 100 vessels engaged) and Battle of Tonkin River (about 75 vessels engaged). There may have also been one or two actions in the American Civil war and the First Opium War that had more vessels engaged but i need more information on those.XavierGreen (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of that book. I saw it in a bookshop and thought it second-rate, so did not buy it.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

World map

Can a world map similar to the one in List of aircraft carriers by country be edited in the fleets section to give an overview of what countries operated these kinds of ships (smaller European navies are not covered by the text)? (86.87.73.104 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC))