Talk:USS Washington (BB-56): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Questions: new section |
→Questions: reply. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|US=yes|Maritime=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Ships|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Washington|class=|importance=}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Battleship duels== |
|||
I have removed the paragraph claiming that ''Washington'' was one of only two modern US battleships to engage another battleship, since I know of at least seven others (''South Dakota'' in the same engagement against ''Kirishima'' as ''Washington''; ''West Virginia'', ''California'', ''Tennessee'', ''Maryland'' and ''Mississippi'' against ''Yamashiro'' at Leyte Gulf; and ''Massachusetts'' against ''Jean Bart'' during Operation Torch), and as I am no expert there may be others of which I am not aware. If "duel" is understood to mean a single-ship action then the term would not apply to ''Washington'' in any case, since there were two US battleships involved, to say nothing of the smaller ships on both sides. The statement that it was the only US battleship to sink another battleship during the war is also inaccurate. ''Yamashiro'' was also sunk during its engagement with the battleships in Surigao Strait; while ''Yamashiro'' was torpedoed as well as being damaged by the battleships and this damage was arguably chiefly responsible for the sinking, ''Kirishima'' was in any case not sunk by ''Washington'' but scuttled after being crippled. |
|||
All in all, the paragraph seems irretrievably flawed: if corrected it would become so underwhelming as to make its inclusion pointless. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zburh|Zburh]] ([[User talk:Zburh|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zburh|contribs]]) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
It seems to me as if the author of the paragraph above missed two key words qualifying the cliam in the article. Those would be "modern", which West Virginia, California, Tennessee, Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania (which was also present at Surigao Strait and uncredited in the paragraph above) decidedly were not, unless you count the rebuilt Tennessee, California and West Virginia as modern (because of their extensive rebuilds, this classification would not be without some foundation in fact). The other key word is "engage" which I am fairly certain that during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal the South Dakota did not engage Krishima, due to a power failure among other reasons. By the time Washington engaged Krishima, it was the only American warship still capable of offensive operation, so duel is not entirely inaccurate. The escorting destroyers were all sunk or damaged and South Dakota was damaged and slowly recovering from a system-wide power failure and retreating from the action. |
|||
In the most complete sense of the word, Krishima was sunk by Washington. Was Bismark sunk by King George V and Rodney or did the Germans scuttle it? I credit Brittish fire with the sinking. Same situation, different ships. |
|||
More fertile territory would be to discount Krishima as a battleship. It was built as a battle cruiser (according to Jackie Fishers overall design guidance and similar to other ships that rapidly perished at Jutland) and although upgraded between the wars was still lightly armoured for a battleship. This is the reason that Krishima's sister Hiei suffered so badly several nights before at the hands of cruisers and destroyers. |
|||
The damage that Yamishiro accumulated before engaging the battle line is hard to judge as so few of the senior officers survived. In any case, both Fuso and Yamishio had poor protection and were poorly maintained, neither were engaged in first line operations after Midway. To illustrate this, Fuso sank as the result of a single torpedo hit. Yamishiro had already accumulated several torpedo hits and dramatically was reducing speed before engaging the battle line. The ship was probagbly doomed from accumulated damage and her demise was simply hastened by battleship fire. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.109.142.253|67.109.142.253]] ([[User talk:67.109.142.253|talk]]) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Questions == |
== Questions == |
||
*First a comment: I generally put more detail in my edit summaries than most, and it can come off as bragging but that's not how it's intended. For instance, when I change "went into" to "entered" and call that "tighter", all I'm saying is that that's how it seems from my perspective; if there's a particular jargon that I'm not picking up on that we might want to respect, please let me know. |
*First a comment: I generally put more detail in my edit summaries than most, and it can come off as bragging but that's not how it's intended. For instance, when I change "went into" to "entered" and call that "tighter", all I'm saying is that that's how it seems from my perspective; if there's a particular jargon that I'm not picking up on that we might want to respect, please let me know. |
||
*"the third ship of the United States Navy named in honor of the 42nd state" ... per [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w3/washington-viii.htm DANFS], "The first six Washingtons were named for George Washington; the seventh and eighth, for Washington state", the eighth being BB-56. Which two previous ships were named for Washington state? (More to come) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) |
*"the third ship of the United States Navy named in honor of the 42nd state" ... per [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w3/washington-viii.htm DANFS], "The first six Washingtons were named for George Washington; the seventh and eighth, for Washington state", the eighth being BB-56. Which two previous ships were named for Washington state? (More to come) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
**Your edits look fine (and I like them!) |
|||
**[[ACR-11]] and (the one I think DANFS isn't counting) [[BB-47]]. DANFS lists eight, [[USS Washington]] lists ten, but DANFS isn't counting never-completed ships, of which there were two. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">(talk</font>]] • [[WP:OMT|<font color="800000">majestic titan)]]</font> 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:32, 10 March 2010
Questions
- First a comment: I generally put more detail in my edit summaries than most, and it can come off as bragging but that's not how it's intended. For instance, when I change "went into" to "entered" and call that "tighter", all I'm saying is that that's how it seems from my perspective; if there's a particular jargon that I'm not picking up on that we might want to respect, please let me know.
- "the third ship of the United States Navy named in honor of the 42nd state" ... per DANFS, "The first six Washingtons were named for George Washington; the seventh and eighth, for Washington state", the eighth being BB-56. Which two previous ships were named for Washington state? (More to come) - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your edits look fine (and I like them!)
- ACR-11 and (the one I think DANFS isn't counting) BB-47. DANFS lists eight, USS Washington lists ten, but DANFS isn't counting never-completed ships, of which there were two. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)