From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2007.
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST 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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon 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 articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

20th Century battleship[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


  • 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[edit]

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 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

last US battleships[edit]

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 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Full Speed Ahead and Damn the Torpedoes"[edit]

This article states, "Unlike the ship of the line, the battleships of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had significant vulnerability to torpedoes and mines..." Wooden warships were indeed vulnerable to torpedoes (although they what we would call mines today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I would take it to mean, before mines were invented, there was no hazard, but clarification would be good. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)