Talk:Battleship

	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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 10, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 16, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
Additional information:

Archives for the Battleship talk page
	1

[edit] 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 Wold 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)