Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleUSS Kentucky (BB-66) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleUSS Kentucky (BB-66) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 5, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 18, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 29, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 20, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
April 16, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 6, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
July 26, 2012Articles for deletionKept
August 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
April 12, 2022Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

BBG/BG[edit]

Shouldn't guided missile battleship and missile battleship redirect here? And did they ever come up with a code for these things? ie. BBG or BG ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article quality has deteriorated[edit]

This article may have at one time been of featured quality but no longer. In regards to the Featured article criteria at a glance:

If these issues can't be corrected in a reasonable amount of time the article will be listed at Featured article review. Brad (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This review will be tougher than the normal GA because of the ultimate goal to regain FA status. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've jumped on to help Tom with the GA review while he's in internet-limbo. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping up! Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Can we tell the reader in the first sentence that the ship was never completed?
    • Would you settle for the second? I tried in the first but the semi-colon made it hard to justify a run on sentence.
      • I'm not liking it yet. The first sentence says "constructed" which sets the reader up wrongly; only a part of the ship was constructed. Most people picture a fully built thing when they read "constructed", not partially built. How about something in plain language like this?
        USS Kentucky (BB-66), intended to be the sixth and final Iowa-class battleship of the United States Navy, was never completed.
        The subsequent text would have to be adjusted to minimize redundancy. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not exactly true: "...she was the second ship to be named in honor of Kentucky." There were others before 1940, one Confederate, one US Navy, and others such as the SS Kentucky, a short-lived oil tanker from around 1939–1940. She was the second battleship and the second US Navy capital ship to be so named.
    • Tweaked, but note that battleship and capital ship and synonymous with each other in navy parlance.
Background
  • The end of the first paragraph needs some surgery. The final sentence is a confusion of two or three thoughts, especially the non sequitur "in addition to reducing flooding in the event of a torpedo strike".
    • I have removed the part altogether and put in the construction section, along with a more detailed explanation of the concept from the class page. Let me know what you think about the retool.
  • Two instances of "like" in the section starts to become repetitive; the second one could be changed from "Like her Iowa-class sisters" to "As with her Iowa-class sisters".
    • I think I inadvertently addressed this while working on the other matter.
Construction
  • If we are saying "hurl... shells some 20" SI units in a sentence I think the reading flow works better if the SI units are spelled out rather than abbreviated. That means I propose changing "shells some 20 mi (32 km)" to "shells some 20 miles (32 km)."
    • Properly speaking, this'll be a uniformity issue to me (ie all pages in the class using the same format). Lemme look at whats being used elsewhere and I will get back to you on this one.
      • Yeah, there's no need to change every article. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clunky "need" twice in sentence: Perhaps change "With the advent of air power and the need to gain and maintain air superiority came a need to protect" to one of the following "With the advent of air power and the need/duty/wish/mission to gain and maintain air superiority came a need/the obligation/the task to protect".
    • Changed first instance to "mandate", let me know what you think.
  • Comma needed directly after Virginia.
    • Done.
  • How was "construction resumed on 6 December 1944" with a "new keel laying"? "Resumed" is not "new".
    • Noted that a new battleship keel was laid rather than going with the construction resumed, while this is now technically correct it does IMO make the latter part a little harder to follow now. Anyway, as this is still under review, we can address that as the need to do so arises.
      • Aha, I completely misunderstood that two keels were laid. It is clearer now, but still somewhat of a mystery. What happened to the first keel? Your phrase "Work on the second Kentucky" is an improvement but maybe it could be "Work on the second Kentucky's keel"... Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to reduce the passive voice in the final paragraph? I see "it was recommended" and "it was decided". Do we know what body recommended and decided?
    • Officially, no, I do not know. Unofficially, yes, it was likely either the Bureau of Construction and Repair or the Department of the Navy. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More review to come.

Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Construction
  • I have a concern that a whole paragraph is devoted to a torpedo defense stratagem that may not have been incorporated.
  • In that paragraph as elsewhere, references should follow punctuation. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the first keel? Why was it not used again? Were there foundational design changes in the meantime, making the second keel somehow different?
Guided Missile Battleship
  • This section title should be lower case, right? "Guided missile battleship"
  • Perhaps the phrase "armed with both guns and missiles" could be tweaked: "armed both with guns and missiles".
  • Adjectival hyphens? "surface to air missile" vs "surface-to-air missile".
  • British/Greek plural or American English plural? "antennae" vs "antennas".
  • I don't see a need for "1st deck" when "first deck" works. Or substitute "main deck".
Fate
  • The reference for the Eaton collision is unnecessarily placed inside the sentence when a placement at the end of the sentence would be more elegant.
  • It would be of interest to the reader to know where to find any surviving parts of the ship such as the repaired bow of the Wisconsin in Norfolk, Virginia. I understand the four old boilers have been taken to the scrapper; this is less important for the reader to know.



General
  • A couple of not-so-reliable webpages say that the BB-6 ship's bell was going to be used on BB-66, but of course that never happened. The BB-6 bell is now in a museum in Frankfort, Kentucky, at the Kentucky Historical Society. Here's an official source, and another one discussing the BB-6 bell and it does not mention BB-66. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this should be mentioned unless we can find a solid source for it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. It would be interesting but it needs a reliable source. I was tossing it out there in case a source could be found. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • USN Secretary Knox told reporters in February 1942 that the Kentucky would be given "greater protection against air attacks."[1]
    • I don't like this one either - generic fluff uttered to the press is more or less useless unless there were actual design changes made to the horizontal protection we can point to. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As early as October 1942, newspapers said the 17-percent-complete Kentucky hull would never be a battleship.[2]
  • The references do not all agree on basic facts such as keel, decks and dates. The article gives basic facts as absolutes rather than telling the reader that there are differences in the sources.
  • Witley says that the "existing structure" of the hull was moved back into dry dock and work started again on it on 6 December 1944. This contradicts the idea presented in the article that a new keel was laid.
    • I doubt a second keel was laid - I've reworked it to be in line with Whitley. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 73.1 percent completion figure from NVR is overly precise, in my opinion. Witley characterizes the figure as an estimate, and says 73%. Polmar writes that it was 72.1 percent. Do we really need the tenth of a percent in an estimate that varies by one whole percent?
    • Doesn't make sense to me either, 73% is good enough. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witley mentions 2 Polaris missile launch tubes and 16 stowed missiles were considered in 1956, but this article does not mention them.
  • Earlier, in September 1946, news reports discussed the possibility of Kentucky carrying some rockets much like the German V-2, along with the cruiser USS Hawaii (CB-3).[3]
  • The cost of the ship is not discussed but it should be. The Congressional Record holds some discussions about the price. In 1946, the House Committee on Naval Affairs questioned Admiral Edward L. Cochrane about costs. Cochrane said the Kentucky had "obligated" $66M so far, and it would cost another $22M to scrap it but $36M to complete it, a difference of only $14M. A Congressman asked "I particularly would like for you to make an estimate there on the battleship Kentucky. You show that you have expended $88,000,000 [he conflated the figures, combining $66M and $22M] on the battleship Kentucky and that it will cost $36,000,000 to finish it as a battleship. Then, if the battleship Kentucky is converted into some other type of ship, show what it will cost as a completed ship converted." Cochrane mildly protested that it would be "a pretty wild estimate" because the details were not known about what the conversion would be. Norman Friedman in U.S. battleships: an illustrated design history wrote that it would take $115M to complete the Kentucky as a BBG. In The American Battleship, Morison and Polmar say that there were two plans to make the Kentucky into a "prototype antiaircraft battleship". The 1955 plan put forward by the Ship Characteristics Board was estimated at $130M; it consisted of keeping two of the big 16-inch turrets but removing the other to make room for Terrier, Talos or Tartar missiles, and also Regulus II cruise missiles. A plan proposed in 1956 was going to cost $200M because of Polaris missiles instead of Regulus IIs. In 1957 or '58, Admiral Arleigh Burke appeared before Congress: "The Chairman: 'How much have we already spent on the Kentucky?' Admiral Burke: 'About $153 million, sir.'" Burke said that the Kentucky conversion cost of $158M was "more than required to convert a completed battleship", but that the Kentucky offered a size and capacity advantage, even though her extensive deck space could not be fully utilized for missile launchers because of a radio frequency limitation on the number of missiles that can be launched simultaneously from a single ship [I don't understand this at all. Why wouldn't they use wires for launch command signals rather than radio?]. Burke said that the Kentucky hull was "wholly inadequate for completion as an aircraft carrier", because the flight deck would be too short for "modern jet aircraft". Nevertheless, he estimated $150M to $175M as the cost of converting Kentucky to an aircraft carrier, "as compared to $200 million for a much larger and more effective Forrestal. Completion of the Kentucky, therefore, would not be economically sound." In 1958 after the Kentucky donated her bow, the figure of $55M was discussed by an Admiral Duke: "At the time work was suspended, about $55 million had been invested, and the ship was 73 percent complete. These figures have now been reduced to about $50 million and 55 percent, respectively, by reason of the fact that considerable equipment has been transferred or turned into Navy stock." Duke told Congress that "At the request of the committee, the Bureau of Ships has made extensive staff studies of possible uses of the Kentucky." Whitley says that the Kentucky was sold for $1,176,666.
  • The 1979 book Warship international, volume 16, page 175, discusses Drydock No. 8 as the largest in Norfolk, VA. It says the drydock was made of concrete with steel piles at the foundation, measuring 1,092 feet 5 inches long, and 150 feet wide. It says that the Kentucky was first laid down in that drydock on 7 March 1942 as given by "an official history of the yard, though most sources show 6 December 1942 as the 'keel laying' date." Robert Sumrall partially agrees, writing on page 47 of Iowa class battleships: "Although her keel laying is officially listed as 6 December 1944, she was actually first laid down on a shipway at Norfolk on 7 March 1942. Her first launching was on 10 June 1942." The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor reported Kentucky's keel laid on 7 March 1942 on the same slipway that had been used for USS Alabama (BB-60), launched on 16 February. In Spencer C. Tucker's World War II at Sea, William Head writes that the Kentucky was first laid at Norfolk on 12 June 1942.
    • Added the first launching on 10 June 1942 - will get to the discrepancies over dates soon. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Hazel bumped into the battleship Kentucky on 15 October 1954. Climatological data from the United States Weather Bureau includes this sentence: "Battleship 'Kentucky' also broke its moorings and ran aground some 1,000 feet from its berth" in James River. A Miami news account agreed.
  • A pair of 150-pound mahogany doors was given by Kentuckians to be used on the BB-66, but they were never installed. Rather, they were used at a USN officers' club in NYC. Eventually they were returned to the state of Kentucky in January 1994.[4][5]
  • In August 1957, Kentucky Congressman William Huston Natcher stalled the plan to scrap the battleship, hoping for an eleventh-hour save of some sort. [6] Of course it did not work out for him. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, everybody: GA listed. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future FAC concerns
  • Something about Drydock #8 should be worked into the article, including the ship preceding Kentucky (Alabama BB-60).
  • The costs of the ship must be worked into the article.
  • The question must be settled: should there be a paragraph about torpedo defense improvements that may not have been implemented?
  • A photo or two of the bow of Wisconsin could be included, telling the reader where that ship is located. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous information still included[edit]

A good idea for the GA reviewer would be to look at the Featured Article Review and note that the article still contains only ship of the class considered for a guided missile rebuild. which was long ago proven wrong. There were other issues mentioned too. Brad (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NNSY?[edit]

The article implies that Kentucky finished out her days at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. However, I can recall seeing her at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in late 1958. Was she towed there from Philly to be broken up? Or vice versa? It may take some research to answer these questions. I think they need to be answered. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in USS Kentucky (BB-66)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of USS Kentucky (BB-66)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "spring":

  • From Montana-class battleship: Naval Historical Center. Bureau of Ships' "Spring Styles" Book # 3 (1939–1944) – (Naval Historical Center Lot # S-511) – Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
  • From USS Illinois (BB-65): Naval Historical Center. Bureau of Ships' "Spring Styles" Book # 3 (1939–1944) – (Naval Historical Center Lot # S-511) – Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings. Retrieved 1 December 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBAA?[edit]

According to this from Friedman, proposals for 8"/55 turrets in an AA conversion were considered, should this be added to the article or is this something discussed in the past and disproved? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lede problem[edit]

as of now, the lede makes little sense. Ship was planned as the last of the iowas, but an emergency measure made them build it as an iowa? later in the text it becomes apparent that she was planned as a Montana, which directly contradicts the first sentence in the article? 89.8.211.108 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Kentucky_(BB-66)&oldid=1213179671"