Talk:USS Washington (BB-56)

Photo caption (edited 14 Nov 2020)

The original source for the photo of USS Washington firing at night is ship's the Cruise Book, where it is captioned only as night action, not night action against Kirishima. The 20mm cannons on the focsle deck forward do not appear to have been fitted in November 1942 (certainly they were not there in August 1942).Dfvj (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, they definitely aren't present in this photo dated to August 1942. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Speed

@Parsecboy: Freeman on page 447 has an official trial of 26.15 knots and a design speed of 27 knots. If you saw a speed of 28 knots from the destroyers. So a lot seems to be seen from the destroyers.--Inctructor (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Friedman is a bit fuzzy on details. On page 274, he states "The Washington encountered similar problems in her first trials at 100,000SHP and about 27 knots." but he provides no date for those trials. And if you look at the bottom of page 275 and top of page 276, you'll see he also records details of trials conducted on 27 December 1941, making a speed of 27.1 knots. The figures on page 447 appear to actually be for North Carolina, not Washington; see the last para on page 275, where he reports identical trials data but attributes them to North Carolina. The same two ships having exactly identical trials data is implausible.

The 28 knot figure is from Conway's and is likely the projected speed, which conforms with Friedman, also on page 274, the sentence directly after the one I quoted above. The 27 knot design speed is from the original specifications, but power was increased from 115,000SHP to 121,000 - see page 268 (though Friedman again unhelpfully leaves out the speed change there, but we can assume that with page 274, 28 knots was the final design speed). Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

Washington could be considered to have been the difference between success and failure. Without her, South Dakota could very well have been sunk, Kirishima survived and the bombardment mission succeeded. For that reason it is appropriate to highlight this fact. As a hint on how to read the detailed account or as a teaser to read it in the first place. Certainly it is also mentioned that Yamato was the biggest BB afloat for example, a distinguishing piece of information. Or compare to the entry on USS Johnston, where more than a single sentence is spent in the teaser about her role ine Battle off Samar. Again, appropriately so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.80.192 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What you added is an excessive amount of detail for the lead, which is supposed to summarize the entire article. It's not a "teaser". If you're confused, please read WP:LEAD. If you continue to edit-war, you'll be blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The most important mission a warship participated in deserves to be mentioned in the lead. Would you write an article about Halsey and not mention Leyte Gulf in the introduction? It was only one decision the man made in his entire life. if you are going to cry edit war and enforce your wrong opinion, i am not going to stand in your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.80.192 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Re-read the lead and tell me where it doesn't mention the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Literally half of the second paragraph covers it; we don't need more coverage. If you have no arguments apart from strawmen, you're wasting your time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)