Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tennessee-class battleship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tennessee-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Tennessee-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's been a while since we've had an American battleship or class at higher levels of review, so I figure it's time to bring one up. The two Tennessees remained in the US Navy's inventory for nearly 40 years, but of course, their most notable service came during World War II; both were damaged at Pearl Harbor, though only California seriously so. They formed part of the bombardment group that supported amphibious assaults across the central Pacific, and were present at Surigao Strait, the last action between battleships ever fought. As always, thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

First the Spanish and now the Americans' comeback. :)

  • Tennessee took part in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • Done
  • Tennessee and California both took part in the Philippines Campaign Same as above and I believe a "they" instead of the ships' names.
    • Done
  • Therefore, the new ship's ability to resist underwater attack You mean "class" or do you mean "Tennessee"?
    • At that point, the class hadn't been named - the project was still referred to as "Battleship 1916"
  • Ships of the Tennessee class were 600 feet (180 m) long at the waterline I think "Ships of" is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • They displaced 32,300 long tons (32,818 t) standard, and 33,190 long tons (33,723 t) at full combat load Link both normal and full load.
    • Done
  • which significantly increased displacement to 37,947.5 long tons (38,556.4 t) Ehm, that's a little bit too detailed.
    • Rounded
  • The ships' propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW) --> "Their propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW)"
    • Done
  • On speed trials, Tennessee reached a maximum of 21.378 knots (39.592 km/h; 24.601 mph) That's really detailed?
    • Rounded
  • The ships had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) --> "They had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)"
    • Done
  • Since Tennessee and California had been completed after the Battle of Jutland Which year?
    • Added
  • The ships' main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick --> "Their main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick"
    • Done
  • The ships underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft --> "The Tennessees underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft"
    • Done
  • The ships' weapons suite was also overhauled --> "Their weapons suite was also overhauled"
    • Done
  • ashore to assist with relief after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.[22][21] re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii.
    • Done
  • when the Japanese attacked the fleet at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
    • Done, but earlier
  • forcing her up against the concrete quay.[6][22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • This is what happens when I write an article before we have lengthy discussions on capitalization...
  • Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • During the fighting on Tinian, Tennessee was hit by Japanese field artillery and slightly damaged.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • triggered the Japanese to launch Operation Shō-Gō 1 Why is "Operation Shō-Gō 1" redirect to the Battle of Battle of Leyte Gulf?
    • There isn't an article on the plan
  • resulted in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on 23–26 October.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24–25 October --> "of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24/25 October"
    • Done
  • the Allied fleet destroyed the Japanese Southern Force Was this a proper noun? If so is there a link too?
    • Not an article - there's the redirect Southern Force, but that just points to the Leyte Gulf article
  • only one Japanese destroyer escaped the overwhelming Do we know which one?
    • Yes, but I don't figure it's a relevant detail in this article
  • though by then the fighting ashore was in its final stages.[22][21][28] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • {{xt| sold for scrap on 10 July, and thereafter broken up.[22][21] Same as above.
    • Done

So that's it from me. Not much to say. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Parsecboy: Hey mate it's almost 20 days ago when I made my review and is it me or is there no progress made in those almost 3 weeks? Just a friendly reminder. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I don't know if you've noticed, but these French protected cruiser articles aren't going to write themselves ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

I'm highly tempted to support this article without reading it simply on the grounds of the excellent infobox photo, but that might set a bad precedent! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first sentence is a bit clunky: especially the " and were named Tennessee and California" part: I'd suggest re-wording or splitting here.
    • I was trying something new - sometimes new isn't always better ;)
  • "The problem was eventually corrected with the Mark VII gun" - were these guns fitted to the battleships, and if so when?
    • Friedman doesn't say when, unfortunately. Cracknell mentions the Mark VII guns in passing, but not when they were installed
  • Why were the ships so extensively reconstructed in 1942-43? It seems an interesting and possibly unwise decision to have taken two elderly battleships out of service for such a long period when the USN was in a pretty difficult situation and space in dockyards was in high demand. What was the intended role of these ships, and did the returns justify the investment?
    • In a nutshell, the USN lacked the logistical support to operate the carriers and the battleships, so the Navy wasn't really giving anything up with the reconstructions. And Tennessee was already back in service by the time there was enough of a buildup of supplies and troops for the Aleutian campaign. I've never seen anyone do a cost/benefit analysis of the reconstructions, but I imagine the increases in anti-aircraft firepower were greatly appreciated off Okinawa at the very least
  • "The new towers had been removed from one of the Brooklyn-class cruisers that had recently been rebuilt" - do you know which one?
    • No, I haven't seen any recording of what towers went where
  • "but she saw no active operations owing to the crippling fuel shortage in the Pacific at the time" - I can't see where this is in the DANFS entry on Tennessee, which says instead that she and the other old battleships in Task Force 1 were too slow to be of much value during this period
    • Apparently I forgot to add the cite from the Tennessee article - good catch
  • The sentence starting with "Both ships were ready for action" is a bit over-complex and repetitive.
    • Reworded - see if that works better
  • As always, I worry about the heavy reliance on DANFS for details of the ships' service histories given the significant problems with many DANFS records (self-censorship, mistakes, etc). I'd suggest consulting sources like Samuel E. Morrison's official history of the USN in World War II and the recent Osprey books on these ships. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with that more with regard to individual ship articles where the narrative goes into more depth (since I've had to email the NHHC about errors I've discovered in the past—you may have noticed I've never brought a USN ship article past GA, and it's for this exact reason, as I don't have the sources needed to go beyond DANFS), but in the case of a class article we're just hitting the broad strokes. The bulk of the narrative recounts the battles where these ships saw action, none of which is particularly controversial, and I think DANFS is fine to cover that. As a counter-example, if we were talking about activities of ships in the Caribbean in the 1910s and 1920s, it would be a problem (having gone through the DANFS entries for the battleships of that era, I can tell you that none of them took too critical an eye to what the fleet was doing). Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nick-D: - is there anything else you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by the rationale for not going beyond DANFS here: it's a flawed reference, and sticking to it means that the article is potentially missing discussions of problems with these ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand that; the technical stuff is all covered by Friedman, Cracknell, and Conway's, not DANFS. DANFS is only being used to cover the where and when of their service histories, and only the broadest of strokes at that. None of the material it's being used to cite is at all controversial, and I don't think the sources you suggested would be any different; I don't know that I've ever seen Morrison to discuss the details of any ship (which is to say, he wouldn't highlight problems with a given ship), and I don't think the Ospreys are all that good (there's a reason I don't use them anymore - even Staff's books on the WWI German ships, which are among the best of the Ospreys, are little more than abbreviated translations of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz). You will also note that the one battle in the narrative that goes into a bit of detail—Surigao Strait—is covered primarily by Tully, not DANFS. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I can't support here: this isn't A-class sourcing Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your objection doesn’t make sense. First you said the problem with DANFS is it’s tendency to include errors or be censored, but I pointed out that it’s only being used to cover the broad strokes of the ships’ careers, so those problems won’t affect how the source is being used. Then you said DANFS won’t cover defects or criticisms of the ships, but I’m not using it to discuss the technical details of the ships. It seems like you’re moving the goalposts on me. If you categorically object to DANFS, say so, but don’t make up justifications that don’t apply. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • My concern here is that DANFS is almost the only source for the section on the ships' service histories. As various discussions at WT:MILHIST have noted problems with this resource, I don't think that this is satisfactory for an A-class article: there's the risk of errors, omissions and missed opportunities to note interesting things. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But those details wouldn't be included in this article. That would be a perfectly valid criticism if I brought an article on an individual ship here, but since we are only talking about the broadest of strokes in this article, it isn't. To illustrate the point, let's say the DANFS entry on Tennessee omitted reference to some detail about the ship's actions at a given battle. For the purpose of this article, we don't care. It wouldn't be included here, regardless of whether DANFS mentioned it or not. I could just as easily go through An American Battleship At Peace and War, which at 146 pages, likely includes material that DANFS doesn't, and this article would read exactly the same. All we care about here is whether Tennessee and California were at a given battle, whether they were damaged during the action, etc. We don't care if Seaman Joe Snuffy stubbed his toe during the bombardment at Okinawa.
                  • As for errors, yes, DANFS has errors, but they don't make mistakes on the scale we're talking. Let's look at a passage cited to DANFS, chosen at random: "Tennessee was completed first, returning to the fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands campaign, thus beginning her career as a naval gunfire support vessel during the island-hopping campaign against Japan. In this role, she conducted preparatory bombardments to destroy Japanese defensive positions and provided support to marine and Army ground forces as they fought their way ashore, suppressing Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints." Are you suggesting that DANFS is wrong that the ship was ready by May 1943? Or that Tennessee wasn't part of the Aleutians campaign? Or that she wasn't used for shore bombardment? Or that the US didn't wage an island-hopping campaign against Japanese forces in the central Pacific? This is the level of detail that DANFS is covering; yes, DANFS makes mistakes on matters of detail at times, but that's completely irrelevant. It'd be like discounting a source that mistakes minor details about the composition of Saturn when all we're talking about is the order of the planets. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • G'day, gents, not sure if it helps, but I have a copy of Morison's Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier on loan from the library. There is only one mention of Tennessee in the index (p. 423) -- it confirms involvement in bombardment of Kavieng. I can add this is you feel it would help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've also ordered a couple of extra books from Morison which might help. Probably here late next week. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I have a copy of The Two Ocean War and New Guinea and the Marianas, which have a few mentions (not sure if these are helpful, though, sorry): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTOW, pp. 59-63: Pearl Harbor, California in the southernmost berth; California mentioned in relation to possible delays in crews laying down anti-aircraft fire; Tennessee mentioned as suffering less damage than West Virginia, hit by two bombs but also experiencing damage from the exploding Arizona; California "unbuttoned" for inspection when hit, hit by two torpedoes and a bomb which set off a magazine. Counterflooding prevents capsizing; 98 officers and enlisted personnel killed
  • TTOW, p. 446: Leyte - both ships equipped with Mark-8 fire control radar
  • TTOW, p. 480: Lingayen - California serving as Oldendorf's flagship & in charge of ops enroute to Lingayen until relieved by Admiral Kinkaid
  • TTOW, p. 482: Lingayen - California hit by a kamikaze at base of foremast
  • TTOW, pp. 534-536: Okinawa - Tennessee with Admiral Deyo onboard supports Okinawa landings
  • TTOW, p. 539: Okinawa - in comparison with Yamato, Tennessee's gun range described as smaller (37,000 yards v 45,000)
  • TTOW, p, 551: Okinawa - 12 April, Tennessee hit by a kamikaze
  • NG&M, pp. 180-182: Saipan - California and Tennessee mentioned in relation to Oldendorf's group during pre-landing bombardment during Saipan ops; twelve 14-inch guns
  • NG&M p. 187: Saipan - Tennessee hit by a Japanese battery on Tinian
  • NG&M pp. 197-198: Saipan - both ships bombarded Afetna; Tennessee supported 1/5 Marines when pinned down by enfilade fire from Agingan Point
  • NG&M pp. 200-201: Saipan - California fires thirty-one 5-inch shells in support of infantry movement near Red 2 Beach during landings
  • NG&M pp. 360-362:Tinian - 23 July, both ships fire 14-inch (480) and 5-inch shells (800) on Tinian Town, destroying it

Hey Nate and Nick, how's the review going on? It looks like that the last comment here made was two weeks ago and the last comment made by one of you is almost two months ago? Just a friendly reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at an impasse; he believes DANFS is not acceptable at A-class for reasons I do not believe are valid. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: From a first glance, this isn't a topic for a regular review, but for a source review. Personally I do not know a lot of the DANFS and don't know or it is highly reliable or not. But after a small glace in the article, I can see indeed some paragraphs having both primary and secondary sources which are both originally from DANFS. I don't think it's bad to use DANFS as a secondary source as long there is another citation linked to an independent source who supports this claim. AR was so friendly to search for some sources which mention these events with the ships. This may help you. Another thing there's no source review at the moment unless this counted as one. Oh and personal question here why are there citations which have a year and others don't? I hope this would promote (like I always do) 'cause it had waited for a long time before it could promote and the nom looks pretty dead inside. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposing here, but I'm afraid that I can't support the nomination. I'd have no objection whatsoever to this nomination passing if someone else posts a support to get this to the minimum needed. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "The Tennessee class consisted of two super-dreadnought battleships"
    • Works for me
  • suggest link ship class in "The class was in most respects"
    • Done
  • suggest "four threetriple turrets"
    • Done
  • marines infantry→United States Marine Corps troops, and link
    • Done
Body
  • suggest "that could reach well into the expected battle ranges of the day"
    • Done
  • suggest " Theis class was essentially"
    • Done
  • 16-inch (406 mm)→16 in (406 mm), as you have already introduced inch
    • Done
  • 14 in (356 mm) guns the Tennessees carried
    • Fixed
  • for turbo-electric drive propulsion system link Turbo-electric transmission, and drop the later link
    • Done
  • high-capacity shell? what is that?
    • Some kind of high-explosive shell, but I don't have any further details from Cracknell or Friedman on its composition. High capacity refers to the fact that much of its internal volume is reserved for whatever explosive they used, compared to standard AP shells that had only a small burster
  • suggest "to prepare that island"→"to conduct the preparatory bombardment of that island"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The class was in most respects a repeat of the preceding New Mexico class, with the primary improvements being a significantly strengthened underwater protection system and increased elevation of the main battery guns to allow them to fire at much greater ranges.
Add a comma after system to join the independent clauses.
Done
  • California was re-floated and both ships were heavily rebuilt between 1942 and 1944.
refloated is not hyphenated.
Are you sure about that? I get the red underline when I type it without one. On the other hand, I searched google books for both versions, and the unhyphenated one seems to be more common, but the hyphenated one is used sometimes (for instance, by Raven & Roberts. I suppose if it appears to be more common to not hyphenate, that's probably what I ought to do here
<> My dictionary sources all agree on the unhyphenated spelling. And this seems to be the generally accepted way it’s spelled. Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two ships spent the rest of the war patrolling the East China Sea until the Japanese surrender in September.
Consider adding "offical" between the & Japanese, and adding 1945 after September.
Good idea

General charactetistics:

  • The motors were arranged in three rooms, with those for each of the inboard shafts in the center room and one for each outboard shaft on either side.
The begining of the 2nd clause seems a bit awkward.
See if how I reworded it reads easier
<> Much better, thanks! Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications:

  • Both ships received air-search radar and fire-control radars for their main and secondary batteries, the latter seeing the mixed battery of 51-caliber and 25-caliber 5-inch guns replaced by a uniform battery of sixteen 5-inch/38 caliber guns in eight twin mounts.
"fire-control radars" - why the "s" on radar?
There were separate fire-control sets for the primary and secondary guns, since the latter had to engage aerial targets

Service history:

  • During a period of rising tensions with Japan over the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelct ordered the Battle Force to relocate from its homeport in San Pedro, California to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii
Add a comma after California
Good catch, sometimes I forget that if I'm linking a city/state

World Wr II:

  • While she was still working up, Tennessee
This could be a phrase few readers will understand?
Reworded
  • California was ready for service in time for the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign in mid-1944, and both ships shelled Japanese positions on Saipan, Tinian, and Guam; the two ships collided while en route to the last target in the campaign, Peleliu, which prevented California from participating in the Battle of Peleliu, though Tennessee remained in action.
This is a 57 word sentence that could easily be broken-up into two sentences.
Good idea
  • ... before proceeding to Okinawa to conduct the preparatory bombardment of that island
Change that to "this"
Done
  • The two ships were then assigned to Task Force 95 which was charged with patrolling the East China Sea, with Tennessee as the flagship of its commander, Vice Admiral Oldendorf.
If what follows after Task Force 95 is essential to the meaning of the clause, then change which to that. If it is mot, add a comma before which.
Comma added, good catch

Done - Pendright (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pendright! Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Neptune's Inferno needs an apostrophe
    • Good catch
  • Be consistent about including publisher's location
    • Fixed
  • Missing a space between the page #s in #25
    • Fixed
  • I have to disagree with Nick about the suitability of DANFS for the limited use to which Parsecboy put it here. I have first editions of two volumes that my Dad purchased 50 years ago and just compared the entries on the battleships North Dakota Oregon with the online versions. The peacock words have been removed, but they're otherwise identical to the printed versions. I forget which battleship listing it was that mentioned the ship's VD numbers after a port call in Australia, but I was vastly surprised such a disreputable thing published by the Navy. So I think that it's safe so say that DANFS can be quirky.
  • DANFS entries are summaries of a ship's service and they are certainly not suited to be the sole resource when diving deep into a ship's history, as is required in an individual ship article. But I think that they're perfectly usable and RS when summarizing a ship's service at the shallow level required for a class article, which doesn't much go below the level of being present at a battle, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • In the lede, link main battery, underwater protection system, refloated, bombardment vessels,
    • Done
  • Add a hyphen in island hopping
    • Done
  • In the infobox, delink the second long tons
    • Good catch
  • Suggest that you convert to the nearest tenth of a meter for length unless that conversion has trailing 0s; here and in the main body
    • Done
  • While stating that the ships use turbo-electric transmission, it makes little sense to say that they have four of them. Rather say that they use 4 turbo-electric generators
    • Removed the "four-shaft" bit
      • That still looks strange. You still need the # of shafts. I'd suggest Turbo-electric transmission on one line and then 4 shafts on the next, plus maybe the generators.
      • In the main body, they weren't powered by turbo-electric transmissions, that's how they fed energy from the boilers to the propellers. The material in the New Mexico and Colorado-class articles might offer some useful ideas. Also need links for turbo-electric transmission and electric generators.
        • Ah, I had missed the box - should be fixed now
        • Reworded the body, see if that works
  • the design staff used the design proximity alert for design.
    • Removed
  • increased draft Proximity alert, perhaps "deepened"? More after my afternoon constitutional.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - enjoy the heat! I already took mine, between your source review and this ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain the deck levels
    • See if what I added works
  • Tennessee received two of the 3-inch guns back in 1940 awkward
    • Reworded
  • hyphen for aircraft handling
    • Done
  • Need a link to naval gunfire support somewhere, perhaps to bombardment vessels in the lede?
    • Done, though there's one in the WWII section as well
  • Everything else looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Tennessee-class_battleship&oldid=969024850"