Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Hawaii (CB-3)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Hawaii (CB-3)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)
Toolbox
  • Comments
    • No problems with dab links or external links. I didn't see any alt text though, so see about getting that fixed.
    • In the design section the line The cruisers proposed as part of this ranged from the 6,000 long tons (6,100 t; 6,700 ST) Atlanta class to monster 38,000 long tons (39,000 t; 43,000 ST) ships carrying a main battery of twelve 12 inches (300 mm) and a secondary battery of sixteen 5 inches (130 mm) guns. Could you add a design or a class name of something to the sentence please? I read through this the first time and missed the switch to from the Atlanta class to the unnamed class referenced in the latter part of the sentence.
      • Take another look now. There was no class or design name in G&D, so...
    • Ten designs were drawn up through late 1939 and June 1940, most focusing on ships bigger than 24,000 long tons (24,000 t; 27,000 ST) and all utilizing 12-inch/50 and 5-inch/38 caliber guns. Could you clarify what we are talking about here on the design front? Did these start as heavy cruisers or battle cruisers, or was their a classification for them at this point in the design history?
      • Heh, I had a feeling this might get me into a little trouble, as I'm trying to summarize four pages of information in two to three sentences. I can't really answer your question though; all I can tell you is that the navy was only looking at the 12-inch gun for these designs, meaning that—at the very least—it was going to be a very heavy cruiser. I'm starting to doubt the Alaska-class cruiser's assertion (gotten from Morison and Polmar) that the class used "CC" (ie battlecruiser) early on because all of the designs in G&D that have designations are of the form "CA-2x", where x is a letter between A and I. I've got to finally get to reading what Friedman has to say in U.S. Cruisers before I decide on a course of action though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six ships of this design were officially ordered in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the 70% Expansion Two-Ocean Navy Act. Anything in there about the Iowa-class battleships, or the Montana-class battleships for that matter? They will be do for a PR/FARC at some point next year, and the more info we have on them for citing when that time comes the better able we will be to ensure these articles stay current on the OMT task force.
      • Well WP's article indicates that Illinois and Kentucky were the two authorized under that. G&D, p. 114 say that Iowa and NJ were authorized on 17 May 1938 and Missouri and Wisconsin followed on 6 July 1939, but are very vague about Illinois and Kentucky, only saying that they were authorized in "the summer of 1940". —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we find a picture of the planned conversion to the missile cruiser or to the command ship configuration? I think that in this case, as with USS Kentucky, a picture would go a long way to helping people visualize what exactly the USN was trying to do. I grant that this is one of those 'give or take' categories for improvement, but see what you can do.
    • Can we maybe move the gallery section out of the article? A commons link would suffice I think, but I leave that decision to you.
      • Well, the article only has room for three pictures if I want to avoid sandwiching the text between an image and the infobox, so I added a gallery to include a decent amount of photos. Then it just kind of ballooned into a five-image thing. I really want to keep the gallery in there, but should I reduce the amount of pictures to three? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise everything looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good, My complaints are addressed. Good luck, Ed! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are you pointing to the Hazegrey DANFS article? The most up to date one would be at the NHHC.
  • Knots and nautical miles need US conversions. I tried to make this change but the templates exploded on me.
  • Bag the gallery. Making up for short articles by filling it with pics is tacky.
  • I'll be back in a few days to complain some more. --Brad (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments Brad. The first and third bullets are done, but the bed is calling my name, so the second will be a task for tomorrow. Will be waiting in a few days to argue your points. ;) (kidding) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at the Alaska article and it mentioned a "carrier panic". Did that panic have any effect on Hawaii with its later build date from Guam? Seems like it did so might be worth including here.
    • I highly doubt it. I just double-checked the source for that paragraph in the Alaska class article, and it said that the studies looking at converting the Alaskas were ended in January, whereas Hawaii was canceled in May of that year.
  • Instead of having to explain the use of USS in the opening paragraph is there anything that says you can't just use Hawaii (CB-3)? I believe the conventions pertain to the article title but not the wording within the article. --Brad (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, good thought. I included that from looking at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66). If I remove it, however, it may cause confusion because every other United States navy ship article includes "USS". Do you still think it should be removed? If so, I will. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know Ed. The issue is a difficult one and is currently being discussed again. Likely it's better to leave it alone but the alternative isn't a bad thought either. I suppose that removing the USS and the note will only result in having to place a note explaining why the USS isn't there. You still need to convert Mach to kph and mph as well as the nautical miles in distance of the missile. Alt text is still missing. --Brad (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't know either. I think that the USS with a note is clearer rather than "Hawaii (CB-3)[A 1]", but... it's a problem no matter how you change it. I converted the nautical mailes, but I don't think I can convert the mach, as it varies based on what the speed of sound is in the medium, which (I think) would change based on height above the ground. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support All of my issues are resolved. --Brad (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and doesn't try to compensate for length by being overly wordy. – Joe N 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/USS_Hawaii_(CB-3)&oldid=1136064605"