Talk:USS New Jersey (BB-62)

Date formatting hell

Would someone please change all the dates from European style? - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 02:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh, it's not really European style. The bulk of U.S. Navy info is from DANFS, a government publication, so, uh, take it up with the U.S. government. :) RADICALBENDER★ 02:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I will! Wait, I am the U.S. Government...hmm...well, however they go about it, we have a disputed standard and a precedent in American English vs. British English with American English used in American topics and British English used in British topics. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 03:01, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The US military has used "European-style" dates for many decades, so in in-depth articles on US military topics it's most appropriate to use that style; "civvie-style" would look rather unprofessional even. Stan 03:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Assuming the dates are "linked", then the user preference governs how they are displayed to the reader. The format editors input is displayed by default for an unlogged in user I think, so they should at least be consistent. I have no problem personally with DD MMM YYYY as I think it's a bit more logical order and I learned computers on a VAX Where DD-mmm-YYYY was the norm.--J Clear 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved Paragraph

At one time, her 16-inch main guns were arguably considered the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the world. Their capability was described as being the equivalent of taking a car the size of a Volkswagen Beetle and hurling it (with force) a distance of over 20 miles with great accuracy. When fired, the crew would prepare by loosening deck bolts as the extreme shock of the blast could sheer the bolts. Similarly, glass port holes were especially protected when firing. It is said that firing a full broadside barrage would actually slam the ship laterally, moving it noticeably.in the water. Life Magazine printed some excellent color photographs of these guns in action.

heaviest bombardment since...

In the vietnam paragraph: "This marks the heaviest naval bombardment since World War II."

In the lebanese war paragraph: "This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War."

How does that add up?

I see your point. If properly cited, the contradictory statements were reported in reliable sources. Both statements may very well be true, according to statements cited in each source. The math does not add up, but Wikipedia editors are limited to citing reliable sources, despite such contradictory statements properly cited. Consider introducing a sentence to resolve the cited statements conflict. paradoxos 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

116,000 rounds from 16 inch guns

I am not certain but that figure sounds a little high. Assuming best case of equal distribution among the nine barrels, that's still almost 13,000 rounds per gun. I was under the impression they needed to be relined every couple of hundred rounds. Also they only carried I think maybe a maximum of a couple of thousand 16 inch shells so that would mean full reloading about 50 times, which seems unlikely.

Where in the article is this stated? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't a cannon cocker, so I do not know these details first hand. Ammunition supply ships would have resupplied the Battleship. Tenders, SRFs, SIMAs, refittings, and dry-dockings may have refurbished the gun barrels over multiple deployments during the conflict. Maybe the term tour should be changed to multiple deployments over the duration of the conflict since tour means a single deployment. This Wikipedia article is not properly cited, so I cannot do the necessary research and confirm. paradoxos 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Another battlewagon in Camden, NJ?

Found this on the google map of Camden: [1] Anybody know which ship that might be?--Cancun771 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually in the Philidelphia Naval Shipyard downriver from the retired battleship New Jersey. It is not one of the 4 Iowa class battleships, they are all visible at their respective moorings and this one has different lines. I would also like to know what ship it is. I thought all battlewagons but the 4 Iowas have been scrapped .Alley39

There are a total of eight U.S. battleships that have been retained as museums: Texas, Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Of these eight ships, all four of the Iowas and Texas can be ruled out of the running; none of them match the picture. That leaves the two South Dakota-class battleships and North Carolina as potential matches. In my opinion, I think the battleship shown is North Carolina, but I have no proof of that. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina is visible at its permanent mooring New Hanover County, NC but its lines are close to that of the unknown. Thanks for the info on the remaining battleships. I agree it can't be any of the Iowas or the Texas. Alley39

• Having stared at the picture for a longer period of time I think what you have highlighted here is heavy cruiser; probably from the Des Moines-class. Photos from the articles Des Moines, Salem, and Newport News show a roughly similar pattern: a ship with 5-in gun mounts arrayed on both sides of the cruiser, as well as between the #2 and #3 gun turrets and the superstructure; each of the heavy cruisers also have similar bridge design facilities. More importantly, a heavy cruiser would be about the size of a regular cruiser or destroyer (one of which appears to be anchored next to you mystery ship), but a battleship would have completely dwarfed a cruiser or destroyer anchored next to it. This means that the guns on that ship have to be smaller than the 16-in guns weilded by the South Dakotas, Iowas, and North Carolina. The heavy cruisers have 8-in guns that would fit the size of the ship pictured here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The USS Des Moines is confirmed to have been placed in reserve at the Philidelphia naval shipyard. Newport News was sold for scrap and the Salem is in its permanent mooring at the United States Shipbuilding Museum,Quincy Massachusetts. At 716 ft long the Des moines can certainly be mistaken for one of its bigger cousins. This photo is dated, the Des Moines has been scrapped recently at Brownsville Texas. 21/May/07 Alley39

Post WW2 Level 2 headline

Hi guys, are you meant to have the "Post WW2" section with a level 2 headline as opposed to a level 3 headline like all the other posts? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I elected to make that section its own indepedent group, but I suppose there would be no harm in changing it for the sake of uniformity. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue that as request per say, I am very much the student and you FA guys are very much the teachers. I was just curious if there was a qualifying criteria to give a section a level 2 header? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It boils down to "editers descretion", although as a community project others will add or subtract headers as they see fit to help an articles readability. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great FAQ thing by the way, I only just learnt about that "Ref name" thing, which thankfully has cut my references section half ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about location

"The next day New Jersey fired on an enemy rocket site northest of Con Thien, destroying the facility, then trained her guns on known communist positions to harass Viet Cong forces."

Northeast or Northwest? Enigma ^message 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese

There is a lot about the Lebanese Civil War before the New Jersey arrival. Two paragraphs are from a reference with a link that has been dead for months. They disagree with the accounts in Multinational Force in Lebanon and 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. I not sure they are needed in this article and should be removed. Halgin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try recalling the link first, if I can not resurrect it then we can remove it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a couple of days. I assume you can't find i, so I removed it. If you find the link, try to fix the disagreements with other articles. Halgin (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been two busy to look for it. I was actually just about to try and revive it now that the article has regained a spot on the request page. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it! This link is for the source, and all information cited is still present and accounted for. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)