Talk:South Carolina-class battleship

Range vs Operating Radius

Noted a change from Operating Radius to Range on the info box..... From what I have read, operating radius is the ships "Half Range" where is can return home where "Range" is total range KitsuneFX (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Removal

Originally listed fuel as 900/2200 (Coal) but was removed. Many other articles have fuel listed. Is there a reason for the removal? KitsuneFX (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know I wrote the article but I don't think they were ever converted to oil, I'd have to check to be sure. Tirronan (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Fuel (as in Coal) should not be added back into the article? KitsuneFX (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. Tirronan (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Design dates for South Carolina Class versus H.M.S. Dreadnought

The general design of H.M.S. Dreadnought as laid out by the Committee of Design chaired by the First Sea Lord Sir John A. Fisher was approved on 17 March, 1905. The final design was approved by the Board of Admiralty on 15 May, 1905. These facts are taken from Admiralty Board Minutes in Adm. 167/39 at The National Archives, and are referenced in Jon Tetsuro Sumida's In Defence of Naval Supremacy, p. 58.

The Naval Appropriation Act of 1905, approved on 3 March, 1905, provided for "two first-class battleships carrying the heaviest armour and most powerful armament for vessels of their class upon a maximum trial displacement of not more than 16,000 tons..." The design was still not ready by 11 April when the chief constructor explained to the General Board of the United States Navy that he was still investigating different layouts of heavy guns. On 26 June he again confirmed that no definite design was ready. For this see Arthur Jacob Marder, The Anatomy of British Sea Power, p. 541. The final design of the South Carolina class was not confirmed until 23 November, 1905, by the Board of Construction, for which see Norman Friedman, U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, p. 62. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Superfiring turret

The article says that the South Carolina was the first to feature superfiring turrets. However the article for the Henri IV battleship (commissioned 1903) says that it was the first to feature a superfiring turret. Which is correct? (Macossay, 8 July 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.192.36 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer's a little murky... But would seem to favor giving the title to South Carolina. A few qualifications that aren't directly presented in the article for the Henri IV:

• The two turrets in question are of different batteries; the lower is from the main battery, while the upper is from the smaller secondary battery.
• Partly as a result of the battery difference, it isn't established that the upper turret could actually safely fire over the lower turret; in this case it most certainly was not superfiring, any more than the turrets of HMS Dreadnought were.
• Also, it's quite debatable as to whether the Henri IV was even a battleship, or rather an armored cruiser. Its main battery consisted of a single pair of 274mm (10.9") guns, below the 300mm (11.8") caliber generally considered the minimum for capital ships. It could be argued that some other ships with less-than-300mm guns could qualify as "second-class battleships," such as the USS Maine and its 10" (254mm) main battery, however, such ships like that had a full standard main battery of four guns common to virtually all battleships of the pre-dreadnought era, while the Henry IV had only two.

Hate to nitpick, but the Germans built rather a large number of captal ships armed with 280mm guns... I don't think that there's any question that the Henri IV used a superfiring arrnagement, but she barely qualifies as a battleship. I think the best way to approach this is view the Herni IV as the first application of superfiring in any form, whereas the South Carolinas were the first ships with their main armament in superfiring mounts. Getztashida (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All information considered, the second fact appears to be true, and hence disqualifies the Henri IV's status as a ship with superfiring turrets. And even failing that, the other two facts grant at least some claim to the USS South Carolina, as, at the very least, the world's first battleship to have superfiring turrets, as well as the world's first ship with a superfiring main turret battery. Nottheking (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To be technical, it was Michigan with the first 'real' superfiring turrets, and even then, the Brazilian Minas Geraes was just one day behind. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But the article is about the Class not the specific ship right?Tirronan (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

additions

Ok, how about from this point on we don't make additions without citation. After 4 years of this I think we are about out of excuses.Tirronan (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible other sources

Dumping ground here.

• Navy (Washington), 1908.] South Carolina launch.
• The Navy League Annual, 1908. Michigan painting.
• Proceedings, 1905. Rear Admiral Robley Evans on the class and advocating for a larger displacement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Ed

Why are photo credits given in the pic caption? I removed one but didn't go any further because I saw it was your FA. Brad (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brad101: Great to see you back! It's something I've been doing when I've had images uploaded from NARA and other institutions specially for this article, but I've lost the battle on them, and I still need to fix the articles to use footnoted credits (like at South American dreadnought race). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Carolina-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808124147/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/bb26.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/bb26.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224122324/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb26cl.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb26cl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange unit conversions

What's with all the strange unit conversions? It's almost like someone added "|0|" to all the convert templates without knowing what that does. It's ridiculous to convert "roughly 3,000 yd" to one-meter precision, and I fixed that. It's equally ridiculous to convert "6.9 ft" to one-meter precision. Is there a reason for all this or can I just go ahead and fix it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the precision specifiers. I left them in for gun sizes, armor thickness, and anything else that looked like an exact number. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kendall-K1. I suspect that I'm the one who did that, but I think of a reason why I would have done it... :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)