Talk:Tennessee-class cruiser

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tennessee-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313032608/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-t/acr10.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-t/acr10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wording issues?

In the Design section, under the Secondary and light guns subsection (second paragraph) the content states, "The Mark 8 six-inch gun was used originally to arm American pre-dreadnoughts in the late 1880s. Many of these guns were reassigned as coastal artillery when the vessels to which they had been previously assigned had been scrapped as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, the guns were then used as coastal artillery.".

There is some sentence structure issues and duplicity. The guns were reassigned as coastal artillery; then used as coastal artillery.

I suggest changing this to:

• After the Washington Naval Treaty, when vessels to which the Mark 8 had been previously assigned was scrapped, many of these guns were reassigned as coastal artillery.". The article is large enough that linking to the treaty would be a plus.

In the Propulsion subsection the content states: "Diameters of high- and low-pressure cylinders were in the ratio of i to 7.3:". I assume the "i" should be a 1. I am familiar with ratios stated like 10.25 to 1 so is there a reason it is stated as what I consider backwards? Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Armament section

The chart under armament compares Tennessee to various foreign ships but both the Good Hope and Fürst Bismarck are much older ships that in both navies were replaced by newer more powerful ships. In addition the entire comparison is a bit misleading as it compares only overall broadside weight but does not distinguish between secondary and main armament when Tennessee was completed after the Ruso-Japanese war where 6" guns were often outranged. Joermungandr (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)