Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Ships}}. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: B-Class-1, B-Class-2, B-Class-3, B-Class-4, B-Class-5. Tag: |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Ships|
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
Line 23 ⟶ 15:
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes|Maritime-task-force=yes}}
}}
==Untitled==
Line 56 ⟶ 49:
:::"The 6in could fire more quickly, 6-8 rounds per minute as opposed to 2 for the 8in (5 possibly for the RN turrets)..." This raises two questions. Why could RN 8" turrets reach a rate of 5 rds per minute when other navies were apparently limited to a max of 2 rds per minute? Is there some technological improvement to the RN turrets that was not made to other major navies? A rate of fire of 6-8 rds per minute for 6" guns is a round fired from every 10 seconds to a round every 7 seconds. While I understand that pure 'throw-weight' could be important, could a 6 inch gun really be loaded, fired, shot fall spotted, gun corrected/adjusted/re-aimed in a 10 to 7 second time frame? I certainly believe that a 6 in gun can be loaded in 10 seconds, but it seems to me that proper aimed fire would take longer. [[User:Seki1949|Seki1949]] ([[User talk:Seki1949|talk]]) 04:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Most 8" gun turrets on heavy cruisers could fire at 4 rounds per minute. The exception was the Des Moines class that could fire at 10 rpm. All U.S. light cruisers could fire at 10 rpm while the British were working at 8 rpm because of bagged charges. The Tiger and Worcester Classes ended the light cruisers with fully automated firing 6" guns long after it ceased to matter. Agreed this article needs a rewrite and citations. Who wrote thi and got away with it?[[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] ([[User talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Me, actually, in 2008. I was sort of hoping someone else would come along and improve it, within 9 years. :) [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 09:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Land, no offense intended. The book I need to rewrite this is US Cruisers a Design History by Norman Friedman, unfortunately it costs $235 bucks which I don't have right now.[[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] ([[User talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 09:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
::It's fine :) Yes, that's book's been on my wish list for some time but it's a bit pricy (and I'm more focused on other stuff these days). Maybe you could see if you could [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn|get a grant] to buy it (and then, maybe, make it available to other Milhist editors?) [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Ok here is what I know, the US Baltimore, and USS Witchita carried an 8" super heavy shell that would go through 10" of armor at 10,000 yards. In other words, no cruiser ever made carried enough armor to keep that shell out at that range. Given that most foreign cruisers carried 4" of armor at max, any cruiser caught by that class of cruiser was going to be a dog's breakfast 15,000 yards on in and in all probability much further out. Given that by the time that the Baltimore's were out in the fleet they were carrying a really good surface radar fire control setup it gets even more grim. Baltimore's carried a 6" armor belt. As for 6" light cruisers, this was the US Navy's preferred night fighting platform and in fact that Brooklyn's were designed specifically around the concept of smothering fire, given that the class could pump out 150 rounds per minute. I don't have a armor penetration table for the 6"/48 AP Mark 35 shell they were throwing however. I rather doubt that Japanese cruisers would have fared well however giving that they were always lightly armored. However by the time that the USN figured out it did need a night fighting doctrine and did need a CIC to coordinate fires in a night fight the other side quit fighting that way. So we have a dearth of evidence in actual fighting. Empress August Bay is about as close as we are going to get. By late 1943 the Pacific was was an air war and anti-aircraft uber allies was the rule of the day. Heavy cruisers in the US fleet were beloved because they threw almost as much AA as a battleship. Also the 8" guns were nice shore bombardment tools as well.[[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] ([[User talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 10:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
== Tense ==
The article uses the past tense for heavy cruisers, whereas classes such as light cruiser's and battleships's, which are also not in active service but also have modern-day museum ships, use present tense. [[User:Tickery|Tickery]] ([[User talk:Tickery|talk]]) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
== auto conversion inch to mm ==
I was just trying to edit the erroneous conversion of 8 inch to 200mm calibre. But this seems to be an auto convert code which I cannot seem to tweak to get the correct result. Or it doesn't show in preview. So could someone please do this and look whether other measurements are correctly converted. No one calls 8in guns 200mm, it's always 203. A conversion tool that garbles results like this is of no use whatsoever. -[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] ([[User talk:Caranorn|talk]]) 18:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
:<code><nowiki>{{convert|8|in|mm|0}}</nowiki></code> gives - {{convert|8|in|mm|0}} ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 20:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
| |||
