Talk:Delaware-class battleship

First True Dreadnought?

Opening paragraph of this article states that the class was the first "true dreadnought" for the USN. However, Dreadnought and Great White Fleet both state that the South Carolina class was the first class of USN dreadnoughts, and the same is implied in the article on the USS South Carolina (" the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships..."). This could use some clarification, I think. What makes the Delaware class a "true" dreadnought, or is the distinction false? croll (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

it means that someone inserted said phrase without knowing what he/she was talking about... A common thing around here unfortunately... it is not correct. --Tirronan (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a valid view of the ships; the South Carolinas were too slow to keep up with later dreadnoughts and were in fact grouped with the pre-dreadnoughts in the fleet. Yes, they were "all-big-gun", but that's only half of what made Dreadnought revolutionary. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, battleship design is a tradeoff of THREE generally conflicting attributes: firepower, speed, AND protection. US battleships have traditionally favored the first and third to the second - so while the South Carolinas (or Michigans) were slower than Dreadnought, they were in the end not inferior, just different. One could argue that Dreadnought was inferior to them as she was more poorly armored, so it goes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions

"Prompted by the launch of the HMS Dreadnought, and a lack of correct information, the US Navy and the U.S. Congress faced what they thought was a vastly better battleship than the two South Carolina battleships that were still under construction. This was the last time the US Congress would impose tonnage limits on a battleship outside of treaty limitations.[1] In fact the South Carolinas were inferior only in speed.[2] The language of the authorizing act of 26 June 1906 was for a battleship "carrying as heavy armor and as powerful armament as any known vessel of its class, to have the highest practicable speed and the greatest practicable radius of action."[3]

The Delawares were significantly more powerful than their predecessors; the only limit Congress placed on the battleships was in the fact that the hull and machinery could not exceed 6 Million USD.[3]"

• What? "Prompted ... by a lack of correct information"?
• Contradictions:
  • 'last time' ... 'tonnage limits' ... 'only limit was $6,000,000'
  • "South Carolinas were inferior only in speed" vs. "significantly more powerful than their predecessors"

Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, what contradictions? We are discussing the South Carolina Class against the Delaware Class, and yes the South Carolina was inferior to the HMS Dreadnought only in speed, not in armament nor in the other measures of which one battleship might be taken as a comparison against another. Tirronan (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delaware class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, having made a few cosmetic tweaks, I believe that this article passes GA without the need for further improvement—the following criteria are listed and checked just for the record.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article Ian! Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)