Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)

This article was featured on Wikipedia's Main page on 2 September 2005.

Featured Article?

Is it ready to be a featured article? ---B- 01:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Almost. I filed a request for a peer review to get feedback for improvement before it gets put up on the FAC page so that we can fix the problems (if any) with the page without being on the clock. Be patient, well get there soon ;) TomStar81 22:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious to know why it had such a short peer review period? Is there some reason it was only left on the peer review page for one day? Typically one month is more appropriate. — RJH 15:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The FAC page had already been created. Thats why. TomStar81 15:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

I'll have to double-check with our ship's curator. I thought I remembered that we didn't actually provide any fire support at Iwo Jima, that task being delegated to the older, more experienced, battleships. We were present at Iwo, of course, but I think our role was limited to anti-aircraft screening and surface support for the aircraft carriers. I'll check... ---B- 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armament details?

Can anyone confirm the armament details? They don't seem to accord with the text. Noisy | Talk 11:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• They are basically correct, though I think we still had the 40mm guns aboard in 1968 (the ship was in mothballs at the time anyhow) as I don't think those were actually removed until modernization in the mid-80s.

There were also a pair of single 20mm guns that stayed on until the 40mm guns were removed. As far as I know they were all still aboard on decommissioning in 1955. -B-

I have recently visited the Missouri, and the armaments are drastically different from what they were originally. However, the armaments were changed to suit the purpose. Some of the 5" guns, for example were removed, and TLAMs were added. Additionally, Phalanx CIWS were added to port and starboard. The rear plane-launch-thingies were also removed. I can update and add pictures. Avriette 02:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The catapults for launching floatplanes were removed around 1949/1950. The flight deck was cleared for helicopters prior to our deployment to Korea. ---B- 03:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Last Battleship?

Wisconson was the last battleship the US built, not Missouri.

• Not quite. Wisonson is dubbed BB 64, and Missouri BB 63, but Wisconson was completed and launched before Missouri, making Missouri the last battleship constructed and commisioned. It's a really easy mistake to make.

"last battleship built" is often ambiguous phrasing, since building takes a long time. Should pick something with a specific date, such as launching or commissioning, and say "last to be commissioned" or whatever. Stan 13:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To say that the Missouri was the lasted battleship commissioned would be incorrect, because the navy commissioned the Montana class, and construction on these vessle began as the last Iowa class ships were building. Perhaps "Last battleship completed" would be a better phrase. TomStar81 08:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, interesting additional bit of ambiguity - in navies, "commissioning" is the step of bringing a ship into active service, while the act of asking for a ship to be constructed is just called "ordering". You can see that in the ship articles' sidebar boxes. "Completed" is often used as an informal synonym, but it's not quite the same, since you might have a period of time between when the ship is completely finished with construction and fitting-out, but isn't commissioned because then you'd have to acquire and pay a captain and crew (this happened to some ships that were completed right at the end of WWII). Stan 13:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks for the information. I may be able to put that to good use on the Gundam ship's pages. TomStar81 00:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Old Peer Review

Historic Events

From the article: "...Demands were made that Turkey grant the Soviets a base of seapower in the Dodecanese Islands and joint control of the Turkish Straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean." Although Dodecanese islands belonged to Turkey prior to 1912, at that year they were occupied by Italians and sovergnity over those islands were transferred to Greece following WWII, so if Soviets demanded such a base from Turkey, they had a very crappy foreign office. Actually the Soviet demands from Turkey were its northeastern provinces along with control over Turkish straits.

The Chassis for this article was Missouris entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships; that part of the entry was largly unchanged because there was no further information on it. If the information is incorrect it means the sorce was incorrect, and for that I apologize. TomStar81 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection and errors

There are at least two errors, one minor (typography: hyphen instead of n-dash for date separation) and other major (History: Soviet ingerence in Turkey) but the page is protected. Why and for how long?

Also, it is typically customary to refer to decomissioned ships such as the Missouri as ex USS Missouri, to indicate that the ship is no longer on the navy register.

I had to revert some vandalism on the page earlier today. Seeing as it is a featured article I'm guessing it has been protected to protect it from idiots for today.--LiamE 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles should not be protected simply because they are linked on the main page. An increased level of vandalism does occur when they are on the main page, but also an increased level of improvement and editing. If it undergoes sustained vandalism attacks again, then it can be protected; but at any rate, there should be a Template:Protected there surely. I'm going to unprotect on the expectation that the vandals have probably lost interest. Slac speak up! 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Communist conspiracy?

the part about soviet expansionism in the balkans/greece/turkey and the u.s.-interest in the independence of these countries is almost laughable. wasn't greece ceded to the western sphere of influence in jalta or teheran? as far as i can remember stalin refused to help the greek communists and subsequently they lost to the u.s.-supported "democrats". remember "gladio"? it was the outspoken policy of the us-administration of these days not even to allow a communist gouvernment to be voted into office, let alone bomb into it. when visiting they certainly represented us-interests in the region (which even may have been identical to the interests of the free world), but certainly no interest in the independence of these nations. greece and turkey became a vital part in nato-strategy some years later, there was reason enough for the us to be there. it is naive to ignore them and just reiterate what essentially amounts to cold-war propaganda.

Again, I state that the Chassis for this article was the entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. I did not extensively change that part, so it retains most of its DANFS content. If you have a problem with that section's content take it up with United States Navy. TomStar81 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

She??

The entire article refers to the sip as 'She', shouldn't it be 'It' ?. I'm not a native english speaker, but calling the ship 'She' sounds a little awkward to me.

The custom in English, at least traditionally, is to refer to ships as she. They can be referred to as it but maritime enthusiasts would not like that. Slac speak up! 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Its perfectly correct to refer to ships as she, never as it. Incidently this is also true of countries. --LiamE 20:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A fascinating query. I don't have very good Googling skills, so it took me a while to find this interesting article. Noisy | Talk 21:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I can tell you one thing for sure, the pen-pusher that said “They are commodities, they are commercial assets. They are not things that have character—either male or female” has never been to sea! --LiamE 21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I used the feminine pronoun on account of the fact that this was the last battleship built, so "she" represents the end of an era. Although not a sailor, I am told that USN personal (with the exception of submariners) refer to their ships as "she". IMHO, we shouldn't switch out "she" for "it"; however, the will of the conclave is stronger than one individual, so if consensus is reached to change it I won't complain. TomStar81 03:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)