Talk:USS New York (BB-34)

The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns

Repeated sentence? CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Beyer, the secondary armament was reduced to 16 5"L51 in 1937 and to 6 5"L51 in 1942. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacock-terms?

One segment is littered with words, I consider peacock-words, but I'm not sure. I've pasted a segment in, for your review:

"New York brought her big guns to the invasion of North Africa, providing crucial gunfire support at Safi, Morocco on 8 November 1942. She then stood by at Casablanca and Fedhala before returning home for convoy duty escorting critically needed men and supplies to North Africa. She then took up important duty training gunners for battleships and destroyer escorts in Chesapeake Bay, rendering this vital service until 10 June 1944, when she began the first of three training cruises for the Naval Academy, voyaging to Trinidad on each."

My bolds.

I'll remove them soon.--Nwinther (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Source

[1] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Triple expansion?

I was under the impression that after the Dreadnought was launched, that all major ships without all-big-gun batteries and turbine engines were considered obsolete. Yet here we have the New York launched almost a decade later, with good old-fashioned piston engines? Didn't that have some effect on her performance? Why piston engines and not turbines? Were the designs finalized before the Dreadnought was launched? I just thought that was kind of curious. Might at least address the reasoning behind it in the article, maybe explain how she managed to keep up with other modern ships, even with a heavy and vibration-(and therefore breakage) prone powerplant..45Colt 03:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Our cynical opinion (and yes it is heresy - particularly if you're British) is that the Dreadnought revolution was, in part, a lot of hype built upon a grain of truth in order to get the British Government to fund a lot more dreadnoughts to replace all the pre-dreadnouoghts that the Royal Navy already had in spades. Of course, all other naval powers also bought into the hype, and a naval arms race ensued which ultimately contributed to WWI. For example, it is interesting to note that the USN had already started building turbine powered dreadnoughts several years before New York (and dreadnoughts, battleships with all big gun main batteries in superfiring turrets that Dreadnought didn't even have, but with triple expansion steam engines even before then). Perhaps the most interesting of these earlier dreadnoughts was the two-ship Delaware class. Delaware was built with triple expansion steam engines while her sister North Dakota was built with steam turbines, yet both ships had a maximum speed of 21 knots (just like all those British dreadnoughts of that era). Improvements to the lubrication of Delaware's engines allowed them to run all day long without being shaken apart - something that was a problem with earlier triple expansion engines particularly when operating at high speeds. Why then did the Americans decide to revert to triple expansin engines for the New York class? It was mainly a question of fuel economy - turbines burn a lot more fuel particularly at lower cruise speeds than triple expansion engines. For the Americans, this was particularly an issue when the subject of naval operations in the Pacific were contemplated. However, the follow-on Nevada Class returned to using turbines but burning fuel oil instead of the coal used in the New York Class - it was felt the greater economies that fuel oil offered over coal would compensate for the lower efficiencies of the turbines themselves.

12.7mm Browning?

This article makes no mention of the 12.7mm Browning machine guns that were fitted on New York. Is this intentional? 119.74.246.213 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Small arms complements aren't typically included in the battleship articles, because they're so hard to keep track of and often the books don't record them as part of the main armament. —Ed!^(talk) 23:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Smooth Log books associated to US Naval War ships in 1917,1918 ???

Does anybody know what a "smooth log" is and who would have possessed them associated to US Navy War ships from this time period? 1917,1918 75.178.116.254 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)