Jump to content

Talk:Battleship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 16, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 21, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 13, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Featured article

"Full Speed Ahead and Damn the Torpedoes"

[edit]

This article states, "Unlike the ship of the line, the battleships of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had significant vulnerability to torpedoes and mines..." Wooden warships were indeed vulnerable to torpedoes (although they what we would call mines today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I would take it to mean, before mines were invented, there was no hazard, but clarification would be good. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Agamemnon

[edit]

the caption for the diagram of HMS Agamemnon says that she was typical of later predreadnoughts, which is not true. There was ONE other class of predreadnoughts with an intermediate battery of similar caliber, and it was british as well. American and Italian Vessels had 8" secondary while Japanese had 10", only england used 9.2" I think the caption should be changed to say that she was typical of later british predreadnoughts. Wandavianempire (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Major intimitation factor”

[edit]

Is this a misspelling of intimidation? 2607:FEA8:8760:A900:1BE:E642:694E:8A15 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks like a typo or other error. It's fixed now. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]