This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
In the field at the top of the article, I added a conversion to 2018 dollars:
Ship original cost=$275,000 ($7.35 million in 2018 dollars)
This was reverted by Sturmvogel, who says "Currency converters do not work well with capital costs".
Sturmvogel has provided no information on why this is the case.
I will add the currency again and invite him to discuss on this page.Newzild (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you add something and get reverted, the polite thing to do is discuss it on the talk page. Adding it back in before the discussion even starts is aggressive and confrontational.
You did not give a source for your conversion. Where did you arrive at this? If you've used the Consumer Price Index, Sturmvogel is quite correct in reverting you.
And giving a fixed end date is unhelpful. When I come back in 2028 and read this article, that number will be useless to me. We normally use Template:Inflation to get the most up-to-date conversion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inflation converters use the cost of living to derive their figure, but warship costs have far exceeded that number. The battleship HMS Barham (04), built a century ago, cost about 2.5 million pounds. The latest British Type 26 frigate, a ship about a quarter the size of the battleship, costs 8 billion pounds for 8 ships, once R&D is factored in. So run your converter again based on 2.5 million from 1913 and see how many tens of millions of pounds it yields, compared to the billion actually being spent.
Also, do some digging, there have been plenty of other discussions on Wiki invalidating inflation calculators for capital costs that have nothing to do with changes in the cost of living.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The inflation conversion is misleading at best even in dealing with items affected by COLAs. It doesn't (can't) take account of cost changes that have varied at rates other than the nominal COLA. IMO, it shouldn't be used at all. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Just to use some examples from my own experience from when I was a kid in the late '70s, paperback books in the US have increased by about a factor of 6 or so, but gasoline has merely doubled. And I have no idea what those ratios are for those in the UK, Germany or Zimbabwe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
♠I was thinking of the U.S. auto industry in particular. Prices in the '80s were artificially inflated as a result of the "voluntary import quotas". There's also changes in wage/pay structure that complicate things even further, so even using the number of weeks/months' wages (which I would have favored) isn't truly accurate, either. And when this is all true, using a script seems like a really bad idea.
@Askedonty: I don't have access to the cited sources. Do they actually use the word "prudently"? Can you provide a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, User:Kendall-K1. This passage is not a quote. We're trying to make sense here, not blindly to follow sources verbatim, which can lead near to copyright infringement sometimes. --Askedonty (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is that your own opinion or that of one of the two authors? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, quote or no quote, you need to source the claim of prudence; as it is, it's mssquerading under the cited source, which makes it looks like it's actually cited, when it appears, in fact, not to be. That's not kosher. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The claim is repeated by the inventor of the gun himself just the sentence after. I reckon the word "prudently" is not a very good choice but without an indicator or hint related to "reduced charge" the sentence sounds like the tables for the gun were established, the point precisely behind being that they were not. --Askedonty (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Prudently" is not really an encyclopedic term as it is, to a degree, a value judgment of the action. It's like saying "wisely" - or in this case "cautiously" which would be a better word to use. "Prudent" is a praise in English vs. a neutral description. I think even "cautiously" is not necessary unless the sources said as much; the reader can draw their own conclusions about that from what is said. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading a bit more carefully, IMO we may be arguing over nothing. Dahlgren used the charge he did out of ignorance of what amount was actually needed to really damage Virginia, & therefore couldn't recommend using more, because he had no way to know if what was needed was within the gun's design limits: that defines prudence. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 12:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) what were the charges reduced from? 2) I think an action being "prudent" has a more subjective implication than it being "cautious". It's generally used as a form of praise, i.e. that it was wise or well-thought-out. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above I would not be satisfied with that word myself, and it's not about editorializing or not. I'm not satisfied with the sentence since the introduction of a sharp "because" in place of a much less assertive expression https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Monitor&diff=852462002&oldid=851085070. As Trekphiler explains Dahlgren does not know what is needed to damage Virginia. All right. But it is a paradox, or it is curious, or it's circumstancial to the haste caused by the war situation, that he does not set an upper limit. It's even dubious in a way. Therefore I do not see a reason for the text to become so sharply assertive as it is becoming. --Askedonty (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Because" means exactly "due to the fact that". —DIYeditor (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just like "no way" means exactly "nuts". --Askedonty (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it English is not your native language? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly. It would be without any implication concerning what's worth my precedent reply. --Askedonty (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This latest reply is not even in comprehensible English. Like I said, you are confused about the definition of "because", and I would gather other words. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might as well use your impression to deduce by yourself that language is not a mere nuance-less Lego. My point never was imposing "prudentle". Ericsson was no native either. A difference between prudence and caution is that the former is more about caring for oneself. End of transmission. --Askedonty (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't anyone have access to the sources? If we knew what they said I think it would make this discussion go a lot more smoothly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
♠"what were the charges reduced from?" In a military context, that has a particular meaning; I'd say it makes little difference to the average reader, so long as the understanding of "lesser" is maintained.
♠"I think an action being "prudent" has a more subjective implication" I'd agree, & that makes the comment editorializing, which we should be discouraging. As noted, whatever we may think, no editorial comment on Dahlgren's decision is necessary: that facts do speak for themselves, here.
♠"he does not set an upper limit" I read that to mean Dahlgren isn't willing to risk blowing up the gun (which has happened to Ericsson & wasn't unusual in this era) if it won't actually have the desired (or any worthwhile) effect on Virginia, & refusing I'd call prudent: I don't think it needs us to tell the reader that. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 23:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, sorry, I had taken your calling it prudent to mean you supported the use of the term in the article. I do not agree that it makes no difference to the average reader what the charge was reduced in relation to, but I asked because it seemed important in deciding whether this was "prudent" or not. As in why wouldn't he use a full charge at least? Because that would be imprudent? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proper amount for the propellant charge hadn't even been determined yet by Dahlgren for the 11-inch guns and the Monitor used half the amount used later in the war. Personally, I'd not use "prudent" as that's really editorializing, IMO, unless a source says that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
♠"I had taken your calling it prudent to mean you supported the use of the term" That's evidently not what I initially wrote, so IDK... The text, as it stands, is IMO enough to support a conclusion Dahlgran made the right call. What more do we need?
♠"The proper amount" I would suggest "the maximum amount", which is what I was getting at: he didn't know if a charge approaching what it would take to blow the gun sky high would be required to actually do measurable damage to Virginia, & testing it in action seemed pretty stupid. I'd agree with that assessment; the text supports it.
♠In light of this, tho, it seems some additional information on what Dahlgren was fretting over, & why, might be in order. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I have noticed this article promulgates the idea that early Ericcson turrets were easily 'jammed by debris getting under the turret'. Recent research suggests this is not necessarily factual and may even be totally wrong? If this is the case, can Wikipedia really be responsible for promulgating falsehoods or myths? To get straight to the point, the Passaic class monitors at Charleston suffered damage to turrets which put two out of action (Nahant and Weehawken). Damage was reported as 'shock' or similar to the turrets. The USN response to this was to fit applique armour rings around the base of the turrets to prevent such 'shock' damage from jamming the turrets in future.
The armour rings were fitted to the bottom edge of the turret itself - photographs of the turret rings in place show a clear suture between base of applique ring and deck, because they were not connected obviously.
So, two things:
That space would allow more 'debris' not less to get underneath. But the turrets were not reported as suffering 'jams' from 'debris' after Charleston and the fitting of the applique rings.
Secondly, photos of the armour rings show definitively the effect of confederate cannon shot against the armour rings, with dents and deformation on the bottom edge.
Clearly, the gap between turret ring lower edge and deck permitted for this deformation without having any effect on turret rotation.A quote from an article on these ships:
"If we look to the Passaic class, we will see that the applique armour ring was not actually fixed to the deck, but was attached to the turret itself. The distinctive gap between ring and deck is visible on USS Passaic. And there, at the bottom edge of the armoured ring, is the clue as to what they were for; a huge dent from a Confederate cannon shot. If the base of the turret ever left the deck (as in the dubious ‘jacking up’ theory) then enemy shot would still have been able to get underneath and ‘jam the turret’. Clearly this did not happen."
Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but if somebody else has done the work, get the best thinking into the article? Would that be a good idea?
Link here: https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-weaknesses-of-the-USS-Monitor-and-how-were-they-addressed-in-subsequent-ships-of-the-monitor-type/answer/Andrew-Givens-1
Note that this article raises another issue related to the turret, namely the lifting of the turret off the deck so it could turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Givens raises some interesting points that will require further investigation as he himself is not a reliable source for his information and conclusions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it's drawn from a bilbiography, consisting of the following; From Monitor to Missile Boat’ (Conways).
‘All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860–1905′ (Conways).
‘Ironclads at War’ (Greene & Massignani / Friary).
‘Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad’ (Osprey).
‘Our Ironclad Ships, Their Qualities, Performance & Cost’ (Sir E J Reed).
I'ts easy to put links to an article online, but how do you put appropriate links to books which will alow readers to go and look at them without going to a library? What's Wikipedia's way of handling this? 79.69.26.58 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright law prevents us from linking directly to text, which is why we cite our sources with enough info for interested readers to track down the information being cited. Nothing we can do about readers needing access to the sources being cited to verify them. Given that there are a large number of books specifically published on the Monitor, there are better ones than those that he's using. Doesn't mean that they're wrong, but I'd trust books specifically about the Monitor incorporating material from after the wreck was salvaged more than general histories covering more ships in lesser detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New thinking seems to suggest that the Ericsson turret was never actually lifted off of the deck when in action, but was instead "keyed up" as opposed to 'jacked up'. Apparently, 'keying up' was the process of turning the bolt on the wedge under the turret shaft or spindle's bearing, to raise the bearing. In this way, the turret spindle was raised so that a flange or similar was engaged with a slot or yoke in the turret base. This gave the spindle some real purchase when rotated by the donkey engines, and that's how the turret turned. But it's stated in this article that the turret roof was, typically for this period, slatted and not integral to the turret structure nor fixed in place, but held there by gravity. This raises problems of the turret spindle only being firmly in contact w/ the turret at the base, and then only under pressure, but not firmly fixed.
If the turret were jacked up off the deck (see 'debris getting under the turret'), it would have been 160 tons of iron, shaped like a hollow drum, rotating at 2rpm with a pair of columbiads firing and recoilling inside as it spun atop a nine-inch thick pole, like a dancer. And the turret, balanced only at the centre of the base, was surely have fallen off during such evolutions.
The article which was linked above states that the turret ring on deck was a zinc-based material used as a bearing surface, that the turret spindle was only raised so as to engage with the turning slot in the turret base and the crew were only raising the shaft, not the turret itself.
That's not what this Wikipedia article states though. Occam's Razor tells me that one of these stories sounds right and one sounds very fanciful indeed.
This is an excellent article overall; very in-depth and well researched, but it apparently has some glaring issues of 'received wisdom' about the central piece of technology which is what makes the article's subject noteworthy initially.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.jpg)
