User talk:RobDuch/Archive 1

• User talk:RobDuch/Archive 2
• User talk:RobDuch/Archive 3
• User talk:RobDuch/Archive 4

Disappearing carriage Bethlehem Steel pamphlet

Thanks. I'd been trying to find a worthwhile copy of that for a while; I even started scanning an ILL copy from the West Point library, before it became obvious I'd have to break the binding to continue. If memory serves, either CDSG or the Brit Fortress Study Group had some pictures of the rail-mounted, tunnel-sheltered disappearing guns at Ft. de Dailly; have you ever run across them? BTW, whaddaya make of the DG article as it stands now? When I ran across it a few months ago, it had a Kiwicentric look; a lot of the (mis?)info was based on installations in New Zealand.Anmccaff (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coast Artillery articles

I noticed that you wrote 16-inch gun M1895. I'm working on US Coast Artillery gun articles myself. I expanded 8-inch M1888 to include the disappearing version of the gun, and I worked on 16"/50 caliber M1919 gun and 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 gun. I'm planning to expand 12-inch Gun M1895 to include the other types of Coast Artillery 12" guns, and to make a new article about the 10" guns. Does this conflict with anything you're planning to do? RobDuch (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was just a one off I created hopefully to get to DYK. No plans to interfere with any artillery articles -- Esemono (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Navy vet

I notice that you have a userbox on your page that you are a Navy vet. I was curious if/what ship(s)/boat(s) you may have served on. My youngest son served on the USS Columbus (SSN-762). I have been interested in submarine history ever since I read Run Silent, Run Deep in the late 70s. I am currently working on a timeline for US Navy sub at User:Nyth83/Timeline of submarines of the United States Navy. Don't have enough time to devote to it so I do a couple hours of work a week on it. Should have it done in a couple of months. If you would like to look at it and make any comment or suggestions, it would be appreciated.

I also created the articles Timeline of battleships of the United States Navy, Timeline of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, and Timeline of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy if you are interested in checking them for errors. Nyth63 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

USN Submarines

Rob... Thank you for your excellent work in updating the articles on USN submarines. Several years ago I wrote 90% of the article on the Gato class. I also started updates on some of the others, but before I could finish I kept getting overwritten by someone else who kept changing my changes, and most were not for the better. Quite frankly I got frustrated with it and decided to stop wasting my time. Recently I came across your revisions and was very pleased to see all the updates. I am a naval historian and a Qualified Submariner that specializes in USN submarine history from 1900 though the 70's. All of your research is based on solid, reliable sources (many of which I use as well) and is well written. I have found only a few minor quibbles so far. Please keep it up. I am an active duty Chief Petty Officer in the USN and am currently on deployment so my involvement will be somewhat limited until I get back. If you don't mind I will review things as I have time and make whatever minor changes that I come across.

The only good history is correct history and you are on the right track. Wikipedia is a great resource now and keeps getting better.

Thank you!

Dave Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyJ576 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in the Navy 1978-84 as a nuke MM, on USS Pargo (SSN-650) 1980-82 and USS Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) (Gold crew) 1982-84. My dad was an LDO who started out as a torpedoman on diesel boats and generally alternated between NUWC Newport (was NUSC) and squadron weapons officer billets in the New London area. But his last tour was in San Diego and he retired to Escondido; I retired to Arizona last year and I can see him sometimes. I've always been into submarine history. I keep a "log" of the articles I've done significant work on in my personal page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobDuch . You'll see that I started with the B-boats and have done up through the Permits. I plan to do the Sturgeon class page soon. I do class pages because of the wide disparity in quality among them. Another user just made me aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sturgeon-class_submarines , much of which I'll probably put in the class page. I have generally added to existing pages rather than rewrite them. The exception was the Tambor-class page, which contained sweeping statements like "the first true fleet submarine" and "formed the core of the submarine force after Pearl Harbor" with no specifics or references. I rewrote most of that and nobody's objected so far. Thanks for serving, I hope your deployment goes well. RobDuch (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox usage

Hello Rob - thank you for your contributions to ship articles. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you missed it, that WP:SHIPS long ago decided that cites in infoboxes should not be used so long as the same information is cited in the article itself (which it almost always should be). Also, engine and boiler details should go into the "ship power" field in the infobox rather than "ship propulsion", per Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide#Infobox_ship_characteristics. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of what the standards are for ship articles. I'll attempt to comply with them in future. However, I've edited over 50 ship and ship class articles over the last 20 months, and I cannot recall any that were well-referenced that had no cites in the infobox, and particularly none that had machinery listed in the "ship power" section. I can recall several that had a cite for each line of the infobox and few or none elsewhere. I'm sure you're aware that hundreds of ship articles are nowhere near up to these standards. My observations could be due to my focus on bringing numerous stubs up to a useful standard, rather than produce a few Good Articles. I tend to edit articles that have not had a substantive edit made in two or more years. From what you're saying it sounds like most of the infobox needs to be restated in the article, if only to cite useful references. - RobDuch (crossposted from my talk page - Gatoclass).

Yes, there's a lot of noncompliance with the infobox ship guide going on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to rectify it :)

As for the cites issue - cites in the infobox can be tolerated, I think, where someone simply hasn't had time to add the same info to main body text - I have done that myself on occasion. There may also be rare occasions where it's just too awkward to add some obscure fact from the infobox to main body text. The point is, though, that you don't need to cite info in both the infobox and main body text. Infobox info should generally be included in main body text and cited there rather than being cited in the infobox. Hope that helps to clarify things a little. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahan-class dstroyer

In your enthusiasm to edit the Mahan-class destroyer article, you left your new engineering section without a citation. Pendright (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the Design section you inserted the following: “partially due to the increased light anti-aircraft armament added”… Because my existing reference (Note 7 - Roscoe p.20) does not seen to contain any such information, you’ll need to cover this with an additional source. Also, by adding and linking anti-aircraft, you double linked it - see Armament section. Pendright (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Becase of my recent ext, it is now Note 8. Pendright (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I took out the "crew due to AA guns" part, due to lack of a reference. I found a general statement in Friedman for the last part of the Engineering section (there are numerous cites in the body of it), so I added that. RobDuch (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Model" of 1916?

"Crime," that should be.

• Not sure I catch your drift. Yes, it was a rather poor effort at a self-propelled AA gun, but we did better later.

"Crime of 1916" was the gun's nickname; it was still a common example of a failed development program in the '80s, the DIVAD of its day. It was produced in tiny numbers, we used more british 18 pounder derivatives, and far more seventyfives. Anmccaff (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Brit DCs

Lasted past WWI, although not for the larger sizes, or for critical installations. Maybe mention of the German, French, and Swiss in categories as well? Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found exactly one online reference to the German and French designs, a brief mention in a 1919 "Mechanical Engineering" article on railway artillery. No indication as to the extent of their employment. I plan to put them in as "mobile disappearing carriages". The reference given in the Fort de Dailly article (Kaufmann's "Fortress Europe", which I have) doesn't specifically mention the disappearing feature, which appears to have been for the 53mm (aka 50mm) guns ("mobile turrets"). I found part of "Fortress Third Reich" online, which describes a "Gruson mobile cupola" that appears to be the Swiss 53mm mount, and I found illustrations and more info at http://www.landships.info/landships/artillery_articles/Gruson_Fahrpanzer.html . Also, I populated the "Disappearing guns" category. RobDuch (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

take a gander at [[1]] , about 2/3 of the way down. a beautiful example of yer basic 'affût mobile à éclipse Saint-Chamond 1893" Poetical, that is, the gun doesn't merely disappear, it is in eclipse. It's also more accurate, come to think of it. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the mobile turrets, these tie-in with the disappearing cupola designs, and some, in Alsace, if i remember right, were used that way. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: A French-English military technical writing dictionary by Cornélis De Witt Willcox is on Hathitrust[[2]]. Lot of minable search terms. Anmccaff (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Paydirt. Haven't seen this critter in several years: La méchanique à l'exposition de 1900, Volume 3 seems to be free on Google, with the illustrations un-munged. Anmccaff (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My paydirt was https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrpanzer , after a search on "5,3 cm" brought it up. And there are pictures I can use on Wikipedia!!! Some goofy source had "Panzerfahr", which gives misleading search results. The inventor, Hermann Gruson, also has a lengthy article on German Wikipedia; he designed numerous turret types including the monster 17.7" twin turret at La Spezia, Italy. [3] shows the 53 mm mount in a horse-drawn setting if you scroll down a couple of pages. Anyway, it appears some of Fort de Dailly's disappearing weapons were 53 mm guns of this type. The photo on the French Fort de Dailly site (whose link needs updating in several places on the Wiki article, grrrr) shows a disappearing-type 120 mm mount, but it's not a turret as it's not enclosed, and (to me) the manner in which it is mobile is not clear; most likely it's a rail system. The article states that "protection for the servants of the piece was always insufficient", therefore they were replaced with a smaller number of fixed turrets in the late 30s. Kaufmann's armament table is quite vague for Fort de Dailly. These weapons appear to have been widely deployed in Germany and other countries. I plan to actually read a bunch of stuff on the subject, including what I can make out of your French refs, in the next couple of days and work it into a paragraph in the DG article. RobDuch (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[[4]] will take you right to a good picture. Low rail platform with a splinter shield above, crew could serve the thing under cover, and it could be anywhere along the track for firing, as well as able to "garage" itself on an end tunnel in some locations. Lasted til...'39? at de Dailley, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

PS, some of the other vertically disappearing turrets show in the 1900 work, as well as on the .fr and .de wikis. They aren't really "disappearing guns" in the same sense, though. Anmccaff (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

PPS:Versenkpanzerturm. That's the Cherman for the vertically disappearing animule. Sinking armored turret, roughly. Anmccaff (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You may view my efforts at disappearing gun at your leisure. I think I got enough refs with your help. RobDuch (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That stuff added looks really good. I should be able to dig up some cites on the earlier field carriages, and someplace I have the info on the Krupp designs, which look a good deal like reverse-engineered Buffington-Croziers, with a counterbalancing shield enclosure, in an installation pit that looks like a giant electric stove drip pan.

I've nuked the reference to gunnery testing in NZ; that wasn't supported by the cite, and was contradicted elsewhere - the Bethlehem Steel/Crozier pamphlet, among other things, makes it clear that the tests referred to were in England, and didn't exactly negate the value of disappearing guns, for that matter.

Two other designs that could use coverage are the eccentric wheel carriages, and the designs that swung the gun in an arc sideways and backwards, but on a low slope. Very few of either were made, but by God, they look cool. 23:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Miller Railway Artillery has a nice, accessible pic of the St Chamond DC-on-a-rail-platform on page 22. Anmccaff (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll give that a look; been doing Canadian 4.7-inchers with their experts and also Rhode Island forts bc I'm partly from there. And that stemmed into documenting the 10-inch Lend-Lease transfer to Canada in 10-inch gun M1895. For a while I've been meaning to add commonly-used French stuff to List of railway artillery based on Miller, but haven't found the time. RobDuch (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts on that fellow's objections to the farhpanzers? I think he has something of a point; the type made to lift or roll out tactically were a handfull out of many hundred, at the very least, and the article suggests that this was their main use. Anmccaff (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's OK with me, at least he wasn't rude and didn't delete any of what I said. I like to include oddball uses and don't mind if it's clarified as an oddball; something I didn't know about and wasn't clear on in this case. One thing I need to find out is if the disappearing carriage was really "declared obsolete" by the Brits in 1912; maybe it went out of production but I bet it was in service through WW2, hence the numerous surviving weapons. RobDuch (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

QF 4.7-inch Guns

I ran across QF 4.7-inch Gun Mk I–IV and noticed that you were the last person to substantively edit it. Do you know if these weapons were the type that the US Army adopted circa 1898 as the "4.7-inch Armstrong Gun"? About 36 were used by the US Army for coast defense. I am heavily into US coast defense articles and would like to add a section on US service if this is the case. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand from manuals I found that it's the same gun. Please add whatever you can. These were state-of-the art guns at the time and perhaps the US wanted to learn from them... unusual for the US to buy Brit guns. It's always difficult to find the reason for such decisions so many years later.Rcbutcher (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The small amount of material I've found about the Army's 4.7-inch Armstrong guns (US designation) shows that some were 40 cal (and photos show are almost certainly the Brit Marks I-IV), some were 45 cal (I've found nothing as to designation but the Brits built several export-only models) and some were 50 cal (most likely a Brit export-only model found on some export cruisers, two of which became the US New Orleans-class cruiser (1896) with the guns designated by the Navy as 4.7" Mark 3 Armstrong). FortWiki identifies which type were at which forts; apparently they've gone through the annual Return of Armaments for each fort in the National Archives. Although I've found no supporting references, I believe these and the 6" Armstrong guns (QF 6 inch /40 naval gun) were essentially "panic purchases" to get a few guns rapidly deployed following the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. They were on ruthlessly simple pedestal mounts. The vast Endicott program was years from completion in 1898 and featured complex disappearing carriages. A related panic move of 1898 was the deployment of about 30 new 8" guns on recycled 1870s Rodman gun carriages. RobDuch (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well; during the "Spanish Fleet Scare" in Boston Harbor, the old Rodman guns, well past obsolete except at very close range, were brought back in service. IMS, the same thing happened up in Alta Mass...um, State o' Maine.

Another related factor was that the 4.7s and 6 inchers allowed some estuarine position that required coverage from both shores with 3 inchers to get by with one shore or the other. Anmccaff (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the 1899 report of the Chief of Engineers,[[5]], I'm seeing some pretty strong confirmation of this "panic buy;" lots of new 4.7 installs. Anmccaff (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good research ! The existing articles in Wikipedia were created to reflect ordnance deployed by the Royal Navy and British Army. Hence the article only covers the 40-cal model : the RN appears to have favoured shorter-barreled guns at the time. Japan appears to have eventually gone with a local 45-cal version while South American countries appear to have favoured 50-cal guns. I leave it to you how to document the 45-cal and 50-cal guns - perhaps just mention them in the existing article as they seem to be just longer versions of the same gun. Tony DiGiulian's website is an excellent reference : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm Rcbutcher (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I found a Congressional serial report listing the 1898 batteries, thought I'd put it here for future use: Congressional serial set, 1900, Report of the Commission on the Conduct of the War with Spain, Exhibit D, pp. 3778-3780 RobDuch (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Fort Morgan

Impressive as it is, the "one of the finest examples of..." seems a little high-flown. Here's the source: [[6]]

Built on the star-shaped design of Michelangelo, it is one of the finest examples of military architecture in the New World. 

...from a state site, that among other things, encourages tourism, by putting up marker placques.. I think that's glurge, mostly. Anmccaff (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually "read" the article, I just noticed the 155 link was to the wrong gun :) . I'm preparing a replacement for List of coastal fortifications of the United States in my sandbox, so I'm glancing at a lot of articles, mostly to get "built" and "deactivated" dates. My votes for "one of the finest" would be Fort Adams, Fort Monroe, with Fort Point in the "small fort" category. RobDuch (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fort Macon and Fort Warren have their points, too. Re Warren, one neat thing about the Boston forts is you can often see one from the other; from Warren with some good glasses, you could see Dawes back when there was a Dawes. Anmccaff (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

List of coastal fortifications of the United States

Looks damned good. I think some selective WWII works with smaller armament might belong; the 6inch shielded guns were a big deal in the Northwest, up to Alaska. It also could use some integration of the mines as well as the guns; some works were stripped of all cannon, but still an integral part of harbor defence. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found a good reference as to the mine system in terms of where and when, especially for otherwise disarmed commands. Supposedly the Penobscot River in Maine had mines, but no forts (an appropriation of $3,000 in 1898 is all I've seen). I just reviewed Berhow's chapter on this, and it describes the mine system really well and lists which forts they were controlled from, but nothing about periods of service. Maybe some of the later 6-inch installations should be included, particularly where they were most of the guns, but it would about double the number of entries, which is why I decided not to put them in. I just realized I've been inconsistent; I put in everything in Narragansett Bay that was called a fort, regardless of caliber, because that and Maine are my favorite locations. RobDuch (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the six-inchers only belong where they were the big guns, not where they were backup to the big stuff. A few in Alaska, maybe Ebey, and so on. Maine was a special case in some ways, because of the flooded glacial topography combined with closeness to Europe. There was a lot of harbored coastline to protect, comparatively.

Re the mines, I'll take a look for stuff connected to the CoE, which might have some dates available, but I suspect you'll run across something first. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I may do 6-inchers where they were the largest gun type, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it. RobDuch (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the Fort Whitman article, BTW. RobDuch (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I put in the 6-inchers. Note that several batteries were never completed. RobDuch (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Fort Saulsbury) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fort Saulsbury, RobDuch!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Found an extra book citation which might be a useful link & added it - hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Red links

Hi, thanks for asking. Red links are to topics Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. (When you've read this, click edit to view the code.) For example there isn't an article on uipihipouhbuiobuip. If you need to use a dictionary link to a definition you can either directly cite the dictionary you're using (as a book with the page number), or link to Wiktionary which is Wikipedia's companion dictionary project. E.g. for redesignated, that links to a dictionary article on Wiktionary on the topic. (I can't imagine what a Wikipedia article on 'redesignated' would cover.) If you view the code, the text after the '|' in the link is what the reader sees. But don't think you have to link to every word you use. Casemate sounds like it might be worth linking to, but 'redesignated' not so much unless it has a specific military term I don't know about.

Red links are controversial. Some people think they're good because they invite people to click on them and get linked to a page inviting them to write an article. I don't like them so much because I think a link to an article nobody is ever likely to create looks ugly. Blythwood (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As an additional point on this topic, the Internet Archive has digitised a couple of old dictionaries of military terminology, dating up to WWII and in one case later. (I have one of those for scientific terms for English and German, but I don't think I've ever used it.) So you could cite one of those as a book like this, and provide a url linking to it. (I've just done this here with a made-up page number.)

I am not talking about red links. I am talking about words that are underlined in the editor as mis-spelled. There is already an article on Casemate, but the word is underlined in the editor. RobDuch (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh heck, there's an "Add to dictionary" selection by right-clicking on the word. Although I suppose that just adds it to my local dictionary. D'oh! RobDuch (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Hotchkiss revolvers

I noticed on the USS Boston article, it linked some of the secondary (tertiary?) guns to "revolver cannon"; if memory serves, though, the overwhelming bulk of Hotchkisses were multi-barreled, like a Gatling, not multi-chamber with a single barrel. This might be a systemic problem through the articles; haven't checked yet. Anmccaff (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Revolver cannon" is the term I've seen in multiple references for the Hotchkiss system, regardless of how it actually operates. Friedman, for example, abbreviates them as "HRC". I've always been under the impression "revolver cannon" were multi-barrel, and certainly many were in the USN. Upon further review of the revolver cannon article, apparently this term should be linked to "Hotchkiss gun" for the correct description. However, many of these 1-pdr/3-pdr/6-pdr weapons on ships were actually ordinary single-barrel, single chamber rapid-fire; they're both in the same articles at NavWeaps.com. Surprisingly, in at least the US and Russian navies it seems the multi-barrel weapons were deployed first, and a few years later QF/RF weapons came about, probably to save cost and reduce jamming. RobDuch (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hotchkiss prefered "revolving" [[7]]. It shows up pretty consistently that way on the Army side, in the reports of the Chief of Ordnance. e.eg [[8]]. Wiki's got a Hotchkiss revolving cannon redirect, but that brings up the plain vanilla Hotchkiss qfs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: here's a site with better pictures: [[9]]Better illustrations Anmccaff (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

When I get around to it (probably in the next few days) I'll use the Hotchkiss revolving cannon redirect for these. I'm doing the cruiser articles now, though the pace has been slow. The whole 1-3-6-pdr situation is pretty snarled; I put in the stuff under US service for these that mentions both revolving and RF weapons were used by the US. I haven't dared check out the Brit situation yet. And 1-pounder gun redirects to an article with "Pom-pom" in the title; rather than try to make a separate article for QF/RF guns of this type I put in a paragraph under US service. NavWeaps.com provides some info but does not always identify which marks were revolving. It seems an article I recall called "List of revolving cannon" or some such has been deleted or replaced by List of multiple-barrel firearms; I mainly took out the "infamous" 42 mm Hotchkiss of Wounded Knee because that was not revolving in any sense. A quick look at that article shows it only includes the 37 mm/1 pdr version of the Hotchkiss, therefore it needs some work. I haven't looked very hard, but haven't seen any definite reference on 57 mm/6 pdr revolving cannons. A quick Google only shows 37mm/47mm weapons and 57 mm QF/RF. I just found Weapons of the Russo-Japanese and SpanAm Wars and it does not mention any 57 mm revolving cannons. RobDuch (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotta love that 52 mm fortress gun. Another odd caliber, aaarrgghhhh!!! RobDuch (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ayupp, 53mm HRC seems to be the max size found in any number, and even they weren't common. I can't say there wasn't a 57mm revolving cannon out there, but I think a 57mm USN Hotchkiss cannon would be a simple QF gun.

Yeah, the funky sizes. You had about 12 systems coming together, pretty much the way cars come together in a fog - violently. You had weight based systems, based on nominal bore based on a lead sphere that fitted fairly tightly, weight based systems based on a looser-fitting iron sphere. Weight-based systems based on the actual weight of elongated shot. Diameter based systems based on average, widest, narrowest or "nominal" width of the bore, or of the shot. In English and metric. Pfaughhh. Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed up Atlanta, Boston, and Dolphin (got a bit of flak from another editor on Chicago's propulsion, so I'm leaving that to him), also Newark. I plan to do Charleston, Balto, Philly etc. soon. RobDuch (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Man, you're burning through them. Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Check out what Pennsy22 is doing. I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't got back to me. Got started on Charleston tonight but have a way to go yet. RobDuch (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

First, a question that has been plaguing me....

...do you ever sleep, eat, other stuff like that? The reason for your prodigious output vs. my own can't just be because I'm somewhat disorganized, nope, nope, nope, nope...

On a more serious note, looking back though a lot of articles, both naval and army, from, roughly, the Civil War up to the Spanish-American, I note there's a(n anachronistic?) tendency to see weaponry as a fixed thing, rather than a flexible one. Warships still used guns on traversing platforms, had field carriages available for the smaller guns, and occasionally saw fairly casual changes of the smaller weaponry. It wasn't quite the days of the Georgian era, where a ship might go into a yard, and emerge with a completely different set of cannon, but it was much closer to that than the present. The pre-Endicott forts were all capable of trading off the location of individual pieces, and, IMS, the "Spanish fleet scare" saw a lot of shifting of the obsolescent and obsolete stuff, sometimes to higher barbette locations to get a tiny bit of range, sometimes to more sheltered positions intended only to act against landing. As the relative cost of weapons grew greater, and the superiority of turret mounts became accepted, this changed completely, but a cruiser of the 1880s could switch out guns almost as easily as the Constitution could. Dunno if there is any useful way to incorporate this in an article, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm retired and don't have any regularly scheduled activities, so I have a lot more time than most for Wikipedia. My other priority is computer games, and the last few weeks those have taken a back seat. About changing guns around, I dug up this link https://books.google.com/books?id=RUtZAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3780&lpg=PA3780&dq=submarine mine kennebec&source=bl&ots=4xAi23wWH6&sig=dWoH11emgzCGV43fUkYyNlaVEDM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4r5Hc167JAhUUXWMKHQZJAI8Q6AEIOjAI#v=onepage&q=submarine mine kennebec&f=false ; it's an appendix to the Report on the Conduct of the War with Spain (Vol. 7, pp. 3778-3780) (yes, the Report is huge), detailing permanent and temporary batteries established in 1898. A lot of 7-inch siege howitzers and 5-inch siege guns (which I haven't found many other references to) were set up in Fla, GA, and that area. In some places additional 15-inch Rodmans were mounted. In my ship articles I've detailed armament changes where I can find them. A number of ships got their guns upgraded to RF (brass case rather than bags) circa 1890-1900, NavWeaps has details. I think extra-low peacetime budgets were a big factor in the lack of gun replacements 1885-1898, and even through WWI. Digging into NavWeaps, in the major BB refits of the 20s and 30s they'd often upgrade the main guns to a new mark, along with a bunch of secondary armament changes. The Fort MacArthur museum has a Navy 14-inch breech section with three mark numbers and dates stamped on it. RobDuch (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

7 incher: [of the 7-inch siege howitzer battery with instructions]

5 incher: [of the 5-inch siege gun battery with instructions]

As is too common with Hathitrust, the illustration plates are either chopped up -the 7-incher, or missing - most of the 5-incher. The best illustrations, in fact, are those of the horses. There's a fairly decent picture at [[10]]; shows a later version that is pretty similar to the oldest. Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

PS:[of the Chief of Engineers U.S. Army (1898] dunno if this has surfaced here yet, but it covers both the temporary use of siege guns, and a bunch of panic 4.7 buys. (I think I referenced it before, but can't remember.) Anmccaff (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen the CoE's report before. Maybe I can do small articles on these guns. The 7-inch howitzer page has a decent write-up; I'm surprised that only 30 of them existed. And I thought the 100 6-inch howitzer M1908 was low. I also noticed that fold-outs in old books on the Net are scanned folded in, making them useless. I know a guy who's the biggest knowledge repository in the CDSG; he sent me PDFs of the gun and carriage cards for all the 4.7-inch guns, and I based the US service part of the 4.7-inch gun article on that. Someday I may ask about the 6-inch Armstrong guns; 8 were emplaced in the Span-Am War and then in 1907 an extra gun shows up at Fort Adams, RI. I've been working on the assumption it was a spare. FWIW the gun cards show there was a 35th 4.7-inch gun with an experimental breech that never left Sandy Hook. RobDuch (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've also recently noticed that some of the ship categories are a mess. For some ship types the class articles but not the class categories are linked to, say, World War I destroyers of the United States. For other ship types the reverse is true. My opinion is that both the class articles and class categories should be linked to the parent categories. What do you think? RobDuch (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm an agnostic on categories; I think some of them take so much in they are no longer useful, others too narrow. If I were Jimbo, I'd have separate data points in a relational database, so that the USS Chicago would be followed by separate data points -"ship" "warship" "USN" etc, and the categories would be determined by search rather than pasted on each article. But no one has died and left me the Jimboship, so I think I gotta let that rest. Under the current system, I think that you are right that nested categories have to all tie into the parent category (-ies?), but for an obscure, short article, or even a good one that is rightly short, you're gonna have more category than article. Anmccaff (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Ft Adams: wasn't there either a sub-school of the Artillery school, or a (dedicated) state militia training area there? Might be thinking of somewhere else, though. (h'Road-eye-LAN still had...still has, I think, some organized militia that wasn't part of the National Guard.) 02:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My brother just retired from about 30 years in the RIARNG, and I think he would've told me if they had any kind of State Guard. Newport does have the Artillery Company of Newport (which my brother is in), they were state militia until 1908 when they didn't like the Nat'l Guard's rules about officer selection, so they turned into a social club and re-enactor unit. There are several artillery re-enactor units around the state. The RIARNG has its OCS at Camp Varnum, formerly Fort Varnum. Fort Adams hasn't had any Army there since the early 50s, but it was Navy housing until the mid-70s. It was a mobilization point in WW2 (and every war since 1812 I think) and probably had some kind of training taking place there. RobDuch (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, remember, we are talking about before WWI here, and the state forces in Rhode Island have waxed and waned several times since, just like in other places. (I can remember when the National Lancers were training for riot duty in the early '70s. I don't think the Commonwealth entirely took 'em up on it.) But if I remember right (I know, famous last words...), one of the Northeastern states had a bigger-than usual state training facility for coastal stuff, and coast defense remained a real state priority until WWII in most saltwater states, both for real practical reasons, and because it allowed even federalized units to remain close by. Either way, though, It doesn't matter worth a damn if I can't find a good cite someplace. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Back in the CAC days the Coast/Harbor Defense Commands were garrisoned by a mix of Regular and National Guard companies or regiments. Rinaldi breaks it down for WWI Rinaldi, Richard A. (2004). The U. S. Army in World War I: Orders of Battle. General Data LLC. pp. 156–166. ISBN 0-9720296-4-8. . There's also a lot of stuff in the articles at http://cdsg.org/coast-artillery-corps/ , but it gets way in-depth about who was called what when. I would say each HDC would have its largest fort as its HQ, and use it in peacetime for National Guard training as well as its Regular garrison. For RI this would be Fort Adams. I would think the Nat'l Guard troops for smaller HDCs in caretaker status (such as, I think, New Bedford) would train at a larger, active HDC (in this case Boston). Circa WWI dummy disappearing guns for training were placed in armories supporting Nat'l Guard CAC units. One thing I never figured out was why the Nat'l Guard regiment for Eastern Long Island Sound, the 242nd, had its HQ at Bridgeport and not New Haven or New London. Fort Monroe was the Coast Artillery School, I think throughout the CAC's existence. RobDuch (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking a' Brewskis

There's a pretty well-known photo of a DC gun crew that's just finished maintenance downing some cold ones; as someone who went on active in the early '80s, when the campaign against drink, drugs, and fatness was getting in full gear, it was a definite anachronism.

If you ever run across it, I think it'd fit in a couple of the CA articles. One thing that doesn't show (yet) across the run of the articles is how much civilization followed the Oozlefinch. Anmccaff (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ktr101 did generic stubs for ALL the Mass coast defense mil res back around 2009; now I feel obligated to update them, esp to put in the battery info. I put in the info for the greater New Bedford mil res under Fort Rodman, now I get to duplicate it. I have about 3 or 4 to go; then either I'll do Long Island Sound or start on the mega-project of overview articles for each HDC. Or I may trudge through sorting references in DD and SS class articles. I joined the Navy in 78 and they were rather lax on drugs until the Reagan administration, then they went whole hog with a 2-year period of frequent(ly annoying) policy changes. Fortunately I didn't do them. They also did about a (ridiculous) year of gradually restricting who could have beards until finally eliminating them. The fatness issue was soft-pedaled for those in shortage occupations, such as nuclear power, which I was in. I only use photos that are already on Wikipedia due to the copyright issue; apparently for official photos all I need is to stick in some boilerplate but I haven't learned how to. As for state coast defense, I remembered that in the Civil War era Maine had the Maine Coast Guard, which was probably the only garrison most Maine forts had in that war. I suppose Mass had something similar. RobDuch (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fort Strong

One item not mentioned that appears to have accesible references now was the old federal "safe house" in what had been either a surviving NCO quarters, or a (fort) hospital building. (Most of the fort's other non-tactical structures were knocked down by the 70's) As a kid, I watched some Seabees or Jarhoovian combat engineers clear the ground around it; they graded out any dead ground, except for the cliff, which woulda been a bit much. It wound up with a glacis that woulda done Vauban proud. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds cool, show me a reference. Speaking of which, I just got Roberts' "Encyclopedia of Historic Forts", which apparently has a lot of errors but is good for listing obscure forts and alternate names. RobDuch (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

http://fbhi.org/uploads/3/4/3/2/34328966/long_island_access_plan_tcm3-16774.pdf

I find some of the proposed "improvements" kinda bad. Thank God the bridge is out. (If it still is.) Anmccaff (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005581253 (Army History/Historian at Hathitrust.) From which: American Gibraltars Bunch good public domain illustrations in that one. Anmccaff (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the report is from Sept 2002, if they do anything with the island in the future I'm sure a completely different report will be paid for. Apparently the main activities before they decided to abandon the island were a private drug rehab center (still shown on Google Earth) and a homeless shelter. There was a state psych hospital for many years, as you know, but I haven't found a ref as to which years it operated. I visited the island once or twice in the late 70s (my only visits) and I think the hospital was still operating. With no security at the bridge in either direction. I wish I had the nads to upload official govt photos with non-copyright boilerplate to Wikipedia, but I haven't learned how. RobDuch (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fort Architecture, 3rd system.

"Stripped classical." Dunno of a readily available cite offhand, but that's the name for the beast, although the forts evolved it before the name was coined. Anmccaff (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ps I think Willard Robinson's "American Forts" would make a decent cite, but that's from old memory only partly refreshed by Google.

Another cite, although I don't like the British orientation; yeah, US military architecture was influenced by Georgian Neoclassicism -that's pretty much what federal architecture is; but the French were a bigger influence, especially before Totten. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Stripped classical" sounds accurate but not eloquent when describing the early-modern look of the 3rd System. I've heard the big bastions like Fort Adams called "Bernard bastions" and the small bastions like Fort Trumbull called "Totten bastions". I suppose I should peruse Weaver's book for general 3rd System information and put it in the "Seacoast defense" article. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a book whose name escapes me that was listed in the old Whole Earth Catalog, along with The Prodigious Builders and such that had a good deal about this. Dunno where my copy of TWEC is anymore.

Back when I was younger, and even dumber, and a servin' o' the Reagan...(how may times did I repeat myself then?) I was working in a facilities master planning office, and tried to get a pentagonal design adopted for Warrior Base up by Panmunjom. ("Nice try, LT." What made it worse was my battalion symbol was yer basic pentagonal fort.) Still it was a functional design, and would have been defensible with a few lines of gabions. Anmccaff (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I assume by "Bernard bastions and "Totten bastions" you mean "normal goddam decent human bastions" and "caponiers in drag?" Never could stand the way those things look. Anmccaff (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Good job trying to get the Army to adopt something defensible. I would say Fort Adams and Fort Monroe (and Warren) have Bernard bastions, and Fort Delaware has Totten bastions. Check out the photos/plans on their Wiki pages. Fort D's bastions are half-octagons. I think of a caponier as something long and skinny like at Fort Hamilton; Totten's bastions were short and Bernard's bastions were of medium proportions. RobDuch (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I knew exactly what you meant; I let me amend the above to "foreshortened caponiers in drag." Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say they cut cost and time in construction and are functional. But the fancy Vauban look is lost in larger forts. RobDuch (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The same shape, BTW, shows up as dormers in Scotland and parts of Atlantic Canada; the Lunenburg Bump [[11]] is the highest (or lowest, depending on whatcha think of it) expression. Anmccaff (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Found a link about Mass coast defense in the Civil War: The State of Massachusetts Coast Defense This is the report of a committee examining the Commonwealth's claim for reimbursement of coast defense expenses incurred during the war. There's mention of hardware costs but no mention of who was garrisoning the forts. I'm thinking they might not have had a separate coast defense org, but probably raised heavy arty militia units for service in-state, which amounts to basically the same thing. RobDuch (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this led to problems with Washington, because once British intervention was no longer a major possibility, we had far more heavy artillery units than we could use. (Shipping them to the feds for "defence of the capitol' was a popular option.) A bunch of them got "reorganized as infantry", as we used to say in the CoE. Anmccaff (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

39th Infantry Division

I noticed your edit to 39th Infantry Division (United States). "In July 1923 the division was re-designated as the 31st Infantry Division. The 39th Infantry Division was reactivated after World War II"

You did not provide a reference. I have seen this remark somewhere before, but I believe it is an error. I do not believe there is any official connection between the 31st and the 39th.

The 39th Division during WWI was composed of units from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.

The 31st Division during WWI was composed of units Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

During WWII the 31st Division included units from Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia

The designation "39th Division" was not utilized during WWII.

Post WWII, there is evidence in the Lineage and Honors certificates for the 167th Infantry Regiment and the 124th Infantry Regiment, that the 39th was briefly reactivated in the National Guard in 1921 with units from Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, Florida. In 1923, these units were relived from their attachment to the 39th and reassigned to the 31st. I have never been able to run this down, but I think someone just screwed up post WWI and accidentally re-designated the old 31st Division, the 39th Division and it took them a couple of years to fix the error and change it back to the 31st.

Aleutian06 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I was copying information from the "Between the world wars" section to the intro para, unfortunately without copying the citation. It is a cryptic reference to some documents of the Louisiana AG in 1950, probably the AG's report for that year. The statement is that the National Guard requested the 31st Division redesignation due to the eastward shift of the division's units. For myself I'll put the citation in the intro para, but feel free to remove the information from both sections if you feel the reference is inadequate. RobDuch (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This stuff should be in appendix...C, I think, of the annual militia/Nat Guard bureau reports. Unfortunately, those are foldouts, and Google and Hathi did the usual dumbass trick of scanning the foldout without folding it out. Anmccaff (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

6"/53 caliber gun

I was in the navy for the duration of the Vietnam War; and it is nice to find another navy veteran editing Wikipedia. Thank you for edits on subject article. I am wondering, however, why you put four significant figures on the barrel length. Do you have a reference which stipulates the tolerance for barrel length within that level of accuracy? Thewellman (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just getting the conversion down to the last millimeter. "8 meters", the previous entry, didn't seem quite right for a gun built by the US, so that's what my calculator gave. Feel free to change it. RobDuch (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fort Knox.

Fort Knox, Maine -thanks. I hadn't realized how much of it was still there, and have only seen it from a distance because of that.

On an unrelated topic, if the guy who co-wrote the book on Fort Adams is your brother, could you ask him what dealing with Arcadia was like? I've got a couple large articles/small books in the makings relating to influential Army NCOs (one CA related - and you can make a case his death hastened Corregidor's fall) that might fit in with them, if I can dredge up enough pictures. Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Fort Knox is, as I said, very well preserved and accessible. The Fort Adams guy is my brother, and I'll let him know about your concern. Fort George in Castine is next; the current article is OK for Rev War but doesn't mention 1812. RobDuch (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

added pic of gun in Newfoundland)

I can't help thinking "a little oil, some grease, some angle iron, we could get this thing working again...." Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back in the saddle, mostly adding pics this time.RobDuch (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

7"/44 caliber gun

Thanks for the railway and coastal gun info. I put the sentence back in about the gun being an ancestor to self-propelled artillery because its not claiming to be self-propelled, or the first, just part of the history, "ancestor". This comes from a US Navy article. Thanks.Pennsy22 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw the article, and the author was clearly under the mistaken impression that the "tractor mount" was self-propelled. In any case, it's "an" ancestor, not "the" ancestor. RobDuch (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I felt that since he wasn't claiming it to be the "Father" or "Predecessor" but "an Ancestor" it was okay. Again, thanks for your contributions, I know I'm discovering a lot about these early guns in my research.Pennsy22 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern with most Army artillery in WWI (the Navy somehow worked it out better, but in very small quantities): Hundreds of weapons ordered some time in 1917, with only dozens delivered before the Armistice due to production probs. After the Armistice production actually ramps up and a reasonable number are produced. Some sources say that production probs were solved about that time. They then go into storage when production stops after the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919. This was the pattern with M1916 (US design) and M1897 (US version of French 75) 75 mm howitzers, along with most of the railway weapons. From what I can tell artillery, and esp railway artillery, had a low shipping priority due to the ready availability of finished weapons in theater and the massive space-weight cost to ship versus troops and ammo. So very few US-made weapons even arrived in France. Then there was the training, which seems to have been a couple of months. Something like 12 US heavy artillery regiments saw action (only one with US-made weapons), with another 12 or 13 described as "nearly ready" to engage when the Armistice hit. RobDuch (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Just want to thank you for your update to Fort Wadsworth. Really fantastic job! - Station1 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. As you can see on my user page, I've been updating the US forts, their background information, and some USN pages over the last three years. RobDuch (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Shape of Fort Tompkins

Great work on Fort Tompkins! Just a quibble about this edit. I think the fort is technically a pentagon, not a trapezoid (Battery Weed is a trapezoid). As far as I can tell the two short sides (north and south) are parallel, or virtually parallel, and form 90-degree angles with the long seaward (east) side. The opposite landward side does bulge slightly, forming, as you say, a very shallow V. Think of a home plate compressed at its point. Just fyi. Station1 (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Me, I think of that as a "near-trapezoidal irregular pentagon." Anmccaff (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. RobDuch (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fort Hancock posted

I’ve posted Fort Hancock, New Jersey , including the incomplete and mostly-demolished Third System fort. Battery Potter has its own article; a few years ago somebody mentioned merging it with Fort Hancock on the talk page and I might take steps towards that. RobDuch (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work improving so many military related articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much and happy holidays!!! RobDuch (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort Independence (Hull)

One reason this shows up less than you'd expect is that it was largely known as "the French Fort", the late revolutionary war version having been designed and built by the French. (Some Bostonaise folklore insisted that Lafayette himself had designed it.) In a sense iy was more Fort Indépendance. Anmccaff (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point, maybe once I get away from Skyrim I'll put that in the article (well, the alternate name anyway). RobDuch (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, give the rest of us a chance; the output ratio is damned embarrassing. I was thinking mostly, though, that the site has little wikicoverage for 1812 and the Civil War, and I suspect that's because a lot of the primary sources will go by a different name. It's easy to find (online) "French Fort" in the later 19th century -King's Handbook uses it, for instance, but I frankly cant see the site being ignored in any of the wars and alarums before that.

Skyrim any good? My recent computer gaming is now pretty much an occasional burst of "Pig Survival", my personal version of "Angry Birds." Anmccaff (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wrote a reply about Skyrim and a keyboard fumble wiped it. Anyway, Skyrim is several years old, but is one of my all-time favorites. Highly recommended if you want a BIG RPG that lets you multiclass any type of character you want. It's the descendant of Morrowind and Oblivion. I play on PC, it's on console but can't remember which ones. A digital remaster came out on Steam a few months ago; free to PC owners of the original with DLC packs. Console users have to pay something. It's a stand-alone game, no multiplayer. As for Fort Revere, I see "no record of use in War of 1812", which is hard to believe. RobDuch (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Digging for some stuff about the fort on Signal/Telegraph hill//Fort Independence I//the French Fort//Fort Revere, I came across this. (The author has another piece on defenses of Boston, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere.) Aside from that cool bit about crazy people using machinery to deliberately go underwater, there's a bunch of other neat stuff. Anmccaff (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Got any friends or relatives in striking distance of Boston? Edward Rowe Snow's "Two Forts Named Independence" appears to be in the Taxachusetts State Library. I think I saw that...Hell, I was in grammar school, so it's a while; I think it has some more stuff on the French Fort. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

'38 aerial of Ft Winthrop

[Gotta hit 1938]. Anmccaff (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort Independence.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112083820305;view=1up;seq=36 gives rebuild started in 1836; the congressional serials confirm this, all the earlier work was on minimal repair of the fort, but extensive [repair of the seawalls and ripraps]. Armed (or armable) by '45, substantially completed by '48. [sources] list '51 as the end end of major construction, but the last final stretch lasted into the Civil War. Much of the work is described as "repair" or "rebuilding"; one report of '39 lists expenses for "[preservation of Castle island and repairs of Fort Independence.]" Some brick sections were repaired into granite; some of this looks a little like grandpa's ax, with two heads and 3 helves replaced. Anmccaff (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I will get to this... sometime. RobDuch (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Fortwiki got this one slightly wrong, the old structure wasn't all torn down and then replaced, but sections worked on, and the construction/repair tailed off rather than having a fixed, definite end point. The punch list, so to speak, was never worked off until the Civil War. Because of the insistence that everything except the casemates was "repair", there wasn't a single unified project in the way there was at Ft. Warren. So I think the HD article and the Ft Independence article should reflect both the fuzzy-ended dates of construction, and the fact that there may be more of the old fort encased in the new than meets the eye. On one point, the FortWiki article is simply wrong - nothing substantial was done on the fort proper in '33, '34, or '35. There was extensive work on the seawalls, but nothing but the most desperately needed minor repairs on the fort itself, since it was obvious that anything done then might have to be redone shortly. No part of the fort was demolished or substantially altered then.

Serial Set Vol. No. 273, Session Vol. No.3 23rd Congress, 2nd Session H.Doc. 86 covers this, but I haven't got a single intact file of it yet. I'll upload it when I do.

PS: [| Appropriations by state (and Canal Zone) for Corps projects ] 1899-1914. Anmccaff (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In the overview article I'll phrase it as "substantially complete, though work continued through 1861". Was it due to repair money being easier to get than construction money? See USS Constellation (1854) and Amphitrite-class monitor for the Navy's problems with this and the underhanded work-arounds. RobDuch (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll work. The point about the work not starting until...'37. IMS, and not involving full demolition at any point is important also. There is dirt and brick in Fort Independence that may have been there for two or even three major reconstructions.

Yeah, I think some of this was the "didn't we already pay for that?" mentality. You saw that a lot with ships in ordinary; supposedly they were being kept up, so it was hard to explain why they went from good to scrappable. I saw a real beaut of a case like this in Korea; after the fiasco where we drew down, turned over a substantial amount of almost new construction to the ROK, and then realized we would need it again, Congress insisted that some relocatable buildings be kept relocatable. Woulda been cheaper, much cheaper, to have replaced them with stick framing when they failed - which they did spectacularly. The program had switched from an expert single-source to open bid, and the successful bidder should have been disqualified. Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The HD Boston article is near completion except for the Present section. I redid Ft. Indep based on the COE history, and did a very brief mention of the AA gun and Nike sites, with a link to NorthAmericanForts.com so users can look them up. I also did some work on Eastern Defense Command and Western Defense Command. RobDuch (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yupper, that'll do nicely. I realize your standards are higher than the Av-er-age Bear but I 'd say that's about ready for shipping. (Another reason the work was delayed was lack of supervisory engineers; Thayer had to choose between working on Warren, which would make defenses stronger almost from the get-go, and Independence, which would initially drop readiness, and he made the smart choice. I think that's too deep in the weeds for an overview, though.) Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We're back....

Army back in ship-shooting... Anmccaff (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Very cool if it can be implemented in the next couple of years. RobDuch (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Butler

Whaddaya think on the Butler Guns of Boston Harbor? I've only seen through online freebies so far, but a lot of what I've seen looked good. Anmccaff (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be really good. I'm in touch with the author on Facebook, and as you can see he's published numerous works on the Boston defenses. He may be getting me something on a mobile reserve force that was at Fort Ruckman. I fudged the cite for the 155 field batteries, though. RobDuch (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Hull Numbers of Canceled Balao-class submarine and Tench-class submarine

Hello RobDuch ,

I'm from other language Wikipedia and I'm willing to make the template of Balao-class submarine and Tench-class submarine in my home language Wikipedia. But there's one problem that confuse me: The Hull Numbers of canceled Balao-class submarine and Tench-class submarine.

I know , there's 70 of Balao , 55 of Tench canceled from The "Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants" reference but there's no specific Hull Number of cancel submarine , which are Balao-class , which are Tench-class in Wikipedia article itself.

Since you mix those canceled numbers up in Balao-class submarine and Tench-class submarine article , I can't find those number , just by watching the article itself.

I try to look at the template , the " List of submarines of the United States Navy " article and website related , try to get the hull numbers of canceled submarine , but still can't do it , neither of them fulfill the numbers of 70 and 55 at total.

Since you studied The "Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants" reference or you may even got the book , can you specific to list The Hull Numbers of Canceled Balao-class submarine and The Hull Numbers of Canceled Tench-class submarine ?

Off topic: It's strange that Gato , Balao and Tench class submarine didn't have " Ships in class " list in their article. -- Comrade John (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I'm on vacation but will get back to you more fully next week. Basically, I and apparently everybody else have been too lazy to put complete lists of the three wartime classes on Wikipedia. The difficulty of sorting out Balao's from Tenches is a factor. As implied in my articles, the Tench class begins with SS-417, however two boats after this were completed as Balaos, SS-425 and SS-426. I see that I do need to put in additional info from the Register to clarify the situation. RobDuch (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear , brother. I can help to make and put those list up , but i need information , to help me to make and put a list like " List of Fletcher-class destroyers " , Internet can't do much and my place don't have that kind of information , which is bad and shame. Take care of template first i guess. -- Comrade John (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Two things come to mind: before making any lists, put notes on the class articles' talk pages to let interested users know that you're planning this list. If someone is already working on one, they should let you know. Also, I've noticed that some lists of ships, including the Fletchers, do not include the launch dates. I haven't researched the reason for this, but I personally think the launch date is as important as the other dates. RobDuch (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok , as for the launch dates thing , i can put them when i have time. But if they have no launch date , i may need you or someone provide information too because you know , i don't have that kind of information in my place. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Also , Within those canceled Balao-class submarine and Tench-class submarine , there's some with hull number and name , some only have hull number , can you list them in details , please ? -- Comrade John (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I know about the hull number situation. There's always a redirect page with the hull number, also you can link to the page with just the name but display both name and hull number. I think we'll want separate name and hull number columns, with the ship article linked to the name, to allow sorting by either. See the list I worked on at Benson-class destroyer for the format I think we want. For an example of what others consider to be a good ship list article, a featured list article by other authors is at List of battlecruisers of Germany. However, my personal preference is to use the list only to put the "dates and fates" table in a separate article, to avoid clogging the class article with a huge table. RobDuch (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation , brother. As for those " redirect page with the hull number " , I knew some of them , tried to searched some of them and saw some of them , but still can't find all 70 (Balao) and 55 (Tench) canceled submarines' hull number , not to mention to find whether some with hull number and name , some only have hull number. Since some of canceled hull number be transferred to some new completed submarine classes ship , makes me even more confuse. So i really need someone to provide some information to clearly the situation. I know you might take some time , i can wait , there have some template making or editing I'm working on before those two. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A few things have come up, but they have settled down and I have more free time. I plan to research the cancelled submarines in more detail in the next few days. The situation is not as complex as you fear. None of the cancelled hull numbers in WWII were re-used for later submarines. Only five cancelled submarines were ever laid down (of which the two Balaos were launched incomplete and were test hulks postwar); maybe we can deal with the ones that never existed in a couple of footnotes. There is one duplicate name; Wahoo is listed for both SS-516 and SS-518 of which the former was laid down and not cancelled until 7 January 1946, SS-518 was named first but the name was transferred to SS-516 when SS-518 was cancelled (see USS Wahoo (SS-518)). My entries on cancelled submarines were a bit vague due to the range of possibilities in different references, and I only mentioned the two extremes of cancellations in terms of the number of Balao-class cancelled (minimum 10 Balao/115 Tench, maximum 70 Balao/43 Tench plus 12 future class). I think the latter figures are more accurate, as that's what the Register gives and it goes into more detail on this than other sources. The cancelled Balaos in the Register are SS-427-434, 438-474, and 530-536. The hull numbers of all Tenches in the Register are SS-417-424, 435-437, 475-529, and 537-550; 29 of these were built and the remaining 43 were cancelled. The future class were SS-551-562, all cancelled. BTW, the otherwise authoritative Friedman books list all commissioned US submarines, but do not state what class they were. Although it's a bit expensive at $87 on Amazon, I recommend you get the Register by Bauer and Roberts because it's the only single source I've found that lists every ship that was ever in the US Navy through 1990. RobDuch (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again , brother. Three things in my mind after I make the draft list with your information provided and this site: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/WW2_US_Cancellations.htm

First thing first , here's my draft list of canceled hull numbers Balao and Tench class submarine:

• Cancelled Balao class submarine (70)
  • SS-353 – 360 (8)
  • SS-379 – 380 (2)
  • SS-427 – 434 (8)
  • SS-438 – 474 (37)
  • SS-530 – 536 (7)

• Total: 62 , where's other 8 ?

• Cancelled Tench class submarine (55 , 43 of Tench and 12 of SS-551 class)
  • SS-436 – 437 (2)
  • SS-491 – 521 (31)
  • SS-526 – 529 (4)
  • SS-537 – 550 (14)
  • SS-551 – 562 (12)

• If excluded SS-551 class , Total: 51 , where's other 8 come from ?
• If included SS-551 class , Total: 63 , where's other 8 come from ?

This list lead to second thing: Was Us navy really canceled 70 of Balao , 55 of Tench ? Or Us navy in fact canceled 62 of Balao , 51 or 63 of Tench ?

As the canceled Balao class hull numbers , if 70 is a true canceled number , then what's other 8 canceled Balao class submarine hull number ? Seems like you didn't provide those other 8 hull numbers of cancel Balao ?

Third thing: Still didn't know which are those hull numbers with name , which are unnamed , most of the canceled hull numbers with name I acknowledged are come from that link I provided and Template:Balao class submarine , Template:Tench class submarine itself , but still not sure.

So in conclude , You might need to get the true number of Balao , Tench class that Us navy canceled and identify which are those hull numbers with names , which are not. Again , I know you are still researching more , so I'll wait until we get the clear information. -- Comrade John (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As a quick reply, turning back a couple of pages in the Register shows ten other cancelled Balao-class, SS-353-360 and SS-379-380, all of which were named but apparently none of which were laid down. RobDuch (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep , those are i had listed , which in the template and that site i provide to you , but where's other 8 ? Keep studying brother , I can wait. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so long to reply, things keep coming up, should get to it in the next few days. RobDuch (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem , brother. Like I said before , I have many template to make or edit before those two so I can wait. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have finally got round to running the numbers and you are right. It adds up to 62 Balao, 51 Tench, and 12 future class for a total of 125. I'll edit the Balao and Tench articles to reflect this. RobDuch (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you brother. Which means that I can finally make a template for my language Wikipedia , Good. There's one more thing , I found some of the canceled submarine hull number of Balao class submarine got put it wrong to the Template: Tench-class submarine. I can edit it right away , But i need the result after I edit , I don't want delay or have to refresh or white edit every page of that template has been put in to show the new edit , do you know a way to solve it ? -- Comrade John (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually have that same problem with template display, where updates take some time or a white edit to take effect. I don't have an answer, unfortunately. You should also be aware that SS-361 thru SS-364, although in the Balao series, were completed as Gato-class. I have noted that in Gato-class submarine, however I have not updated the individual ship articles or the templates. I hope to do that soon. RobDuch (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

" You should also be aware that SS-361 thru SS-364, although in the Balao series, were completed as Gato-class. " Man i don't know that , thanks for letting me know , brother. Bloody hell , which means that even the completed submarine number of Gato and Balao class is wrong as well , should be 73 completed of Gato , 124 completed of Balao i guess , you might need to look through the Gato and Balao class section of the register now. Man , it seems I kicked the hornet's nest , so much mess in the article and template. Guess i have to wait some time again. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an edit war, either. My concern isn't the change, it's the sourcing: the original number was cited; your changed number was attached to the same source, which, fairly obviously, doesn't use the number you changed it to. I'm just wanting your new source attached as a cite. As for the SS-551s, I know, they never got off paper, but I wouldn't add them as Tenches, since they were (AIUI) assigned to a new class (however notional it turned out to be); AFAIK, those particular hull numbers weren't used for any ships actually built, either, FWIW. On launch dates, IMO they're essential to knowing which boats completed as which design, since so many orders "bleed over" in later hull numbers, Gatos into Balaos & Balaos into Tenches. If you can find it, I'd recommend Lenton's American Submarines (my copy I can no longer find, after moving... :( :( ); he's got launch dates for all (completion dates, too, IIRC), ordered by class & hull number, chronological by launch date. (He does break out the classes differently than WP is doing, putting the Salmons & Sargos, & Tambors & Gars, together.) He also lists #ordered, #built, & #cancelled of each. And so you know, it wasn't 124 Balaos completed, either, IIRC; the total built, all classes, is 218. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am changing the number because I'm the one that put the wrong number there in the first place, and I have determined (with help as above) that my initial count from that source was wrong. And it looks like I need to recount the Balaos completed as well; I probably let that number stand from a previous editor when I redid the page, or took 124 and subtracted 4 when I found out about SS-316-SS-364. I may have to get Lenton, but if he differs from Bauer & Roberts it will be another source of confusion. I'm sure you've noticed that several references, including Friedman, lump Gato-Balao or Gato-Balao-Tench into one list due to the complexity of the situation. And although many have lists, few (none that I've seen) actually roll up the numbers. RobDuch (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Comrade_John, I have ordered Lenton's book (it's at www.abebooks.com for less than $10 including shipping) and will hope that it agrees with Bauer and Roberts' Register (which, by the way, is not an official document despite the name). RobDuch (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok , brother. Once you got that book , you need to look forward the number of Gato , Balao and Tench class built and number of Balao and Tench class canceled , compare with Bauer and Roberts' Register's information or like you said agrees with Bauer and Roberts' Register. Also , this is optional but , can you look forward which of those Balao and Tench class canceled with name , which are not ? I'm afraid there's some difference between Lenton's and Bauer and Roberts' , just like the complete and cancel number. -- Comrade John (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

20 days passed , how's it going ? Did you got the book ? Make any progress ? -- Comrade John (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I got the Lenton book and have looked at it. It has several discrepancies vs. Bauer & Roberts, although it has the advantage of including a table that lists how many of each class were built by each yard. The main problem is that it assumes all submarines numbered SS-417 and later were or would have been Tench-class. Another is that SS-361-364 are listed as Balaos (to be honest, they were initially ordered with this class), although there is a note about their test depth being 300 feet, the same as the Gatos. Among commissioned boats, the Tench-class issue affects only SS-425 and SS-426, but also applies to the incomplete SS-427 and SS-428, which were used as test hulks for years. I am strongly inclined to restructure the Wikipedia information to reflect Bauer & Roberts, as their information appears to be better researched. The SS-361-364 situation is detailed in Friedman, so I have a solid reference for putting them with the Gatos. The only problem is that readers who have only Lenton may assume there's a problem with the information, so extra cites are a must. RobDuch (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As for names (using Bauer and Roberts), all ten cancelled Balaos numbered before SS-417 were named, as were SS-427-434 and SS-464 (note that this includes the two hulks), for a total of 19 named Balaos cancelled. Ten additional cancelled Tench-class were also named; this includes both cancelled Wahoos. These were SS-491-494, 516, 518, and 526-529. RobDuch (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For the tables, there's an issue of how much information to include in the "Fate" column. I'm inclined to include postwar conversions/redesignations, as well as transfers to other navies and current existence as memorials. RobDuch (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Which means that , still follow our past discuss result , using Bauer and Roberts' information ? -- Comrade John (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also , the template of Gato / Balao / Tench might need to edit too. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we'll follow what we discussed using Bauer and Roberts. And I'm aware the templates will need some adjustment. RobDuch (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok brother , you may need to explain it to Trekphiler again otherwise he will undo your edit again. And template itself , you know , English Wikipedia take a ages to refresh the edit of template , do you know any bot to refresh the pages edit ? Cause if we do zero edit , just for refresh the edit , it takes forever to finish them. -- Comrade John (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler left me a little note saying "do what the hell you want" when he edited his page. Yes, I'm aware of the template refresh issue and haven't heard of a workaround. I'll just have to be careful. I plan to start with the SS-361-364 issue and the overall numbers built/cancelled. RobDuch (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

♠"Trekphiler left me a little note" I must have been having a really bad day. Or got you crossed up with somebody else. As for rv, as said, if your source agrees with the new number & you attach the cite, I'm happy.

♠Lenton is a bit idiosyncratic when it comes to class breakouts (notice the Tambors, Gars, Salmons, & Sargos), & it looked to me like he didn't care about the post-Tenches, because they were only contracts, not completed ships; you'll notice, most of them are cancelled incomplete as the war ends. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok brother , once you done the investigation and counting , please let me know here. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've completed my first batch of edits. SS-361-364 were already in the Gato-class template and categories, just needed to change the article bodies. All of the named cancelled subs have stub articles. For the Balao-class template, my only change was to add the cancelled USS Chicolar (SS-464), which was placed with the Tench class. I transferred this boat to the Balao class in the article. USS Trumpetfish (SS-425) and USS Tusk (SS-426) were already correctly placed with the Balao class. The Tench-class template needed a little work, but this was just deletion of cancelled boats that were Balao-class in the Register. And I corrected the numbers of cancelled boats in the Tench-class article. Later I took a look and realized I needed to adjust the unnamed cancelled hull numbers in the Balao and Tench templates, which I did. RobDuch (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you brother , so will it have second batch of edits ? -- Comrade John (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping not to need more edits to existing articles. I plan to give the foreign service listed in the templates a look for accuracy, and then I'll start on "List of Gato-class submarines". RobDuch (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok brother , As for the "List of Gato-class submarines" , I guess there will be the "List of Balao-class submarines" and the "List of Tench-class submarines" right ? You gonna do this all by yourself or you need my assistance ? Also adding the launch section "List of Fletcher-class destroyers" section , you want me to do it or do it yourself ? Whatever the case , I only can put the information on it , as the reference , it's your turn. -- Comrade John (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the foreign service information in all three class templates. The only changes I made were to the Balao-class template, where the Chilean Thomson was given as Silverstein due to misreading the list, along with a couple of spelling corrections. I'm planning to do lists for Gato, Balao, and Tench classes. I'm not planning anything with "List of Fletcher-class destroyers"; do what seems appropriate with it. I will be doing the submarine lists in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobDuch/sandbox . I'll let you know when I get something going, and you can review it, not sure if you can edit it though, as sandboxes may be locked. I am not sure how much information besides the list I'll put in the list article, but a few sentences outlining the classes' service, references, and links to related articles are in order I think. I'm also planning an informative "Fate" entry for each boat, including foreign service, changes of hull classification symbol (the letter portion of the hull number) for converted boats, and current preservation where applicable. For lost submarines, I'll mostly use information from List of lost United States submarines, which I previously worked on. RobDuch (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the Fletcher-class list and added a couple of appropriate categories, but plan no further work on it. I have made a start on the Gato-class list in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobDuch/sandbox , let me know what you think. I used the structure of the Fletcher-class list, which is a little tricky but allows for multiple decomm/recomm activity. I added launch dates as you can see. RobDuch (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well , let's wait some more time , till you put more information , I may say some more information. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing to add boats of the Gato class. I've changed my main source to Norman Friedman's "U. S. Submarines through 1945", as it has much more information than Bauer & Roberts, such as detailing multiple decomm/recomm events and postwar conversions. I've also gone back in the Balao and Tench class articles and broken out which cancelled hull numbers were which class. If you're thinking of getting Friedman, be aware that his "through 1945" volume is just that. For details of GUPPY and other postwar conversions, you'll also need the "since 1945" volume. RobDuch (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well , it won't change the canceled Balao and Tench class number that we discussed earlier right ? -- Comrade John (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's the same as we discussed. RobDuch (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok , You gonna added those canceled submarine in the list as well right ? Since what I saw in List of Fletcher-class destroyer and List of Clemson-class destroyer , it just added those completed , without any canceled added. Also , like I said , if you are not willing to added the information of launched of Fletcher-class , I will added them , but as the reference , it's your turn. --Comrade John (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cancellation information will be on the lists of Balao-class and Tench class according to Bauer & Roberts. Of course, it will be a couple of weeks at the rate things are going before I even start the Balao-class list. For the Fletcher-class list, you can look up the launch dates on the individual ship articles or at Navsource.org (probably the easiest). RobDuch (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok brother , two things. First , Some completed submarine that had foreign navy service and got a new hull number , you gonna added them in "Fate" section or set up a new "Note" or "Other Hull No." section to add them ? Second , some submarine's information got empty , suggested to added "n/a" to make it tidy , just like "List of Fletcher-class destroyers" shown. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting foreign service in the "Fate" section. I'm only putting in the names for foreign service unless I can readily find the hull number, then I'll just put it in with the name, such as "ARA Santa Fe (S-21)". This is mostly where two different boats had the same name at different times. In most cases foreign service is included in the US article. There are a few boats in foreign service (I think three) where that service is documented in a separate article. I'll add the "N/A" to blank spaces. RobDuch (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As for some completed submarine that had foreign navy service , their new hull number can be found in template itself , you have to click "edit" to look through the code to find them or check other language Wikipedia of it's article to find them. You can find most of their hull number. Maybe your book reference can find them too , even better. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Gato-class submarines is live, and I've added "Ships in class" to the class article. The only source that I found for foreign hull numbers was the brief articles at www.Navsource.org, such as http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08363.htm for USS Guitarro (SS-363). And I'm not sure if Navsource has this level of information for all boats. In this case, Guitarro had three different hull numbers while in Turkish service. If you want to add that to the list article, it's OK with me. I will start on the Balao-class list, but I can't guarantee when I'll be done; it'll be at least three weeks. I'll be out of town for five days starting late this week, and will be unable to work on it while I'm gone. RobDuch (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the making of Gato-class list , brother. It's ok that you don't add those new hull number in the list , I'll do that by myself on the making of the template to my language Wikipedia. As the Balao-class list , like I said , I got plenty of time to wait , I'm not on rush for making those template. -- Comrade John (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Today I "discovered" another lost Balao-class submarine. I've added it to the list in the main article, and adjusted the numbers lost and retired. On 4 April 1953 TCG Dumlupinar (D-6) (ex-USS Blower (SS-325)) was lost due to a collision with a Swedish merchant vessel, MV Naboland. Navsource.org has a description at http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08325.htm ; there's more detail in the Wiki article on Blower. Note that there was another TCG Dumlupinar (S339), ex-USS Caiman (SS-323). One problem with Friedman and Bauer/Roberts is that Friedman has very little info on foreign service and Bauer/Roberts has none. Friedman also makes occasional mistakes as to whether a vessel was returned to the US or sold to the foreign country. Most transfers were loans, with the vessel to be returned to the US when no longer needed; vessels remained on the Naval Vessel Register while in foreign service. However, in a number of cases the foreign country eventually purchased the vessel; in this case it was struck from the Naval Vessel Register at that time. I don't know where Navsource.org's info in this area comes from, but it's got some good detail. RobDuch (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for finding out , brother. One thing makes me wonder: If USS Tang (SS-306) is a Balao-class submarine , then why it still shown in "Medal of Honor awards" section of Gato-class article ? -- Comrade John (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Because somebody put it there and nobody's taken it out. The Gato-class article is the only one with an attempt at a summary of WWII submarine operations. Whoever decided to put in the skippers that received the CMH wanted to be complete, or didn't realize Tang was Balao-class. As you've probably seen, eventually somebody put a paragraph about Tang in the Balao-class article. RobDuch (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on input from Parsecboy at WP:SHIPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Cancelled_USN_submarine_names), once I'm finished with the Balao-class list I'm thinking of changing the stub articles for cancelled subs that were never laid down to redirects to the class article. These apparently were given stub articles because they have small DANFS articles, such as this one. I plan to retain the stub articles for those subs that were laid down, and of course for the two that served as test hulks postwar. Also putting this on the Balao-class talk page. RobDuch (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your call , It's your freedom to do so. As long as it doesn't effect the hull numbers and name of canceled Balao-class and Tench-class submarine , everything is fine by me. You will do that with "List of Tench-class submarine" at the same period right ? -- Comrade John (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I may wait until the Tench-class list is done to do this. Thanks to the miracle of redirects, whether it's an article or a redirect doesn't affect the class page. RobDuch (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

While you are making these three lists of submarine class , I look through all the US navy's submarine class , most of them have a list or list alike section such as United States B-class submarine but there's only one don't have either of them , which is United States S-class submarine , you may aware that already. So have you got a thought that you will be making the list of S-class submarine in the future ? -- Comrade John (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

After the huge amount of work with the Gato-Balao-Tench classes, I'm not inclined to do another any time soon. The S-boat article (which I worked on a few years ago) has a list of fates and notes which boats were which type. I plan to move on to other projects (US coast defense, my other favorite genre) for a while. RobDuch (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok , brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just discovered another Balao-class loss that I was unaware of. BAP Pacocha (SS-48) (ex-USS Atule (SS-403)) was lost 26 August 1988 in collision with the Japanese fishing trawler Kiowa Maru. The wreck was raised 23 July 1989, cannibalized for spare parts, and presumably scrapped. I am adding this to the class article as well as the list. RobDuch (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good job , brother. As the lost section of ship info box of Balao-class submarine , would it be good , if it edit as "Lost: 11(During US navy service) , 3(During foreign navy service)" , to make it detail for some reader , who don't like to read a long passage. Or keep it simple or tidy , just "Lost: 14" ? Also , Is Gato-class submarine had the foreign navy service lost situation too ? At last , you may need to look careful on Tench-class lost as well , there might having foreign navy service lost , just like Balao-class , which might didn't record in some books. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll put the numbers lost in USN service and foreign service in the infobox. The Gatos had no foreign service losses. The Tench-class is easy, only one loss ever, in Pakistan's navy, and it's already in the class article. RobDuch (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Balao-class list is live and class article updated to refer to it List of Balao-class submarines. RobDuch (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you , brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb your US coast defense working , brother. I'm now starting to make those three submarine classes' template , I looked through all three submarine classes list that you recently made while you were offline , found out that in Balao class list , you missed out "SS-327 USS Boarfish"'s information , can you fill it up please ? Only you can fill it with your writing style , just like other submarine's information , especially "Fate" section , I can't , Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Might've been an accidental erasure while I was writing it. RobDuch (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you , brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Comrade John: , mind if I move this and the Fletcher-class discussion to my archive? RobDuch (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure , you can move it , the Fletcher-class destroyers's discussion also. If I got something related to ask , I will open a new discussion. Hope we got a chance to cooperate each other again , brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Fletcher-class destroyers

Just let you know brother , I am now putting the launched date of ships of Fletcher-class destroyers , progress is making very slowly.

Because I am putting the code very slowly and there's some information mistake I need to make it right , not even the list , the ship article itself as well and you know , there's 175 of Fletcher-class destroyers have been built , so yeah. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel for you. I've run into a situation with stub articles and redirects for the cancelled submarines. Waiting to hear back from WP:SHIPS and may have to ask elsewhere also. RobDuch (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I can now put the launched date very fast now , progress is 88 of 175 launched date has been put. Now the real problem is , I have to recheck the 175 ships information of the list via ship article itself and navsource and make some edit for them cause there may have some difference or mistake within the list or the ship article , which means that the total progress is still very slowly. May need your register of US navy to help , but not in rush , will tell you about those "Problems" once I'm done putting launched date and rechecked all the ships information of the list -- Comrade John (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I can review the article using the Register once you've got most of the work done. RobDuch (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok and thank you brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok , Brother. I'm done on putting those launch date information of Fletcher-class destroyers onto the list itself. Just like the maintenance template said "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" it astonishes me , 62 ships information of this class have some issues. I'll list these issues by the table below:

Ship Name	Hull No.	Issue Category	Issue Details
Radford	DD-446	Fate	The article and list said it sold for scrap in October 1970 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? NFI - No Further Information, I can't find anything different from what you have.
Nicholas	DD-449	Fate	The article and list said it sold for scrap in October 1970 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? 9 September 1970, http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/449.htm
O'Bannon	DD-450	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 19 February 1942 , in navsource , it said on 14 March 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? 14 March 1942 in Friedman and Register, Wiki used date for Nicholas (DD-449)
Beale	DD-471	Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is on 1 November 1951, in navsource , it said on 2 January 1951, which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman also has 2 January 1951
Hutchins	DD-476	Fate	The article and list said it sold for scrap in January 1948 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Friedman has 19 January 1948, Register and Navsource have 10 January 1948
Stanly	DD-478	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is in October 1946 , in navsource , it said on 15 January 1947 , which one is right or neither is right ? If wiki one is right , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Friedman agrees with Navsource 15 January 1947, Register doesn't have decomm dates
Stevens	DD-479	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is on 2 July 1946 , in navsource , it said on 28 September 1946 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman agrees with Navsource 28 September 1946, Register doesn't have decomm dates
Leutze	DD-481	Fate	The article and list said it sold for scrap on 17 June 1947 , which refer from navsource but in navsource website , it said 11 February 1947 , which one is right or neither is right ? Register says 11 February 1947, Friedman doesn't have a date
Renshaw	DD-499	Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is in June 1950 , exact date of it's happen unknown. In navsource , it said 2 June 1950. So is the date of navsource is right ? Otherwise , what is the exact date ? NFI, I would go with Navsource
Ringgold	DD-500	Commissioned	The day of it's commission in wiki is on 30 December 1942 , in navsource , it said on 24 December 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 30 Dec, Register has 24 Dec, pick one and cite the source
Schroeder	DD-501	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is on 29 April 1946 , in navsource , it said on 23 March 1946 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 29 April 1946, 23 March was Ringgold (DD-500)
Sigsbee	DD-502	Laid Down	The day of it's laid down in wiki is on 22 July 1942 , in navsource , it said on 22 June 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have July, June looks like Schroeder (DD-501) on 25 June 1942
Eaton	DD-510	Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in wiki and navsource is on 30 May 1969 But in article passage , it said "On Memorial Day of 1969, Eaton was decommissioned" which is 26 May 1969. So which one is right or neither is right ? Before Monday holidays in 1970, Memorial Day was always 30 May. Friedman doesn't have this date but lists strike date 2 July 1969, also in Register
Terry	DD-513	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is on 11 July 1947 , in navsource , it said on 13 August 1946 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 13 August 1946
Daly	DD-519	Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is on 6 July 1951 , in navsource , it said on 3 July 1951 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 6 July 1951, Register doesn't have recomm dates
Kimberly	DD-521	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 4 February 1943 , in navsource , it said on 3 February 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 4 February 1943
		Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in wiki is on 15 January 1954 , in navsource , it said on 16 January 1954 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 16 January 1954
Ammen	DD-527	Commissioned	The day of it's commission in wiki is on 20 March 1943 , in navsource , it said on 12 March 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 12 March 1943
		Fate	The list said it sold for scrap on 20 April 1961 , which refer from navsource but in navsource website , it said 21 March 1964 , which one is right or neither is right ? Register has 21 March 1964, Friedman doesn't have this date
Mullany	DD-528	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 10 October 1942 , in navsource , it said on 12 October 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 10 October 1942, Register has 12 October 1942, pick one and cite it
Trathen	DD-530	Fate	The article and list said it used as target hulk in November 1973 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Register and Navsource have November 1973, NFI
Hazelwood	DD-531	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 20 November 1942 , in navsource , it said on 20 October 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 20 November 1942
Hoel	DD-533	Commissioned	The day of it's commission in wiki is on 19 July 1943 , in navsource , it said on 29 July 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 29 July 1943
Miller	DD-535	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 15 February 1943 , in navsource , it said on 7 March 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 15 February 1943, Register has 7 March 1943, pick one and cite
Stephen Potter	DD-538	Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in wiki is on 21 April 1958 , in navsource , it said on 13 June 1958 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 21 April 1958, Register doesn't have this date
Tingey	DD-539	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is in March 1946 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? NFI
		Fate	The article and list said it sunk as target in May 1966 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? NFI
Twining	DD-540	Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is on 10 June 1950 , in navsource , it said on 21 November 1950 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 27 January 1951, too bad there's just more confusion
John D. Henley	DD-553	Fate	The article and list said it sold for scrap in May 1970 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? NFI, Register has that date
Robinson	DD-562	Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in wiki is on 1 April 1964 , in navsource , it said on 5 June 1964 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 1 April 1964
Ross	DD-563	Launched	The day of it's launch said in wiki is on 10 September 1943 , in navsource , it said on 18 September 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 18 September 1943
Smalley	DD-565	Laid Down	The day of it's laid down in wiki is on 14 February 1943 , in navsource , it said on 9 February 1943 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 9 February 1943
		Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is in January 1947 , in navsource , it said on 18 July 1946 , which one is right or neither is right ? If wiki is right , what is exact day of recommission happen ? Friedman has January 1947 as decommission date
		Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in wiki is on 30 September 1957 , in navsource , it said on 1 August 1957 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 30 September 1957
Stoddard	DD-566	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in list is on 18 July 1946 , in article passage , it said ''She began inactivation overhaul at Charleston Navy Yard on 8 July and was placed out of commission in January 1947'' , which one is right or neither is right ? If article passage is right , what is exact day of decommission happen ? Friedman has January 1947 as decomm date
Watts	DD-567	Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in list is on 26 September 1969 , in article passage , it said ''In December 1964, Watts was decommissioned and placed in reserve at Bremerton.'' , which one is right or neither is right ? If article passage is right , what is exact day of second decommission happen ? Friedman has 26 September 1969
Wren	DD-568	Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in list is on 30 December 1963 , in article passage , it said ''In December 1963, after almost a decade of duty with the Atlantic Fleet, Wren was placed out of commission, in reserve.'' , which one is right or neither is right ? If article passage is right , what is exact day of second decommission happen ? Friedman has October 1963, sorry for further confusion
Charles Ausburne	DD-570	Fate	The list said it transferred to West Germany in 12 April 1960 , which refer from navsource but in navsource website , it said in April 1960 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 12 April 1960
Dyson	DD-572	Fate	The day of it's transferred to West Germany is on 17 February 1960, in navsource , it said on 23 February 1960 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 17 February 1960, Register has 23 February 1960, pick one and cite
Murray	DD-576	Recommissioned	The day of it's recommission in wiki is on 16 October 1951 , in navsource , it said on 2 January 1951 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 2 January 1951
		Decommissioned	The day of it's second decommission in list is on 1 June 1965 , in article passage , it said ''Decommissioned in May 1966 at Norfolk, Murray was struck from the Navy list 1 June 1966, and sold for scrapping to Boston Metals Co., Baltimore, Maryland, in 1966.'' , which one is right or neither is right ? If article passage is right , what is exact day of second decommission happen ? Friedman has decomm May 1965, struck 1 June 1965; Register has struck 1 June 1965, sold 16 August 1966
Sproston	DD-577	Fate	The day of it's sold to Chou's Iron & Steel for scrap in wiki is on 15 September 1971 in navsource , it said on 15 December 1971 , which one is right or neither is right ? Register has 15 December 1971, Friedman doesn't have sold dates
Young	DD-580	Decommissioned	The day of it's decommission in wiki is in January 1947 , in navsource , it said on 31 March 1946 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 31 March 1946
		Fate	The list said it sunk as target on 6 March 1970 , which refer from navsource but in navsource website , it said in 16 April 1970 , which one is right or neither is right ? Register has 16 April 1970
Conner	DD-582	Laid Down	The day of it's laid down in wiki is on 6 April 1942 , in navsource , it said on 16 April 1942 , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 16 April 1942
Haraden	DD-585	Fate	The article and list said it sunk as target in October 1970 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Register and Friedman have struck 1 November 1972, Register has target hulk November 1973, NFI
Newcomb	DD-586	Launched	4 July 1943 (Wiki) or 1 July 1943 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 4 July 1943
		Fate	Scrapped at Mare Island date October 1947 (article) or 1 October 1947 (List) , which one is right or neither is right ? If article is right , what is exact day of scrapped happen ? Register has scrapped 1947, NFI
Metcalf	DD-595	Decommissioned	Decommission day unknown , just only March 1946 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Friedman has March 1946, NFI
Wiley	DD-597	Decommissioned	15 May 1946 (Wiki) or 9 August 1946 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 9 August 1946
Hale	DD-642	Fate	Transferred to Colombia date 23 January 1961 (Wiki) or 5 December 1960 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 23 January 1961, Register has 5 December 1960, pick one and cite
Sigourney	DD-643	Decommissioned	First decommission day 20 March 1946 (Wiki) or 1 March 1947 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 20 March 1946
Caperton	DD-650	Recommissioned	6 April 1951 (Wiki) or 27 April 1951 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 6 April 1951 (but also has first decomm and recomm dates reversed, argh)
		Fate	It said sunk as a target in the 1980s , what is the confirm day of that happen ? NFI, target use not in Friedman or Register
Cogswell	DD-651	Recommissioned	7 January 1951 (Wiki) or 7 June 1951 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 7 January 1951
Ingersoll	DD-652	Decommissioned	Second decommission day 20 January 1970 (Wiki) or (?) January 1970 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? If navsource one is right , what is exact day of that happen ? Friedman has January 1970, NFI
Van Valkenburgh	DD-656	Decommissioned	Second decommission day 26 February 1954 (Wiki) or 21 October 1953 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 21 October 1953
Charles J. Badger	DD-657	Decommissioned	First decommission day 21 May 1946 (Wiki) or 10 May 1946 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 10 May 1946
Bryant	DD-665	Fate	Sunk as a target date 24 August 1969 (list) or scrapped, July 1976 (article) , which one is right or neither is right ? If scrapped is right , what is exact day of that happen ? Friedman and Register have sunk as a target 24 August 1969, it's possible it was later raised and scrapped but Navsource doesn't have that
Black	DD-666	Decommissioned	Second decommission day 26 September 1969 (Wiki) or 26 September 1969 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has decomm in "69" (sic), Friedman has struck 21 September 1969, Register has struck 26 September 1969. Decomm would occur at or before the same date as struck.
Dortch	DD-670	Fate	Transferred to Argentina date 1 August 1961 (Wiki) or 16 August 1961 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 1 August 1961, Register has 14 August 1961
Lewis Hancock	DD-675	Fate	Transferred to Brazil date 1 August 1967 (Wiki) or 2 August 1967 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 26 August 1967, Register has 2 August 1967
Marshall	DD-676	Laid Down	29 April 1943 (Wiki) or April 19 1943 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 19 April 1943
		Decommissioned	First decommission date December 1945 , what is the confirm day of that happen ? Friedman has December 1945, NFI Second decommission date 19 July 1969 (Wiki) , navsource is unknown , if wiki is wrong , what is the day of that happen ? Friedman and Register have struck 19 July 1969, I'd go with that for second decomm
		Fate	Sold for scrap date July 1970 , what is exact day of that happen ? Register has this, NFI
McGowan	DD-678	Fate	Transferred to Spain date , 1 December 1960 (Wiki) or November 30 1960 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 1 December 1960, Register has 30 November 1960
Porterfield	DD-682	Launched	13 June 1943 (Wiki) or June 12 1943 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 13 June 1943
Wedderburn	DD-684	Decommissioned	Second decommission date 1 October 1969 in wiki , (?) 1969 in navsource ,if wiki is wrong , what is the day of that happen ? Friedman has 1 October 1969
		Fate	Sold for scrap date 25 January 1972 (Wiki) or 16 December 1971 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Register has 16 December 1971
Halsey Powell	DD-686	Decommissioned	Second decommission date 27 April 1968 in wiki , (?) 1969 in navsource ,if wiki is wrong , what is the day of that happen ? Friedman and Register have transferred to South Korea 27 April 1968, I'd go with that
Benham	DD-796	Decommissioned	Second decommission date 30 June 1960 (Wiki) or 15 December 1960 (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has 2nd decomm and Register has transferred to Peru, both 15 December 1960
Monssen	DD-798	Decommissioned	Second decommission date September 1957 or 11 December 1957 in (Wiki) , 11 December 1957 in (navsource) , which one is right or neither is right ? Friedman has September 1957, NFI
Gregory	DD-802	Laid Down	13 August 1943 (Wiki) or 31 August 1943 (navsource) , which is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 31 August 1943
		Commissioned	29 July 1944 (wiki) or 27 July 1944 (navsource) , which is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have 29 July 1944
Rooks	DD-804	Decommissioned	Second decommission date 26 July 1962 (Wiki) , 28 June 1962 (navsource) , which is right or neither is right ? Friedman and Register have transferred to Chile 26 July 1962

There are the issues that you need to look at "Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants" , you might need to edit them into the list and articles that got issue on the list by yourself , cause reference might need to quote the page number.

Also , got a question. About DD799 - 804 builder , it said Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation, Seattle, Washington in the list. But when I look at their article , except DD-799 USS Jarvis (it said Seattle-Tacoma in passage , nothing on infobox) , all their builder is said to be "Todd Pacific Shipyards, Seattle, Washington in infobox and passage". In "Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding CorporationIn" article , said something like this "In 1942 Todd bought out Kaiser's holding and some time thereafter the company was reabsorbed into Todd Dry Dock & Construction, which eventually became Todd Pacific Shipyards. Todd sold the Tacoma shipyard to the Navy after the war ended, which in turn sold the site to the Port of Tacoma in 1959." . Does it mean Seattle-Tacoma no longer exist during the war , if that so , DD554-568 and DD799 - 804 builder need to be change to "Todd Pacific Shipyards, Seattle, Washington". So please clarify this statement via your register.

At last , except DD-482 USS watson , other canceled ship in the class DD-452 Percival , DD-503 Stevenson , DD-504 Stockton , DD-505 Thorn , DD-506 Turner , DD-523 - 525 Unnamed , DD-542 Unnamed , DD-543 Unnamed , DD-548 Unnamed and DD-549 Unnamed didn't added to list , can you please look at their information of them via your register as well ?

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of issues. I have Friedman's destroyer book, which has dates for all US destroyers, so that's another source. I've found that no source is perfect. I'll get to this some time in the next week. RobDuch (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I know it's hard for you but , can you please provide those information via Register and Friedman's destroyer book so to compare ? Sigh , I don't why the ship date's information can be different from different books , it's not counting the casualties of war , should be only have one date. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have put what I could find into your table above. About Seattle-Tacoma, later Todd Pacific, the Register lists the yard as "Sea-Tac, Seattle" for all Fletcher class built there, but switches to "Todd, Seattle" for the subsequent Allen M. Sumner and Gearing classes. Friedman does basically the same thing, "Sea-Tac" for Fletchers and "Todd" for the later classes. BTW, I have finally started putting in dates for the Tench class, and for some reason Friedman differs more from the Register with this class than with the other two. It's been annoying. Another source for ship dates, but sometimes inaccurate as with all sources, is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html . This was published in several volumes from the 1950s through 1978. The biggest problem is that basically none of its info has been updated since the original publication; for example if it's an entry written in the 1950s it will state the ship is in service, when it was eventually scrapped in the 1970s. If you want to include when and how foreign service ended, as I did for the subs, Navsource was the only source I found for that. However, I don't know if they researched the surface ship foreign service like they did for the subs. Page numbers for Fletcher-class in Friedman: DD-445-498, p. 503; DD-499-544, p. 504; DD-545-583, p. 505; DD-584-663, p. 506; DD-664-800, p. 507; DD-801-804, p. 508. Page numbers for Fletcher-class in Register: DD-445-507, p. 192; DD-508-546, p. 193; DD-547-580, p. 194; DD-581-664; p. 195; DD-665-804, p. 196. Also cancelled DD-452, 482, 503-506 pp. 198-199. Also, the Register has no decomm/recomm dates, while Friedman does not have "sold for scrap" dates.

As "Todd, Seattle" for the subsequent Allen M. Sumner and Gearing classes , it's fine , cause they are all built after 1942. But "Sea-Tac, Seattle" for all Fletcher class built in there , i don't think it's good idea because in 1942 , it became part of "Todd" So my idea is: Put a short sentence after "Sea-Tac" in Builder section: (Become Todd Pacific Shipyards in 1942) , Their article's infobox do the same. Also a question , As the reference in list , all should be set in "Fate" section right ? Cause when I check the Balao-class list , i don't see any reference button in any section , except "Fate". -- Comrade John (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In almost all cases I put all references in "Fate". There are, of course, other approaches; some articles by other authors have a separate "Reference" column. I've seen one where somebody put a reference for every single date, and of course most of them were the same reference. I personally would stick with Friedman and Bauer about Sea-Tac vs. Todd, remember most of the Fletcher-class were ordered in 1942 or earlier, even if not laid down until 1943. You might put the note about their name change in a section above or below the table, such as where I put my "Abbreviations" section. For Percival (DD-452) the only date I have is "Cancelled 7 January 1946". For DD-503 through DD-506, it's "Cancelled 10 February 1941". DD-523 through DD-525, DD-542-543 and DD-548-549 were all "Cancelled 16 December 1940". RobDuch (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

About those cancel ships , Are they all never laid down ? -- Comrade John (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, none were laid down. RobDuch (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What's their builders ? -- Comrade John (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

DD-452, 482, 503 thru 506, Kearny, 523-525, Staten Island, 542-543, Bethlehem San Fran, and 548-549, San Pedro RobDuch (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic question , there's 70 planned ships of Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer , 58 built , which means there's 12 ships canceled , what i want to ask is , Are these canceled ships have hull numbers or any other number or call sign ? Are these canceled ships unnamed ? -- Comrade John (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

These were completed as destroyer minelayers (DM), the Robert H. Smith-class destroyers, the article has their DD hull numbers and new DM hull numbers. RobDuch (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Comrade John: , mind if I move this and the Gato-Balao-Tench class discussion to my archive? RobDuch (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Old coast artillery articles

@Qwirkle: I've started "wikifying" Pgrig's early articles on the CAC, starting with the CA FCS. Due to his frequent use of footnotes that sometimes include embedded references, at first glance some articles appeared to be unsourced. I figured out how to put the footnotes in one group and the cites in the other. Longer term I'd like to weave in material from Berhow's ref guide, as these articles seem to be masterpieces of OR and SYNTH (such dirty words) or drawn largely from uncited sources. I can't figure out why referring the reader to an illustration is wrong, but maybe I can rework it. I once bought somebody else's extensive collection of CDSG journals and should be able to look up the cited articles. One nice thing is that more and more old Army manuals are coming online, and I found a full-text copy of FM 4-15, Seacoast artillery fire control (the previous link only had appendices). Also found TM 2160-20, Submarine Mining (boo-yah). The latter is held online by the USACAC (LOL), the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. RobDuch (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)