Talk:20 Inch Naval Gun
The comments regarding your own views on the practicality of 20 inch guns or lack thereof aren't NPOV. Also, there were ships in Plan Z that would have mounted 20-inch guns. Clearly some people thought them distinctly more practical, so your opinion can hardly be classed as the only one on the subject, ne? Eurusea
I hope that I have remedied that for you. Furthermore please consult the discussion page before deleting most of a pararaph. If "there were ships in Plan Z that would have mounted 20-inch guns.", why not add this information, helpful additions that the article may not cover, I personally welcome, and I imagine most do as well. Moreover, from this example, it seems to me well possible to have undertaken a survey regarding the NPOV policy, if it is deemed necessary. There are many options, and I have reason to believe that this is a constructive community, not destructive. ℜechze|➡
It is not 'destructive' editing to remove a statement like 'first of all...NO' which is patently not NPOV. Further, the statement in the final paragraph that carriers > battleships depends entirely on a modern-tech reading of naval combatant classes and that all nations had the same or similiar experiences in WW2-era conflicts.
"The introduction of the carrier class, manifested the greater efficacity of the naval technique of bombing from the 'mobile air force', in contrast to that of the heavily gun borne behemoth like the cancelled superbattleships."
Is the section in question. You have no right to dictate that this happened in every single nation on Nationstates, and even if you did it would be irrelevant to the article. It is a fact that 20-inch naval guns were considered by not less than three nations during the second world war and may have been constructed by Germany and Japan had resources allowed. The fact that carriers are 'more efficient' has nothing to do with naval guns at all; it doesn't add anything to the article. Neither does
"For those those seeking to aquire a large caliber naval gun of similar kind, the 16 Inch Naval Gun or 18 Inch Naval Gun(18.1 inch) are also available, and deliver similar firepower."
have anything to do with the subject, any more then saying 'oaks are also available and are just as tall' belongs in an article about Beech trees. The article is called '20 inch naval gun,' not 'don't use a 20 inch naval gun.' Eurusea
no need ... Yes I agree with the 'first of all...NO' deletion. also yes, I had tried to remodel this: "For those those seeking to aquire a large caliber naval gun of similar kind, the 16 Inch Naval Gun or 18 Inch Naval Gun(18.1 inch) are also available, and deliver similar firepower.", without remowing the content. Now that you agree, I think it should be removed. also now that you have justified why the content of the paragraph, which I roughy maintained, should be deleted, I will have to agree with you, and we should delete it after waiting a period of time in the case that anyone, particularly the user objects. ℜechze|➡ 09:17, 4 Nov 2004 (GMT)
As a further note, the article also omits mentioning that dozens of NS nations have built warships with calibres above [somtimes FAR above] the mentioned 18.1 inch. The RL-centric explanation implying nobody's ever built one [other than a tiny mention that it 'pokes up sometimes,' hardly appropriate to describe dozens of ship classes!] is at best misleading, and at worst downright dishonest. Eurusea
I thought we were killing the last paragraph? Eurusea
The fact that 'no keels had been laid,' while literally accurate, is rather misleading in an article about NS-history given that it implies there's some problem with building a gun calibre that's actually fairly commonplace. More so with the line 'and the [gun] never saw production,' which is simply wrong in NS terms: did, has, is. Eurusea 03:14, 20 Jan 2005 (GMT)