Talk:USS New Jersey (BB-62)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would someone please change all the dates from European style? - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 02:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh, it's not really European style. The bulk of U.S. Navy info is from DANFS, a government publication, so, uh, take it up with the U.S. government. :) RADICALBENDER★ 02:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I will! Wait, I am the U.S. Government...hmm...well, however they go about it, we have a disputed standard and a precedent in American English vs. British English with American English used in American topics and British English used in British topics. - Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 03:01, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The US military has used "European-style" dates for many decades, so in in-depth articles on US military topics it's most appropriate to use that style; "civvie-style" would look rather unprofessional even. Stan 03:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Assuming the dates are "linked", then the user preference governs how they are displayed to the reader. The format editors input is displayed by default for an unlogged in user I think, so they should at least be consistent. I have no problem personally with DD MMM YYYY as I think it's a bit more logical order and I learned computers on a VAX Where DD-mmm-YYYY was the norm.--J Clear 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At one time, her 16-inch main guns were arguably considered the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the world. Their capability was described as being the equivalent of taking a car the size of a Volkswagen Beetle and hurling it (with force) a distance of over 20 miles with great accuracy. When fired, the crew would prepare by loosening deck bolts as the extreme shock of the blast could sheer the bolts. Similarly, glass port holes were especially protected when firing. It is said that firing a full broadside barrage would actually slam the ship laterally, moving it noticeably.in the water. Life Magazine printed some excellent color photographs of these guns in action.

It is not possible for one of those ships to move itself noticebly sideways by firing unless on ice, in which case the distance is less than 7 inches. As everyone knows, there is no proof a battleship was ever placed on ice, let alone fired on ice. 173.78.108.53 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In the vietnam paragraph: "This marks the heaviest naval bombardment since World War II."

In the lebanese war paragraph: "This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War."

How does that add up?

I see your point. If properly cited, the contradictory statements were reported in reliable sources. Both statements may very well be true, according to statements cited in each source. The math does not add up, but Wikipedia editors are limited to citing reliable sources, despite such contradictory statements properly cited. Consider introducing a sentence to resolve the cited statements conflict. paradoxos 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain but that figure sounds a little high. Assuming best case of equal distribution among the nine barrels, that's still almost 13,000 rounds per gun. I was under the impression they needed to be relined every couple of hundred rounds. Also they only carried I think maybe a maximum of a couple of thousand 16 inch shells so that would mean full reloading about 50 times, which seems unlikely.

Where in the article is this stated? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't a cannon cocker, so I do not know these details first hand. Ammunition supply ships would have resupplied the Battleship. Tenders, SRFs, SIMAs, refittings, and dry-dockings may have refurbished the gun barrels over multiple deployments during the conflict. Maybe the term tour should be changed to multiple deployments over the duration of the conflict since tour means a single deployment. This Wikipedia article is not properly cited, so I cannot do the necessary research and confirm. paradoxos 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Found this on the google map of Camden: [1] Anybody know which ship that might be?--Cancun771 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually in the Philidelphia Naval Shipyard downriver from the retired battleship New Jersey. It is not one of the 4 Iowa class battleships, they are all visible at their respective moorings and this one has different lines. I would also like to know what ship it is. I thought all battlewagons but the 4 Iowas have been scrapped .Alley39

There are a total of eight U.S. battleships that have been retained as museums: Texas, Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Of these eight ships, all four of the Iowas and Texas can be ruled out of the running; none of them match the picture. That leaves the two South Dakota-class battleships and North Carolina as potential matches. In my opinion, I think the battleship shown is North Carolina, but I have no proof of that. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina is visible at its permanent mooring New Hanover County, NC but its lines are close to that of the unknown. Thanks for the info on the remaining battleships. I agree it can't be any of the Iowas or the Texas. Alley39

• Having stared at the picture for a longer period of time I think what you have highlighted here is
  Des Moines-class. Photos from the articles Des Moines, Salem, and Newport News show a roughly similar pattern: a ship with 5-in gun mounts arrayed on both sides of the cruiser, as well as between the #2 and #3 gun turrets and the superstructure; each of the heavy cruisers also have similar bridge design facilities. More importantly, a heavy cruiser would be about the size of a regular cruiser or destroyer (one of which appears to be anchored next to you mystery ship), but a battleship would have completely dwarfed a cruiser or destroyer anchored next to it. This means that the guns on that ship have to be smaller than the 16-in guns weilded by the South Dakotas, Iowas, and North Carolina. The heavy cruisers have 8-in guns that would fit the size of the ship pictured here. TomStar81 (Talk
  ) 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, are you meant to have the "Post WW2" section with a level 2 headline as opposed to a level 3 headline like all the other posts? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I elected to make that section its own indepedent group, but I suppose there would be no harm in changing it for the sake of uniformity. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue that as request per say, I am very much the student and you FA guys are very much the teachers. I was just curious if there was a qualifying criteria to give a section a level 2 header? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It boils down to "editers descretion", although as a community project others will add or subtract headers as they see fit to help an articles readability. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great FAQ thing by the way, I only just learnt about that "Ref name" thing, which thankfully has cut my references section half ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"The next day New Jersey fired on an enemy rocket site northest of Con Thien, destroying the facility, then trained her guns on known communist positions to harass Viet Cong forces."

Northeast or Northwest? Enigma ^message 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot about the Lebanese Civil War before the New Jersey arrival. Two paragraphs are from a reference with a link that has been dead for months. They disagree with the accounts in

Let me try recalling the link first, if I can not resurrect it then we can remove it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a couple of days. I assume you can't find i, so I removed it. If you find the link, try to fix the disagreements with other articles. Halgin (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been two busy to look for it. I was actually just about to try and revive it now that the article has regained a spot on the request page. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it! This link is for the source, and all information cited is still present and accounted for. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. However, I don't see anything about:

• "As the militias invaded and the Lebanese forced began to lose ground Michel Aoun, the commander of the Lebanese 8th Mechanised Infantry Battalion defending the town, pleaded with United States to aid with the defense of the town. Aoun cited Syrian involvement with the attacking militias as justification for U.S. aid in the defense of Suk El Gharb. At first the U.S. forces refused to get involved, citing their role as peacekeepers in the region; however, when informed that Suk El Gharb would likely be overrun if something was not done the United States agreed to aid with the defense of the town." or
• "
  Lebanese Army
  forces defending Suk El Gharb."

It does say:

• "United States Navy warships shelled Druze positions and helped the Lebanese Army hold the town until a cease-fire was declared on September 25, on which day the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey arrived on the scene."

However, the Wiki Article failed to include that:

• The April 18th, 1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut. A van carrying a 2,000 pound load of explosives, slammed into the US embassy in West Beirut, killing 63. or
• In August (1983) militiamen began to bombard United States Marines positions near Beirut International Airport with mortar and rocket fire as the Lebanese Army fought Druze and Shia forces in the southern suburbs of Beirut. On August 29, 1983, two Marines were killed and fourteen wounded, and in the ensuing months the Marines came under almost daily attack from artillery, mortar, rocket, and small-arms fire.

US Navy shelling can be return however, then fact US Embassy was bombed and the Marines were attacked should be included. Halgin (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Viginia and John Rodgers were apart of the original DANFS entry, if I recall correctly; Bowen and Arthur W. Radford were include after there articles mentioned the shelling. You want I should double cite to DANFS? It may clear some of this up. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I read the whole thing over a week period; the Auon paragraph was a consolidation of all previous information leading up to Big J's involvement. I would prefer to say it stay, but if it needs to be removed then so be it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the online version of the USS New Jersey’s page of DANFS [2] about the Lebanese Civil War. If the information is in another version of it that is fine, cite the version. If it is in one of the other references, cite that. The way it was written before gave the impression the ships were shelling only because of a request from a Lebanese commander. That seems like something that should be referenced. Halgin (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe USS New Jersey commenced her first operations, and it ended up being a quite extended deployment, extended period before she returned to her home port. - That might be more inportant in this article the the detail of the Lebonese Civil Wara - leave that info to that article. Wfoj3 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

While on duty in RVN, in January or February of 1970, I called in a fire mission from Hill 641 (the "Hawk's Nest") which the TOC of the 173rd Airborne Brigade gave to the New Jersey. The battleship fired from over the horizon to my East and the shells arced over Hill 641 to its target in the An Lao Valley to my West. The shells were so large that they could be seen and heard coming and going overhead, so close to the top of the hill that I immediately called a cease fire. My question is how can I reconcile those events with the statement in Wikipedia that the New Jersey was decommissioned in December of 1969 while I was on my pre-deployment leave touring the United States? A Georgian (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that it was New Jersey? I just double-checked her DANFS article, and it says that she was decommissioned on 17 December 1969..... Tom, were there any heavy (gun) cruisers still around that conducted shore bombardments during Vietnam? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to go on except what I remember being told by the TOC at the time; it may well be that they had it wrong. What is certain is that the shells came from the sea and were large enough to be seen in flight.A Georgian (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Its possible that the shells fired were from a heavy cruiser, the Des Moines class was active for the entire war, and the guns on each ship are 8in. I will see about nailing down the specifics after class today, if I am able. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort y'all are going to to clear this up.A Georgian (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The shells had to come from USS Newport News (CA-148) because the New Jersey was decommissioned when the article says that happened, and the other two Des Moines did not have a Vietnam deployment. I also believe I've heard a first-hand story about the shelling from Newport News which closely mirrors the above account. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My read of Newport News is that she was in Norfolk in 1970 ("...departing Da Nang, South Vietnam on 3 June 1969, via San Francisco and the Panama Canal, to arrive at her homeport in Norfolk, Virginia in early July of that year. In May 1972 Newport News returned to the gunline for her third combat tour in WESTPAC."). Perhaps USS Saint Paul (CA-73)? Maralia (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right; her DANFS article does not say when she left Vietnam, but it does say that she was hit by a shell on 2 September and returned to San Diego on 7 December 1970...so she must have been off Vietnam during Jan/Feb of 1970. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's entirely reliable, but Maralia is right: This says that "The first half of 1970 saw NEWPORT NEWS undergoing a regular overhaul at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia." —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So far I am at least satisfied that it was not the New Jersey, or the Newport News (you guys appear to know what you're talking about), and I believe that the reason I was told that it was the New Jersey is that, up until the month before the incident I witnessed, it would have been; the TOC operator may not have realized that the New Jersey had just been replaced. I've always thought that the mission was fired more to "sight in" her guns than anything else because the target did not justify the response; ordinarily a couple of mortar shells would have been appropriate. For what it is worth, that is the only fire mission I know of from the sea during that period; i.e., it was unusual. A Georgian (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for making us look for something like that! You may not realize it, but to us (I think all of us =]), a mystery where we have to go hunting for the answer is actually kinda fun. :D Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that we are dealing with a gunship and running on the assumption that our articles here are more or less acurate w/regards to dates, are mystery gunship has to be one of the following heavy cruisers:

• USS Boston (CA-69)
• USS Saint Paul (CA-73)
• USS Columbus (CA-74)...in Atlantic or Mediterranean at the time.
• USS Chicago (CA-136)...in all likelihood, no...her Wikipedia article says "On 31 January 1969 Chicago concluded her missile systems qualifications tests, including a Talos test firing against a missile drone, before departing for her third cruise to the Western Pacific on 13 February. Arriving at Subic Bay the cruiser underwent ten days of upkeep and type training before assuming duties as PIRAZ ship on 11 March. Twelve days later the ship began additional Search and Rescue (SAR) duty in the Gulf. This involved maintaining two helicopters on patrol station to provide rescue coverage for Naval aircraft reconnaissance missions."
• USS Newport News (CA-148)
• USS Albany (CA-123)

I bet that if we were to take closer looks at the operational histories of these heavy cruisers we will find the one that responded to the call for fire support. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've struck Newport News since we have already proven that that ship was not in the Vietnam AOA at the time. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I struck Columbus and Chicago too, with the reasons above. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston was decommissioned in May 1970, and a Navy photo here is captioned "Underway, circa 1969. This photograph was received with a Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force, Atlantic Fleet, press release dated 23 October 1969, concerning the impending completion of the cruiser's final Vietnam War deployment." Various sites refer to that as her "1968-69 tour". Another site indicates "On 7 October 1969, BOSTON's 8-inch guns were fired the last time and on 15 November, BOSTON returned home to her homeport of Boston. The ship was decommissioned 5 May 1970." Maralia (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RE Albany: "On October 31, 1969, she returned to Mayport to begin operations with the Atlantic Fleet. Late in February 1970, Albany embarked upon her first deployment to European waters since her modernization overhaul. During the next six years, she made three cruises to the Mediterranean and completed one assignment to northern European waters." from [3]. Maralia (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the references, New Jersey relived Galveston on the gun line, but Galveston was a light cruiser. We may be looking in the wrong place for our mystery ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

....THAT makes it harder... -_- lol! Was Galveston a gunned light cruiser? 'Cos if it wasn't, this may be the closest thing to impossible... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in addition to the heavy cruisers listed above, our mystery ship may also be one of the following:

• USS Providence (CLG-6) - "During the early 1970s Providence served as flagship of the U.S. First Fleet, operating in the eastern Pacific."
• USS Springfield (CL-66)
• USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5)
• USS Little Rock (CG-4) - "She was the Flagship during 1969 and 1970. She was homeported in Gaeta, Italy, but was gone from Gaeta about half of the time. While away from Gaeta, she participated in exercises in the Mediterranean and carried the admiral to foreign ports."
• USS Galveston (CLG-3)
• USS Boston (CA-69) - See above; "On 7 October 1969, BOSTON's 8-inch guns were fired the last time and on 15 November, BOSTON returned home to her homeport of Boston. The ship was decommissioned 5 May 1970."
• USS Canberra (CA-70) - "her last Vietnam deployment ...ended in early January 1969." "USS Canberra was decommissioned on 2 February 1970."

List updated. Maralia (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Condensed vessel list

I've struck out the ones that we've already ruled out and decided to consolidate the remaining vessels here (Below). -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• USS Saint Paul (CA-73)
  • 1970 USS St Paul cruise book suggests the ship was stateside since before 1970, and left in April 1970 for her last combat tour. Can't get the 68-69 cruise book open, but it appears that St. Paul is not our mystery ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The '69 cruise book describes a "Mar-Oct 1969" WestPac cruise. I think you're right that it wasn't her. Maralia (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• USS Springfield (CL-66) - not in the area at the time. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5) - not in the area at the time. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• USS Galveston (CLG-3)
• USS Providence (CLG-6)

I'm hoping it turns out to be the Saint Paul; how ironic would that be? A Georgian (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having been down in Camden a few times, I noticed that, alighting from the

Sca (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has passed the featured article candidacy, is is comprehensive and covers the topic well. It doesn't go into too much detail. There is just a lot of information to cover. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

60-70 years worth, + background info on the class. :) But why should we simply gloss over the ship like a normal encyclopedia? If someone wants to find information on the ship, they'll be able to find it here, even if it is sort of trivial...isn't that (sort of) one of the goals of Wikipedia? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that much of the content here today seems to be copied verbatim from the official Battleship New Jersey website. Or maybe they copied it from you. What gives? Sole Flounder (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It was taken from

DANFS, which is what the article was based off of, which is in the public domain as a product of the US Military. There is not copyright problem. -MBK₀₀₄

04:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, anyone can copy this article if they wish (heck, any article on Wikipedia), as they are all released under the GNU Free Documentation License. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: They have to properly cite us or we can issue a DMCA take-down notice for them breaking our copyright as the article's contributors. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added an NRHP infobox to the museum ship section. I think it helps in a small way, and should stay. Not sure about the big New Jersey map. The display of the map could be suppressed by blanking the locmapin= field in the infobox. I think the map does help tho, showing where this ship is in New Jersey, around the back rather than on the Atlantic, which many readers would not know. And the big size of the map is not so bad given it is so late in the article. Also, the NRHP infobox came in with latitude and longitude coordinates in DMS format from the NRIS system. This might or might not agree exactly with the decimal coordinates elsewhere in the article, but having them in DMS format is needed for the NRHP infobox to receive them and show the map. The NRIS coords are often off by a little, due to a geo coordinates datum change in 1985, but this was NRHP-listed after 1985 so maybe they are spot on, i dunno. If someone wants to check the satellite view from Google or otherwise use better info to adjust these DMS ones, please do. There are converters available to convert from decimal to DMS, including one linked from

Thanks. Shrank the map a bit—it's useful, especially given the inland location, but was vastly larger than the other images. Tweaked the date formats, too, to agree with that used in the article, and added an accessdate. I've just checked the coords, and the NRHP ones are a bit off; will adjust. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated event from this link

http://books.google.com/books?id=swYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=sea+of+okhotsk+uss+new+jersey&source=bl&ots=HT-96kh5sk&sig=wQ6GKiq5KGFKog8Tj3bPzouuvPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jhb5TvG1D8ifgwe56ayxAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sea%20of%20okhotsk%20uss%20new%20jersey&f=false

According to a declassified command history for the nuclear-armed battleship USS New Jersey, during its transit through the Sea of Okhotsk on September 27-28, 1986, "close passes" were made by Soviet Bear and Badger bombers, a Hormone helicopter, amd a May maritime patrol airplane. A Kara-class cruiser and two Grisha III frigates also shadowed the U.S. ships. The maneuver, according to the command history, "marked the first time a U.S. battleship had operated in the Soviet Navy's backyard."

Can someone add the cite and link, thanks. I was present this event happened. We were so close to Russia we were always harrased by aircraft. At on time a small helicopter a drone almost landed on are deck while dropping red flares on us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlcoll (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The info box has a 7 December 1942 launch date, while the Construction section says 12 December. DANFS and NVR say 7 Dec., but that date would be a nice coincidence, so I'm suspicious. Could she have been christened on the Pearl Hbr. anniversary and actually floated out on the 12th or something? Did the 12th date come from some other cited reference? Anyway, if both dates are to remain, some explanation is required. --J Clear (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I tracked it down to this major 2007 update. --J Clear (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my extraordinarily delayed answer, I've been dealing with a colossal mold infestation that's required an ongoing dismantling, decontaminating, and rebuilding program for about 1/3 of my house, and I am understandably jittery about using the computer in here since its so close the hot zone. Anyway... You are right, the two sections do not match up, and I am presently unsure as to why. It may have been as a result of a conflict of sources since some of the material in this article is pulled from a book held at the UTEP library. I no longer have library privileges, but I do have access to the library, so I'll have a look on Friday and let you know what I find. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

One of those dates is the first anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which makes me suspect that people remembered a slightly wrong date because it makes a great story. Contemporary sources should clear this up. TypoBoy (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well color me surprised. On 8 December, 1942, the New York Times reported the launch the previous day of the New Jersey on its front page, with a big photo captioned "The New Jersey slides into the water at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia". So the launch date was indeed the first anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. I'll update the article and cite this Times piece. TypoBoy (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS New Jersey (BB-62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207125512/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-5.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105182548/http://www.charlesglass.net/archives/2006/07/lebanon_agonist.html to http://www.charlesglass.net/archives/2006/07/lebanon_agonist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS New Jersey (BB-62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028081621/http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/62d.htm to http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/62d.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405084644/http://hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on USS New Jersey (BB-62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103214049/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-4.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715081423/https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/UAVs/pioneer.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/UAVs/pioneer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812095250/http://www2.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/US%20Marines%20In%20Lebanon%201982-1984%20PCN%2019000309800.pdf to http://www2.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/US%20Marines%20In%20Lebanon%201982-1984%20PCN%2019000309800.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160319085149/http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/milestone_dates.php to http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/milestone_dates.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS New Jersey (BB-62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029011001/http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/visit/faq.php to http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/visit/faq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303113508/http://army.togetherweserved.com/army/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=Profile&type=Person&ID=300584 to http://army.togetherweserved.com/army/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=Profile&type=Person&ID=300584

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.