` -    :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. )     ::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. -    ::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.    ::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.   ==Moved Paragraph== 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.  ==heaviest bombardment since...== 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.    ==116,000 rounds from 16 inch guns== 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?     :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.    ==Another battlewagon in Camden, NJ?== Found this on the google map of Camden:  Anybody know which ship that might be?    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 al