Talk:Aircraft carrier/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft carrier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for August 2: Century of carriers?

Do we want to make a dyk about this? L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess not. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Midway - 7 aircraft carriers engaged; 4 Japanese carriers & 1 American sunk

The Battle of Midway - June 4-7, 1942 - with seven aircraft carriers involved was the greatest carrier battle in history and possibly the greatest naval battle in history. The Japanese lost all four of their carriers and the Americans lost the USS Yorktown while the USS Enterprise (CV-6) and the USS Hornet (CV-8) survived. 76.18.14.85 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed tl:dr because WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
- Nick Thorne talk 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Its disingenuous at best to claim the Americans "lost" the Lexington. Ultimately the ship was scuttled and only repeated direct orders finally got all of the crew to abandon the ship and efforts to "save" her. Various accounts have the Lexington continuing to remain afloat and more or less "straight and level" in the water despite the multiple fires, some of which were supposedly so hot the hull was glowing in places. While claimed to be a major disaster for the ship, the loss of various resources necessary for firefighting probably saved the ship. More ships have been sunk due to firefighting efforts resulting in flooding and listing and eventual capsizing due to ballast and weight imbalances than fires themselves. Despite at least three torpedo hits and at least two bomb hits, the Lexington continued flight operations including both recovery of and launching of aircraft for several more hours.

And despite having to shut several boilers, she continued to make nearly 30 knots, which made her faster with significant battle damage and a 6-7 degree list than many contemporary and even "modern" carriers are at top speed in perfect operating condition. Ultimately 5 torpedoes were fired to scuttle her, but over a course of 37 minutes. Which clearly indicates that with each torpedo launched the expectation was that it would "finish" her. Its reported that she began sinking immediately after the 5th torpedo impacted, which implies that a quick spread of 5 was fired, but clearly it was a long, drawn-out process with the officers giving the orders clearly having no wish to waste torpedoes given the location of the fleet and the position of the fleet carrier as the "mother ship" for all of the smaller warships in the fleet.

It's also reported that the ship sank evenly until it disappeared under the surface, which indicates that the torpedo strikes probably only fractured the hull or pipes or valves in areas of the strikes so that flooding was slow and steady rather then the torpedoes doing catastrophic damage. Its also possible that sea cocks were opened so that the ship would sink rather than "survive" long enough to make a potentially disastrous "recovery effort" possible if crew members returned to the ship and any Japanese submarines lurking in the area launched a new attack to destroy the ship once it was re-manned. A lot is made of the loyalty of the men to their ship but the fact is that many of them had no other "home" besides the Lexington and all of their personal possessions including most or all of the pay they'd earned during months or years of service were aboard. No doubt fear that they'd never recover their losses was a prime motivating factor.

Regardless, the U.S. sank its lone "lost" carrier and therefore sank EVERY carrier at the Battle of Midway, while the best efforts of the Japanese didn't sink a single U.S. carrier or even put one out of action. Its also disingenuous and misleading to say that the USS Hornet and USS Enterprise "survived". Neither carrier was damaged at the Battle of Midway and after a four week refit/resupply period for the Enterprise and a six week refit/resupply period for the Hornet, which also had a change of command, both were returned to full combat readiness. Had the Lexington been "saved", the turnaround times for the Enterprise and Hornet probably would have been extended. The Enterprise participated in all the major South Pacific surface battles, became the most decorated warship in U.S. history and was ultimately scrapped in the late 1950s after being decommissioned in 1947. The Hornet was "lost" at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands after sustaining significant battle damage, surviving a U.S. scuttling attempt involving 9 torpedoes fired into her and ultimately sank after the Japanese fired four of their largest, most-powerful torpedoes into her.

Clearly the Lexington and her sister ships were and still are the most battle-proven and "toughest" aircraft carriers to sail under any flag and were far and away the most capable and survivable aicraft carriers of World War II. Other Allied carriers, including the supposedly "superior" British carriers with their "armored flight decks" took much less "battle damage" during the war but were also not present for any of the serious surface combat and carrier-on-carrier battles than the U.S. fleet carriers experienced, survived and in most cases were essentially unscathed by.

In particular, the supposed "superiority" of armored flight decks was proven a myth when at least two British carriers were scrapped after relatively minor hangar fires due to non-combat accidents caused heating of the hulls so severe the hulls and keels ended up "bent" and "warped" beyond "economic repair". Having a very heavy armored flight deck supported by the thin steel of a lightweight superstructure designed to offset the weight of the flight deck and thought sufficient in terms of protection because of the armor above it ultimately causes the sides of the hull to warp and flex and as they did so, the rest of the ships' structure was also twisted and distorted.

The final result was that while U.S. fleet carriers overwhelmingly survived the war despite supposedly "severe" damaged sustained during it, British carriers which supposedly were impervious to "battle damage" didn't survive peacetime accidents which were nearly a given at the time. The potential for av-gas fires resulting from leaks of liquid gasoline and explosions from fumes ignited by something as simple as a hammer dropped on a steel deck was well-known, and the majority of ships in general and warships in particular lost to fires and explosions were lost due to hull deformation, leaking and ruptured water pipes, explosions of other flammable/explosive materials onboard due to inadequate fire protection, etc.

Perhaps the British, with their long and extensive history of losing warships with all or nearly all hands in a matter of seconds or minutes due to magazine explosions and other catastrophic after-effects of impacts by torpedoes and bombs, weren't familiar with the "long-term" effects of fires onboard warships and therefore didn't consider fires to be a possibility or significant danger. Especially with their "hangar park" aircraft storage doctrine where planes were kept below decks where they were thought to be "safe" from damage due to collisions on deck, etc. However, their lack of adequate fire prevention and protection systems and subsequent loss of major fleet carriers due to non-combat accidents certainly make U.S. "losses" where the ships survived tremendous battle damage and even scuttling attempts in some cases in order to prevent further crew losses and additional expenditures of time and money and resources on ships that were clearly going to be "obsolete" as soon as the Japanese Navy was defeated look "worthwhile" and even "desirable" by comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aircraft carrier. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft carrier. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

'Supercarrier' section

May I ask, why is the article stating about how much bigger America's 'supercarriers' are compared to any other nations? It looks juvenile, insecure and petty, subsequently this nonsense should be removed.DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That section only states facts, supported by reliable sources. The only one that seems to have a problem with it is you. I would suggest you seek consensus for any changes. In the meantime, perhaps give the incivility and personal attacks a rest as they only serve to reflect poorly on yourself. - theWOLFchild 20:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks? On who? I was describing article tone. 'Incivility? That isn't a lack of civility, its stating the obvious. Was I being diplomatic about a generalisation? No. Moving on, no-one is disputing the sources, I was referring to neutrality and balance, isn't that how a wiki article should be constructed? I changed just seven words in an attempt to bring some semblance of balance to an obviously biased paragraph Why? Because at the moment the piece looks ridiculous, sources have been taken out of all context and just makes the website look ridiculous what with this 'America **** yeah!' nonsense.DNA Cowboy (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that section is as "juvenile", "insecure", "petty", "nonsens[ical]", "[non]-neutral", "[un]balanced", "biased", "ridiculous", "out-of-context", "ridiculous" (again), "America **** yeah!" (pro-U.S.) and "nonsens[ical]" (again) as you have so articulately claimed, then you should have no problem gaining a consensus to make the changes you seek. (Just remember, it's not about winning or losing, as long as you try your best and have fun, that's all that really matters) - theWOLFchild 17:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, we did have consensus but an editor refused to accept consensus and moved to have the supercarrier article removed so I am afraid it’s just more of the same obstructionism when editors don’t get their way. I still fail to understand why it is so important to ‘big up’ US supercarriers as opposed to the others in the article but it fails the neutrality check the way it is currently written, my 7-word change still mentioned that the US carrier was the largest, all I attempted to do was to bring a little balance to the paragraph; however, it seems balance and neutrality even on such a small edit is unacceptable to certain editors.DNA Cowboy (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I waited a couple weeks to see if there would be any other replies, but... nope. Again, you seem to be the only one with the problem here. Perhaps you should find something more constructive to do, instead of this persistent and useless complaining. Also, unless you have actual diffs to support your claims, you should stop accusing other editors (named or not) of " obstructionism" and violating "consensus" and "neutrality", and whatever other wiki-evils your imagination can conjure. - theWOLFchild 22:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Image suggestion

I'd like to replace one of the images in the upper section of the article with this:

I think this adds more value to the article then say the one with Enterprise and Charles De Gaulle alone, since it shows an actual multi-class Carrier group in formation.

Also there's another picture of Enterprise already below.

Edit: This one's probably better:

Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Went ahead with this, so now the section has an image of all of the main configurations, without being overcrowded. Rest of the article could do with some curation, or perhaps moving inline images into a gallery at the bottom of the relevant section. Rob984 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aircraft_carrier/Archive_7&oldid=1072572415"