This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
600-ship Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Lehman's book, Command of the Seas, he stated that the 600-ship Navy was mainly his idea. This article states otherwise. Does anyone have any source for where the idea originated other than Lehman's (admittedly biased) book? - Joseph (Talk) 17:36, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Ronnie was not exactly a naval expert in his own right, he would have gotten it from somebody else. I think it's reasonable to take Lehman at his word, at least until we get the name of the staff flunky who really came up with the number. :-) Stan 02:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What was the purpose of this plan? Gdr 00:08, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
Just an idle thought - does anyone know a rough breakdown of what these 600 ships were? I mean, is it about 600 including support vessels, or just combat vessels, or...? Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've yet to find an actual breakdown of the kinds of vessels, but it included an increase in support vessels as well, from fleet oilers to ammunition supply vessels. DesScorp 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The 600-ship navy called for 16 carrier battle groups as well as a "surface action group" centered around the 4 Iowa-class battleships. Lehman also toyed with the idea of recommisioning the Essex class carriers USS Bohommne Richard and USS Oriskany, but after seeing the condition they were in decided it wouldn't be worth the money.
NavyAO2(AW)
16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the suggestion here about including the James H. Webb resignation? When the Secretary of the Navy resigns his post in protest at fleet cutbacks (and the end of the 600 ship Navy philosophy), isn't that relevant to the subject? DesScorp 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be full of over-statements. For instance, it appears to attribute the deployment of weapons such as the F/A-18 and various classes of ships to the naval build up, when these were programs which had begun prior to the build up. In addition, the claim that "Up till now, the U.S. fleet's primary job was to passively defend America's coast and protect its Sea lines of communication (SLOC) to and from Europe" appears to be incorrect - US Carrier battlegroups had previously had the mission of agressively attacking the enemy, and in fact did so for several years during the Vietnam War. -- Nick Dowling 08:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, is it really fitting or encyclopedic to describe late-20th Century Soviet military buildup in terms of the medieval Seven Seas, whose membership and Geographic authority and relevance are in modern times questionable?? - Eric 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the implication was of the "modern" seven seas: North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.96.14 ( talk • contribs).
The "Bear in the Woods" ad was not part of Reagan's 1980 campaign. It was part of his 1984 re-election campaign. This article incorrectly claims the ad was part of the 1980 campaign.
I notice several statements which are refuted elsewhere in Wikipedia; among them are "Under the programs put forth by Reagan ... the Bradley fighting vehicle, and the Abrams tank was completed and they were put into production." The Bradley came out in 1981, so it might, technically, be considered to have something to do with RWR -- it came out during his first year. But "The M1 Abrams entered U.S. service in 1980," according to the article that this one links to.
Similarly, the next sections states "Under the Reagan Administration, the first of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines was completed" although Ohio was launched on 7 April 1979.
Or am I missing something?
Geoffrey Pruitt ( talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I just was looking at the references on this page and was wondering about the fitnessnews.com source I am not sure how credible this site is and was wondering if anyone could vouch for it. Sunfishtommy ( talk) 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I added this section for anyone who wants to delve into the 600-ship Navy and the Maritime Strategy that this program supported.§ Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the list of ship types and numbers, there is a subtotal entry that contains the follownig numbers.
Years 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Total Amphibious Active 67 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
If you add up the numbers above this subtotal what you actually get is:
Total Amphibious Active 67 67 67 65 63 63 63 66 68 67 67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.21.149 ( talk) 01:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
In doing some research for the Background section, I turned up some interesting information, notably that as early as March 1977, Adm Holloway was advocating openly for a 600 ship navy. See the top of the second column of the following newspaper clip: Holloway was pushing a 600 ship navy in March 1977 This is at least a year earlier than the current text indicates Holloway was involved, although in my limited time, I can't find a quote related to the challenged statements about Holloway's concerns about the Soviet Navy. I'm putting this here so that someone with the time can continue to determine the timeline of the cold warrior push for mo' money & mo' ships. —-- Srwalden ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
600-ship Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Lehman's book, Command of the Seas, he stated that the 600-ship Navy was mainly his idea. This article states otherwise. Does anyone have any source for where the idea originated other than Lehman's (admittedly biased) book? - Joseph (Talk) 17:36, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Ronnie was not exactly a naval expert in his own right, he would have gotten it from somebody else. I think it's reasonable to take Lehman at his word, at least until we get the name of the staff flunky who really came up with the number. :-) Stan 02:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What was the purpose of this plan? Gdr 00:08, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
Just an idle thought - does anyone know a rough breakdown of what these 600 ships were? I mean, is it about 600 including support vessels, or just combat vessels, or...? Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've yet to find an actual breakdown of the kinds of vessels, but it included an increase in support vessels as well, from fleet oilers to ammunition supply vessels. DesScorp 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The 600-ship navy called for 16 carrier battle groups as well as a "surface action group" centered around the 4 Iowa-class battleships. Lehman also toyed with the idea of recommisioning the Essex class carriers USS Bohommne Richard and USS Oriskany, but after seeing the condition they were in decided it wouldn't be worth the money.
NavyAO2(AW)
16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the suggestion here about including the James H. Webb resignation? When the Secretary of the Navy resigns his post in protest at fleet cutbacks (and the end of the 600 ship Navy philosophy), isn't that relevant to the subject? DesScorp 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be full of over-statements. For instance, it appears to attribute the deployment of weapons such as the F/A-18 and various classes of ships to the naval build up, when these were programs which had begun prior to the build up. In addition, the claim that "Up till now, the U.S. fleet's primary job was to passively defend America's coast and protect its Sea lines of communication (SLOC) to and from Europe" appears to be incorrect - US Carrier battlegroups had previously had the mission of agressively attacking the enemy, and in fact did so for several years during the Vietnam War. -- Nick Dowling 08:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, is it really fitting or encyclopedic to describe late-20th Century Soviet military buildup in terms of the medieval Seven Seas, whose membership and Geographic authority and relevance are in modern times questionable?? - Eric 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the implication was of the "modern" seven seas: North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.96.14 ( talk • contribs).
The "Bear in the Woods" ad was not part of Reagan's 1980 campaign. It was part of his 1984 re-election campaign. This article incorrectly claims the ad was part of the 1980 campaign.
I notice several statements which are refuted elsewhere in Wikipedia; among them are "Under the programs put forth by Reagan ... the Bradley fighting vehicle, and the Abrams tank was completed and they were put into production." The Bradley came out in 1981, so it might, technically, be considered to have something to do with RWR -- it came out during his first year. But "The M1 Abrams entered U.S. service in 1980," according to the article that this one links to.
Similarly, the next sections states "Under the Reagan Administration, the first of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines was completed" although Ohio was launched on 7 April 1979.
Or am I missing something?
Geoffrey Pruitt ( talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I just was looking at the references on this page and was wondering about the fitnessnews.com source I am not sure how credible this site is and was wondering if anyone could vouch for it. Sunfishtommy ( talk) 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I added this section for anyone who wants to delve into the 600-ship Navy and the Maritime Strategy that this program supported.§ Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the list of ship types and numbers, there is a subtotal entry that contains the follownig numbers.
Years 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Total Amphibious Active 67 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
If you add up the numbers above this subtotal what you actually get is:
Total Amphibious Active 67 67 67 65 63 63 63 66 68 67 67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.21.149 ( talk) 01:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
In doing some research for the Background section, I turned up some interesting information, notably that as early as March 1977, Adm Holloway was advocating openly for a 600 ship navy. See the top of the second column of the following newspaper clip: Holloway was pushing a 600 ship navy in March 1977 This is at least a year earlier than the current text indicates Holloway was involved, although in my limited time, I can't find a quote related to the challenged statements about Holloway's concerns about the Soviet Navy. I'm putting this here so that someone with the time can continue to determine the timeline of the cold warrior push for mo' money & mo' ships. —-- Srwalden ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)