This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escort carrier 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If a CVE was 60 per cent of the length of a CV, did it have different planes, different procedures, different catapults and tailhooks, or what? What compromises or alterations in practice were made for taking off and landing on these much smaller ships? Ortolan88
I hope so too, but the chances are slim. Most of those who served on these carriers are now deceased, there is not a single one of those carriers left, and the glory and fame of the big carriers has eclipsed the importance of the jeep carriers. I have the impression sometimes that the lack of celebrity has led to a neglect in the preservation and exploitation of their information resources. I found it easier to get information on LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank or Large Slow Target) than on the CVEs! AlainV 04:20, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
I did! But I was not willing to invest all the money necessary to buy the dozen or so titles available on the used and new book market. As with other WWII subjects I knew ahead of time that a certain proportion of the books would be rather superficial. I had some of them brought over by inter library loan through a local library, one at a time, and found two at the National Library of Canada. And they were all superficial! My point is that the escort carriers are not as well "covered" as other classes of ships or fighting boats of WW II. There are hundreds of books on hand in libraries and bookstores, which cover these other vessels. AlainV 18:43, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
The F4F Wildcat, the main fighter used by the escort carriers, was a very lightweight plane with a very powerful engine, and on most carriers could take off unassisted (the F6F Hellcat, on the other hand, was much larger and did generally need a catapult shot, even from the big carriers). The CVEs also had a forward catapult, which they used to launch their bigger planes. They were completely inadequate for postwar jets in any role other than transport, which is why they were all out of service by 1948. Iceberg3k 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Um... so who or what is "Warrilow"? func (talk) 03:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A reference at the bottom of the article : Warrilow, Betty. Nabob, the first Canadian-manned aircraft carrier. Owen Sound, Ont. : Escort Carriers Association, 1989. -- AlainV 03:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it could also use a link or reference of some sort to the Brodie landing system? PML.
The stated average lengths for the fleet carrier are inconsistent. 900 feet is closer to 275 meters rather than 300 meters, which is especially notable considering the conversion from 500 feet is given as 150 meters. Then later on the page, the table lists a fleet carrier as 260 meters. Using specific, representative classes as examples might be better than these generic average estimates, which are hard to verify against sources. -- BeeBot 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Documentation for the first paragraph? Audacity, acquired Jan-41 commission June 20, 1941. Long Island acquired Mar 1941 and commissioned June 2, 1941. Who was the model for whom? I suspect that neither was the model for either, but that the concept was concurrently pursued by both navies. In any case, the conclusion is highly suspect and POV.--Buckboard 06:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I now am satisfied that the number 130 is correct, if you include all 19 Commencement Bay class vessels. However it involved a lot of digging and fixing typos in this and other articles to get there, so I'm happy for someone else to check my logic. In particular the List of escort aircraft carriers of the United States Navy and List_of_aircraft_carrier_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy and List of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy all had flaws and could do with some tidying up. I think they are consistent now.
Basically, changes I made were:
The German article about escort carriers also mentions some Japanese Carriers. You can find a list at http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ijn_cv.htm if you like to include them to your article.
- The above is true. Not only did the IJN operate escort carriers, but also the Japanese Army had even more than the Navy. The opening of the article should include the Japanese in addition to USN and RN.
As for the article in general, I think whomever put this together did a formidable job considering the wide range necessitated by the subject matter. Well done.
The only thing that is glaring, from an inaccuracy standpoint, is "Later carriers were built using the hulls of Liberty Ships not yet finished but already in various stages of construction." which is not the case. The Liberty hull, or EC2 was never the foundation for any CVEs built in the US. I think this might have been easily confused with the Maritime Commission's standard type with a very similar name - the C-3, which was the basis for all Todd/Sea-Tac built CVEs. To avoid any further confusion, nor were there any CVEs built upon VC2 hulls either - the hull for the Victory ships. Working backwards, the latest CVEs were the big (for escort carriers) Commencement Bays based on heavily modified oiler hulls of the Cimmaron class, not too much different than the first four CVEs using oiler hulls - Sangamon, Santee, Chenango and Suwanee. The Kaiser CVEs had the most unique hull shape of all the CVEs. It was based on the standard Maritime Commission P1 hull - which was the smallest of four (P1, P2, P3, and finally P4 the largest) transport (read: passenger ship in peace time) designs made by the commission prior to US entry into the war. The P1 was designed for coastal passenger service between San Francisco and Seattle, which explains why they had such little draft - a factor that also made the Casablancas so tender in any sea greater than a moderate sea state. xl_five_lx 21:31 30 July 2007
The article contains the two following pieces of text:
and
Err. 'Spotting and hunting submarines' sounds pretty well the same thing as 'providing air support for anti-submarine warfare' to me. I think we either need more detail on how the US Navy usage in the North Atlantic differed from the Royal Navy usage in order to justify the 'discovered their own use', or perhaps we should move that phrase so it just applies to the Pacific, where it does sound like there was a genuine difference in usage. -- Chris j wood ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating as the description of derivation of the phrase gedunk bar is, do we really think that a description of a ships ice-cream vending belongs alongside and before a description of its role!. I've added the cleanup tag. -- Chris j wood ( talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know what a "funnel" is: From Chimney: Chimneys may be found in buildings, steam locomotives and ships. In the US, the term smokestack (colloquially, stack) is also used when referring to locomotive chimneys. The term funnel is generally used for ship chimneys and sometimes used to refer to locomotive chimneys. - BillCJ ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the section below but it was removed. It is consistent with the information cited in the articles refereed to. Comments please. "The United States designed Sea Control Ship to serve a similar role, whilst non where actually built HTMS Chakri Naruebet and Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) and Spanish aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias where all based on the concept. The United Kingdoms Invincible class aircraft carriers is somewhat large but design to do a similar task."-- Kitchen Knife ( talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"United States classification revision to escort aircraft carrier (CVE)"
What exactly does CVE stand for? CVE doesn't map directly to "escort aircraft carrier".
Why didn't any escort carrier become a museum ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escort carrier 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If a CVE was 60 per cent of the length of a CV, did it have different planes, different procedures, different catapults and tailhooks, or what? What compromises or alterations in practice were made for taking off and landing on these much smaller ships? Ortolan88
I hope so too, but the chances are slim. Most of those who served on these carriers are now deceased, there is not a single one of those carriers left, and the glory and fame of the big carriers has eclipsed the importance of the jeep carriers. I have the impression sometimes that the lack of celebrity has led to a neglect in the preservation and exploitation of their information resources. I found it easier to get information on LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank or Large Slow Target) than on the CVEs! AlainV 04:20, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
I did! But I was not willing to invest all the money necessary to buy the dozen or so titles available on the used and new book market. As with other WWII subjects I knew ahead of time that a certain proportion of the books would be rather superficial. I had some of them brought over by inter library loan through a local library, one at a time, and found two at the National Library of Canada. And they were all superficial! My point is that the escort carriers are not as well "covered" as other classes of ships or fighting boats of WW II. There are hundreds of books on hand in libraries and bookstores, which cover these other vessels. AlainV 18:43, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
The F4F Wildcat, the main fighter used by the escort carriers, was a very lightweight plane with a very powerful engine, and on most carriers could take off unassisted (the F6F Hellcat, on the other hand, was much larger and did generally need a catapult shot, even from the big carriers). The CVEs also had a forward catapult, which they used to launch their bigger planes. They were completely inadequate for postwar jets in any role other than transport, which is why they were all out of service by 1948. Iceberg3k 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Um... so who or what is "Warrilow"? func (talk) 03:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A reference at the bottom of the article : Warrilow, Betty. Nabob, the first Canadian-manned aircraft carrier. Owen Sound, Ont. : Escort Carriers Association, 1989. -- AlainV 03:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it could also use a link or reference of some sort to the Brodie landing system? PML.
The stated average lengths for the fleet carrier are inconsistent. 900 feet is closer to 275 meters rather than 300 meters, which is especially notable considering the conversion from 500 feet is given as 150 meters. Then later on the page, the table lists a fleet carrier as 260 meters. Using specific, representative classes as examples might be better than these generic average estimates, which are hard to verify against sources. -- BeeBot 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Documentation for the first paragraph? Audacity, acquired Jan-41 commission June 20, 1941. Long Island acquired Mar 1941 and commissioned June 2, 1941. Who was the model for whom? I suspect that neither was the model for either, but that the concept was concurrently pursued by both navies. In any case, the conclusion is highly suspect and POV.--Buckboard 06:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I now am satisfied that the number 130 is correct, if you include all 19 Commencement Bay class vessels. However it involved a lot of digging and fixing typos in this and other articles to get there, so I'm happy for someone else to check my logic. In particular the List of escort aircraft carriers of the United States Navy and List_of_aircraft_carrier_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy and List of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy all had flaws and could do with some tidying up. I think they are consistent now.
Basically, changes I made were:
The German article about escort carriers also mentions some Japanese Carriers. You can find a list at http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ijn_cv.htm if you like to include them to your article.
- The above is true. Not only did the IJN operate escort carriers, but also the Japanese Army had even more than the Navy. The opening of the article should include the Japanese in addition to USN and RN.
As for the article in general, I think whomever put this together did a formidable job considering the wide range necessitated by the subject matter. Well done.
The only thing that is glaring, from an inaccuracy standpoint, is "Later carriers were built using the hulls of Liberty Ships not yet finished but already in various stages of construction." which is not the case. The Liberty hull, or EC2 was never the foundation for any CVEs built in the US. I think this might have been easily confused with the Maritime Commission's standard type with a very similar name - the C-3, which was the basis for all Todd/Sea-Tac built CVEs. To avoid any further confusion, nor were there any CVEs built upon VC2 hulls either - the hull for the Victory ships. Working backwards, the latest CVEs were the big (for escort carriers) Commencement Bays based on heavily modified oiler hulls of the Cimmaron class, not too much different than the first four CVEs using oiler hulls - Sangamon, Santee, Chenango and Suwanee. The Kaiser CVEs had the most unique hull shape of all the CVEs. It was based on the standard Maritime Commission P1 hull - which was the smallest of four (P1, P2, P3, and finally P4 the largest) transport (read: passenger ship in peace time) designs made by the commission prior to US entry into the war. The P1 was designed for coastal passenger service between San Francisco and Seattle, which explains why they had such little draft - a factor that also made the Casablancas so tender in any sea greater than a moderate sea state. xl_five_lx 21:31 30 July 2007
The article contains the two following pieces of text:
and
Err. 'Spotting and hunting submarines' sounds pretty well the same thing as 'providing air support for anti-submarine warfare' to me. I think we either need more detail on how the US Navy usage in the North Atlantic differed from the Royal Navy usage in order to justify the 'discovered their own use', or perhaps we should move that phrase so it just applies to the Pacific, where it does sound like there was a genuine difference in usage. -- Chris j wood ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating as the description of derivation of the phrase gedunk bar is, do we really think that a description of a ships ice-cream vending belongs alongside and before a description of its role!. I've added the cleanup tag. -- Chris j wood ( talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know what a "funnel" is: From Chimney: Chimneys may be found in buildings, steam locomotives and ships. In the US, the term smokestack (colloquially, stack) is also used when referring to locomotive chimneys. The term funnel is generally used for ship chimneys and sometimes used to refer to locomotive chimneys. - BillCJ ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the section below but it was removed. It is consistent with the information cited in the articles refereed to. Comments please. "The United States designed Sea Control Ship to serve a similar role, whilst non where actually built HTMS Chakri Naruebet and Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) and Spanish aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias where all based on the concept. The United Kingdoms Invincible class aircraft carriers is somewhat large but design to do a similar task."-- Kitchen Knife ( talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"United States classification revision to escort aircraft carrier (CVE)"
What exactly does CVE stand for? CVE doesn't map directly to "escort aircraft carrier".
Why didn't any escort carrier become a museum ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)