Template talk:WWII US ships
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
ВА ВЗ RK J 22:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I wish To Include A Ship Class That Was Used By The Royal Navy During WWII but One Of The Ships In The Class Was Used By The US Navy For A Time The Aircraft Carrier HMS Victorious but When In US Navy Service Was Named USS Robin Which The Ship Served In The US navy from 1942-1943
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?)01:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]I'd like to change the linked article under the GunboatAsheville to direct to the class page (Asheville-class_gunboat_(1917)) instead of the lead vessel (USS_Asheville_(PG-21)).
Edit: Also, removeTulsa. It is a member of theAsheville-class (the only other), and should not be listed separately on a list of Classes.
Edit2: And, while we're at it, addPGM-1 andPGM-9 classes to the gunboat section.
Edit 3-Feb-19: Looks great! I was also thinking, as they were among the most numerous craft fielded during the war, Submarine Chasers, of classes SC-1, SC-497, and PC-461, should be added too. I'm not sure if they should be their own category, or added to either the patrol boats or the gunboats category.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2604:6000:130A:20F0:3540:5DDA:4628:2E5E (talk)04:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Precedingunsigned comment added by2604:6000:130A:20F0:5DF:9057:DA38:C10C (talk)00:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Suggest adding the submarine chasers to the list, specifically the SC-497 class submarine chaser, 438 which served in WWII and which were individually commissioned warships of the Navy.199.101.34.225 (talk)18:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; seeWP:TESTCASES. Alternatively, include the full list of submarine chasers you wish to include.Sceptre (talk)01:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Add SC 497 -class submarine chasers, PC 461 class patrol craft submarine chasers, and PCE 842 class patrol escorts to the patrol craft section where PT boats are currently listed.199.101.34.66 (talk)16:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate. It is not clear what articles should be linked to the template and where in the template, please be specific. --Goldsztajn (talk)16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]submarine chasers have been requested in 2019. the answer was: we don't have a clue what we are doing.
there were 500 of those boats. you really need a source to get going here?
Alamosa class cargo ships are missing (there isn't yet a wiki article for the class, but there were over 60 ships)
there aren't any troop transports listed, except Haskell class and those are listed as cargo ships (see for exampleAttack transport)
the tankers (T1, T2, T3) are not really ship classes.
List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy is a much better link than the plain destroyer article
all the uncountable hordes of amphibious landing craft and landing ships are missing.
Also there is now a class overview for WW2-era US Navy minesweepershere, it could use some polishing, but would then be suitable for linking in the template.
Robert H. Smith-classdestroyers should be listed as minelayers in addition to their listing as destroyers
158.181.83.72 (talk)20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HMSVictorious was not operated by the United States during WWII and was never USSRobin. This has grown out of badly misunderstanding the actual event, to the point of being a myth.
Victorious was sent to the Pacific to operate with the US Pacific Fleet in 1943. She was placed under the tactical command of the US Pacific Fleet for this period, because it would be rather ridiculous to have a separate Royal Navy chain of command for the only British ship in the area when there’s an American Admiral a mile away onSaratoga. This was completely normal during WWII and repeated many times over, such as whenSaratoga operated with the British in the Indian Ocean, Dutch submarines operated under British command (including using British torpedoes when Dutch weapons ran out), or various Australian and New Zealand ships operated with US Task Forces.
Victorious retained her British crew, bolstered by a few Americans to ensure common carrier landing procedures (American fighter squadrons operated from the British carrier) and radio operations. The British carrier was modified to operate American aircraft to ease the supply of spare parts/aircraft in theater, and these modifications were removed after her few months in the Pacific.Victorious never operated as USSRobin, Robin was the code name for the ship as the operation was classified and we didn’t want the Germans/Japanese to know where certain ships were located.
If we start going down the road of includingVictorious as a US warship in WWII, then any time that any foreign ship operated under US tactical command in this template. Furthermore, we’d need to expand that logic to other templates, which would quickly destroy the utility these provide. Finally and most importantly, it perpetuates a distorted version of history that is not appropriate for this website.Beachedwhale1945 (talk)03:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
