Talk:Essex-class aircraft carrier

Rewrite

hoo-- this page needs a rewrite... I have no doubt to the facts and figures, but the grammar needs a lot of work, and it could use a bit of organization. Anyone with a comment? I will get started this weekend.Davejenk1ns 12:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to critique and not offend someone, or many, that have obviously worked very hard to bring this article to its current level of completion. However, after just reading it for the first time, I felt let down and misled by the superb section titles that at no point in time of their content describe what was promised. Design, for instance. I fully expected to learn about the DESIGN. As in, what individuals (by name) had their hand in a) the preliminary design, b) the contract design phase, and lastly, c) who or what agency acted as "design agent" and tackled the massive job of creating every single detailed working drawing that the builders need to get started. I think this type of information is interesting and essential to a famous design such as Essex class.

Similar paragraphs could be said about the promises made by the title DEVELOPMENT, and one I didn't see but would love to read CONSTRUCTION.

Like I said in my opening. it's so easy to criticize and so hard to do the work. I'm just sharing what I feel the types of detailed information ship fans are hoping to find once they land on any ship article. Thanks for listening. Xl five lx 10:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Ticonderoga into Essex

Propose to merge Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier into Essex class aircraft carrier. The building of both type overlaps. The Essex class usually describes both the short-hull (Essex) and long-hull (Ticonderoga) variants, with little difference between the two othet than length. As such, there is consideralble overlap between the two articles, and neither article is that long. Post war, some of both types underwent the same types of modifications (such as receiving angled deck), while others of both types remained unmodified. Most historical assessments deal with the entire history of both types together. -BillCJ 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd accept the merger, but it'd have to be carried out very delicately. Like you have stated, the Ticonderoga isn't really a separate class as much as its a slight modification of the Essex design, but you'd still have to explain that progression in the new merged article. Shoot me a message if you need any help with this. Andyuts! 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I'll need help with copyediting, and it's easy to miss minor errors. Also, I'm not that good with placement of pictures, and so on, so any help with alignment would be good also. -BillCJ 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any objections, I am proceeding with the merger. I hope to have it done within the next week or so. -BillCJ 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger completed--tasks remaining

I have completed the major portion of the merger, and the Tico class page has a redirect. The following tasks remain to be completed:

• Clean-up paragraphs which mention the Tico class; I have done all I have seen, but there may be some I missed.
• Add General Characteristics for the post-war mods (if we keep this at all). Currently shows Midway and Coral Sea specs.
• Decomissioning dats for the short-hulls need to be added. I have a printed source with the dates, but it may take me awhile to get to it.
• We could use a good color pic of a unmodified Essex class ship showing the straight-deck.
• The articles on the long-hull ships need to be changed, both in text, and the links at the end.

-BillCJ 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Some clear errors

Why are there specs for the Midway class carriers (totally different class) on this page? Some ships are clearly missing from the list of ships (e.g. USS Boxer). -h27kim 21:54, October 24 2006 (PST)

I copied the ship specs Template from the Midway class aircraft carrier article. I intend to change them to an Essex ASW carrier, and an Essex CVA carrier, but have not had time as yet. (I've been involved in trying to mediate an edit war over the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) page.) Please feel free to make any necessary changes. Thanks for catching that Boxer was missing; she has been added. That makes 26 total in the list, so there should not be any more missing. Let us know here if you find another one. Thanks. -BillCJ 05:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"constituted the industrial age's largest class of heavy warships"?

I find it quite surprising that this passage was allowed to stand for so long. They were not even the largest warships during the war, or even the largest American warships of the war (Iowa Class). Secondly, the end of the Industrial age is rather imprecise, I suppose the end of WWII is a pretty good date for it but it is certianly not the only date.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Essex class were, and still are, the largest CLASS of HEAVY warships ever built; not largest warships, or largest class of warships. (According to the text; I can't think of a class of large warships built in greater numbers, so I am accepting this as a true statement.) There were 4 Iowa class ships; 24 Essex class ships were completed. If someone can name a class of warships of greater than 27,000 tons displacement, with 25 or more ships in the class, built before or since the Essex class, please do.

The term "heavy" may need to be redifined; they certainly were/are the largest class of fleet carriers ever built. Also, I've changed "Industrial age" to "Twentieth Century". Hopefully that's a little more precise, though no one is likely to build a larger class of heavy warships anytime soon. - BillCJ 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is from the table: "15 ordered, 15 laid down, 10 commissioned as Essex ships 5 completed as Ticonderoga class ships" It does not match to the article itself! Can someone verify the numbers and correct it. I think 27,000 tons is a good definition for "heavy", as it was the maximum displacement set in Washington Naval Treaty. ("Only two carriers per nation could exceed 27,000 tons (27,400 t), and those two were limited to 33,000 tons (33,500 t) each - this exception was in fact made to allow the reuse as carriers of certain battlecruisers being built, and gave birth to the USS Lexington (CV-2).") Chagai 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that on the table. As stated above, we recently merged in the article on the Ticonderoga sub-class. There are a few thimgs we missed in the merger. Thanks again. - BillCJ 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As a class and total tonnage/ steel utilized - IE displacement multiplied by number in class it probably does meet that criteria. I have to admit guessing. Also, a nice improvement would be to add the building shipyard for each of these carriers. All post-war Aircraft Carriers in the US Navy have been built by Newport News. What about for this class. Other than NN, were these the largest ships ever built by those shipyards? Wfoj2 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I criticized (see above in rewrite), now maybe I can help on one tiny thing to make amends. Know that opening line that is so important to communicate the class' uniqueness yet so hard to put into words and have people actually understand it?

Essex was a class of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, which constituted the 20th century's most numerous class of heavy warships, with 24 ships built.

You're having the very same problem we had. How to phrase a challenging point so it flows smoothly and is easily understood by anyone on their first pass. "most numerous class of"???? Wow. I kinda think I know what you meant - you guys certainly know what you meant - but they, those average joe guys, likely are saying wow too - or worse, what the heck does that mean?

We had the exact same problem with the Casablanca class escort carriers and here is what turned out to be the solution. It will solve your problem as well.

The Casablanca class Escort aircraft carriers were the greatest number of, not only escort carriers, but also, any size aircraft carrier ever built to a like-design by any nation at any time. Fifty of these were laid down, launched and commissioned within the space of a little more than one and three-quarter years - November 3rd, 1942 through July 8th, 1944.

Now, adapting this verbiage and order to Essex might look something like this:

The United States Navy's Essex class aircraft carriers were the greatest number of heavy warships ever built to a like-design throughout the 20th Century! Twenty-Four of these were built ... blah ... blah ... blah (you guys can take it from there)

One last thing: Since the whole criteria of your point absolutely hinges on the word HEAVY, I don't think you have much choice but to emphasize it somehow. Italics, Bold, something - some way. Good luck, hope this helps, even just a little. Oh, one last thing: Regarding were the Essex's the largest ships ever built by the yards that built them OTHER than Newport News? No way. The Navy yards pumped out the odd Essex just to relieve Newport News the burden of building all. These same Navy yards also built BBs. So, there goes that Essex the largest from those other yards thing. Xl five lx 10:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lake Champlain picture

1. I dont see the rationale for putting the picture of the Lake Champlain where it is. First of all, there's just no need for it. If people actually read the article, they'll realize that Essex carriers started as axial deck, and later received angled decks. I dont get the urgency to put both pictures right at the beginning.

2. More importantly, putting an image right next to the infobox cuts off the flow of the text. At least on my computer, the picture comes between the contents box and the text. The Manual of Style cautions against sandwiching text between two images. I dont see why cutting off the text with two images or an image and an infobox is better.

3. The Manual of Style also says you should start with a right aligned image, which this is not. It also says you should not fix thumb sizes, which this one is.

4. Why Lake Champlain? If the important thing is to show the basic form of the Essex class, I'd show an unmodified ship. Lake Champlain was an oddball with the straight deck and SCB-27A configuration. (I know a few carriers served in the Korean War in this configuration. Still not typical.)

5. Can you put two images in the infobox? That would make sense to me. This format doesn't.

6. Failing that, how about replacing the current infobox image with an unconverted carrier? That's how they started, the angled decks came later. It would seem fitting that they also came later in the article.

M Van Houten 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I think showing two pics side-by-side or otherwise adjacent showing both the straight and angle-deck configurations is good, but I understnad your objections also. I was fairly new when I placed the Champlain pic there, and really didn't know another way of doing it at the time. Do they have to be right at the front, adjacent to or in the infobox? No, but I'd still like them as close to the top as possible.
2. I agree cutting off the text is not recommended, and am willing to consider another option.
3. Why Lake Champlain? Simply because it was the only pic on Wikipedia that I could find at the time which showed the straight deck clearly, and at an angle which was close to that of the other pic. I don't personally have any free images of any ships at all, and I have no experience adding images from other web sites to Wikipedia, especially dealing with copyright issues. With all the image-nazis running around on Wikipedia who delete images without notice simply because the image "might" not be useable, it's simpler for me not to get involved at all in adding images. I have no problem using ather ship, especailly one that's pre-conversion, if we can a good, clear, usable image. Champlain was simply the best pic availabe at the time I searched, and it is a straight deack, which is waht I wanted to contrat.
4. Can two images be put in the Infobox used in this article? I have no idea, but we can try and see what happens! I havn't seen it done, tho, and even if it's possible, there may also be MOS guidelines which preclude doing it.
5. The Champlain pic was not the only pic in the article with thumb sizes; a good number of them had sizing (I didn't count how many or in what proportion of the total), but I removed almost all of them earier today. I left Champlain's in to help keep it from overgrowing its text space at larger thumb settings, but if we move it to a new spot that would be moot.
6. As far as the existing image in the infobox, I have no probelm replacing it with a better pic. As to whether it should be a WWII-vintage shot, the carriers served a long time after WWII. I prefer using color pics in the Infobox for aethetic reasons (I think they just look better as the first pic). However, I also feel the lead pic should be the best available pic, color or not, vintage or not, which gives a good overall view of the subject, or a view that is notable or dramatic.

If we could find at least two, prefereably 3 or 4, pics of the Essexes of various configurations, which show how they have changed over the years, that would be great. Might be even beter if some of them were of the same ship. Besides the deck configuration, it would be good to highlight the bow changes also. Once we have some good pic candidates, we can decide how to arrange them best, and where to place them in the article.

I did not have much experience editing when I chose that configuration, and there where no other editors around who chose to give input at that time (and I didn't know much about asking either). Anything which improves the article is a good thing, and I'm not going to rigidly hold to something just because it was the way I did it at the time, or it was my idea. The thoughts mentioned by the previous editor are definitely worth considering. Let's see what we can come up with together. - BillCJ 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this for the infobox? I think it will pass muster with the image nazis.

File:USSPS.jpg

Another possibility

M Van Houten 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a great pic. Good shot of bow. Given the size of the Infobox pic, I think it would show up well (it's a little had to see in a smaller size). The Yorktown pic would be great showing the straight deck next to the angled-deck photo. Thanks! - BillCJ 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help.

M Van Houten 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The new changes look good. Thanks for finding a place for the deck pics. - BillCJ 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurte?

"All were scrapped, most in the 1970s, although Shangri-La survived until the late 1980s."

This last sentence seems to be inaccurate unless I'm misunderstanding something. CV-10 Yorktown was never scrapped - she's preserved at Patriot's Point. It would be accurate to say all were decommissioned, but not that all were scrapped. The Dark 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. That paragraph is speaking of the long-hull Essexes, aka the Ticonderogas. It's a paragraph from the original Ticonderoga class article. We probably need to rewrite that sentence for clarity. However, I'm not certain if "all" is supposed to refer to the 6 unmodernized long-hulls, or all the long-hulls. I'll try to check my Essex class book and other sources for verification on this. - BillCJ 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ships Today

I added the "Ships Today" section, as I think it's interesting to have a section devoted to the final fates of the ships; also, it's worth pointing out that four of the ships can be visited. This section is really minimal right now; feel free to expand and correct. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also added the Apollo section, which I think is worth mentioning -- 5 ships of the class took part in the manned missions. (I didn't look at the unmanned ones yet.) And it wasn't just chance; the reason, I think, was that they had 4 independent power plants; maybe someone can find a source for that and add it.

BTW, the post-war section looks to me like it could be oragnized a bit and split into roughly-chronological subsections; post-war, korea/vietnam, rebuilding, space program, anti-sub, etc. Comments? — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Air Wings/Ops

Looking over the individual articles there is no mention of air wings durning the mentioned periods. Especially difficult to find is information about straight deck operations and ASW ops which could be included. The ASW information would really help improve the sad state of the ASW_carrier page which as it stands is mostly a unresearched list of light carriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.100.72 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the ASW ships operated S-2 Tracker, E-1 Tracer, and SH-3 Sea King also A-1 Skyraider are shown in some pictures but with unspecified mission. Did these ships carry any defensive fighters?