Talk:Escort aircraft carrier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
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
- Very good questions, never thought about it before. Hopefully somebody who knows will fill out the article, but my guess is that the shorter flight deck was still sufficient to launch and land most carrier plane types, but there was very little spare working room, so your launch/land rates weren't as good. Stan 06:12 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
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)
- ??? Just plugging "escort carriers" into Amazon turns up at least a dozen volumes, including an "anatomy of the ship" book (none of which I have, thus my lack of details on them). Online material is probably not as good, but then I've come to rely more on books and less on the net in recent months, some comparative study has shown me there is a huge amount of published info that is simply not visible to Google, either not searched or not online. Stan 12:41, 4 May 2004 (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)
Contents |
[edit] Warrilow
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.
[edit] Lengths
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)
[edit] World War II
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)
[edit] 130 escort carriers were built
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:
- - I think there were only 45 Bogue class vessels, not 49. That what all the pages about the individual vessels say - 21 in the first batch {10 US, 11 RN} and 24 in the second {1 US, 23 RN}. I don't know where the other numbers came from. If you have different information then go for it ...
- - There were 19 Commencement Bay vessels TOTAL. 17 were commissioned and 2 were not commissioned but accepted by the Navy after the war and held in reserve. 4 additional ones were cancelled. It probably stetches accuracy a little to say they were all launched during the war though {Sept 1945?}.
- - The USS Charger was very briefly in RN service as HMS Charger, and had AVG-4 and CVE-30 numbering. The other three vessels were RN only.
- - So 2 Long Island + 45 Bogue + 4 Sangamon + 4 Charger + 50 Casablanca + 19 Commencement Bay + Audacity, Activity, Campania, Pretoria Castle, Nairana, Vindex gives a total of 130! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave w74 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
