Talk:USS Ranger (CVA-61)

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.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

The fire was not in 2MM it was in 3MM in the North Arabian Sea, I was there and a member of 3MM, today is a good day to get that part corrected. Thanks.

Excuse me, shipmate, but I was standing watch there in 2MMR that very morning - and guess how I know exactly what time the fire happened? The fire was in 4MMR, which was two spaces FORWARD of 2MMR (on the other side of 2AMR), and 3MMR (where I stood MM Topwatch on RIMPAC a couple of years later) was the space immediately AFT of 2MMR. We lost TEN men, not six, and I knew one of them (MM1 Johnson). I also knew the poor b***ard MM3 ex-nuc who started the fire - he worked for the Fuel Lab. The ship was NOT in the North Arabian Sea, but out in the middle of the Indian Ocean - we were out of range of land, remember, and there is no place in the Arabian Sea which was out of range of land. What's more, #4 Main came back on line the very morning we were relieved by the Midway battle group, and we were underway to Subic with four shafts turning. This is why I really don't like the Wikipedia, because there is SO much disinformation by those who think they know what they're talking about. To my shipmate who thought it was in '3MM', I suggest you think back, because you and I would have known each other, since we would have been in the same division.

Well, one way to avoid disinformation is to not take anybody's word for it, but to rely on reputable published works, such as DANFS where the basic info comes from. If you're going to assert that the historians who wrote DANFS are wrong, you're going to need to cite something more solid than personal memory (as the exchange here shows, even eyewitnesses can end up disagreeing about what happened). Stan 00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with what you say, but unfortunately I can't give you anything more solid than my personal memory. If 'DANFS' is the source of what was previously posted, then I can promise you they are flat wrong. I will contact them and try to set them straight.

Note - I just searched 'DANFS' and I saw nothing about any fire onboard the Ranger. If DANFS is silent, here's a possible source: http://navysite.de/crew.php?action=ship&squad=false&starty=1973&endy=1983&ship=CV%2061

That's a short crew list. Contact any of those in P-1 or P-2 Divisions or in any of the MMR's who were on board on 01Nov83, and they'll back up what I say. I recommend my fellow pit snipes Goff, Strong, Kowalski, and Linxwiler. I worked with all of them and they were all on board that day.

MM1 Glenn Cessor, USN (Ret.)

1 CV vs. CVA/Requested move
- 1.1 Survey
  - 1.1.1 Survey - Support votes
  - 1.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes
- 1.2 Discussion

[edit] CV vs. CVA/Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why do we have this listed as CVA-61? It should be CV-61. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

USS Ranger (CVA-61) → USS Ranger (CV-61) — It was redesignated from "CVA" to "CV" long ago, and "CV" is the most common usage in any case. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

Support for the reason stated above. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Per nominator and discussion. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. I support this as well considering the Navy reclassified ALL their supercarriers as multi-purpose (CV). Neovu79 (Talk) 01:10, 27 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Seems like a rather uncontroversial move to me. The article Hull classification symbol states that CVA was merged into CV as early as June 1975.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/s/Talk%7EUSS_Ranger_%28CVA-61%29_1a3f.html"

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class maritime warfare articles | Maritime warfare task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles