Jump to content

Talk:Amphibious warfare ship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LSL

[edit]

Can you make an article titled LSL (Amphibious Assault Ship)? I made a disambiguation page for LSL...

Try Landing Ship Logistics. - BillCJ 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work

[edit]

This article is very confusing and is in need of a lot of work. The fundamental problem seems to be that there is no single definition of what an "Amphibious assault ship" actually is. For instance, while the opening paragraph states that such ships "grossly resembl[e] aircraft carriers" and seems to refer to ships capable of operating large numbers of troop carrying helicopters, the body of the article includes ships which cannot operate helicopters and only land their embarked troops through beaching. The article also contains a very strong US and British bias. --Nick Dowling 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should partly merge it with landing craft (aren't landing craft only smallest type of amphibious assault ships? Or are they wider term?) Pibwl ←« 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some work is needed, though there is much value in the article. Specifically, the LCM and LCVP are boats, not ships, but are listed among the various types of ships. Lou Sander 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Atilla?

[edit]

I believe Operation Atilla can also be considered as a large scale amphibious assault, therefore I added it to the first paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.254.132.8 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi All, I've just searched a bit in Wikipedia, and apparently the unknown contributor was right in that "Operation Attila" (or "Atilla"?) was in its first stage an amphibious operation conducted by teh Turkish (see more in: Military operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974)#Attila 1 Landing and Offensive). What I'm not sure is if it should bem linked/mentioned in this article or elsewhere. Any suggestions?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp/split article

[edit]

For a long time, I've thought this article is a mess. The Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a narrow opening definition of the ships (reworked some, but it was much worse before), and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare ship and boat. Perhaps the more-general information, including the "boats", could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. These are just my random opening thoughts - I welcome any other ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the USN's page on amphibious assault ships, this term is specifically applied only to LHAs and LHDs by the USN. I do believe that was the original scope of this article, but it was expanded to cover more vessels over time, without any apparent concept of the strict meaning of the term. As such, I have moved this page to Amphibious warfare ship, the broadest term I can find. I will be re-doing the Amphibious assault ship page, probably using the early versions of the page, to focus on LHAs and LHDs, though I'm not sure how fast I will accomplish this. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias towards US and UK amphibious doctrine?

[edit]

Hi, I concur with Nick Dowling's comment (on 08:12, 8 June 2006) that most of the information of the article is (still) related to Amphibious Warfare as conducted by the United States Navy and the Royal Navy, as for example: the List of Types is all USN (AFAIK). But I feel that is a good basis for a great atricle, it just needs expansion.
I'll try to find out hot to properly tag this article, then if time available will try to search for other navies' amphibious doctrine. Can anybody else please help?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "doctrine", but this article is primarily about amphibious ship types, and an overview of their history. Doctrine as such should be discussed in the Amphibious warfare aritcle, not here. If you can add historical examples of amphibious warfare ships used by other nations, then that would be good. Reliable sources on ships of other nations are often hard to come by in English, while there is an abundance of data on US and UK ships, for variaous reasons. As for the list of types, most other nations (Western at least) don't have their own type codes (they usually don't even have as many amphib ships as the code is long!), and use the USN codes when describing their own ships. A good example is "LHD", as the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) was known as "LHD1" (not BPE1) until ITS NATO pennant number was assigned. Additionally, most reference works will descripe sthe ships of other nations using the US codes, even if the nations don't. Again, if you can find sourced lists from other nations, feel free to add them. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed "List of Types" to "List of USN hull classification symbols" to make it clear exactly what the list is and where it is from. If we add other lists, we can restore the "List of types" as a first-level heading, and make each list a second-level heading. - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious warfare ship → Amphibious warfare vessel —. Changing this article's name to Amphibious warfare vessel makes the article more inclusive (avoiding the potentially contentious ship vs. boat debate) and helps it to match the consensus category structure which uses "Amphibious warfare vessels of …". (Redirect with history prevented a direct move.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as stated - Not sure what "boats" are covered here, as Landing craft are barely mentioned, and are covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the discussion above. I was primarily trying to get an article—rather than just a redirect, as Amphibious warfare vessel is—under the de facto consensus name used in categories. I agree that "Amphibious warfare vessel" should be a separate article that gives an overview of different type of amphibious vessels, kind of like an expanded dab page. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Self explanatory really

[edit]

The uncited purple prose at the beginning has to go or get some proper editing, it's not encyclopaedic. 70.55.59.182 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. I haven't a clue what you're objecting to - could you be more specific without using vague labels? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They maybe meant this statement at the beginning of the history section
Amphibious assaults need such fine control and such a large degree of coordination that it is only the top tier powers that have the ability to even attempt them seriously, let alone pull them off. The two nations that have made by far the most amphibious assaults during the past century are the United States and the United Kingdom. From the great assaults of World War II to the recent attack on the Al-Faw Peninsula in Iraq, both countries have been at the forefront of developing amphibious assault doctrine and shipping.[citation needed]
I have removed that whole part as unsourced and unneccessary speculation and/or POV. Weakopedia (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious?

[edit]

i guess i'm just stupid, but, none of these ship appear to be Amphibious. shouldn't somewhere, some point be made that it means '"Amphibious-warfare" Ships', and not 'Amphibious "Warfare-ships"', you know, for stupid people like me?· Lygophile has spoken 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/index.html
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphibious warfare ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amphibious warfare ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amphibious_warfare_ship&oldid=1213084971"