Talk:Commencement Bay-class escort carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
More information:
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Fair Use?[edit]

By the way, is this page okay, copyrightwise, a fair use of text from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cve-105.htm ? —wwoods 00:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It could probably use some copy-edit to clean it up, but though there are some sentences that are the same it's not a vertbatim duplicate of the article. ---B- 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Escort carrier conversion vs. keel-up construction[edit]

The article states "unlike most earlier CVE classes which were laid down as something else and converted to aircraft carriers mid-construction, the Commencement Bays were built as carriers from the keel up." Excluding the single ship Long Island and Charger classes, there was the Sangamon class (4 ships), Bogue-class (11 ships), Casablanca-class (50 ship), in addition to the Commencement Bay-class (19 ship).

Both the Casablanca and Commencement Bay classes were not conversions but rather ships constructed from the beginning as escort carriers. So if you include Long Island and Charger, then it is technically correct that "most" escort carriers were conversions. But if you only consider multi-ship class and the total number of ships as a whole, then the use of "most" is misleading. I think "some" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradermort (talkcontribs) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A correction on my previous comment. Terzibaschitsch (Escort Carriers of the US Navy, p. 128) states Commencement Bay was designed from the outset as carriers & the Casablancas were made on unfinished S4 hulls (p. 68). But Chesneau (Aircraft Carriers of the World 1914 to the Present, p. 238, 248) says both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were based on merchant hulls but were not conversions. Friedman (U.S. Aircraft Carriers, p. 173, 175) is a bit vague but implies Commencement Bay was based on Sangamon and Casablanca was ordered as "small airplane transport with flight deck". So there is some ambiguity here.

Depending on which source you follow and what your definition is, there appears to be three different presentations of this issue: 1) Both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were not conversions, thus they are the similar; 2) Casablanca was built on unfinished S4 hulls but Commencement Bay was keel-up construction, thus they are different; 3) Both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were based on modified merchant ship designs, thus they are similar. One last note, Casablanca was overseen by the Maritime Commission but Commencement Bay was designed with direct involvement by the US Navy (Emergence of the Escort Carrier, http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-9.pdf). Tradermort (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes that I made[edit]

For those who watches this page. I made some changes recently.

They are all come from:

However , just like the other class that I encountered , there is one problem that you folks need to aware: These ship's information are not the only one.

Which means that for example , some ship laid down date may have two.

There are more information about that in internet and outside but I don't know whose writing are more reliable so I'd leave that to those who eager to clarify those mess. -- Comrade John (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)