Talk:Amphibious cargo ship

This 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.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Nicely done. This is much better than simply redirecting to the Charleston class, as I had done. Thanks. -Harmil 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still a bit of a stub, so I hope to get some more information here. Jinian 17:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ships probably in the wrong class

We've mainly used DANFS for assigning AKA/LKA ships to classes. We've got nice templates to put at the bottom of articles of ships in each class (and this article, too). I've just vetted the templates, and unless I missed something, they conform exactly to the classes as listed in the articles on their individual ships.

We all know that DANFS, as wonderful as it is, contains a reasonable number of errors. There are four AKA's that I believe to be listed in the wrong class. I'll post my reasoning here, and wait for comments before making any changes:

Duplin is listed by DANFS and Wikipedia as Achernar class, but I think it should be Tolland class, for the following reasons: There are no other ships listed in the Achernar class. Achernar is listed as Andromeda class, and like all the other Andromedas was built at Federal in Kearny, and shows a C2-S-B1 hull. Duplin was built at North Carolina and shows a C2-S-AJ3 hull. All the others like this are Tolland class. Except for Duplin and the two ships below (both probably listed incorrectly), North Carolina only built Tolland class ships.

Ottawa is listed as Andromeda class, but I think it should be Tolland class, because: All the other Andromedas were built at Federal in Kearny, and show C2-S-B1 hulls. Ottawa was built at North Carolina and shows C2-S-AJ3 hull. Except for these three questionable ships, North Carolina only built Tolland class ships.

Skagit is in the identical situation to Ottawa.

Oberon is listed by DANFS and Wikipedia as Libra class. I can find no other mention of that class, though Oberon, Libra, and Titania have a lot in common, and are the only AKAs to be built on C2-F hulls. Libra and Titania are listed as Arcturus class. Unless we find that there actually was a Libra class, I think that Oberon should be listed as Arcturus class. Lou Sander 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't have a whole lot of input. I did want to let you know that I've read this and your reasoning seems quite... reasonable!

I do have another issue that I'd like to get your input on, since you have worked so hard on the AKA pages. As you may know, I'm deeply involved in categorization of ships. I've begun to work on the AKAs, and I had been classifying them as amphibious warfare vessels. However, many served in more auxiliary roles, and I was wondering whether you feel they should be classified under "auxiliary ships" or "amphibious warfare vessels." I'd rather not do both, but am certainly capable of doing so. My issue with doing both stems from the current "list both the country and the navy" compromise. If I categorize them as both it adds two cats per article, which starts to look a little overwhelming. TomTheHand 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total tangent, but if you want category over load, try this article. --J Clear 04:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this, too, but I'm not 100% ready with a recommendation. When a ship is designated AKA or LKA, it is definitely an amphibious ship. It has been specially converted to go into combat zones, and is definitely a fighting-type ship. In the early days, however, 20 of the AKA's had been designated AK's, with different hull numbers than they had as AKA's. An AK is definitely an auxiliary, and though it may have a gun or two, it is basically not intended to go into harm's way.

I don't think there's a list of the WWII AK's in the Auxiliary Ships category. If there isn't, there should be, because those ships existed. I believe, but I'm not sure, there were many more AK's than the ones that were converted to AKA's. A thing I want to do for the 20 converted AK's is to make redirect pages from their original AK designations to their AKA pages. (With maybe one or two exceptions, all these ships did a lot more as AKA's, and spent more time as AKA's, than they did as AK's, so there's a lot of justification for having their main articles under their AKA designations.)

I'm also planning to revisit the articles for the 20 AK-to-AKA ships and make sure that the conversion is properly covered.

The whole business of designations and classes for AKA's is somewhat confused and confusing. Some of the DANFS info is wrong, other info conflicts, and of course all of the ships were long ago converted to razor blades. But it's a matter of pride for me to get the best available info and put it into Wikipedia. Lou Sander 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working from Warships of the World: Victory Edition from Cornell Maritime Press, 1946 (only wrong on some ships which ended up being cancelled) I'd concur with all of Lou Sander's suggestions. It makes any casual or serious observer's finding of vessels easier. It would probably be in the interests of all if the Maritime Commission types are listed and articles started. --Harlsbottom 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious transport docks

Someone correctly said that the LPDs started in the 1960s rather than the 1990s. I fixed the article to state that their taking over of the LKA role started then, but didn't end until the 1990s. Lou Sander (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

I seem to recall that this article was formerly titled Attack Cargo Ship. Unfortunately, I don't know how to confirm that. I think that "Attack" title would be better for the article on these grounds:

Attack Cargo Ship Is the historical name, and was used extensively during the meaningful life of the class. Was the original name of the type. Was the name used for 100+ of the type. Was the name under which the type performed most of its service, a massive amount by 100+ ships from 1945-1969.

Amphibious Cargo Ship Is the more modern name, but was not so widely used. Was introduced in 1969, in the twilight of the life of the type. Was applied to only a few ships (less than a dozen in the U.S., I think). Was not used during any extensive wartime or otherwise notable service.

IMHO, best would be to title this article "Attack Cargo Ship," with a redirect from "Amphibious Cargo Ship," which is the reverse of the present situation. Lou Sander (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]