Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2)

WikiProject Ships (Rated B-Class)
	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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

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. 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: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force Associated special projects: Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Note-- discussion on class

Additional discussion on issues common to Lexington and her sister Saratoga can be found at the talk page for the class, Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier. Kablammo 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't on topic here but i think that these pages need lists of the fighters that they opperated and when... there isn't a good link for that on wikipedia. the one that they have is woefuly innadequate.74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding treaty tonnage

Which treaty caused limits to the tonnage of the ship? And it's not clear from the article whether the US "cheated" or whether there was some complex "tonnage borrowing" aspect of the (mysterious) treaty..

The washington naval treaty [[1]]

The text of this article suggests that there was evasion of the Washington Naval Treaty as the carrier is stated to have displaced 40,000 tons. The treaty limitation however is on "standard" displacement, not full load (including fuel). Is it contended that the ships in fact displaced 40,000 tons "at completion" at standard displacement, and if so, where is the authority? Kablammo 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The treaty also allowed the US to possess 135,000 T in carriers. The total tonnage of Langley, Lex, and Sara did not begin to approach that figure. So how is it that the ""savings" of tonnage [in Lex and Sara] allowed for the later construction of the Ranger" as now claimed? In fact it wasn't until USS Wasp (CV-7) that the US bumped up against the 135k limitation. I think the present text is wrong but I'll wait for input on this before changing it. Kablammo 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect text deleted. The treaty allowed these ships to displace 33,000 tons, and have an additional 3,000 tons added for deck and underwater protection [[2]]; hence the 36,000 ton displacement figure. [[3]] The USN and Jane's however continued to use the 33,000 ton figure. Kablammo 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier for further discussion of these matters. Kablammo 17:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All armor on deck?

Can somebody explain how "the deck armor was heavily reinforced" if she was a carrier with an unarmored flight deck? Trekphiler 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK US carriers had their deck armor on the hangar level --Denniss 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

problem with numbers

something is not right with these numbers: designed displacement was 38,746 tons actual displacement was 49,000

designed speed 33.25 knots speed in service 34.82 knots

how did she manage to turn out 10,000 tons heavier than designed (??) and 1,5 knots faster? it doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a difference between standard displacement and full-load. Displacements also increased over time as ships were refitted and added to; most ships were heavier at the end of the war than at the start, with additional armament and crew to operate it. It is not unusual for vessels to develop power less than or in excess of design ratings; this class was fortunate in obtaining power levels over 15% higher than the 180,000 h.p. design rating. Kablammo (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

the article says this:

Design: 36,000 tons standard 38,746 tons Actual: 49,000 tons (1940) 50,000 tons (1942)

what is the second number 38,746? is that full-load displacement as designed? this is still very confusing and i find incredible she turned out more than 10,000 tons heavier. what kind of armanent did she get to make her so much havier? Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ok this page explaines it all:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_prewa.htm

38,746 tons was full load design displacement

Lexington was overhauled and modernized 1936 (light deck widened forward, general modernizations, 36 .50 cal AA added)

43,054 tons was full load in 1936 which means that the actual full load figure when completed was between those 2 numbers. however it is still not clear to me why is her actual displacement in this article listed as 49,000 tons in 1940. Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Loosmark, good job on researching this. There may be no good source for the 49,000 estimate. If there isn't, feel free to substitute your source for a full load displacement at whatever date to which it's applicable. Any in-service figure is likely to be no more than a snapshot at a certain period of time.

The HazeGray source gives Saratoga's full-load at the end of war as 52,000t. Like all ships she was upgraded during the war with additional armament, electronics, etc. which also required additional crew— all adding to displacement. Lex was sunk three years earlier, so she likely was lighter. 49,000 may well be accurate, but a source would be needed. Kablammo (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i tend to think that the 49000 displacement in 1940 is not correct because HazeGray mentiones there was no refit (after 1936) before the war and +6000 tons would means some major modification. i'll try to check in some books in library when i've more time. Loosmark (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

the earlier numbers may be the stated displacement. most of the "Treaty" carriers that resulted from the permission to use a battle cruiser had outragously large tonnages and sizes that were complicated by the fact that there were numberous loop holes in the official tonnage calculations, and IIRC for these ships they ammounted to 10,000 tonnes. (same with some of the japanese ships) these things were almost as large as the midway class which is part of why they were still front line carriers throughout most of the war.74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Standard displacement" was an international standard for measurement of a ship's size, agreed upon by treaty. The ship's magazines are half full of ammunition, and fuel bunkers half full of fuel, at standard displacement. Other editors' notes regarding addition of armament, radar equipment etc. are correct. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick Death

MBK004 cancelled my add about the fatal incident of legendary college football player Nigel Kinnick because of lacking of reliable source. The death of Kinnick is an historical fact and while adding it I linked Kinnick name with his wikipedia page in which a full paragraph of details about his death while serving on the Lexington can be found Allegroconfuoco (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick Died on the second Lexington (CV-16). Scotisle (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Proud Daughter

my daddy was on the lexington when it was sunk in the battle of the coral sea... he is still alive today...I am very greatful we still have him with us.... and I always make sure to tell him thank you for his service whilst he was protecting our future.... a future that had not even been thought of by him, at that time....because he was just a child himself!!!! I just want to say thank you and God Bless you, to you all that have , and are , and will protect Our Freedom yesterday ,today , tommorow & forever!!!! Thank you!!!! and daddy i love you forever, Yours Very Truly , An Extremely Proud Baby Girl...I Love you Daddy...Love, Nancy....tucson,az —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.221.253 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More on Pre-War Service

I think that it is significant to note the following, which I found here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/02.htm

"From 17 December 1929 to 16 January 1930 USS Lexington supplied electrical power to Tacoma, Washington, when this city suffered a power shortage. The electricity from the carrier totaled more than 4.25 million kilowatt-hours."

Unless I am wrong, this marks the first time in history that a naval vessel of any country provided electrical power to a city. CrashRiley (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wreck?

Has the wreck of the Lexington ever been discovered/examined? At least she's one of the largest ship sunk during WWII. Would be quite interesting for the article! Greetings Ogbader (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, 300 sailors left to die, then torpedoed?

The article includes the following statements: "Unfortunately, as many as 300 men were trapped below decks and, although herculean efforts were made to save them, they remained unreachable because of the raging fires. ...Despite those trapped on board, to prevent enemy capture, the destroyer Phelps ... fired two torpedoes into the Lexington's hull. With one last heavy explosion, Lexington sank ..." Presumably the Lexington was torpedoed because of the risk that it might not sink and would be captured, with the 300 sailors still aboard (dead or alive).

I think one would agree that this would be a controversial action (to say the least). Nevertheless, the author cites no sources for these statements. Furthermore, these assertions are inconsistent with (a) the official death toll for the Lexington, less than 300, which would include everyone who was killed in the initial torpedo and bomb strikes, and subsequent fires and explosions, before the ship was abandoned, and (b) the officers' reports of the action, which are available on-line and contain no mention of this aspect of the ship's sinking, and in the case of the captain's report, include the statement that he toured the ship after everyone else had been evacuated and could find no evidence of anyone left alive on it.

Unless the author can produce reliable sources for the assertion that up to 300 sailors were abandoned on the Lexington, and were still on it when the ship was deliberately sunk, I recommend deleting those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisCT (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LanceBarber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Layout review

Recommend the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs have their own section "Overview"... add two subsection break names for pre-WWII history,for 1929-30 and the earthquake... the Battle of the Coral Sea Section have further subsections to separate the different days' actions, Task Force 11 details, the military outcome, and the significance of the "draw" of battle for the Allies... also add a short paragraph at the end telling about the survivors being rescued by the USS Fletcher(needs verafication) and more info on the USS Phelps actions(paragraph ended a little abruptly). [Side note, my uncle was a survivor and not until the 1990s did he finally talk of the Battle. The CV-2 Association has transferred all its history, recovered material before sinking, and memorabilia to the USS Lexington Museum at Corpus Christi.]LanceBarber (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by overview for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, but I try to avoid 1 paragraph sections. Arguably I could fold Fire control and electronics into armament as it's at least tangently related, but it works OK as is. I really don't see any need to break up the pre-WWII section as it's only six paragraphs long. I've added a header for 8 May. I don't have a whole lot more on the rescue efforts, particularly on the cruisers that participated, if any. Fletcher was the overall commander, not a ship name. How else would I end the section other than with her sinking? AFAIK, Phelps had already rescued everybody that she rescued.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sturm: he's talking about splitting off the second and third paragraphs of the lead as he did here (which I reversed, btw, per WP:LEAD).

Lance: the lead section is the overview of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 3 paragraphs is too long for the "overview". Sometimes ad editors we forget the general wiki users is looking for a quick intro, or, looking for a particular issue or subject. As I write wiki articles, I think of the general user and add more subsections, so it is easier for one to peruse a long article for salient topics. If you'll don't mind I can take a "cut" of my thoughts on subsections and anyone can delete what I did. thanks, Lance. LanceBarber (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lance, the 3 paragraphs are about the proper length to cover a very long article. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with recent FA-class articles to learn what the standards are. In general, lede length is roughly proportional to article length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay dokie. Feel free to continue the review. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? You're not going to finish the review?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since it appears Lance has abandoned the review, I'll take it over and complete it in the next few days if he doesn't return in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

Turns out my class today was cancelled, so I've got time today for this.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made a few tweaks, mostly spelling - have a look and see if everything is fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   FWIW, I've taken to using "colwidth=20em" in the reflist template instead of a set number of columns, this allows it to fit itself to different monitor sizes. You don't have to use it, just a thought.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are several refs to Lundstrom that don't give the year (ref #s 51, 52, and 53)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   history.navy.mil has a better version of File:Uss lexington cv2 coral.jpg, but the server appears to be down at the moment. Once it comes back up, consider uploading the higher resolution image. Everything else checks out.

   There are several nice images on Commons you could add to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just the citation issue needs to be fixed before I'll pass the article for GA. Nice works as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)