Talk:USS Lexington (CV-16)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ships (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Museums (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lexington air crews didn't straif survivors[edit]

That was a tactic of the Japanese. Such inclusion of a lie against Decorated American Heros among a crew that received Presidential Commendations for Heroisim in Battle is a disgrace to their contributions and sacrifices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.206.205 (talkcontribs).

  • The Pacific War was a nasty war and alot of things happened on both sides that were a bit below board. Yes the Japanese atrocities were of a much grander scale but things happen in war. One of the reasons there were so few Japanese POWs was that not only did they not believe in surrender but of those that wanted to the Marines and Soldiers were not to keen on taking any either due to the ferocity of the fighting. The information deleted was sourced and was thus restored. I don't see how its inclusion in any way diminishes what those men did in the air war over the Pacific. War is a dirty game.--Looper5920 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Although the top Allied leaders in the Pacific War, as far as I know of, didn't explicitely order their troops, aviators, and naval crews not to take prisoners, they heavily implied it. For example:
U.S. General George C. Kenney ordered his aviators to strafe survivors from sunken Japanese ships as well as to attack any Japanese rescue ships during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. This isn't a war crime, by the way.[1]
U.S. Admiral William Halsey, Jr.'s famous "kill Japs, kill Japs, kill Japs" messages and signs posted everywhere throughout the ships and island areas under his command.(see the "Guadalcanal Battle Sites" webpage in the references section of the Guadalcanal campaign article).
At least once, when a ship in his task force reported rescuing and capturing two downed Japanese naval aviators, U.S. Admiral Marc Mitscher radioed back, "Why?".[2]
The fact that U.S. aviators picked-up on these implied approvals to kill as many Japanese as possible in whatever situation isn't surprising. That was the way the Pacific War was largely fought, not much quarter was given by either side. Cla68 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you saw fit to replace that "straifing of Japs". I'm 91 years old and was on Lexington CV-16 for the duration of WW II. I was also a member of the Admiral's Staff and involved in close communications between Staff among vessels within our command. No such communication or action took place or I would have known of it. It was years before I saw land again during my service aboard the Lex, just as it was for many others vital to ship operation. My own quarters were destroyed and I lost everything I had aboard during the action off Kwajalein - not to mention a number of friends and crew mates. To include such an unsupported lie in this article as a means to dilute our sacrifices and efforts is a disgrace. Captain Stump, Admiral Mitcher, and I don't require any correction for our actions. You do require correction, and I find your actions those of a coward that doesn't appreciate the factual history that kept this country free - but those of someone who instead would work to change it.

machine gunning survivors[edit]

whether or not it's cited, i fail to see how this is relevant to the article. it's an article about the ship, not about the atrocities of war, or about the japanese experience in war. you'll note from looking at the references that this is the only such quoted act. it serves only to provide a "spin" to the article, and as such should be removed. I am removing it. it suits me fine for it to be re-added to the article if there are other acts added to it that don't paint the ship and her crew in such an intentionally ghastly light. i can't see how it adds any degree of "encyclopedicness" to the article. 17.255.240.146 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

see also WP:TRIVIA for details on why "just throwing facts into the article" is not helpful or necessary. 17.255.240.146 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the part about the Lexington being the last USN warship that saw active service in WWII in commission[edit]

The Missouri was still around after the Lexington, she survived long enough in commission to be at the 50th anniversary ceremony for the attack on Pearl Harbor, a month after the Lexington was decommissioned.

Mrs. Theodore Douglas Robinson[edit]

The CV-2 article and the CV-16 article each claim that their respective subjects were sponsored by Mrs. Theodore Douglas Robinson. In looking to see which one was actually the case, I found .mil sources that corroborated each.[1] [2] Either the sources are mistaken or this would be worth including in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talkcontribs) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon Crisis[edit]

Does anyone know what part Lex played in the Lebanon Crisis? The Navy article indicates that she sailed to the 7th Fleet (no where near Lebanon). Just trying to make the connection.E2a2j (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is supposed to say the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis. As that article has a picture of the Lexington in Taiwan, and that would put the Lexington under the Jurisdiction of the 7th fleet, I'll assume this was a mistake unless someone has a source that puts the Lexington in Lebanon in 1958, in which case they should add it again as another section.Celestial Oblivion (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents[edit]

Why is there no TOC in this discussion page?E2a2j (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

never mind. It's there but doesn't look normal on my browser for some reason.
Fixed... first comments had no section title. done.LanceBarber (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
ThanksE2a2j (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Last training carrier?[edit]

Was Lexington the last US training carrier? My understanding is that she was scheduled to be replaced by the Forrestal, but the Navy decided in 1993 to decommission Forrestal and do without a training carrier. If this is true and can be referenced, then it should be mentioned in the #Training carrier section, along with a short description of the how the navy adapted to that change. -- ToE 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There were several itterations of "training carrier" after Lex, including Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Kennedy. All of those after Lex were either not brought to fruition (FID and KHK) or put back into regular service (JFK). I don't have a reference other than memory...E2a2j (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Two namesakes?[edit]

Since Lexington CV-16 was named Lexington in part due to the loss of Lexington CV-2, would that make CV-2 a namesake of CV-16 (in addition to the Battle of Lexington)? --Badger151 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Manera, Australian War Memorial, 2003.
  2. ^ Potter, E.B., Admiral Arleigh Burke.