Talk:USS Lexington (CV-16)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Lexington (CV-16) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Lexington air crews didn't straif survivors
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 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- 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:
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
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. 188.8.131.52 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. 184.108.40.206 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
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
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.  Either the sources are mistaken or this would be worth including in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
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
- never mind. It's there but doesn't look normal on my browser for some reason.
Last training carrier?
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)
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)
- Manera, Australian War Memorial, 2003.
- Potter, E.B., Admiral Arleigh Burke.