Talk:USS Reuben James (DD-245): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:33, 31 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Reuben James (DD-245) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ohio Start‑class

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ships Start‑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 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States Start‑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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 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

Shipwrecks Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles 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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 31, 2009 and October 31, 2010.

How large was the crew?

The fact box says that the crew numbered 101 officers and men. The text of the entry says the crew totaled 159 of which 44 survived. I'm not taking sides here regarding American particpation in the war at that point, but can someone who knows more about the US Navy than I do clarify which number is correct? Thanks. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

 What were we NOT told about the sinking of the RJ?

First of all, the US was in direct violation of the neutral combatants treaty by escoring vessels carrying munitions bound for a combatant country.

Secondly, there were no 'wolfpacks' at that time, they developed years later. Subs were lone wolves then.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Reuben James, not the sub, was the aggressor. It had detected and engaged the sub, and enegaged in depth charge attacks while the sub was actually leaving the area of the convoy being escorted. It was only after the sub suffered considerable damage from the attack, that she stopped fleeing and instead turned and sank the ancient DD the RJ.

 I am afraid many Americans make judgements based on what they have been told, rather than what actually happened!

Rogelio39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.83.138 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between Erich Topp page and RJ page

The Reuben James page says that Erich Topp was the U-Boat commander who sank RJ. It has a link that leads to the Topp page, which says that Topp became a commander in 1940. As Topp was a noted naval commander during and after the war, I wonder if his bio is correct, and the wrong attribution of command for U-552 was made on the RJ page. Or was Topp a junior officer on U-552 and just happened to have the conn that day?

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Rogelio39  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/148.66.83.138|148.66.83.138]] ([[User talk:148.66.83.138|talk]]) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Conflict between Erich Topp page and RJ page ==
+The Reuben James page says that Erich Topp was the U-Boat commander who sank RJ.  It has a link that leads to the Topp page, which says that Topp became a commander in 1940.  As Topp was a noted naval commander during and after the war, I wonder if his bio is correct, and the wrong attribution of command for U-552 was made on the RJ page.  Or was Topp a junior officer on U-552 and just happened to have the conn that day?