Talk:USS Hornet (CV-8)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Concerning the Battle of Midway[edit]

For any questions or needed references concerning the USS Hornet at the Battle of Midway, see these two books:

History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume 4, by Samuel Eliot Morison
Miracle at Midway by Gordon Prange.

Doolittle Raid[edit]

The DANFS material has what is for us a duplicate of Doolittle Raid - the account here should be pruned down a bit, rely on the dedicated article for all the details. Stan 20:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


Information on the wreck would fit well at the end of the article if it has been located and dived. Tempshill 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The wreck of an aircraft carrier that was found on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and shown in a TV program on PBS was that of the [[USS Yorktown (CV-5)|USS Yorktown (CV-5)], which was a sister ship of the Hornet. The other sister ship of these two was the USS Enterprise (CV-6). Hence, these there warships made up the Yorktown-class aircraft carriers.
The Yorktown and the Hornet were replaced by two new aircraft carriers of the names during WW II (CV-10) and (CV-12), and the Enterprise became the name of the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the CVN - 65. The CV-10 can be seen on display in Charleston, S.C., and the CV-12 is on display in Oakland-Alameda, California. Two of their sister ships, the USS Lexington (CV-16) and the USS Intrepid can be visited in Corpus Christi and New York City, respectively. (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The book Shattered Sword maintains that the airmen of the USS Hornet airmen achieved no hits on any Japanese ship during the Battle of Midway.

That statement is very dubious. On the date of the attack on the four aircraft carriers of the I.J.N. (June 4th), the torpedo planes of the Hornet made no hits (before all were shot down). Also, the dive bombers of the Hornet never found the enemy on June 4th.
However, most of the torpedo planes of the Enterprise and the Yorktown were also shot down, and when the Yorktown was sunk on June 5th, most of her dive bombers were destroyed, too. Then on June 6th, American scout planes found that the Mikuma and the Mogami had collided with each other. They were limping home, left behind by the rest of the Japanese ships.
Nothing was left for the Americans to attack the two Japanese cruisers with except for the dive bombers from the Enterprise and the Hornet. (The dive bombers and torpedo planes based on Midway Atoll had similarly been wiped out.) Actually, the dive bombers on the American carriers amounted to four squadrons (VB-6, VS-6, VB-8, and VS-8, all with SBD dive bombers), and they pounded the Japanese cruisers practically to bits. The Mikuma was sunk and the Mogami barely limped to Wake Island - the closest Japanese-held island. When she got back to Japan, the Mogami spent nine months in the shipyard being repaired.
See: History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume 4
See also: Miracle at Midway by Gordon Prange.


This article and Doolittle Raid appear to disagree on the number of planes taken on-board during the test flights for the raid. I've added the tag until someone with access to better sources than I can correct whichever one needs correcting. -- (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Doolittle Page has been corrected, so no contradiction here. Two was the correct number of test B-25's loaded. A third had been assigned, but was not loaded due to engine trouble. See The Doolittle raid, by Carroll V. Glines, Schiffer, 1991, on page 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it also appears to contradict the other article on whether or not Japanese picket boat No. 23 Nitto Maru contacted the mainland. -- (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


One paragraph claims that Captain Charles P. Mason was "the last man on board"; he "climbed over the side, and survivors were soon picked up by destroyers." The next paragraph, however, claims that Hornet "finally sank with the loss of 140 of her crewmen." Rammer (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The 140 sailors and airmen lost with the Hornet were dead already when the Captain disembarked. It is that simple... (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the wording is odd. I can't think of a good way to fix it but maybe someone should try. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't even try. That's the conventional way to describe the last one off, with the implication that there were no other living people left on board.JDZeff (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in the info box?[edit]

Has there been some vandalism in the Info box in the July 1942 Armament section? 20 × 26 ft 9 in (8.15 m)1.1 in/75 cal (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions for further improvement[edit]

  • There should be a short section that covers the technical details of the ship in prose. See for instance FAs like SMS Bayern or Japanese battleship Yamato - there is some variation in how this can be treated, especially in regards to level of detail, but it essentially is a requirement for GA and higher.
  • The infobox is pretty bloated and much could be trimmed. Remember that infoboxes should provide readers info at a glance and should be kept as concise as possible. Greater detail should be reserved for the technical section mentioned above. For example, I'd get rid of the service awards (which can be summarized at the end of the article), and slim down the characteristics section. Standard practice is to give the original characteristics in the infobox, and if there were significant modernizations, to present the final characteristics in a separate box (see for instance Japanese battleship Fusō)
  • The article seems overly reliant on Rose's book - other sources should be consulted. I'd also make sure there's no DANFS text still present in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Loss of 140?[edit]

This part is unclear to me: "Captain Charles P. Mason, the last man on board, climbed over the side ... Hornet was finally sunk with the loss of 140 of her sailors." I would normally interpret that last part to mean that 140 living men went down with the ship, but that can't be the case here. Does it mean that 140 were killed in the attacks, and Mason was the last one alive? If so, can we add "alive" to that sentence? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)