Talk:History of the United States Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force World War I task force World War II task force

Midway? The Battle of Coral Sea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The most notable American naval hero of the Revolution was John Paul Jones, who defeated the British ship HMS Serapis in the Battle of Flamborough Head. Partway through the battle, with the rigging of the two ships entangled, and several guns of Jones' ship Bonhomme Richard out of action, the captain of Serapis asked Jones if he had struck his colors, to which Jones replied "I have not yet begun to fight!"

This paragraph is rather partisan and fail a npv, John Paul Jones was considered a war-criminal in British History for his actions during this battle.

Going by your IP address, you're the same semi-literate who added the poorly-written accusations to John Paul Jones that I just reverted. If you'd spent two second studying the JPJ article, you'll notice that it originally came from 1911 Encylopedia Britannica, which as a British source would presumably report all these dastardly deeds of his. In any case, you're going to need a documented source if you want these claims to stay in. Stan 05:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Full of Errors

At a glance,

However, the Taft and Wilson administrations failed to capitalize on the Navy's progress, and by World War I the Navy did not have sufficient strength or credibility compared to Britain or Germany to guarantee the neutrality that President Wilson desired.

Taft and Wilson continued the Naval Build up at the same rate as Roosevelt, two balltleships a year right to to the eve of the US entry into the First World War when the program was expanded.

widespread revulsion at the prospect of further carnage led to the Washington Naval Conference

The primary reason for the Washington Naval Conference was cost not revulsion. The Naval Race that preceded World War I was horribly expensive and the major powers wanted to avoid another race triggered by the rapid building plans of the United States, 6 Battle Cruisers and 6 Battle ships that were under construction.

The first new battleship since 1921, Washington, was laid down in June 1940.

This is dead wrong. The Washington was launched in June of 1940 and by the time it was launched the USA was in the midst of a major buildup that would have seen 17 Battleships built.

The Washington wasn't even the first Battleship in the new buildup.

FY 1937 Ships USS North Carolina, Laid down October 1937. USS Washington, Laid down June 1938.

FY 1939 Ships USS South Dakota, Laid down July 1939 USS Massachusetts, Laid down July 1939 USS Indinia, Laid down November 1939 USS Alabama, Laid Down Febuary 1940

FY 1940 Ships USS Iowa, Laid down June 1940 USS New Jersy, Laid down September 1940

FY 1941 Ships USS Missouri, Laid down January 1941 USS Wisconson, Laid Down January 1941 USS Kentucky, Laid Down March 1942 Construction suspended twice, never compleated USS Illinois, Laid down January 1945. Canceled August 1945 Never compleated.

5 Super Battleships of the Montana class were authorized for FY 1941, but were suspended in May 1942 before the Keels were laid, and canceled in 1943. They would have been far larger than the Iowas Class Battleships that were compleated.

It also became clear that the era of the battleship had come and gone; while the battleships at Pearl were raised and repaired (with the sole exception of the demolished Arizona),

This did NOT become clear right after Pearl Harbor, construction continued on the Battleships that were being built. It wasn't until after the Carrier battles of 1942 that it became clear that the days of the Battleship as the primary offensive weapon were over. The Arizonia wasn't the only Battleship tha was sunk at Pearl Harbor that wasn't repaired. The Oklahoma was righted and raised to clear it's bearth, but the ship was considered to be too old to be worth repairing.

As you'll soon discover, WP has lots of mistakes to fix - so go for it! I tried to summarize my understanding from reading Howarth, but did a hamhanded job at times, and improvements would be greatly appreciated. Stan 00:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)