Talk:Landing Ship, Tank/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

May 2005

I added a couple of sentences in the "Post-war developments" section regarding LSTs operating in the private sector following the war. If needed, I can provide references; I know at least one LST is working as a ferry across Lake Michigan (named Highway something-or-other), and two (re-christened Columbia and Atchafalaya) are in service as hopper dredges for B + B dredging. siafu 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

December 2005

Added a sub section with the specification of LST (3) built in UK and Canada. Fenton Robb 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

and a bit of history of LST 3002 in the ship list.Fenton Robb 10:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LST's in the United States

There is one "Operational" LST in the US. It is the former USS LST 325 which served in WWII. After WWII it was used as a transport ship by the US and then loaned to Greece where it served up until about 1999. The ship was returned to the US in January 2001 by a crew of former LST sailors. It is now Home Ported in Evansville, Indiana and makes tours around the US for viewing and tours. You may read of this ship, it's history and future schedule at http://www.lstmemorial.org and tour it in Evansville for a nominal fee.

There is also a LST in Michigan that can be toured. It was used for years after WWII as a ferry. It's website is: http://www.lst393.org/

There also a LST of the newer class being restored in Oregon. It's website is http://www.lst1166.com --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccbenton (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no apostrophe in "LSTs" by the way.87.114.18.56 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Need rewrite

This entire article is badly in need of a serious rewrite! Too many spelling and grammar errors. Repeated information shattered all ever with no apparent attempt to orgainize the information, nor classify the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.28.198 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a moderate attempt to fix many of the more eggregious problems, especially in the description of the LST(3), which had duplicated and triplicated paragraphs in abundance. However, the whole LST3 section (or rather, both sections, since it is arbitrarily broken in two) still has MAJOR problems. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, still needs to be cleaned up a bit. Quite long, and seems to include different classes (LST Mk.1 / Mk.2 / Mk.3) that may be better described in individual articles. Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Design and production LST (3)

This section needs major attention as it looks like someone has been editting but leaving a copy of the original in place as there text is largely duplicated twice. I am happy to do minor edits for grammar, spelling and readability but not keen on deleting large bodiees of text deemed part of a project as I dont want to P in some one elses pool Dondilly (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up much of the redundancy and added some paragraphing to the first part of the LST3 section. The part starting with the heading "propulsion" still is in need of major rework. I don't think the information should be eliminated, after all, an encyclopedia is a place people go to to find knowledge. But it is almost long enough for a sub-article all its own. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Futher note: I found a sentence at the front of the talk page here and added a heading to it to make it more obvious. It seems the LST(3) info was added in December 2005, and it does not appear that any significant work has been done to it since. It owul dseem ripe for further editing by any whow would want to! Loren.wilton (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Globalize/US Bias" tag? Really?

Regarding this article being tagged by 81.201.25.123 (talk) at 13:04, 12 February 2009::

Really? I mean, REALLY?
2^nd ¶, in its entirety, reads (quoting): "The majority, a thousand, were laid down in the United States during WWII for use by the Allies. Eighty more were built in the United Kingdom and Canada." To sum up: one thousand, U.S.; eighty, United Kingdom and Canada.
Given that you left no comment in the edit summary, posted no explanation on this page, and made no revision of the article itself when you placed the "globalize" tag, and given that (again, paragraph #2, paraphrasing now) 92% of these were made in the US, I would ask "What world view was it, exactly, you had in mind?". --Snozzwanger (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The article name strikes me as a little confusing, having a comma in it. It is in the headline of Today's featured article and it took me a while to make sense of what It comprised ten cargo ships, three Landing Ships, Tank and an escort of five corvettes. actually means, as I couldn't figure out how a Tank could be part of a convoy, other than as freight aboard a ship. Is their a better, less confusing way to name this article? 203.5.252.60 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of background would help. Prior to the second world war, infantry had usually landed from conventional boats. Great difficulty was experienced bringing artillery ashore from such boats. When tanks became an essential element of 20th century ground combat, it became imperative to devise better ways of conducting amphibious operations between the British Isles and continental Europe, and onto the fortified islands of the Pacific. The allies built a whole series of purpose-designed landing ships and smaller landing craft. The hull classification symbols for these unique vessels all began with L (for landing). There were Landing Ship, Infantry (LSI) for beaching with stairs for soldiers to climb down onto the beach; Landing Ship, Tank (LST) for beaching with large forward doors from which tanks and trucks could be driven onto the beach; and Landing Ship, Dock (LSD) with an enclosed interior which could be flooded so landing craft carried therein could maneuver out into the water and beach where shallower drafts were expected. The most common were Landing Craft, Vehicle and Personnel (LCVP), Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM), and Landing craft tank (LCT). LCVPs and sometimes LCMs could also be lowered into the water by ships equipped with davits or cranes. The naming convention is uniform throughout, and makes a bit more sense with an understanding of the big picture.Thewellman (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It does, now that you explain it. Maybe this explanation, possibly in condensed form, could become part of the article? 203.5.252.60 (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a more plain-language name, that is also in common use (i.e., not in military-specific publications and contexts) would simply be "tank landing ship." As it stands, the title violates capitalization standards (both for not being in sentence case and for capitalizing the generic name of a military unit). Holy (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Rail-equipped LST

I came across pictures that contain LST with rail deck to load train for france during WWII. http://www.skylighters.org/wwiirr/ WWII archives http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/gallery/520 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrpf22pr (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Landing Ship, Tank

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Landing Ship, Tank's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "navsource":

From USS LST-342: Photo gallery of USS LST-342 at NavSource Naval History Retrieved 12 July 2012
From USS Holmes County (LST-836): Prioloio, Gary P. "USS Holmes County (LST-836): ex USS LCT-836". navsource.org. 17 June 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
From USS LST-594: "LST-594". NavSource Online. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
From Montana-class battleship: Yarnall, Paul R. "NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive (BB-67 USS Montana)". NavSource Naval History: Photographic History Of The U.S. Navy. NavSource Team. p. 148. Retrieved 30 May 2008.
From USS LST-696: Photo gallery of USS LST-696 at NavSource Naval History. Retrieved 12 July 2012
From Dubuque-class gunboat: "PG-18 Paducah". Navsource.org. Retrieved April 3, 2015.

Reference named "DANFS":

From USS Wasp (CV-7): "Wasp". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. 8 April 2014. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
From USS LST-342: "LST-342". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. 2004. Retrieved 12 July 2012.
From USS Bristol County (LST-1198): "Bristol County". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
From USS Wahkiakum County (LST-1162): "Wahkiakum County". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
From USS Cayuga (LST-1186): "Cayuga LST-1186". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
From HMAS Kanimbla (L 51): Saginaw-II, in Directory of American Naval Fighting Ships
From USS Wichita (CA-45): "Wichita". Naval History & Heritage Command. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
From Juneau-class cruiser: "Juneau CL-119". Department of the Navy. Retrieved 1 April 2011.
From Tacoma-class frigate: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
From USS Racine (LST-1191): "Racine II". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command.
From USS LST-696: "LST-696". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. 2004. Retrieved 12 July 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding ships without wikipedia pages

I just added the USS LST-388 in line with more information than a quick notable blurb, due to the lack of it having its own page, can registered accounts start creating pages for the ships without pages? More information is online and having the a stub article would encourage people to add to them then wander off with what they had for information due to the hassle of creating a page. With WW1 centennial happening we can prepare in have a better showing for when World War 2 becomes culturally popular due to the 100 year mark for history. We should expect an influx of interest on the historical ships and while there are people alive who served and people maintaining private websites for history that based solely on their on nostalgia, we run the risk of loosing that history. Almost every ship,plane,craft was notable for its time but in 100 years they will be sadly condensed, if not a lost number for the footnotes if do not do our part now.2602:306:CE27:DC90:1980:55AF:422C:A28F (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename to Landing ship, tank?

There is a thread at the Ships project to remove capitalisation from article names. This would affect all ship articles that are for class or type names (such as this), rather than the names of individual ships. See WT:WikiProject Ships#Capitalisation (yet again) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)