Talk:List of World War II ship classes

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles

Military history: Maritime / World War II

This redirect 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This redirect 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

Which nation?[edit]

Some, mainly Allied, ship classes were built and/ or used by several nations. Should we enter all of these? Might be cumbersome sometimes - the UK-designed River class frigates were used by the UK, Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, US, etc. They were built in the UK, Canada and Australia. Or are we strict and say that the class originated in the UK? I'd do that.

23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Folks at 137 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 December 2005.

I can see this in one of two ways: First you can group these nations such as India, South Africa, and Australia into just the UK since they mostly didn't gain independence until after WW2. The other option, is to list each nation that had each class. I just think it would be easier to group them all into the UK title, but I'd also like to see what others think about this. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's incorrect to include all Commonwealth nations under UK. India, South Africa, Canada, and Australia separately declared war on the Axis, but Ireland - at the time also a Commonwealth nation with the same status as South Africa, Canada, and Australia - stayed neutral. I would agree that India was more under direct influence/ control. Try telling an Aussie at the time that his country was not independent! South African participation was also uncertain as there were pro-Nazi sympathies and the Boers had little connection or love for Britain. My point is that the "Dominions" were independent states (then as now) with varying concerns and connections to the "Mother Country". I think that Canada delayed its declaration of war to make just that point.

Also, some classes were split between UK and the expatriate forces such as France, Norway, etc. The US used Canadian built River class frigates. Inclusion under UK would irritate some of these.

Ships: we record who operated them. In my view - ship classes: we give preference to their country of origin. Then we have the problem of Lend-Lease! Folks at 137 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyokuto_Maru_Fleet_Oilers[edit]

I removed this class. No offence meant but the list is intended for fighting ships and an oiler - even a naval one - is not built to fight. Inclusion of classes of support ships, landing craft, etc would make the list even more unwieldy than it is and also subvert its purpose. It may be good to start a new one for such vessels - the idea has potential. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed it. I sugegst that we set up a "list of support vessels classes of World War II" or similar and probably for clarifiaction rename this one to a similar form with "combat" or "warship" in the title. I note also the Kyototu Maru article needs work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]