Talk:Amphibious warfare ship

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Maritime warfare task force

	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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

1 LSL
2 Needs a lot of work
3 Operation Atilla?
4 Revamp/split article

[edit] LSL

Can you make an article titled LSL (Amphibious Assault Ship)? I made a disambiguation page for LSL...

Try Landing Ship Logistics. - BillCJ 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a lot of work

This article is very confusing and is in need of a lot of work. The fundamental problem seems to be that there is no single definition of what an "Amphibious assault ship" actually is. For instance, while the opening paragraph states that such ships "grossly resembl[e] aircraft carriers" and seems to refer to ships capable of operating large numbers of troop carrying helicopters, the body of the article includes ships which cannot operate helicopters and only land their embarked troops through beaching. The article also contains a very strong US and British bias. --Nick Dowling 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should partly merge it with landing craft (aren't landing craft only smallest type of amphibious assault ships? Or are they wider term?) Pibwl ←« 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some work is needed, though there is much value in the article. Specifically, the LCM and LCVP are boats, not ships, but are listed among the various types of ships. Lou Sander 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Atilla?

I believe Operation Atilla can also be considered as a large scale amphibious assault, therefore I added it to the first paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.254.132.8 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Revamp/split article

For a long time, I've thought this article is a mess. The Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a narrow opening definition of the ships (reworked some, but it was much worse before), and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare ship and boat. Perhaps the more-general information, including the "boats", could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. These are just my random opening thoughts - I welcome any other ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the USN's page on amphibious assault ships, this term is specifically applied only to LHAs and LHDs by the USN. I do believe that was the original scope of this article, but it was expanded to cover more vessels over time, without any apparent concept of the strict meaning of the term. As such, I have moved this page to Amphibious warfare ship, the broadest term I can find. I will be re-doing the Amphibious assault ship page, probably using the early versions of the page, to focus on LHAs and LHDs, though I'm not sure how fast I will accomplish this. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)