Talk:Amphibious assault ship: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Amphibious assault ship. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Amphibious assault ship at the Reference desk.

Military history: Maritime Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. 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 not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force

Ships C‑class

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 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The general content that used to be on this article is now at Amphibious warfare ship. This page has been refocused to cover just the larger amphibiuos ships such as LHAs, LHDs, and LPHs which generally carry helicopters and sometimes Harriers. Ships such as LPDs and LSDs are not covered here any longer, so that's why listings for them have been removed. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that many Wikipedians are quick to accuse AMerican editors of an American bias, especially if the pics in an article are mainly of American products. In this article, it's that way for one simple reason: The USN has made and uses more amphib ships than all other navies combined. Coupled with the US government's laws making all images taken by the US military public domain, this means there are far more pics of USN ships available. Sorry, but this is not the fault of US editors! :) I selected the Lead pic that is in the article because it shows 6 different ships. If a pic of several amhib ships belonging to several different navies can be found, I will happily support it being in the Lead here, provided it's a good-quality image, and leagel to use of course. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting a merge of Commando carrier into this article, mainly because what the British call a commando carrier, the Americans call an amphibious assault ship. Thoughts? 211.30.232.226 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The Commando carrier article is short, with no references. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that "Commando carrier" is just another name for an "Amphibious assault ship." Lou Sander (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Concur with Lou. - BillCJ (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Commando carrier is clearly British English for Amphibiouse Assault Ship. F-451 (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the spelling error in the caption of HMS Ocean at the bottom of the page from "Portsmith" to "Portsmouth" Harbour. Kaenei (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the italian amphibious assault ships are the three LPD San Giorgio class. The aircraft carrier Cavour isn't a assault ship, but a aircraft carrier, the amphibious assault is secondary mission of the Cavor Sorry for my english--Cesare87 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) amphibious assault ship on the italian navy official web site Cavour class on the italian navy official web site --Cesare87 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amphibious role of the Cavour is important, secondary or not, and as such the ship is a hybrid, and ought to be listed here. "Amphibious assault ship" has a specific meaning, and only includes LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs. As amphibious transport docks (LPDs), the San Giorgio class are not part of this classification. They are Amphibious warfare ships, and are listed at List of amphibious warfare ships. There may not be a distinction between the two terms in Italian, but there is difference in English. Please trust me on this one, as English is my first language. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor is adding the San Giorgio class and other types to this list again. I don't know how to explain this any other way than I did 2 years ago. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the sources theat Enok has added using Google Translator. In Italian, [http://www.marina.difesa.it/uominimezzi/navi/Pagine/Assaltoanfibio.aspx this page[:

"Secondo le denominazioni standard della NATO essa è definita una LPD (Landing Platform Dock), cioè una Unità da trasporto anfibio dotata di un bacino allagabile, designata per sbarcare truppe di assalto anfibio in operazioni di proiezione di potenza dal mare."

While the heading on the page is "Assalto anfibio", the ship is clearly called an LPD (Landing Platform Dock). LPDs are not condidered "Amphibious assault ships", which covers only LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs, per the definitions used here from the US Navy. The Italian Navy source mentions that LPD is a NATO classification, so I will try to find a NATO source for the definitions of "Amphibious assault ship" and "Amphibious warfare ships". If the NATO definition of "Amphibious assault ship" includes LPDs, then we can modify the article to note taht, and include the San Giorgio in the list. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the LPDs should not be considered amphibious assault ships, and the primary role of San Giorgio is LPD, but - as you can read in the Fincantieri's site - may be used as LHD. As a matter of fact, they embark the Lagunari assault troops, and their role in the navy is the amphibious assault. The term ("assault") is the same in both Italian and English. --Enok (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of "LHD" is see on the page you have given as a link is in the heading at the top of the page. I don't see a mention of this in the text anywhere, so apparently Fincantieri is trying to sell the design as an LHD. This is really a semantics issue, but we need to stick with the primary definitions as much as possible. Adding ships that are clealy stated to be LPDs to this page is blurring the definitions too much. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fincantieri is owned by the Italian state, as well as the Armed forces (obviously). It can not be an "advertising operation", also because the ships are no longer produced from the '90s (and the website is much more recent). Anyway, look here (the page is also in English).--Enok (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page in English that you listed seems to be merely a regurgitation of the manufactures page, and isn't official in any way. From reading the ENglish version of the Fincantieri site, both of its military naval ship designs are in the category "LPD-LHD", including the new ["20.000 t Multifunctional Ship" ship, as listed here. I still stand by the decision to not include the San Giorgio class here, but I won't revert you unless another erditor supports nme. Please be aware of 3RR, which you have been warned against in the past. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link that I have provided is a simple image to help you identify the type of the ship. The official link is the second one (here, again). However I agree that in an article like this we should add only ships of primary role, but if we include the Cavour (which has never been used for amphibious assaults, and both the builder and the user define it as aircraft carrier) then the San Giorgio class has every right to be here. --Enok (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's main primary role is as a VSTOL carrier, but reliable sources have also stated the ito is designed for the "amphibious assault ship" role, something that most other carriers are not designed for, which is why I've always included it here. Aircraft carriers don't generally have facilites for carrying troops and vehicles as does the Cavour. If you have some reliable sources that state that the Cavoutr is not caplable of carrting such equipment, and is solely intended to be used in the carrier role, then removing it from the list would be appropriate. The term "amphibious assault ship" has nothing to do with whether or not a ship has been used for "assualts"; it's just the term the US navy chose to for its large carrier-type vessels. and it is basically the same thing as a "commando carrier". "Amphibious assault ship"/"Commando carrier" carries with it the implication that the ships can operate as traditional carriers at times, which as far as I know the San Giorgios cannot do, except for perhaps emergencies. They are simply too small to operate Harriers effectively, and their smaller size is probably why they are typed as LPDs in most reliable sources, and not as LHDs. - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reliable source that says the secondary role of the Cavour? --Enok (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the Italian Navy website's Cavour page:

"Accanto quindi alla capacità di trasporto di aeromobili, di massima 20 in configurazione mista aerei ed elicotteri, si pone anche l’esigenza di un’unità tipo RO-RO, in grado di ricoverare forze e mezzi anfibi, proiettare le stesse e fornire supporto su terra dal mare."

Rough Google trantlation: "Next door so the ability to transport aircraft, in a mixed configuration of up to 20 airplanes and helicopters, there is also the need for an RO-RO type, able to admit and amphibious forces, the same project and provide support on land from the sea."

Do you need more? - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. The text says nothing about a secondary role as LPH.--Enok (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the source that does not clearly states the secondary role of the San Giorgio class. --Enok (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World labels the San Giorgio class LPDs and states that Cavour is a multi-role vessel, whose roles include being an "amphibious warfare asset". It also states that she's designed to carry vehicles in her hanger and has a ramp to allow them to drive on and off from wharves. Nick-D (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enok. you asked me for a source regarding "the secondary role of the Cavour", which I provided, as has Nick. I'm fine if you want to remove "LPH", as "CVH" is probably the current designator for a carrier with a secondary amphibios command and support role. Also, please don't remove disputed tags added by other editors when you are involved in the dispute, as the matter is still under dispute. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World labels the Cavour as V/STOL Aircraft carrier (CVV). Why include a CVV (or CVH) in this article? There are hundreds of multi-role ships (such as the San Giorgio class, «whose roles include being an "amphibious warfare asset"»). --Enok (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of other types of ships, yes; carriers, no. An LPD is an amphibious warfare ship type. But if it will hel remove the argument, we can delete the type list altogher, as all the major types are listed in the LHD/LHA/LPH articles, and in the List of amphibious warfare ships, so it reqally isn't needed here too; the class list should suffice. - BilCat (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the CVH Cavour is an amphibious warfare ship (or has the opportunity to become it). Where is written that CVHs fall into the category of amphibious assault ships (in the U.S. sense)? At least the San Giorgio class is defined LPH by the manufacturer (in addition to her first role as LPD). --Enok (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You're putting more stock in a heading on a web page that the actual description in the written text? As to the definition of "amphibious assault ships", the US definiiotn is the only one cited here, and that's the only definition we have. If you want to redefine it, then please provide a reliable source. I will look for a reliable source that states the Cavour is also an "amphibious assault ship" - If I can't find one soon, I'll remove it from this page - and the San Giorgios also. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also provided a picture to help you identify the type of the San Giorgio class in Fincantieri's website. Why do you continue to argue that this definition is only present in the header? Here the image (taken from the official site), and here the link. According to the manufacturer, of course reliable source, the class is a LPD/LHD type. I restore the San Giorgio, unless we decide to include only vessels of primary role. --Enok (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when the "20.000 t Multifunctional Ship" article is created, I'm sure you'll list it as an PD-LHD also, per this link. Fine. I've added back the Cavour. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want forcedly remove the Cavour from the list (for now I just removed "LPH" as it is without sources), but if you can not provide a source that says that the CVHs are amphibious assault ships, we have to remove it. --Enok (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your decision to make. For now, we're deadlocked, and there's no consenus one way to the other. I've also re-added LPH. You can add back the {{cn}} tag if you want, but if ou remove it again, it's edit warring, and it will be dealt with appropriately. - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the material that is unsourced. We don't need a citation from a source provided; we need precisely the source. Please, read WP:SOURCE. --Enok (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My internet searches for the combination of Cavour and LPH didn't return any worthwhile references, so that's probably fair enough. She's definitely an amphibious ship of some sort that involves landing troops via helicopters, but the exact type of ship she falls into here is a bit unclear. It's worth noting that as she was built as a multi-role ship, the amphibious role isn't necessarily a secondary one. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with this comment, Nick-D. The Cavour is an aircraft carrier with generic roles of amphibious warfare (precisely, an Amphibious warfare ship). But for the specific U.S. classification of Amphibious assault ship, it must qualify as LPH or LHA or LHD. --Enok (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 5 days, I removed the Cavour because there are no sources to support its presence among the Amphibious assault ships or its status as an LPH. If there are no other objections, in the coming days I will remove the Template:Disputed from the San Giorgio class. In summary, the manufacturer defines this class as an LPD/Landing Helicopter Dock. In addition, the San Giorgio class has a full-length flight deck for helicopters, which the "classic" LPDs of the US Navy do not have (this is the main reason why are not considered assault ships), and it is the only class of the Italian Navy to embark the Lagunari assault troops. --Enok (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Type of troops embarked and shape of the flight deck have nothing to do with the definition of LHD; size and other factors do. Since you have not provided an actual relaible source that considers the San Giorgio class an LHD, other than a heading or a copy of an image from a non-relaible source, I have removed them, again. It's time to just move on and let the issue be. If not, we will be at this a long time. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Type of troops embarked and shape of the flight deck have nothing to do with the definition of LHD; size and other factors do. This is absolutely not true. The role of a ship first defines its purpose, and the San Giorgio class is designed to accommodate helicopters and assault troops. Secondly, how do you define the official website of the manufacturer as an unreliable source? Please, stop your disruptive edits, or I must report you to the adminstrators. --Enok (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and report me now, and we'll see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continue with your disruptive edits and I will report you. --Enok (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, go ahead. I've stopped reverting you, but you continue to remove content. You may find yourrself blocked instead! - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a manufacturer's site can be a reliable source, but not is the only claim is in a general heading also used on another type that's obviously not a LPH. It's time for an RFC, as it's obvious we'll never agree on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need a third opionion. --Enok (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove tags place by others. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not abuse the tags. There is already one that includes the entire section, including the San Giorgio class.--Enok (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only to give a chance to put previous to-and-fro to one side and start from the top. I've been reading through and I'm trying to get a grasp of the problem. It seems to me that the issue of the Italian ships status revolves around the definitions used for "Amphibious assault ship". So can I ask some questions?

• Are there official definitions as to what constitutes an "amphibious assault ship" (with or without capitals on the "A"s)?
• What functions do (as opposed to could) the Italian ships carry out?
  

Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here the definition of Amphibious Assault Ship according to the US Navy (the only one to use the term): Landing Helicopter Assault and Landing Helicopter Dock are Amphibious Assault Ships (other types of amphibious ships fall under the more general term amphibious warfare ship). The Cavour is an aircraft carrier (CVV classification, multi-purpose aircraft carrier), with some devices that allow it to land troops (like the well deck). At this time it is used in Libya and embarks 8 AV-8B Harrier II. Never used for amphibious operations, but it is multi-role. In summary, we can consider the Cavour as an amphibious warfare ship, but not an Amphibious Assault Ship. The San Giorgio class is a Landing Platform Dock and (according to the manufacturer) a Landing Helicopter Dock. It is designed to accommodate helicopters and assault troops (the Lagunari). Its main use is to transport amphibious vehicles, but its full-length flight deck (unusual for a regular LPD; see also U.S. definition) can accommodate three Sea King SH-3D helicopters or five Agusta Bell AB-212 helicopters. They are the primary vessels of the Italian Navy for amphibious assaults. --Enok (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Enok, you've been warned before of your slow edit war on another article page so you should know better than to blindly revert the content here that was backed up by a reliable source. FWIW, you can be blocked right now for disruptive editing behaviour whereby you are deliberately undermining two individual Admin's effort in helping out on this article page, I'm giving you one last chance, do it again and you go straight to 3RR noticeboard. Per WP:BRD, you have been bold but we have reverted you, again. Discuss this properly, or else. You have been warned~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is this. The Cavour is classified as V/STOL aircraft carrier (CVV) or as multi-role vessel (which means nothing)? Why do not you read more before you act? --Enok (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read it and I disagree. Have you read the book source provided by Nick-D (Wertheim, [edited by] Eric (2007). The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World : Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems (15th edition). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. page 339. ISBN 159114955X.)? A similar example is Endurance class landing platform dock ship, classified by the manufacturer as an LST but is in actual fact an LPD, do you know that? The Kiev class aircraft carriers are another good example, the manufacturer classified them as heavy aviation cruisers instead of aircraft carrier so they can circumvent the international treaty and sail through the Turkish Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles. You have to accept that there are exceptions, just like black and white co-exist but so does grey. Understand this and you will be a happier person. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What these examples have to do with the Cavour? Even the source provided by Nick-D says that it is an aircraft carrier. The NATO, the manufacturer and the user do the same. See results on Google Books. --Enok (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, I seriously doubt you ever read it... for if you had, you would have noticed that under page 339 Remarks section: "Will be a multi-role ship employable as an amphibious warefare asset, vehicle ferry, disaster-relief ship, strike carrier, or sea-control ship." I rest my case, out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the same thing that I've said in my comment (in reply to GraemeLeggett). But we are talking about the classification (see "multi-purpose aircraft carrier"). --Enok (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: Third Opinions are for disputes between two editors. There now being at least six editors involved, a Third Opinion is no longer available for this dispute. Please consult WP:DR for other options if dispute resolution is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on track, I ask about the definition of "amphibious assault ship", because "HMS Fearless was the Royal Navy's first purpose-built amphibious assault ship" and there seems to be case that "amphibious assault ship" (a description of purpose or activity) differs from "Amphibious Assault Ship" (a nation's particular definition). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I was told, the article is based on the definition of the U.S. Navy (but the English term commando carrier is a redirect). This is why BilCat wanted to cancel the San Giorgio class. --Enok (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This 'destroyer' has a displacement of 18,000 tons full load, a full-length flight deck, and operates up to 11 helicopters. Therefore, surely, it should be described as a LPH and included in this article! The only reason it's not officially classified as such is due to the stigma of Japan reviving naval aviation. CrackDragon (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not. There is alot more to being an LPH or LHA than a large flight deck. While some sources do indicate an offensive role is possible for the Hyuga class, I've seen no indication that is it intended for amphibious assualt, even in the Hyuga article, as much as a mess as that one is! Regular carriers have performed such roles in pinches, even US CVNs, but they generally aren't included in the specified roles. Cavour and Juan Carlos I have both been designed from the start as multipurpose ships, the former being primarily a CVH, and the latter primarily an LHD. No doubt all of the Invincibles can operate assult helicopters if needed, but the HMS Ark Royal still had to be modified to serve effectively as an LPH while the HMS Ocean underwent refit. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right! Since there appears to be no facilities at the moment to accommodate or embark troops or vehicles, then it should only be counted as a helicopter carrier. CrackDragon (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If we do find reliable sources that state it has, or can easily be fitted with, facilities to accommodate or embark troops or vehicles, then by all means it should be added to the list. - BilCat (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the trouble here, then? --John (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, here's the discussion you're looking for. It starts from the third paragraph. --Enok (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to protect the article for a week. Can you use that time to come to a compromise? --John (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the words of an inspirational speaker: "We'll see." BTW, thanks for the temp salting, this should give him time to think through it properly. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone finds the time to discuss my arguments (I hope GraemeLeggett), a week is more than enough. There are too many people waste time issuing warnings, rather than to honestly contribute to the discussion. --Enok (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enok, I've just reverted your change which (again) removed Cavour from the list. The reference provided demonstrates that she's an amphibious warfare ship, and I'm not sure why you're getting hung up over her hull designation when the source states that she's as much an amphibious ship as a carrier. I find it tiresome that you keep edit warring over this, and your treatment of the source I've provided which supports the ship's inclusion (eg, that it should be dismissed) seems quite different to the way you're treating the competing sources about the San Giorgio class (eg, that the manufacturer's questionable claim about the San Giorgios means that they have to be included). Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]