Talk:List of ships of the United States Army/Archive 1

Proposed merge
That after combining the hospital ships with the transport ships, the article name is changed to List of United States Army ships. There could be a separate section each for transport or hospital ships. --Brad (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you and I seem to be the main contributors to this lately, I'm completely OK with a single list as you proposed, Brad. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Army tugboats. Apparently the designation LT-xxx means tugboat and I suppose USAT could just as easily mean tugboat rather than transport. I'll start combining the lists in a few days. --Brad (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, tugs were LT, ST with many unnumbered without any such designation. "USAT" was U.S. Army Transport and did not include other types and functions. For example, the FS type of small coastal transport were not officially named until after the war and I have only seen "USAT" applied to them in poorly researched web references. Those ships would be simply FS XXX. David H. Grover's U.S. Army ships and Watercraft of World War II is the best overview of the Army's vessels of the period. Update/clarification: As with so much of the Army ship "problem" some of the FP/FS vessels acquired from commerce retained or were given actual names.Palmeira (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The nomenclature on the page has severe problems. "U.S. Army Transport (USAT)" applied only to the Army transports, the larger troop ships and cargo ships. That designation did not apply to tugs, cable ships (ACS), mine vessels and a number of other service types. Even smaller transport types, the FS, were not designated USAT. I also have to point out a complete list is a monumental task. The Army had more ships, even more tonnage, than Navy during WW II. They are not nearly as well documented as the Army pretty much destroyed ship records when it lost the battle to keep its big ships with the creation of DoD. I have Grover's U.S. Army ships and Watercraft of World War II and extensive research of my own. I can help and share information but a full list is something I shudder to think about! Palmeira (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see the hospital ships interspersed with the transports/other ships. Is this a temporary thing or did I misunderstand the merge proposal? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was temporary but now I've messed the list around again..Will work on things today. --Brad (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rethinking per MOS on the article rename, it should be: List of ships of the United States Army and afterwards there are a lot of links from templates pointing to List of United States Army transport ships so those links would have to be worked on to avoid the redirect etc. --Brad (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I much preferred the original suggested name of List of United States Army ships. Compare with List of United States Navy ships (and all of its subpages). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that List of United States Army ships reads easier than what I moved it to but I'm trying to adhere to MOS and that also means the List of United States Navy ships and all those under it are actually out of the MOS. Likely they were created long before the current guidelines were made. --Brad (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for suggestions about this at WT:SHIPS — Bellhalla (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason that these army vessels are USAT instead of USAV? at least for the logistic support vessels,USAV MG Charles P. Gross and USAV CW3 Harold C. Clinger, (the latter is not mentioned)it is designated as USAV. just wondering12.187.195.2 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) frey
 * Yes, U.S. Army Transport was the pre-DoD designation of the large Army troop and cargo transports. A very few large vessels remained with the Army after the mass transfer of Army assets to Navy's new Military Sea Transportation Service in 1950. Those vessels, crewed on the Army model by civilians, became the U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) of MSTS (now Military Sealift Commad (MSC)) and the very few remaining Army ships were subsequently designated the equivalent USAV. Palmeira (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature
I'm not paying as much attention to this article as I was previously. I'm sure that some of the nomenclature is inaccurate but the majority of the information we had was coming from DANFS when an army ship happened to cross over into navy service. If Palmeira would like to update and improve the accuracy it would be a great thing. Need to keep in mind that English Wikipedia has articles about ships from many different countries so it's important to identify the nationality of a ship in the article title. We have had to occasionally invent a prefix for a ship that may not have been entirely militarily correct but necessary for sorting on wikipedia. --Brad (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To tell the truth I wonder if a "list" is really something to undertake here. The numbers are pretty overwhelming. I have done pretty extensive research on these things in archives and elsewhere and with one or two exceptions decided getting down into individual ships would be a lifetime task even though David Grover had done the overall survey--and David had problems with lost records. I myself have limited detailed Army ship research into cable ships, mine planters and a lesser extent into the FS coastal freighters (Google "Army FP/FS Vessels" and glance at "Why an FS page?"). I have a draft for the cable ships about ready. There again we are only talking about a handful of ships. What would you think of a major revision getting away from a list and into an overview of the general categories--and there are lots of those--with a few examples of individual ships? There is a great deal of confusion about those among people searching for "dad or granddad's service" and among people more familiar with the much more rigid U.S. Navy's ship "classifications." That might be more helpful to people than trying to just list what we could of some 14,044 vessels that are often almost lost in records. Before getting into such a revision that I might actually undertake I'd like to get the thoughts of those starting the page. As for nomenclature itself I have a problem with the Wikipedia "no original research" directive as the published nomenclature often causes confusion. I myself keep finding oddities. Still, I have enougn independent cites to clarify a great deal. If you have any interest in talking off line go to the bottom of what you get on Google above and drop a line. Palmeira (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason for this list was apparently to provide a cross-reference for US Navy ships that also did Army service and vice-versa; and also articles that already existed on WP. This list was started long before I came around. I notice you found List of World War II vessel types of the United States and added some information there. You probably noticed that there is no article covering United States Army Ship which I think you could develop into an article that explains all of the different types and their functions. Maybe Ships of the United States Army would make a better title. Some of the information you added here could likely be moved to that new article. As far as this list is concerned, I'm not exactly sure what the intentions were or if the people who started it realized how many ships there really were. However, this list isn't hurting anything by staying here whether it gets completed or not. --Brad (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any attempt to cover the U.S. Army's fleet is a book length subject, several books in fact. For someone trying to get a grasp of the thing, tracing family history, historical reference or such, an overview article would probably be more helpful. The high level cross linking needs to be at the existing Quartermaster Corps, Transportation Corps (operators) and the Army ships overview. That in turn could be linked to some existing or new articles. For example, the current U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps is silent on the role of mines and these ships. The mine article covers the better known and entirely different sea/contact/influence mine and so on. Those could be beefed up along with the others touched by Army ships. Then this list could revert back to being something more likely than being a monumental complete index of Army ships. I am familiar with the ships and researching ships but new to Wikipedia for a serious project. I could certainly use your help and advice in trying to do this. Palmeira (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people are probably not even aware that the US Army operated its own ships. Ships of the United States Army would be a good article title to present an overview and explain the operations. --Brad (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. Most people during WW II were unaware. An article I found in NARA (Achives) noted that the general public was often surprised to find that "Navy ship" was an Army ship. I have also received e-mail from Army people transported overseas that were surprised to find they were on an Army transport. When you are loaded on a big ship at night, kept like sardines below decks it is not hard to understand. I am slowly working toward that on this page because a true "list" of the Army ships anywhere near complete is just beyond reason here. I am thinking in terms of overview, category overviews and a sample list for the large groups. That should help people that run across a mention of "Army ship" in old papers or references. Some of the smaller categories we could do a list. The Mine Planter list is complete--even going a bit beyond with two ships that were not MP but did plant mines, lay cable and inspire the second generation MPs. Cable ships are easy and I have them all now. I have a major revision of the "list" to remove the types that were not U.S.A.T. (FS/Tugs in particular) and begin those major categories. There were around 500 FS and "thousands" of tugs so you can see the list problem just there. Today off and on I have been getting the Army mine defenses issues somewhat resolved as background for the USAMPS.--Palmeira (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro problems
The present intro starts off like it's going to be a book review. Also this page is growing into an article more than a list. At a minimum the intro needs reworking so that the book is mentioned in passing or as a cite. Probably this should be split into an article and a list. --J Clear (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An even reasonably complete list would be book length. So, the issue is a list that is vastly incomplete and a joke or a list of over 14,000 entries. The cited book is the authority on the ships themselves--essentially a list with huge tables and background paragraphs. The cited numbers show the scope of the fleet any list would have to deal with. If this is going to be a complete we would in fact almost duplicate the book. That is neither feasible nor encyclopedic. The discussion above your new section deals with the possibility of a set of "introductions" to categories of Army ships with a sample listing except in the small categories such as those just added--and except for the few "communications" ships those are the last of the small categories. Those might then be broken into separate articles with a general fully linked coverage of the Army's operation of the fleet. That to me seems the way to avoid a "Stub" list and turn this into something useful. I would be interested in your suggestions, taking the scope of such a "list" into consideration, about how to get off that hook if you do not like the way this is headed. It is a problem as is any attempt to simply list things that involve very large numbers of things--and remember there are about Army 4,343 tugs alone (as Australian built ones are not included).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I've been suggesting from the beginning is that what you're adding here should go to Ships of the United States Army and this list can be left to sit here in whatever condition it was in. J Clear also has a point about the tone of your additions. They need to be less of a first person description or a book review. --Brad (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with J Clear and you about the "book review" slant and will fix that shortly. The numbers should be kept so that no one stumbling on such a list thinks it is anywhere near complete (or will be complete). The approach I was taking would have eventually split off those sections into groups under the article you are suggesting. The existing stub of an incorrectly sorted list is a place holder. Among the problems with a complete list is the fact that the cited book is the only really comprehensive listing of the ships and short of doing the archival research done for the book one has to use it and infringe the copyright. Any complete list would also have to get into the complexity of the WSA allocations and Army bare boat charters vs. Army owned hulls. There is apparently no single public domain "list" someone could use. Thus, in my opinion, there should be no list with a title indicating it is or intended to be a "List of ships of the United States Army" at all. The title needs changing showing the limited scope within the practical or the "list" needs to be deleted in favor of some other format. If, as you noted, the list is bounded by those ships transferring from Army to Navy that is within reason as there are such lists in public records. --Palmeira (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with allowing this list to remain. There are already disclaimers on it relating that the list is not complete. There are quite a few Army ships that have been cross referenced to articles on the ship when it was in US Navy service. You can simply leave a small introduction to this article which relates how difficult it would be to compile a complete list. There are complete listings of US Navy ships already completed so saying that completing this list is impossible is not exactly correct. --Brad (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Navy has an entire branch within what is now Naval Historical and Heritage Command, formerly Naval Historical Center, that has done nothing since WW I except keep track of Navy ships. They publish the public domain DANFS (and are updating the digital version now) and have kept an official NVR even longer. What is fact, not speculation, is that Army destroyed most of its ship records with a real destruction undertaken when it lost its major blue water function in 1950. Some of the best documentation is what Navy did when the ship came into a ship oriented service. One of the CMH Army researchers at Ft. McNair put it well: The Army at the time considered its vessels no more important to document individually than it die its trucks. I am glad to see Army has changed its mind with its modern fleet.  So comparing Navy lists with Army list is apples and cabbages. I did not say completing this list is "impossible"--if one is inclined to do the months of research in what original records remain exactly as Grover did. Just using his data as the list is a probable copyright violation because his work did involve specialized research rather than simply obtaining an official list. Then we would most probably have to conclude, as did he, "the list of Army vessels in this book is incomplete, and probably will always be so"--unless there is a "lost" AVR of the time somewhere in NARA. --Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

SWPA
By the spring and summer of 1943, the Army was becoming increasingly short of not only boats, but crews, to supply MacArthur. Thus U.S. boatmen and mariners were recruited as civilian contract employees in the Army's Small Ships Branch of its Transportation Corps. Although the precise number is unknown, many Coast Guard Auxiliarists also signed up to be part of these desperately needed crews in the South West Pacific Area. In total approximately 1,300 boatmen, mariners and auxiliarists served in MacArthur’s Navy.
 * American crews
 * —Larson, C. Kay. “MacArthur’s Navy,” Coast Guard, December 1999; [www.auxpa.org/auxhistory]. Text articles. ...
 * —Larson, C. Kay. “Bravo Zero: The Coast Guard Auxiliary in World War II.” [www.auxpa.org/auxhistory]. Text articles. ...

In 1943 there was a severe shortage of crews for service in the US Army Small Ships Unit, so the Australian Government allowed the Small Ships to run a training school of one-months duration, for 15 year old boys, who were then sent to New Guinea to man vessels in the combat area. Additionally Australian men too old or medically unfit for service in the Australian Military Forces and who had also been released by the Australian Manpower authorities were eagerly employed. Thus the crew ages ranged from 15 to over 70 years of age and with men with one arm and in one or two cases, one leg.
 * Australian crews
 * —The US Army Small Ships Association Website


 * 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.23.59 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Transportation Corps

 * 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.20.67 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WSA

 * 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.20.67 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.27.189 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Buildup Prior to WWII

 * 1) 98.23.21.74 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)