Talk:SS Vaterland (1913)

Merging
Sounds like a good idea to me, there's not much additional information on the Vaterland page. Aep 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Now deleted is a trivia item which formerly read:
 * The U.S. Navy would not operate a bigger ship until 1945, when the slightly longer and heavier aircraft carrier USS Midway entered service.

The source of this entry apparently is the US Navy Historical Center [], which compared Leviathan's estimated displacement of 58,000 T while in troop transport service with the USN in 1917-1945, with Midway's displacement. That same source lists Midway's displacement at 64,000 T, but that is after modernization. [] (That site lists Midway's beam at 238', which was the width of the flight deck after modernization.)  Jane's lists Midway's displacement in 1945 at 55,000 T, although it grew in successive modernizations. Kablammo 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch, you are right that is the page that I took that bit of trivia from. What year is your Janes? I've got the 80-81 here and it list the Midway as 51,000 standard and 62,200 full. That does make me wonder, what was the next ship larger than the Leviathan?Zurel Darrillian 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My Jane's is a reprint (actually reproduced photographically) of the 1946-47 WWII issue. I think the Navy Historical Center people may have been comparing Leviathan's "standard" displacement with Midway's loaded displacement-- Leviathan's dimensions would imply a loaded displacement of well over 60,000 T.  But the basic point is correct-- USS Leviathan was the heaviest ship operated by the USN until after WW2-- whether its successor was one of the Midways or Forrestal is not clear.  The only real question I had about the original statement is whether Midway in 1945 outweighed Leviathan-- it may have later (after two modernizations) but probably didn't in 1945.  Kablammo 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I reinserted the point with different language which should be indisputable. Kablammo 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

References need dates
Someone is confused that "access dates" are useful information; what is needed is the original date of the article or book, using the standard formats to indicate a reliable source such as a magazine or book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.146.179 (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Leviathan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010803011430/http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/vat.asp to http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/vat.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no info listing why it was hight: Leviathan?
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.183.116 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Images from a Turkish magazine. Could be PD?
I found some possible PD images from a Turkish magazine Servet-i Funun: Could this be public domain? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/635/PFSIF9180815A029.jpg

Leviathan ownership
The original article was flat wrong in many comments about ownership. Apparently popular references cited in the earlier viersions did not delve into the actual situation in which the United States Shipping Board and its Emergency Fleet Corporation (EFC) owned alomst all U.S. oceangoing shipping, shipyards, shipping companies (United States Lines was a "trade nmee" of an EFC entity) and even controlled ports. That wartime emergency state remained in place into the 1930s as the postwar glut of hulls and economic conditions caused turmoil in shipping and the U.S. faced strong competition from heavily subsidized shipping, particularly from Britan and Japan. Trade journals of the time are full of the details and books have covered some. The tangle is difficult to cover in a brief discussion of this ship and, due to its prominence, it was particularly involved in controversy. It became a symbol of U.S. prestige as the British and others were building new ships advertised as larger and faster. Congress got involved in attempted sales of the ships (see p. 2827). Even as this and other ships ran up losses privatization attempts were embroiled in controversy and failed. This ship became an example of "white elephant" as those losses mounted yet no sale could be accomplished. Palmeira (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)