Talk:USS PC-552

There are way too many pictures on this page
Vastly more detail than necessary, but mostly totally extraneous images. I was pointed here by this discussion which seems to agree. I'm going to pull a large number of them out. I'm going to start with those that have zero relationship to the crew, the vessel and its equipment. We need to build consensus here before re-inclusion. BusterD (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing sources
This article makes extensive use of yet doesn't name the journal(s) being cited – journal names for the purposes of  usually have the form: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society or JAMA – regularly published, usually pier-reviewed periodicals. If these 'journal' sources in the article are not articles in periodical journals then use of a different template is in order.

I have repaired many of the citation templates. website is not to be used to hold a website's url but is to hold the name of the website if one is available (when there is no obvious name, use a stylized version of the url: Example.com). accessdate requires url. It is the date that an editor last verified that an ephemeral, non-archival website supported the article text; it is not the date that the editor added the citation to the article or that the website could be accessed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The war diaries are usually one or two pages, depending on how much happened during the month of the diary. They are not really journals, per se, but maybe cite report would be better? They are written by a ship's CO on a monthly basis, so the diaries have an author, date written and month they are for. I looked one up and had no difficulty finding it on fold3.com with the information provided. I'm not sure what additional clarification would be useful on the diaries. Muster rolls and diaries are probably on fold3.com. I don't know where the ship's logs came from, perhaps FOIA, library or maybe online somewhere else. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that should be preferred over  for the war diaries.  But for this citation:
 * what about these parameters:
 * 3 February 1945 and January 1945?
 * Presumably the diary entry is for January 1945 and the captain 'published' the diary entry on 3 February 1945. If that is true then I would rewrite the citation this way:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's correct. The month of January 1945 war diary was written on 3 February 1945, by James S. Spielman, Commanding Officer. I would say that's likely how all of the war diaries would be done for this page. That's just one I looked up to see if it was on fold3, but they are probably all done the same way by the original article author. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

History of the crew members
The following was removed from the main article. I would not oppose a list of notable crew members, if there were any. Notable meaning notable enough for their own wikipedia page, but listing every person attached to the ship on a certain day is not needed. Sorry. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Although the ship was commissioned 28 July 1942, the initial crew boarded 30 July 1942. Of the 55 members of the crew who boarded PC-552 initially, only 14 were present at D-Day. The rest of the crew were replacements. Those 14 crew members were:

Of those 14 crew members who boarded the ship initially, and who had participated on D-Day, only five sailed the PC-552 home in June 1945. These five crew members were:

Of all the crewmembers who boarded the USS PC-552 30 Jul 1942, only one stepped off the ship when she was decommissioned 18 April 1946: Boatswain's Mate Second Class (BM2c) George Clinton Sullivan, USN, who boarded with the rate of Able Seaman (AS). He had enlisted 5 May 1942 from New Haven, CT.



Crew members on D-Day
The following crew members were all on board the USS PC-552 on D-Day:

Source for information about crew
Unless otherwise noted, the sources for this information were all the "Muster Roll of the Crew of the U.S.S. PC 552", the "Report of Changes of U.S.S. PC 552", "the Recapitulation Sheet of the U.S.S. PC 552", and related personnel reports for the years 1942–1946, the naval life of the ship. These are stored in microfiche form at the National Archives and Records Administration. Naval ships were required to issue a Muster Roll each quarter and a Report of Changes monthly, and upon special events such as the commissioning of the ship, the decommissioning of the ship, or the end of a voyage. The Muster Rolls were instructed to be only a roster of the enlisted men although officer information was sometimes added. The Reports reported changes in the crew such as transfers, promotions, arrivals, hospitalization, etc. These were compiled by the yeoman, essentially a clerk/typist, and thus influenced by the experience and thoroughness of the yeomen. During the commission of the ship, there were six sailors who served as Yeoman. In particular, the Muster Rolls for 30 Jun 1943 and 30 Sep 1943 had to be interpreted. These reports were then signed by the ship's executive officer (nine during the life of the ship), who was personally responsible for them, and the ship's commander, who approved them. One can still see the pencil tic marks and the tears fixed with scotch tape.

In December 1944, PC-552 quit requiring the date and place of enlistment, and did not always require this before which explains the blanks in the table above.

Presidential Unit Citation and other ship awards
These are not a matter of "almost certainly" as such vessels are officially listed by Navy. They are on the list or not. A transcription of the official Presidential Unit Citation list is here and though PC 559, USS PCE (R) 852 and PC 1133 are listed—as are minor vessels such as YMS-6—this vessel is not. The other awards are indeed probable as the criteria were largely being in a given area at a given time; however, rewording is needed and references need to be checked. Palmeira (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the medal and Presidential citation was for Christensen, not the ship. I also can't find him down for the Silver Star, but there is no master list of Silver Star recipients for WWII. I don't have any of the deck logs like the original author had, but fold3 has muster reports and ship histories. I looked at a couple of the monthly diaries and much of this is word for word copied from the diary, so it's not made up. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He is mentioned in the current cite #31, BUPERS, on page 20:
 * "Robert Benjamin Christensen, Seaman 2d Class, U.S.N., procured a rescue breathing apparatus and a fire hose, entered a cargo space strange to him and extinguished a fire when a bomb exploded in the compartment. Christensen also was a LANGLEY survivor."
 * Since he was a survivor of USS Langley (CV-1) in that disastrous attempt to deliver P-40s to Java (MS Sea Witch (1940) actually made it, but the planes still largely crated were destroyed to prevent capture) picked up by USS Pecos (AO-6) he would of course not have been intimately familiar with compartments. So many ships and people did not survive that horror that was the collapse of the Malay Barrier. Christensen is one of those with a lucky streak like George K. Petritz of Fisheries II. His story is here on page 21. Survived the horror that was the fall of Bataan and Corregidor, avoided the Bataan death march, went from a POW horror camp to a less horrible one and then was one of two of the some 1,600 POWs to escape when Ōryoku Maru was sunk by friendly fire. Palmeira (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a huge amount of survivors from Pecos. Fortunate he didn't end up on USS Edsall (DD-219) after Langley, too. I added the BUPERS link earlier today trying to figure out where the presidential citation came from. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Images
I nominated a number of the images for deletion on commons, but perhaps there is someone here that has a better understanding of commons that can come up with a justification there to keep the images. I would like to keep the launch image, but it is obviously from a newspaper. Maybe it was a Navy photo given for PR reasons, but there is not enough information to know that. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Launch of PC-552.jpg - Fair use candidate for wikipedia?
 * c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Even Dr. Seuss gets into convoying.jpg
 * c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fighting Donald Duck.jpg
 * c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Typical Convoy Diagram.jpg
 * c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:D-Day Sunken Tank.jpg

This article is insanely bloated
The level of extraneous detail. much of which has only tangential relationship with the subject of the article, is absolutely nuts. Over the next few days I am going to start cutting this thing down to a reasonable size. Be prepared for major redactions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Help or input from any major contributors to the article is welcome and appreciated. But this is just waaay too long for an encyclopedic article on this subject and too many details are of limited relevance to the topic. It needs to be trimmed down... drastically.-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the cited information on the type, might be moved to the PC page. Original contributor move would be best to preserve their input but apparently anyone else editing has created great offense and they have "washed their hands." All the log entries such as "Underway," "Moored," and setting watches are routine matters that have no place in an article unless connected with an unusual and significant event. Pretty much all the 1943 section is at most two paragraphs. I have also noted some significant probable errors in convoy designation, removing one extraneous section already that discussed destinations not matching convoy designation after this PC's involvement. The mixed use of "Convoy xxx" with "Task Force xx.x" is confusing unless explained. The convoy was not a "Task Force"—it was the naval escort that was usually designated as a task force. Palmeira (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've done about all that I can do to distill the material down, sorry if it disrupted the others that were also editing. I'm usually reluctant to remove material, but I didn't like it being in a bullet point / list format. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

II Card?
Does anyone know what is meant by the reference "U.S. Navy (1942). PC-552 II Card"? What is an II Card? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is not "II" Card, but just a data card. I believe this may refer to a Navy Ship's History reference card, perhaps second in a group, similar to those kept by MARAD but in more detail as Navy loves its ships much more than MARAD. Note that the cite is used for much the same purpose, basic ship data such as cost, milestone dates or status change. Since I know of no public publication of such background data, the sort of thing Ships History would used to write a DANFS history of the vessel which apparently was never done, this is likely among the information the originator paid to obtain. The originals may, as is much Navy historical original material, be in NARA. I don't doubt the data, just the ability to verify other than by contacting NHHC and perhaps NARA. One would hope, though I have my doubts, these are all now in digital files at NHHC. Palmeira (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Control Vessels
I have little interest in the rewrite (other things going) but have done some bits and pieces of checking. The role of the Control Vessels is not really clear in the text and as tie in with the overall Normandy landing might be tightened. PC-552 was assigned to Western Task Force Assault Force O, Rear Admiral J.L. Hall, USN. A good bit of the timing, events and important role of the Primary Control Vessels and Control Vessels can be found in Chapter 9: The NEPTUNE Assaults. The Control Vessels essentially guided the waves of landing craft into the right beach. The result of not having one:


 * "Red Primary Control Vessel (PC 1261) none the less took the assault waves in. But at H minus 35 minutes, when still 7,000 or 8,000 yards from the beach, she too became a casualty. This left the Red assault formations without any control vessel at all. As they had no reliable means of beach identification, the situation might have become very serious. At this juncture Green Primary Control (PC 1176) observing the situation in the Red sector, detailed her own Secondary Control (LCC 60) to shepherd the Red assault waves in."

The view from and navigation facilities available to anyone piloting a landing craft, even up to LCMs and LCTs, isn't the same as even that from a little PC or specially equipped LCC (landing craft, control) so in the offshore conditions, smoke and confusion of a landing better "eyes" were necessary as guide-dogs. Palmeira (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Where to post a PC log?
My dad passed away a year ago, and left us his log for PC-1147, in the Pacific late 1945.

Where can I post something like this for posterity? It's not right to put it on the PC-552 page.

Thanks if you can help,


 * -RedKnight7 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup.
The long noted problems with this article persist. It still reads more like a memorial page with far too much personal detail, way too many photo and text boxes, a great deal of type information not needed in relation to a specific vessel of the type. This needs a thorough scrub. Palmeira (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)