Talk:Commencement Bay-class escort carrier

Fair Use?

By the way, is this page okay, copyrightwise, a fair use of text from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cve-105.htm ? —wwoods 00:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It could probably use some copy-edit to clean it up, but though there are some sentences that are the same it's not a vertbatim duplicate of the article. ---B- 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Escort carrier conversion vs. keel-up construction

The article states "unlike most earlier CVE classes which were laid down as something else and converted to aircraft carriers mid-construction, the Commencement Bays were built as carriers from the keel up." Excluding the single ship Long Island and Charger classes, there was the Sangamon class (4 ships), Bogue-class (11 ships), Casablanca-class (50 ship), in addition to the Commencement Bay-class (19 ship).

Both the Casablanca and Commencement Bay classes were not conversions but rather ships constructed from the beginning as escort carriers. So if you include Long Island and Charger, then it is technically correct that "most" escort carriers were conversions. But if you only consider multi-ship class and the total number of ships as a whole, then the use of "most" is misleading. I think "some" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradermort (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A correction on my previous comment. Terzibaschitsch (Escort Carriers of the US Navy, p. 128) states Commencement Bay was designed from the outset as carriers & the Casablancas were made on unfinished S4 hulls (p. 68). But Chesneau (Aircraft Carriers of the World 1914 to the Present, p. 238, 248) says both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were based on merchant hulls but were not conversions. Friedman (U.S. Aircraft Carriers, p. 173, 175) is a bit vague but implies Commencement Bay was based on Sangamon and Casablanca was ordered as "small airplane transport with flight deck". So there is some ambiguity here.

Depending on which source you follow and what your definition is, there appears to be three different presentations of this issue: 1) Both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were not conversions, thus they are the similar; 2) Casablanca was built on unfinished S4 hulls but Commencement Bay was keel-up construction, thus they are different; 3) Both Casablanca and Commencement Bay were based on modified merchant ship designs, thus they are similar. One last note, Casablanca was overseen by the Maritime Commission but Commencement Bay was designed with direct involvement by the US Navy (Emergence of the Escort Carrier, http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-9.pdf). Tradermort (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes that I made

For those who watches this page. I made some changes recently.

They are all come from:

• Paul Silverstone's book "The Navy of World War II, 1922-1947"
• Norman Polmar's book "Aircraft Carriers: A History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events, Volume 1: 1909-1945"
• http://shipbuildinghistory.com/shipyards/large/toddtacoma.htm and http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/WW2_US_Cancellations.htm

However , just like the other class that I encountered , there is one problem that you folks need to aware: These ship's information are not the only one.

Which means that for example , some ship laid down date may have two.

There are more information about that in internet and outside but I don't know whose writing are more reliable so I'd leave that to those who eager to clarify those mess. -- Comrade John (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in commissioning date for several ships including Bairoko

The table lists it as commissioned in 1950. But the page for that specific ship says it was commissioned in July 1945 and recommissioned in 1950. SadTromboneSounds (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)