Jump to content

Talk:USS Ranger (CV-61)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1983 MMR fire location

[edit]

The fire was not in 2MM it was in 3MM in the North Arabian Sea, I was there and a member of 3MM, today is a good day to get that part corrected. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.8.188 (talk • contribs) 15:46, May 30, 2005

Excuse me, shipmate, but I was standing watch there in 2MMR that very morning - and guess how I know exactly what time the fire happened? The fire was in 4MMR, which was two spaces FORWARD of 2MMR (on the other side of 2AMR), and 3MMR (where I stood MM Topwatch on RIMPAC a couple of years later) was the space immediately AFT of 2MMR. We lost TEN men, not six, and I knew one of them (MM1 Johnson). I also knew the poor b***ard MM3 ex-nuc who started the fire - he worked for the Fuel Lab. The ship was NOT in the North Arabian Sea, but out in the middle of the Indian Ocean - we were out of range of land, remember, and there is no place in the Arabian Sea which was out of range of land. What's more, #4 Main came back on line the very morning we were relieved by the Midway battle group, and we were underway to Subic with four shafts turning. This is why I really don't like the Wikipedia, because there is SO much disinformation by those who think they know what they're talking about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.170.245 (talk • contribs) 14:20, April 29, 2006‎ To my shipmate who thought it was in '3MM', I suggest you think back, because you and I would have known each other, since we would have been in the same division.

Well, one way to avoid disinformation is to not take anybody's word for it, but to rely on reputable published works, such as DANFS where the basic info comes from. If you're going to assert that the historians who wrote DANFS are wrong, you're going to need to cite something more solid than personal memory (as the exchange here shows, even eyewitnesses can end up disagreeing about what happened). Stan 00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with what you say, but unfortunately I can't give you anything more solid than my personal memory. If 'DANFS' is the source of what was previously posted, then I can promise you they are flat wrong. I will contact them and try to set them straight.
Note - I just searched 'DANFS' and I saw nothing about any fire onboard the Ranger. If DANFS is silent, here's a possible source: http://navysite.de/crew.php?action=ship&squad=false&starty=1973&endy=1983&ship=CV%2061
That's a short crew list. Contact any of those in P-1 or P-2 Divisions or in any of the MMR's who were on board on 01Nov83, and they'll back up what I say. I recommend my fellow pit snipes Goff, Strong, Kowalski, and Linxwiler. I worked with all of them and they were all on board that day.
MM1 Glenn Cessor, USN (Ret.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.170.245 (talk • contribs) 18:09, May 17, 2006‎

CV vs. CVA/Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why do we have this listed as CVA-61? It should be CV-61. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Ranger (CVA-61) → USS Ranger (CV-61) — It was redesignated from "CVA" to "CV" long ago, and "CV" is the most common usage in any case. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

[edit]
  • Support for the reason stated above. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nominator and discussion. / Peter Isotalo 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support this as well considering the Navy reclassified ALL their supercarriers as multi-purpose (CV). Neovu79 (Talk) 01:10, 27 January 2007 (EST)
  • Support The older designations indicated types of carriers (CVA, attack; CVS, antisubmarine warfare; CVE, escort, etc). CV became standard between 1975/1976 to indicate an all purpose function for supercarriers, while ASW carriers were redesignated LHAs). I must have typed CV-61 10,000+ times in my day! Ed Weeden, CO's Office, USS RANGER, 1976-1981.

Survey - Oppose votes

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:

Seems like a rather uncontroversial move to me. The article Hull classification symbol states that CVA was merged into CV as early as June 1975.

Peter Isotalo 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Top Gun: Mistake

[edit]

Removed the following: , and at one point the film's director is reported to have written the US Navy a $25,000 check to keep the ship on a specific course for shooting landing of aircraft backlit with the sunset.[citation needed]

That incident was aboard Enterprise, where all of the at-sea and air ops footage was shot. The only bits filmed aboard Ranger (tied up at North Island) were the interior "CIC" scenes.

1980s criminal something or other

[edit]

The first very long paragraph of the 1980s Service section seems a bit out of place, has no context explaining what they are talking about (you pretty much have to piece it together from the content, and even then there are huge gaps on exactly what the issue is), is poorly written, uses a bunch of non-encyclopedia appropriate idioms, and is filled with ellipses. Did someone cut and paste this mess from somewhere else? Why is there so much text dedicated to this non-service related piece? Also, there is only a single reference in the whole long paragraph, and seems highly POV. I guessing someone cut-and-pasted this from an article (possibly the Time Magazine article, but it is hidden behind a log-in wall), in which case this could be bordering on plagiarism. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That material was added on 15:57, 11 July 2013 by 76.123.130.83. I've removed it as it is likely a WP:BLP violation unless it is very well cited. The Time Magazine article is provided as reference for Airman Paul Trerice's death, and there is no indication that it includes anything related to the subsequent material. (The full article is accessible by subscription only, so perhaps someone else can check that out.) -- ToE 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1980s criminal something or other

[edit]

Fwiw, the story of the airman's desth on the USS Ranger was told to me yesterday by someone who was aboard ship at the time and had friends working in CCU. So I looked it up online to see if there was any info.

Online details of Trerice's bread and water CCU meals and him lying on deck pretty much match what I was told.

Except ..Trerice actually collapsed on deck and those in charge left him there until it was too late to save him


As the ship neared Hawaii, sailors were told to not talk to the waiting press. The CCU unit was removed from the ship shortly afterwards

Lan T. Dalat and Anthony H. Lang

[edit]

This part... Among those rescued were the future U.S. Army Lt. Col. Lan T. Dalat and U.S. Army Captain Anthony H. Lang, who settled in Orange County, California, after their stay at the Vietnamese refugee camp in Palawan, Philippines.[14] seems like nothing more than self promotion. It admirable that these two refugees went on to become Army officers, but it's nothing spectacular. Although there is in fact a reference, it's again a self promotion. If these two officers become generals, then maybe the inclusion of this would be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.51.81.50 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Linebacker II

[edit]

I have removed some (of what I feel to be) unnecessary information present in the article about Operation Linebacker II. I have also removed the self-contradictory template, as the information was correct and consistent, but just poorly worded. The Navy flew 119 sorties over the first five days of the operation (18-22 December), and 505 over the entirety of Linebacker II (18-29 December). Both numbers were present in the article, which caused the confusion. The source material doesn't mention the significance of the first five days of the campaign (just the number of sorties flown), nor does it mention the significance of the bad weather that limited the total number of sorties; as such I have chosen to remove both of those statements from the article in the interest of brevity and clarity. Both are explicitly mentioned in the source, however, so if someone feels that they add to the narrative, please respond here so we can discuss. If we do add that information back in, I would recommend some additional clarification so that the reader can understand its significance beyond mere statistics. Thanks! CThomas3 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Ranger (CV-61). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Ranger (CV-61). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

man overboard uss ranger 1991,1992

[edit]

I would like to know the dates a Man Overboard Michael korlacki (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Ranger's portraying USS Enterprise in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

[edit]

Since the real USS Enterprise wasn't available, in part as it really had nuclear reactors while Ranger lacked them and the associated security issues, Ranger portrayed it. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There use to be a mention of this appearance, but it was removed as it did not cite a reliable published source. BilCat (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source briefly mentions her use for filming scenes in both Top Gun and Star Trek IV. I'm going to restore the mention, but remove the content that's not in the source. BilCat (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, two of the original sentences were verbatim from the source, which was an AP wire piece, so I had to rewrite it to avoid copyvios. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Ranger_(CV-61)&oldid=1212849320"