Talk:Landing craft

message: I don't think that Special Forces use LCACs.  LCACs are typically used by Marines during amphibious assaults.  Special operations units typically use more stealthy insertion via Zodiacs.
I think we should partly merge it with Amphibious assault ship Pibwl ←« 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I can't find a specific article on the USN's LCACs. LCAC redirects here, but there are no specifics about the LCACs that the USN uses. I have seached and can't find anything specific, so I am assuming there is not an article. I don't have much info on the USN LCAC, and really don't know that much about them. Is anyone interested in creating an article for them? - BillCJ 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't LCAC be a general article and the US ones be under their own classes or a particular qualifier? -- GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LCAC

message: As with many successful ship designs the LCT survives to the present day, especially in the Far East. They are very common in Indonesia where they prove ideal for accessing remote places along such a vast coastline, port facilities being few and far between. New builds are obtainable from many shipyards, one example being advertised on the following site for AA Paint and Painting Service, Shipbuilders, Kalimantan, Indonesia.   --61.14.139.196 --Glanymor (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCT New Builds in use Today 

message: I've been hacking away at the BoPI page, trying to put some order and sense into it, though I'm just an aircraft historian, specialising in post-USAF B-26 Invaders. There's various accounts of the events, and accuracy of much BoPI data is suspect:- Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bay of Pigs Invasion

message: I have placed  on this article: It has a nasty habbit of switching between historic and current models and is generally rather confusing for those not familliar with this subject. --Hebster (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup, October 2008

message: Afaik the first specialised Landing crafts were build by napoleonic France.
BTW the article should be renamed as "Landing craf in the anglosaxon world" or better "Landingcrafts of the Royal- and US-Navy".--WerWil (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming the article would be silly, espcially using a non-word like "landingcrafts". Since this is the English language WP, it's natural that English-language sources would be used first to create and expand the article, and that it would be about the forces of English speaking countires. No one has purposely excluded any about landing craft of note from countries to this point, though renaming would do exactly that. There is nothing preventing their addition now, other than WP policies on verifiability and reliable sources (something that info from non-Aglos-Saxon countries does often lack.) Same goes for the Napoleonic French landing craft, tho I can't imagine how those craft would be much different than the other boats of the day - did they use floating wagons and swimming horses?? - BillCJ (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BillCJ. Lou Sander (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I do solemly swear not to disturb the holy meditation here any more. Bill, your friendly reaction is an outstandig invitation to constructional cooperation, but your arguments are weak and arrogant spoken.--WerWil (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Since your user page proclaims German to be your native language, I did have a look at the German Wikipedia article. It also seems US/UK biased, with most of the pics being of US craft. While I don't read German, the numerals are the same, and the earliest date mentioned in the article is 1917. But I guess I must be arrogance, since such problems only seem to be issues in English, but are acceptable in other languages. Very interesting. - BillCJ (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever the German Article seems to be, it is much more differentiated. If English-language sources [that] would be used first told nothing about Landing crafts other than US or GB, in the effect this Article is fairly only about US/GB-LCs and not about LCs in general. But never mind, be happy!--WerWil (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: My point on English language sources is that people use what is available to them, but there is nothing to prevent anyone else from adding info on the landing craft of other nations, unless we rename the article as you've suggested. Rather, why not translate the German article's differentiated info, and add it to this article? (Assuming it is sourced properly, of course.) If you wanted to do that, I would be happy to help clean up the English of your additions, as I genuinely realize English is not your first language, but I would not try to do it myself using only Google Translations! It doesn't have to be alot, but just enough info to get something started that hopefully others will add to. That would be far more productive. - BillCJ (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I have been reading over the War of the Pacific article and came here looking for details about the landing ships mentioned there. I am disappointed to see nothing about the developments before the Great War. I came here looking for the information so of course I am not able to add it, but I think it would be a good addition to the article, if anyone knows or can find it. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on 1879-1883 War of the Pacific ships? 

message: Regarding the claim in the discussion above about the first landing craft being made in Napoleonic France, the earliest mention of specialised landing craft I have come across is in Voltaires history of Charles XII of Sweden: "The King of Sweden had great boats made, after a new model, so that the sides were far higher than ordinary, and could be let down and drawn up like a drawbridge. When raised they protected the troops they carried, and when let down they formed a bridge to land by." (Page 59 in this Internet Archive version). This would have been in 1702. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier use of landing craft 

message: This article would make a lot more since if the "Types" section were divided by country (US, UK, Japanese.) Right now, it is just a jumble of different types and doesn't make much sense. The "Special Purpose" section is not helpful, it just has a number of landing craft, with no organization at all. (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.21.137 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types by country 

message: LCUs are still used by the US Navy at commands like ACU-1 and should be acknowledged as such by this article. - Team4Technologies (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCUs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landing craft. 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/20010706183629/http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/02/706/00000100.pdf to http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/02/706/00000100.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902182446/http://ww2lct.org/history/stories/tin_armada.htm to http://ww2lct.org/history/stories/tin_armada.htm
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) 08:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landing craft. 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/20041212025716/http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15idx.htm to http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15idx.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215165540/http://www.ussrankin.org/id38.htm to http://www.ussrankin.org/id38.htm
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) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe the caption for the picture showing American troops off Omaha Beach is incorrect ("Landing Craft Assault (LCA) used in the Invasion of Normandy in World War II").  They are clearly in an LCVP, not an LCA.  Even the original Signal Corps caption shown on the photo details page acknowledges this.  
Although a good number of LCAs were used at Omaha Beach on D-Day, that photo does not show such a craft.
73.235.236.234 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Caption 

message: The discussion of landing craft in WWII is entirely about the Allies. Did the Japanese not have landing craft? Bill (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese in WWII 

message: "J. S. White of Cowes built a prototype to the Fleming design." Who or what was Fleming? When was this designed? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleming