Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2)

message: Additional discussion on issues common to Lexington and her sister Saratoga can be found at the talk page for the class,  Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier.  Kablammo 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note-- discussion on class 

message: Which treaty caused limits to the tonnage of the ship? And it's not clear from the article whether the US "cheated" or whether there was some complex "tonnage borrowing" aspect of the (mysterious) treaty..
The washington naval treaty []
:The text of this article suggests that there was evasion of the Washington Naval Treaty as the carrier is stated to have displaced 40,000 tons. The treaty limitation however is on "standard" displacement, not full load (including fuel).   Is it contended that the ships in fact displaced 40,000 tons "at completion" at standard displacement, and if so, where is the authority?  Kablammo 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect text deleted.  The treaty allowed these ships to displace 33,000 tons, and have an additional 3,000 tons added for deck and underwater protection []; hence the 36,000 ton displacement figure. []  The USN and Jane's however continued to use the 33,000 ton figure. Kablammo 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier for further discussion of these matters.  Kablammo 17:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding treaty tonnage

message: Can somebody explain how "the deck armor was heavily reinforced" if she was a carrier with an unarmored flight deck?  Trekphiler 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK US carriers had their deck armor on the hangar level --Denniss 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All armor on deck?

message: MBK004 cancelled my add about the fatal incident of legendary college football player Nigel Kinnick because of lacking of reliable source.
The death of Kinnick is an historical fact and while adding it I linked Kinnick name with his wikipedia page in which a full paragraph of details about his death while serving on the Lexington can be found Allegroconfuoco (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nile Kinnick Death

message: my daddy was on the lexington when it was sunk in the battle of the coral sea... he is still alive today...I am very greatful we still have him with us.... and I always make sure to tell him thank you for his service whilst he was protecting our future.... a future that had not even been thought of by him,  at that time....because he was just a child himself!!!! I just want to say thank you and God Bless you, to you  all  that have , and are , and will protect Our Freedom yesterday ,today , tommorow & forever!!!! Thank you!!!!  and daddy  i love you forever, Yours Very Truly , An Extremely Proud Baby Girl...I Love you Daddy...Love, Nancy....tucson,az  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.221.253 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Proud Daughter  

message: I think that it is significant to note the following, which I found here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/02.htm
"From 17 December 1929 to 16 January 1930 USS Lexington supplied electrical power to Tacoma, Washington, when this city suffered a power shortage. The electricity from the carrier totaled more than 4.25 million kilowatt-hours."
Unless I am wrong, this marks the first time in history that a naval vessel of any country provided electrical power to a city.  CrashRiley (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Pre-War Service

message: Has the wreck of the Lexington ever been discovered/examined? At least she's one of the largest ship sunk during WWII. Would be quite interesting for the article! Greetings Ogbader (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck?

message: The article includes the following statements:  "Unfortunately, as many as 300 men were trapped below decks and, although herculean efforts were made to save them, they remained unreachable because of the raging fires.  ...Despite those trapped on board, to prevent enemy capture, the destroyer Phelps ... fired two torpedoes into the Lexington's hull. With one last heavy explosion, Lexington sank ..."  Presumably the Lexington was torpedoed because of the risk that it might not sink and would be captured, with the 300 sailors still aboard (dead or alive).
I think one would agree that this would be a controversial action (to say the least).  Nevertheless, the author cites no sources for these statements.  Furthermore, these assertions are inconsistent with (a) the official death toll for the Lexington, less than 300, which would include everyone who was killed in the initial torpedo and bomb strikes, and subsequent fires and explosions, before the ship was abandoned, and (b) the officers' reports of the action, which are available on-line and contain no mention of this aspect of the ship's sinking, and in the case of the captain's report, include the statement that he toured the ship after everyone else had been evacuated and could find no evidence of anyone left alive on it.
Unless the author can produce reliable sources for the assertion that up to 300 sailors were abandoned on the Lexington, and were still on it when the ship was deliberately sunk, I recommend deleting those statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisCT (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, 300 sailors left to die, then torpedoed? 

message: There's a sentence currently that reads: "Lexington launched several scout planes to search for the Japanese that day and remained at sea between Johnson Island and Hawaii". When you click on the Johnson Island link though, it refers to some place in West Virginia, so it seems whoever wrote this made a mistake. Is there actually a Johnson Island in the Pacific Ocean? I'm assuming the author actually meant Johnston Atoll, but I figured I'd try getting this verified before changing it —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that Johnston Atoll is meant although that was not the usual term used during the ship's lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson Island 

message: The image of the anti-aircraft gun shown here is watermarked 2018-03-04.  And the title frame of the video accompanying Paul Allen's tweet states that the ship was located March 4. Kablammo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of discovery 

message: I believe that after Lexington's loss the USN altered its carriers and the design of those under construction to limit the spread of fires.  I also have a vague recollection that the NYFD was consulted on the matter.  I don't know where I may have read this (I will look).  Such information would be useful information here, so if anyone else knows, please add it.  Kablammo (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lessons learned 

message: I know we generally don't mess with Featured articles but if nobody objects I'd like to add a See also section to this article. - Samf4u (talk)  15:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What do you want to add?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sturmvogel 66, I thought we could add List of aircraft carriers, List of ships of World War II and List of United States Navy losses in World War II. - Samf4u (talk)  17:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see what utility those lists provide. Clicking on the aircraft carrier article should allow you to reach List of aircraft carriers with a single additional click. List of ships of WW II is simply too big to be useful and the last one lacks context if you wanted to compare other American carrier losses to this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Yorktown (CV-10) and USS Hornet (CV-12) all have See also sections. If you don't want one here I won't pursue further. - Samf4u (talk)  18:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section