Jump to content

Talk:USS Midway (CV-41)

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

USS Midway - Queen of the Seven Seas

[edit]

Hi everyone, I recently added the nickname "Queen of the Seven Seas" to the infobar citing this website: http://www.netmeister.net/~cpaige/12USSMIDWAY.htm. A fellow editor reverted the changes citing this website as an unreliable source, a decision I can understand given self published sources like this aren't usually allowed on Wikipedia. However, I will posit this is one of the very few times a self published source can be cited. According to WP:SELFPUB, self published sources are allowed to be used as a source of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. In this case, the site is an autobiography from a former USS Midway sailor and talks about his experiences/recollections of his time in service. That would satisfy that requirement as the source about themselves and their activities (accepting that the sailors of a ship can be thought of as a part of it for the purposes of the article), as he is speaking about a nickname himself and Midway sailors used during their time aboard.

The source/citation also satisfies the other five requirements for acceptability:

  • the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (plenty of ships have nicknames, and Queen of the Seven Seas isn't a particularly outrageous one considering Midway's sister ships had nicknames like The Ageless Warrior)
  • it does not involve claims about third parties (the source is only speaking about a nickname he and others around him used)
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source (the source is only speaking about things he directly participated in or observed)
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (by all accounts the source seems to present a reasonable story about a sailor who served onboard the Midway in the 1970s)
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are many good, reliable sources for the other parts of the article)

For fairly understandable reasons ship nicknames aren't typically recorded in official sources, and secondary sources tend to skip over them. But having the nickname provides a neat bit of historical triva and adds a window into the time the Midway was one of the largest, most powerul warships afloat. Voteins (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

[edit]

During a tour of the Midway museum in 2010, I had a private conversation with the tour guide who was resident in the engine room. I explained that a vessel with over 200,000 s.h.p. and relatively efficient hydrodynamics like the Midway must be capable of speed in excess of the official claim of approx. 33 knots or so. Since weight is not a factor in top speed, I explained how according to a FOI request the S.S. United States was capable of approx. 50 miles per hour. and that the Midway should be about the same. Both vessels have about the same length to beam ratio which is a critical determinant of potential speed. The guide quietly acknowledged that the Midway was indeed capable of speed well in excess of the claimed 33 knots and had performance at least on par with the S.S. United States vessel. Very interesting.

I know the military types who troll Wikipedia as supposedly disinterested civilians or industry experts may come up with all sorts of b.s. to dispute this. The point I am making is that informed individuals like myself know the technical truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.174.71 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a serious blunder to say the Midway was the largest ship in the world. The Cunard liner Queen Elizabeth was nearly twice the tonnage and longer. Maybe the writer meant largest warship, but even that is doubtful. The Iowa class battleships were rated at 45,000 tons as was the British Vanguard. Roryjohnston (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Collision?

[edit]

When I toured the Midway museaum in February 2008, there was quite a bit of information about a collision she had at sea with another vessel. I wish I remembered more about it, because it would be nice to include this information in the entry. I'll add this if I can find some online sources about it... Otherwise, someone with direct knowledge about this ... feel free to add this. --Spiff666 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Oakland

[edit]

Midway was actually in Oakland for longer than a week, en route to San Diego. I lived nearby and seem to remember it was closer to 2 months. Local news accounts said the ship was being painted. Offically, no tours were given, though I heard someone claim they got aboard one day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.5 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2005 July 25

GAMESPoT 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I was on the Midway Voyage Home cruse as a Tiger. The Midway did not stop at any port from Seattle to San Diego. If it went to any other port, it was before/after the Seattle/San Diego leg.[reply]

To add to the trip, It was a week long. A day out from San Diego, Colin Powell came in on a blackhawk. We were treated to an ops demo. Flight deck ops, Flybys of fueling, chopper ops. An Intruder made a mile long wall of water droppining bombs. A F-14 from Mirmar did a mach flyby.

Upon docking, we went to the same pier the ship sits at now.

Unconfermed - According to my cousin, whos father was a chief on the ship, the Seattle San diego tiger Cruse was supposed to be on the USS Enterprise. But the hearsay is that there was a fire aboard and Enterprise took a little too much damage to make the cruse.

Engines?

[edit]

How was Midway powered? Dan100 (Talk) 11:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyting built in WWII was an oil fired boiler and steam turbine. And if you look at her class page, steam turbine is listed although not coal vs. oil. --J Clear 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12 Babcock & Wilson oil-fired boilers providing steam at 600 psi to Westinghouse steam turbines driving 4 screws; rated at 212,000 shp. By comparison, Iowa-class battleships New Jersey and Wisconsin were powered by 8 boilers from the same manufacturer, also providing 600 psi steam to Westinghouse turbines driving 4 screws; same shp rating. Kablammo 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The boilers were Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) not Babcock & Wilson. Tjlynnjr (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC) .[reply]
The 12 boilers on board the CVB-41 were Foster Wheelers, not Babcock & Wilcox (https://casetext.com/case/hilt-v-foster-wheeler-llc)(https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/399-uss-midway-cv-41/).
And Babcock & Wilcox on board CVB-42 and CVB-43. Conforoa (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

armament on uss midway

[edit]

i just vistied the midway in san diego 15 mar 08 and saw some posters that stated she had 5" 54cal guns. 5"54 guns wer'ent introduce until the 1950's and first employed on uss northhampton clc1. The midway had 5"38cal single dp mounts not 5"54cal.

just a little clarification

thanks larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.147.11 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Larry- my apologies, but the Midway class, as designed and launched, were completed with 5"54 cal guns. There are numerous references on the web for this, including http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Gun_Nomenclature.htm

The Midways were the among the first ships to use the new gun.

Examination of photos of Midway class 5" guns will show a barrel length clearly longer than that of the 5"38 cal- a dead giveaway of the longer (larger) caliber.

The proposed but never built Montana class of batleships were designed with a twin barrel version of the 5"54 cal gun.

On a related note- The Midway and Franklin D. Roosevelt were launched with quad 40mm guns as the tertiary armament-the 3"50 cal guns were not ready until 1947. Coral Sea was launched without tertiary guns and had her 3 inch guns added in 1947.

Thank you

205.181.102.108 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)John M.[reply]

Considering the photos of the CVB-41 in 1945 and 1946 the guns on board were indeed 127/54 mm different from usual model for proof the presence of mk.12/32 fire controls and not yet mk.25 mod.3 (https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cv/CV-41-USS-Midway-2.htm) Conforoa (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homeport / Return to Vietnam / Japan

[edit]

Last paragraph of the section "return to Vietnam" mentions her change of homeport to Japan. No mention of what homeport was beforehand. I suggest this paragraph become a new section and add information on where here homeport was before and after that. 74.214.39.190 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically - I believe once homeported in japan - that remained her homeport essentially until decommissioned. She probably technically changed homeport briefly before decomissioning. - Actually reread article - I'd Guess Homeport in Norfolk VA until 1955, her 1954 World Cruise may have been a preplanned part of the homeport change to Alemeda, CA. This section implies formal change of homeport occurred in 1973. Wfoj3 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all the information regarding refits?

[edit]

At one time, this article covered the refitting of this ship including the teething problems of them. What happened to this information? In some of it, it did not paint the Midway in the best light as a military ship. Things like the ship's stability in rough seas were brought up with it. It is all a matter of historical fact and record, and it is important information about this aircraft carrier where some refit issues led to additional refits to address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.94.77 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting the USS Midway

[edit]

There are 725 attending the annual SAS (computer software) users group in the pharmaceutical industry annual meeting here in San Diego. Tomorrow, after our sessions, we will visit the USS Midway as guests of http://www.PharmaSUG.org and will really enjoy the evening. Thanks for this Wikipedia article and I'll tell everyone to visit here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Quote?

[edit]

The the presidential citation quote has drifted out of the right subsection, any ideas? Jbaer50 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montana/Midway connection is unsourced

[edit]

Both the Montana and Midway articles have a statement that Midway design was based on Montana battleship hull design and this information is unsourced in both articles. IN addition, I have never encountered this as a verifiable statement in any of the standard references from contemporary to current, neither Jane's, Fahey, Polmar, Garzke & Dulin, and Friedman; nor do I recall ever encountering this statement until the internet era. The hull dimensions are different - Midway is 10 feet longer on waterline but more significantly 8 feet less beam; the machinery arrangement is similar but Midway based on the booklet of general plans at hnsa.org appears to have a fuller form forward, as well. Unless a reliable source can be found that confirms the statement I recommend it be removed from both articles (I have placed a similar discussion on the Montana class talk page as well). Brooksindy (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Midway (CV-41). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Midway (CV-41). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Desert Storm

[edit]

Other unreferenced sources say a principle advantage of Midway's deployment in the Persian Gulf was her tighter turning radius compared to newer carriers, when operating to generate higher "wind over the deck" speed. I don't find any mention of this, or how this greater maneuverability resulted from the class-design choices. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Midway_(CV-41)&oldid=1212849327"