580:
562:
1918:). Not only is that a specific designation of a GI line of foodstuffs, it's commonly known to a pretty big class of people (everyone in by Boy Scouts troop in the '80s knew what MREs were and what it stood for, as an anecdotal example; an obviously broader one would be everyone connected to the US military over the last several generations). It's not an article about ready-to-eat meals in general. Some of these articles are/should be about specific vehicles and some of them are/should be about classes of them with multiple different-named/designated exemplars covered at the same article.
1554:
tank each. I might have read about them in an account of the raid on
Spitzbergen. I am still looking for that ref. It seems that the first LTCs were designated TLCs (Peter Bull is my source for this, he has a glossary on page 41 and the narrative suggests that by the time the mark 2s were built, the term LCT was in universal use). By the time the UK had significant numbers of landing craft for tanks, I am persuaded (by a range of sources) that those who used them on a daily basis invariably used the name that came from the US: "Landing Craft Tank".
485:
985:â I have checked book usage stats on each, and compiled these comparisons, where both the case and word order can be compared. Some are much more common with lowercase and normal word order (e.g. tank landing craft), but in others the capitalized modifier-last order is somewhat more common (e.g. Landing Craft Infantry). It's still better to adopt the "English" over the "military" phrasing, for recognizability to the typical reader.
937:â The military likes to list things by major category first, followed by modifier. The normal English way of referring to these things is actually more common in independent sources (some in all sources), and is more recognizable to most non-military readers than the backwards way that the military likes for list alphabetizing. None of these are proper names, as evidenced by frequent lowercase usage in sources. Example, from a
501:
626:
533:
763:
469:
517:
220:
354:
1229:
426:
415:
404:
393:
1262:
294:
251:
1089:
950:
1008:
382:
998:
988:
938:
1018:
1013:
1003:
1344:
1356:
1553:
No, the early
British terminology was "Tank Landing Craft". We see this in the Symonds ref above and somewhere I have seen a ref that describes these early vessels. They were (?nearly) all lost in the Dunkirk evacuation (there weren't many of them) and if I remember rightly, they could only carry one
1126:
I suggest that the most common place for a person consulting
Knowledge (XXG) to have seen a name for any of these vessels is in military history and memoirs. This is where you will find the military word order or, as pointed out above, just the initials. Given the commonness of the initials, it seems
1023:
1628:, they were "marks" of this design. (The ref Peter Bull discusses some differences, mostly concerning how comfortable the minimal crew accommodation was.) "Tank Landing Craft" was briefly and originally used by the British (not in the US), it was mostly a different design concept, and (in line with
1129:
Use of the normal military name also makes clear that we are talking about the exact class of craft, as described by the name given by the military, rather than a generic description that would be less precise. There is no hesitation in using the military name given to a class of aircraft (Spitfire,
1942:
For reasons given above. No expectation (and insufficient evidence) that a) any search by someone vaguely familiar with the subject will not use acronyms or their word order; and b) anyone completely unfamiliar with the subject will search in the proposed order rather than just the generic "landing
1181:
There are two changes being pushed here. Firstly the removal of capitalisation, for no reason other than (yet again) a simplistic and incorrect blanket change. This is to prioritise a too-literal reading of WP:MOS over WP:RS and WP:V. Secondly, that has then encouraged an invented rewording of the
1913:
I suspect this needs to be taken case-by-case, as the scope of articles may differ, and so may source usage with regard to particular terms. I will note that the fact that an acronym exists and has an expansion in "militarese word order" really has no implications, unless that expanded version has
1592:
No, I think the analogy stands up quite well. The LTC came in a number of "marks", not "classes". The similarity between the LCT mark 2 to the mark 4 is reasonably equivalent to that between the mark 1 Spitfire and the mark Vb. (In both instances there is substantial further development beyond the
993:
1328:
My understanding is that 'Landing Craft
Mechanized' and 'Mechanised Landing Craft' and 'mechanized landing craft' all refer to various crafts of the US and UK that were also called LCM or L.C.M. And the sources I quoted from 1943 and 1944 make it clear that this is not a neologism, wiki or
650:
Just read the Kindle edition of this book. The novel clearly states that the two ships caught in the storm are LCTs and not LSTs. Also, the description of the ships with uncovered tank decks fits LCTs. I propose this book description be moved from this article to the LCT article. Thoughts?
1443:. The "military word order" seems to be substantially embedded in Knowledge (XXG), which suggests that any change would be particularly large scale exercise. Given that it is the military who are those who talk about these craft most, it seems we really should take that into account.(e.g.
1057:
1812:, the military word order is unnatural and difficult to use in prose. In any case, there is no reason for these to be in title case, as they are not proper nouns regardless of the word order. Being commonly used in an acronym does not automatically make something a proper noun.
1751:
And of those first page of hits one is a run on where "vehicle and personnel" is the end of one line in a table and "Landing craft" is start of next, and another is an author saying " Funny how the army always gets things backward . Why not
Vehicle and Personnel Landing Craft?"
1998:. The account given by a crew member on LCT858 is that when LCTs were carried as deck cargo, they needed preparation for the launching method used. This included disconnecting the propellor shafts from the engines. So "immediately after launch" is not right. The account (in
1609:
Also note that the article is organized around 9 different classes of LCT, and the one in the lead image has "TLC-124" painted on it. There's no doubt that "TLC" was the original designation, in spite of Andy's recent "dubious" tag for which I add a couple of book refs.
1055:
has it 9 times, for different varieties, in a table of acronyms, as well as it being in the title of the book. These repetitions get counted in the n-gram statistics. Using contexts that knock out tables and titles and are more likely to represent usage in sentences,
1664:
sources are in perfect agreement on minor orthography? Or else if they do differ, then it now becomes an option to pick a personal favourite from amongst them, according to a whim or a formatting style guide (style guides BTW are not WP:RS). That's not how it works.
690:
article, "Due to its tremendous over-the-beach capability, the LCAC can access more than 80% of the world's coastlines...Previously, landing craft had a top speed of approximately eight knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph) and could cross only 17% of the world's beach area".
1293:
The first are proper name phrases. They are identifying particular classes, the US LCMs and also the UK's LCMs (which happened to have the regular linguistic variations between the two countries). And then there is the 'mechanized landing craft', which is a
1593:
marks 4 and 5b respectively.) These landing craft came off the production lines with little variability between members of one mark, just like aircraft marks. The individual members of classes of warship could have significant variations between them.
1794:
Landing Ship, Tank is technically correct name that gave rise to its commonly know LST designation and the same is true for others. I have never seen these ships with this newly proposed naming format, though it is common to see them as an acronym.
492:
265:
508:
269:
1494:
uses the military word order extensively, has one mention of early
British use of "Tank landing craft" (before they adopted US terminology) and one mention of a "tank landing ship" in the index (perhaps the input of an indexer, not the
579:
561:
1463:
Many of the books and magazines that I've cited using the normal
English word order and lowercase are official government and military documents, or magazines about and for military people. So I don't accept your point.
153:
476:
261:
1517:
The impression I get is that where there is mixed usage by one author it is a case of general descriptive language versus precise language â by analogy "fighter aircraft" versus, say, "Spitfires and
Hurricanes".
524:
273:
1965:
Contrary to an earlier assertion, most of these are proper nouns describing specific models of ships or boats. If there's a valid grammar problem to some contributors, it can be solved with redirects.
540:
277:
2058:
1222:
789:
2068:
1048:
1638:(2) You can also find "tank landing craft" being used as a generic term, especially by those with no special appreciation of the classification of the wide range of types of landing craft.
2053:
1268:
that I referenced as using "tank landing craft" and "tank landing ship" in the text also uses them capped, but normal word order, in defining the acronyms in a footnote: "... in 1942 were
2063:
367:
344:
306:
147:
1272:, ...". If we need a more generic article, we can talk about appropriate disambiguation; resorting to military catalog style is not a normal disambiguation style in WP.
784:
353:
1501:
is less consistent and has about equal usage of the two word orders for both "landing ship tank"/"tank landing ship" and "landing craft tank"/"tank landing craft"
1074:"Mechanized landing craft" implies the landing craft itself is mechanized while the meaning is that its used for armoured fighting vehicles (mechanized warfare).
2048:
1870:
Military historians do not seem to have any difficulty using terms like "Landing ship tank" in their writing, though they, and others, usually use the acronym.
1539:
classes of 'Landing Craft, Tank' that were developed to do this? 'Ships for landing tanks' is a great topic for an article, but it's not the one that's here.
79:
1092:
disagrees. It uses "LCM-A (U.S. mechanized landing craft)". The adjective "mechanized" clearly means "for mechanized", just as with "tank" and "infantry".
1228:
with "We shall need many more mechanized landing craft for the big job still aheadâthe establishment of bridgeheads direct to Berlin and Tokio." See also
596:
2043:
2038:
961:, that was to form the backbone of the British programmes of 1942 and 1943." I will add book n-gram stats for each, to compare both word order and case.
334:
44:
2078:
301:
256:
85:
1052:
2073:
1178:. They were also abbreviated as LCT and LST, acronyms that are still in the article but would make no obvious sense to our readers if renamed.
2088:
1728:
310:
2098:
30:
1683:
Are you suggesting that it is not a good idea to consult
Knowledge (XXG)'s style guide when selecting Knowledge (XXG) article titles? ââ ââ
1509:
uses one instance each of "tank landing craft" and "landing craft tank", but is 100% on "Landing Ship Tank", "Landing Ship
Infantry", etc.
748:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
2093:
1221:
No, it's not, and there's no confusion about that in sources that call it a mechanized landing craft, as I pointed out above. Here's a
1852:
I fail to see how that is related - this is not censorship of offensive terms. I am also not sure what you are trying to point to with
1290:
not understand the semantic difference between 'Landing Craft Mechanized' or 'Mechanised Landing Craft' and 'mechanized landing craft'?
600:
2083:
1112:(which is at LCVP). Come to think of it, it may be these vessels are better known by their initialisms than their written out names.
99:
1929:
190:
168:
104:
20:
135:
1515:(memoirs â great read! Author served in an LCT and then an LCF) exclusively "Landing Craft Tank", "Landing Craft Infantry", etc.
1060:. The military style is great in tables and catalogs, but isn't what's mostly used to refer to these things in normal writing.
74:
1446:- so that's about 5,800 marines using this terminology, plus the 32,000 or so in the Royal Navy, anyone in defence procurement
1440:
1109:
1174:
US classes of landing craft, at particular times and with particular roles, which were correctly referred to by their name of
231:
2008:
604:
2015:), pg 239 does go on to say that the LCT could be got ready in "surprisingly little time", but certainly not "immediately".
716:
The Newport class has it's own page, as do each of the ships. I don't know how to add a box on the right side of the page.
587:
567:
65:
1985:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1503:
Beevor, Antony. The Second World War uses exclusively "Landing Ship Tank" and makes no mention of landing craft for tanks.
739:
836:
129:
1830:
Should we rename any other topics because we think their original names are too hard to use? Is the policy for that
2020:
1904:
1875:
1643:
1598:
1559:
1523:
1454:
1166:
in the same generic sense. That is a notable topic, we don't have a specific article on those, although we do have
1135:
702:
671:
656:
185:
769:
109:
1853:
1835:
810:
687:
125:
199:
1183:
892:
1629:
749:
237:
219:
1447:
1948:
1757:
1535:, but again, is that referring to the generic 'ships for landing tanks' or the subject of this article, the
1117:
1079:
305:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
175:
1831:
1774:
1843:
1706:
1670:
1544:
1398:
1319:
1212:
870:
484:
55:
2016:
1971:
1926:
1900:
1871:
1688:
1639:
1594:
1555:
1519:
1450:
1432:
1131:
914:
903:
881:
698:
667:
652:
70:
1047:
More on usage of "Landing Craft Infantry" in particular: most occurrences seem to be in tables, e.g.
1952:
1436:
1412:
797:
721:
717:
1701:
It's not a good idea to prioritise style over content. WP:RS and WP:V take precedence over WP:MOS.
1408:
1390:
1303:
925:
752:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
161:
1996:...immediately after the launch the craft's engines were started and they were ready for operation
1636:
by examples of the design series termed Landing Craft Tank (and all the variants like LCFs, etc.).
141:
1915:
1861:
1817:
1753:
1736:
1615:
1583:
1469:
1420:
1372:
1334:
1311:
1307:
1277:
1252:
1197:
1193:
1175:
1159:
1113:
1097:
1075:
1065:
1034:
966:
859:
848:
204:
24:
2005:
1839:
1782:
1702:
1666:
1540:
1394:
1315:
1270:
Tank Landing Craft (L.C.T.), Mechanised Landing Craft (L.C.M.), Assault Landing Craft (L.C.A.)
1208:
1163:
51:
1967:
1921:
1684:
660:
201:
1295:
1201:
1507:
The War at Sea Volume III Part I The Offensive (HMSO Official History of WWII - Military)
1444:
686:
This description of LST use in the lede paragraph is highly misleading. As stated in the
2032:
1944:
1896:
1857:
1813:
1800:
1732:
1611:
1579:
1465:
1416:
1368:
1330:
1273:
1248:
1167:
1127:
contrary to have the full name something that does not directly support the initials.
1093:
1061:
1030:
962:
595:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
1914:
entered the general public lexicon/consciousness, as is arguably the case with MRE (
788:
per consensus in survey below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone
762:
1778:
625:
500:
532:
516:
203:
2024:
1975:
1957:
1947:
where specific types are listed, or even "landing ship", which redirects to
1934:
1908:
1879:
1865:
1847:
1821:
1804:
1786:
1761:
1740:
1710:
1692:
1674:
1647:
1619:
1602:
1587:
1563:
1548:
1527:
1473:
1458:
1424:
1402:
1376:
1338:
1323:
1281:
1256:
1216:
1139:
1121:
1101:
1083:
1069:
1038:
970:
813:
725:
706:
675:
468:
1310:, except that in that case there is at least plenty of IRL use of the term
603:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
1796:
1660:
Do you really think, and claim as you seem to be doing here, that either
2002:
Invaders: British and American Experience of Seaborne Landings 1939-1945
1488:
Checking through military history books that I have immediately to hand:
979:â Several of these were reverted after my bold moves, so now we discuss.
1182:
names, pure WP:OR. Some of these are so bad as to become nonsensical: '
805:
293:
250:
694:
While this quote states 'craft', the number for LSTs was similar.
1090:
Report 1334-2 â Naval Ship Research and Development Center, 1959
592:
1247:" (with your British spelling and a different acronym style).
1729:
fair number of books use "vehicle and personnel landing craft"
757:
213:
205:
15:
1196:
is an excellent topic for an article. It should compare the
531:
515:
499:
483:
467:
352:
1499:
The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II
930:
919:
908:
897:
886:
875:
864:
853:
828:
822:
768:
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
682:"This enabled amphibious assaults on almost any beach."
160:
1895:, for reasons already given above. Incidentally, see
1777:
rather than making up titles for stylistic reasons.
951:
British War Production, H.M. Stationery Office, 1952
365:
This article has been checked against the following
2059:
North American military history task force articles
1343:That understanding is supported by sources such as
450:
364:
174:
2069:United States military history task force articles
1204:and others, in an overall and generalised sense.
2054:C-Class North American military history articles
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2064:C-Class United States military history articles
1361:magazine, U.S. Military Sealift Command (1979)
1951:where the specific types are also explained.
8:
1389:Discussion here should probably include the
319:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
1731:in association with the LCVP acronym, too.
1578:are clearly proper names, not descriptive.
217:
738:The following is a closed discussion of a
556:
493:North American military history task force
447:
361:
245:
1533:early British use of "Tank landing craft"
1241:L.C.S. (support) and "L.C.M. (mechanized)
509:United States military history task force
299:This article is within the scope of the
1990:launching of LCTs carried as deck cargo
1415:, which I had first mistakenly added.
558:
247:
1995:
1625:
1532:
945:, carrying about 200 men. Offshore is
309:. To use this banner, please see the
2004:(2003Â ed.). Caxton Publishing Group.
1492:World War II at Sea: A Global History
1130:B17, etc.) so why be different here?
1058:we see "infantry landing craft" ahead
322:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
2049:Maritime warfare task force articles
585:This article is within the scope of
1190:a landing craft that is mechanised.
939:Life magazine photo caption in 1943
712:The Newport Class is not mentioned
236:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1353:the mechanized landing craft (LCM)
1349:, Bureau of Naval Personnel (1968)
14:
2044:C-Class maritime warfare articles
2039:C-Class military history articles
613:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ships
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2079:World War II task force articles
1981:The discussion above is closed.
1431:There seems to be no mention of
761:
624:
578:
560:
424:
413:
402:
391:
380:
292:
249:
218:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1856:, either, as that's a redlink.
1441:Landing craft vehicle personnel
1411:, which is not a redirect like
1110:landing craft vehicle personnel
339:This article has been rated as
1407:Added. Thanks. Corrected to
1365:mechanized landing craft (LCM)
1:
2074:C-Class World War II articles
1919:
726:20:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
642:
42:Put new text under old text.
2089:Cold War task force articles
1237:L.C.A. Assault landing craft
1162:as they were. These are not
731:Requested move 4 August 2024
302:Military history WikiProject
2099:All WikiProject Ships pages
2025:12:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1976:21:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
1958:04:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
1935:03:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
1909:18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1880:18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1866:18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1848:17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1822:16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
814:19:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
591:, a project to improve all
477:Maritime warfare task force
2115:
2094:Start-Class Ships articles
2000:Bruce, Colin John (1999).
1805:22:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
1787:05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
1762:07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1741:22:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1711:23:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1693:23:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1675:23:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1648:21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1620:15:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1603:21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1588:14:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1564:21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1549:11:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1528:11:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
1474:22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1459:22:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1425:15:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1403:10:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1377:19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1339:18:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1324:16:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1282:15:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1257:15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1217:10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1140:07:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1122:07:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1102:16:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1084:07:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1070:05:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1039:22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
971:22:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
616:Template:WikiProject Ships
385:Referencing and citation:
2084:C-Class Cold War articles
1206:This is not that article.
707:20:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
688:Landing Craft Air Cushion
676:03:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
573:
539:
523:
507:
491:
475:
446:
338:
325:military history articles
287:
244:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1983:Please do not modify it.
1626:classes of landing craft
1439:, which are linked from
1245:mechanized landing craft
1184:mechanized landing craft
1158:These should remain at
953:: "It was, however, the
898:Mechanized landing craft
893:Landing craft mechanized
837:subst:Requested move/end
745:Please do not modify it.
661:09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
1949:Amphibious warfare ship
1570:Not a good analogy, as
599:, or contribute to the
525:World War II task force
451:Associated task forces:
396:Coverage and accuracy:
1943:craft", which has its
1634:enormously outnumbered
1314:for the generic type.
1264:British War Production
1231:Brassey's Naval Annual
1186:', as noted above, is
943:infantry landing craft
876:Infantry landing craft
871:Landing Craft Infantry
536:
520:
504:
488:
472:
429:Supporting materials:
357:
226:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1433:LCVP (United Kingdom)
920:Support landing craft
915:Landing Craft Support
909:Utility landing craft
904:Landing Craft Utility
887:Assault landing craft
882:Landing Craft Assault
535:
519:
503:
487:
471:
356:
230:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1437:LCVP (United States)
1413:Landing Craft Medium
1302:. It's the same as
1051:has it 4 times, and
105:No original research
1490:Symonds, Craig L..
1409:Landing Ship Medium
1391:Landing Ship Medium
1304:Landing Craft, Tank
1053:this 2011 book page
1049:this 1943 book page
931:Medium landing ship
926:Landing Ship Medium
835:This is template {{
666:OK, moved. Thanks!
543:(c. 1945 â c. 1989)
541:Cold War task force
418:Grammar and style:
371:for B-class status:
1916:Meal, Ready-to-Eat
1624:(1) They were not
1505:Roskill, Stephen.
1312:tank landing craft
1308:tank landing craft
1233:, Volume 55 (1944)
1226:magazine from 1943
1198:Landing Ship, Tank
1194:Tank landing craft
1176:Landing Ship, Tank
1164:tank landing ships
1160:Landing Ship, Tank
955:tank landing craft
949:." Another, from
865:Tank landing craft
860:Landing craft tank
849:Landing Ship, Tank
601:project discussion
537:
521:
505:
489:
473:
358:
307:list of open tasks
232:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
25:Landing Ship, Tank
1513:To Sea in a Sieve
959:tank landing ship
947:tank landing ship
854:Tank landing ship
845:
844:
816:
781:
770:renamed and moved
640:
639:
636:
635:
632:
631:
605:full instructions
588:WikiProject Ships
555:
554:
551:
550:
547:
546:
442:
441:
387:criterion not met
343:on the project's
311:full instructions
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2106:
2017:ThoughtIdRetired
2014:
1955:
1933:
1901:ThoughtIdRetired
1872:ThoughtIdRetired
1640:ThoughtIdRetired
1595:ThoughtIdRetired
1556:ThoughtIdRetired
1520:ThoughtIdRetired
1497:Mawdsley, Evan.
1451:ThoughtIdRetired
1363:with "build 148
1300:we don't do that
1296:WP:WIKINEOLOGISM
1132:ThoughtIdRetired
933:
922:
911:
900:
889:
878:
867:
856:
812:
808:
800:
779:
775:
765:
758:
747:
699:Tfdavisatsnetnet
668:Tfdavisatsnetnet
653:Tfdavisatsnetnet
643:Hammond Innes's
628:
621:
620:
617:
614:
611:
597:join the project
582:
575:
574:
564:
557:
458:
448:
432:
428:
427:
421:
417:
416:
410:
406:
405:
399:
395:
394:
388:
384:
383:
362:
327:
326:
323:
320:
317:
316:Military history
296:
289:
288:
283:
280:
257:Military history
253:
246:
229:
223:
222:
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2114:
2113:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2029:
2028:
2023:
2011:
1999:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1954:DerbyCountyinNZ
1953:
1907:
1878:
1646:
1601:
1562:
1526:
1457:
1202:Zubr-class LCAC
1138:
929:
918:
907:
896:
885:
874:
863:
852:
841:
832:
806:
798:
777:
743:
733:
714:
684:
648:
618:
615:
612:
609:
608:
456:
430:
425:
419:
414:
408:
403:
397:
392:
386:
381:
324:
321:
318:
315:
314:
281:
259:
227:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2112:
2110:
2102:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2066:
2061:
2056:
2051:
2046:
2041:
2031:
2030:
2019:
2009:
1991:
1988:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1960:
1937:
1911:
1903:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1874:
1854:WP:NOAHWEBSTER
1836:WP:NOAHWEBSTER
1825:
1824:
1807:
1789:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1696:
1695:
1678:
1677:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1642:
1637:
1630:WP:COMMMONNAME
1607:
1606:
1605:
1597:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1558:
1522:
1516:
1510:
1504:
1502:
1496:
1489:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1453:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1341:
1291:
1259:
1191:
1179:
1155:
1154:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1134:
1128:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
980:
941:: "Boat is an
935:
934:
923:
912:
901:
890:
879:
868:
857:
843:
842:
833:
819:
818:
799:P.I. Ellsworth
782:
773:
766:
756:
755:
754:
740:requested move
734:
732:
729:
713:
710:
683:
680:
679:
678:
647:
645:Atlantic Fury
641:
638:
637:
634:
633:
630:
629:
622:
619:Ships articles
583:
571:
570:
565:
553:
552:
549:
548:
545:
544:
538:
528:
527:
522:
512:
511:
506:
496:
495:
490:
480:
479:
474:
464:
463:
461:
459:
453:
452:
444:
443:
440:
439:
437:
435:
434:
433:
422:
411:
400:
389:
375:
374:
372:
359:
349:
348:
337:
331:
330:
328:
297:
285:
284:
254:
242:
241:
235:
224:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2111:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2034:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2012:
2007:
2003:
1997:
1989:
1984:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1956:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1931:
1928:
1925:
1924:
1917:
1912:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1897:Landing craft
1894:
1891:
1890:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1832:WP:BOWDLERISE
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1790:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1775:WP:COMMONNAME
1772:
1769:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:GraemeLeggett
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1514:
1508:
1500:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1360:
1354:
1350:
1348:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1265:
1260:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1227:
1225:
1224:Motor Boating
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1170:. These are
1169:
1168:landing craft
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1153:as described.
1152:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:GraemeLeggett
1111:
1108:Compare with
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:GraemeLeggett
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1024:Medium (ship)
1022:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
986:
984:
981:
978:
975:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
932:
927:
924:
921:
916:
913:
910:
905:
902:
899:
894:
891:
888:
883:
880:
877:
872:
869:
866:
861:
858:
855:
850:
847:
846:
840:
838:
831:
830:
827:
824:
817:
815:
811:
809:
803:
802:
801:
794:
791:
787:
786:
780:
771:
767:
764:
760:
759:
753:
751:
746:
741:
736:
735:
730:
728:
727:
723:
719:
711:
709:
708:
704:
700:
695:
692:
689:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
646:
627:
623:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
584:
581:
577:
576:
572:
569:
566:
563:
559:
542:
534:
530:
529:
526:
518:
514:
513:
510:
502:
498:
497:
494:
486:
482:
481:
478:
470:
466:
465:
462:
460:
455:
454:
449:
445:
438:
436:
431:criterion met
423:
420:criterion met
412:
409:criterion met
401:
398:criterion met
390:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
369:
363:
360:
355:
351:
350:
346:
345:quality scale
342:
336:
333:
332:
329:
312:
308:
304:
303:
298:
295:
291:
290:
286:
279:
275:
271:
270:United States
267:
266:North America
263:
258:
255:
252:
248:
243:
239:
233:
225:
221:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2001:
1993:
1982:
1962:
1939:
1922:
1892:
1840:Andy Dingley
1809:
1791:
1770:
1703:Andy Dingley
1667:Andy Dingley
1661:
1633:
1575:
1571:
1541:Andy Dingley
1536:
1512:
1511:Peter Bull,
1506:
1498:
1491:
1395:Andy Dingley
1364:
1358:
1352:
1346:
1316:Andy Dingley
1299:
1287:
1269:
1263:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1230:
1223:
1209:Andy Dingley
1205:
1187:
1171:
1151:Oppose moves
1150:
994:Tank (craft)
982:
976:
958:
954:
946:
942:
936:
834:
829:target title
825:
823:source title
820:
796:
795:
792:
790:stay healthy
783:
776:
774:
744:
737:
715:
696:
693:
685:
649:
644:
586:
366:
340:
300:
274:World War II
238:WikiProjects
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1994:I question:
1968:Lineagegeek
1945:own article
1923:SMcCandlish
1810:Support all
1685:BarrelProof
1329:otherwise.
989:Tank (ship)
821:Move logs:
750:move review
407:Structure:
228:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
2033:Categories
2010:1840675330
1940:Oppose all
1893:Oppose all
1771:Oppose all
1537:particular
1009:Mechanized
983:Usage data
957:, not the
718:Jtmilesmmr
1347:All Hands
785:Not moved
697:Thoughts?
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1858:Bensci54
1814:Bensci54
1773:- apply
1733:Dicklyon
1632:) it is
1612:Dicklyon
1580:Dicklyon
1576:Hurrican
1572:Spitfire
1495:author).
1466:Dicklyon
1449:, etc.)
1417:Dicklyon
1369:Dicklyon
1355:". And
1331:Dicklyon
1274:Dicklyon
1249:Dicklyon
1172:specific
1094:Dicklyon
1062:Dicklyon
1031:Dicklyon
999:Infantry
963:Dicklyon
368:criteria
278:Cold War
262:Maritime
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1779:Mjroots
1359:Sealift
1298:, i.e.
1286:Do you
1243:" and "
1239:" and "
1200:to the
1019:Support
1014:Utility
1004:Assault
778:result:
341:C-class
282:Câclass
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1963:Oppose
1792:Oppose
1351:with "
1288:really
1235:with "
234:scale.
126:Google
1834:? Or
1393:too.
1357:this
1345:this
1088:This
610:Ships
568:Ships
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2006:ISBN
1972:talk
1862:talk
1844:talk
1818:talk
1801:talk
1783:talk
1758:talk
1737:talk
1707:talk
1689:talk
1671:talk
1616:talk
1584:talk
1574:and
1545:talk
1470:talk
1421:talk
1399:talk
1373:talk
1335:talk
1320:talk
1306:vs.
1278:talk
1266:book
1261:The
1253:talk
1213:talk
1118:talk
1098:talk
1080:talk
1066:talk
1035:talk
977:Note
967:talk
722:talk
703:talk
672:talk
657:talk
593:Ship
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2021:TIR
1932:đź
1905:TIR
1876:TIR
1797:A75
1662:all
1644:TIR
1599:TIR
1560:TIR
1524:TIR
1455:TIR
1367:."
1188:not
1136:TIR
807:ed.
176:TWL
2035::
1974:)
1920:â
1899:.
1864:)
1846:)
1838:?
1820:)
1803:)
1785:)
1760:)
1739:)
1727:A
1709:)
1691:)
1673:)
1618:)
1586:)
1547:)
1472:)
1435:,
1423:)
1401:)
1375:)
1337:)
1322:)
1280:)
1255:)
1215:)
1120:)
1100:)
1082:)
1068:)
1037:)
969:)
928:â
917:â
906:â
895:â
884:â
873:â
862:â
851:â
839:}}
804:,
772:.
742:.
724:)
705:)
674:)
659:)
457:/
276:/
272:/
268:/
264:/
260::
156:)
54:;
2013:.
1970:(
1930:¢
1927:â
1860:(
1842:(
1816:(
1799:(
1781:(
1756:(
1735:(
1705:(
1687:(
1669:(
1614:(
1582:(
1543:(
1468:(
1419:(
1397:(
1371:(
1333:(
1318:(
1276:(
1251:(
1211:(
1116:(
1096:(
1078:(
1064:(
1033:(
965:(
826:¡
793:!
720:(
701:(
670:(
655:(
607:.
347:.
335:C
313:.
240::
191:1
188::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
