Talk:United States Navy

"Largest Navy in the world"

It light of a recent edit and subsequent revert, that leaves the lead current only as of 2015, it might be worthwhile to update and expand this item in the lead. While the USN was the largest, the China PLAN has taken over that distinction as of 2021. But as pointed out in this article from The Diplomat, it's not that simple and straight-forward. While China has a greater overall number of combat vessels, they are largely on the smaller end of the scale in both size and capability. Those numbers seem to be China's only advantage. The US still has more carriers, large combatants, a sizable Coast Guard and of real note; allies. Along with the UK, Commonwealth Nations and NATO, the US is allies with no less than 6 Pac-Rim nations with navies. China's only allied navy is North Korea. I thought I would I post this here and see what discussion and edits it may lead to. - wolf 18:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A notation regarding this issue was added to the lead History of the United States Navy today, by user ERAGON. So again, perhaps there should be some discussion on this. (@Fnlayson:... any thoughts?) - wolf 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I did use the term "raw number of ships" for that reason, as I'm aware that by other metrics- such as power projection- the USN remains the most powerful. A qualifier could be added to that statement regarding power projection perhaps. I also just tweaked the start date for US naval supremacy to 1943 rather than 1945, as that was the date it overtook the rest of the world combined in terms of ship count.--ERAGON (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to simplify the text to something like "largest navy in the world based on tonnage" to avoid most ships debates. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That works for me.--ERAGON (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick comment. I think it's fair to say that the "larger than the next 13 navies combined" in terms of tonnage is now outdated in light of China's vast naval buildup and can probably now be removed. Skyrover 19:46, 23 June 2021 (GMT)

• Yes that statement is a few years old but the date is clearly stated. Without supercariers, China's total tonnage has not changed that much in comparison to the US's total. But the comparison should updated with newer data. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Continued

@Garuda28: you just decided to remove that now, with no further additions or discussion? - wolf 01:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. Totally missed this conversation. Took from (https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-navy-with-355-ships-and-counting-says-pentagon). Self reverting now. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, np & thanks. I agree that the statement as is might be problematic (others have edited it out as well), I just figured that if it is to be changed, then more clarification should be added. But that's just imo. This would need some input from others as well, I would think. Cheers - wolf 13:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the Don't Tread on Me Navy Emblem and flag?

The US navy used to have the Don't Tread on Me flag or emblem, so what happened to it? Thank you. 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

See First Navy Jack. BilCat (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That's actually also the current US Navy Jack or emblem, from what I remember 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that on desktop view, the image for the first jack is pushed out of the naval jack section into the next section, and I wouldn't have noticed it if I wasn't specifically looking for it. This is a consequence of the Equipment section having so many right-justified images that images in further sections are pushed out even more. I know that the selection of images can be quite contentious and I'm not going to go there, yet this is a good example of the consequences of having so many images stuffed into one section. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

patron

Editor Wikiuser17 has added |patron=[[Brendan the Navigator|Saint Brendan]] to the infobox. After the first addition, I reverted as unsupported. There has now been a second addition with a source of dubious quality (a retail establishment that sells Catholic paraphernalia). Again, I have reverted with an edit summary mentioning this talk page.

|patron= has a specific definition in {{Infobox military unit}} (quoted from the template's documentation):

• patron – optional – The patron the unit was named after; this is only applicable in armed forces where units are named after individuals.

The US Navy was not named after Brendan. Personally, I doubt that Brendan is officially recognized by the USN simply because the USN, as a US Government entity, cannot be seen to prefer one religion over any or all other religions.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed the a similar edition to the US Army Rangers page. I don't think it's particularly encyclopaedic, so I was just going to to revert and perhaps trigger a discussion. But if there is to be one, maybe it would be better had at milhist, as opposed to any individual article. Thoughts? - wolf 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if it becomes a problem, then WP:MILHIST. Editors who maintain {{infobox military unit}} might also want to consider renaming |patron= to |namesake= or some such.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Naval postal history

@Swatjester: — Okay, thanks for looking out. Yes, I realize some of the information (about how naval history is gathered) is less than adequately sourced. I was in the process of finding reliable sources that cover the material in question specifically. For now, if it's doable, I will only include the generic information about names, ranks, addresses etc, and notable examples (Pearl Harbor) which is straight forward info, which I believe the sources provided cover more than adequately. Below is what I propose to include, with what will be left out striked out.

While at sea the principle method used for crew members to communicate with family, friends and others has always been through the naval mail system. Letters sent by crew members date back since the beginning of the navy, and are often referenced by naval historians and collectors as a supplementary source of information. Reliable accounts about naval history is usually established by historians and journalists who consult letters, logbooks, official documents and newspapers.

There is a US naval post office aboard nearly every US Navy ship, each with its own postal officer and postmark bearing the ship's name.

Letters and other correspondence sent by commanders, officers and crew members bear names, ranks, signatures, addresses, ship's postmarks and often confirm dates and locations of various ships and crew members during various battles and other naval operations. Among the more notable examples of Naval postal history include letters sent from the USS Arizona before and on December 7 1941.

Yeah it's not that the material itself is inappropriate, it's just that it needs better sourcing and clarity of language supporting claims like "has always been..." and "the principal method". Those two in particular seem to be pretty significant claims that merit directly attributing sourcing; most of the rest of it is pretty uncontroversial. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your prompt reply. I'll go ahead and re-include the basic stuff, and as said, look for sources that specifically address the issues in question. If necessary, we can change phrases like, "has always been", changing it to "has often been", and "the principal method", can be changed to a "method sometimes used", which the examples themselves can easily substantiate. If you have the time, or inclination, any insights and sources you can come up with would be more than welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

USS Oklahoma, postal cover signed by Admiral John Wainwright, US Navy, postmarked 5 March 1932

• I've 'unearted' some images that you might appreciate that can be included in the article. Just as an aside, people often take for granted how history is put together, and in the case of Naval History, usually don't realize that the historical accounts are primarily the product of accounts from the commanders and crew members themselves, as they provide the logbooks, dated correspondence and other such documents. This is why, imo, a brief section on this advent would do the US Navy article justice, because after all, the life force of the US Navy are the commanders and crews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Vice Admiral for 53 Rd Fleet

Who is vice admiral for 53rd fleet 2600:1007:B061:6A74:0:45:7583:A901 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple US Military Maritime branches

The US Navy is one of multiple US Maritime branches Travelingsponge (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The intro should accurately read "The United States Navy (USN) is one of the two maritime service branchbranches of the United States Armed Forces, and one of the eight uniformed services of the United States."

This edit highlights the unique structure and strength of US maritime/naval employment.The USN and USCG are both maritime military branches. Title 14 of US Code (14USC101) states "The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." This article must reflect how the USN fits into US maritime joint strategy.

Citing the US Navy as "the" maritime branch is based on opinion not US Law or historic Defense readiness/combat operations carried out by the US Coast Guard in every major American conflict, including both World Wars, Vietnam. Most concerning for this article is that it robs the US Navy of historical partnership with a coequal military branch and discounts current US strategic policy outlined in the Tri-Service Document Advantage At Sea published in 2020 highlights the joint operability of the US's three Naval Services (Navy/Marines/Coast Guard). Details regarding this document can be read on the following USN website: https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2449829/navy-marine-corps-coast-guard-release-maritime-strategy/ Travelingsponge (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone beats me to it, I am going to revert your edit. You are correct to start a discussion here. While that discussion proceeds, the article status quo should remain in place. Do not re-add your preferred text without first obtaining consensus for the change here. See WP:BRD.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Trapist the monk for engaging in the talk section and pointing out the WP:BRD process. I look forward to working here with the Wiki community on this topic, and reviewing provided sources. As I have already cited multiple official sources, including US Law and joint sevice documentation, can you speak to reverting to the previous wording. Travelingsponge (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous wording implies a level of co-equality between the Navy and the USCG, which only has it's military responsibilities in limited scenarios. On that logic, we should count the Army in that number by virtue of the Army Transportation Corps' several Maritime Operations offices, and the fact that the U.S. Army has more boats in service than the Navy does, and even Coasties refer to the "Army's Navy". Since this is the article about the Navy and not the USCG, the appropriate resolution would be to reword it as "The United States Navy (USN) is the primary maritime service branch of the United States Armed Forces...". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)