Talk:Landing craft

Draft

This page is still in fairly rough draft, but "landing craft" was high on the "redlink" list of "wanted pages". This article will serve as an introduction to the specific kinds of historic landing craft. It does not attempt to replace the evolving article on amphibious warfare, which is no longer limited to landing craft for getting troops and supplies ashore, and no longer limited to a traditional beach. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:51, 6 June 2008 (CDT)

First, a CZ search question, then questions.

To start with, I searched under "Landing craft" before creating this article, and got a list of miscellaneous articles on specific landing craft. Unfortunately, I didn't save it, and now, when I search on "landing craft", I get directed to this articles and don't get a list including such things as the LCI, LCM, LCVP, LCU, etc.

How rigorously should "craft" be interpreted, at least with U.S. and U.K. designations? There are "Landing ships" of various types (e.g., Landing Ship Tank (LST) or Landing Ship Infantry (LSI)). There are landing "vehicles" such as the LVT, LAAV, etc. There are a changing series of names for modern and developmental air cushion vehicles. There's a designation structure for Logistics-Over-The-Shore, related to but not identical to combat landings.

We probably need some naming conventions; LCVP seems to have acquired several text versions. Should a Landing Craft Infantry modified for gunfire support be a LCI(G), which I think is the more common Navy designation, or LCIG?

I do want to keep this article in an overall structure, in which it is subordinate to amphibious warfare. Amphibious warfare goes back, with varying success, at least to WWI if not before (William the Conqueror, anyone? Cortez?), but recognizable landing craft are mostly Higgins developments -- although, IIRC, Winston Churchill drew a sketch of one in the First World War.

In modern amphibious warfare, there is less emphasis on classic landing craft that can beach themselves and then retract, in favor of air movement with helicopters, Ospreys, and even paratroops; longer-ranged and faster air-cushion vehicles and other vehicles that can drive beyond the beach; and the landing craft only after a beach is somewhat secure -- arguably followed by LOTS after the beach is thoroughly secured.

Howard C. Berkowitz 06:50, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

You sure you hit "Search" and not "Go"? I just tried a search on "Landing craft" and got a couple of hits in the "page title" section, and many more in "text matches".

I would say keep "Landing craft" as a general page on all beach-capable displacement-supported vessels (i.e. no air-cushion), although we should mention (with appropriate links) that i) water-capable vehicles were developed as early as WWII (such as the Sherman DD) to supplement LCs in the assault phase, and ii) the role once exclusive to LCs (in terms of carrying non-water-capable entities) has now been supplemented by air-cushion, VTOL, etc. So LST's would be covered here - they are just larger 'landing craft'.

Is a division into 'assault phase' and 'exploitation phase' LCs something worth doing? J. Noel Chiappa 05:35, 8 June 2008 (CDT)