This is an archive of past discussions about Corvette. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
i have a coin that has a ship on one side and on the other has sreie,stadt danzig 1/2 bulden 19crown and 2 crosses then 23 so the coin is 1923 with that inbetween does anyone know what kind it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.50.153.114 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2004
I bet it's the same image as on the postage stamps of the time; the exact type on those is unclear, most likely a cog (ship). Stan 03:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't information about a specific ship be on its own page? User:Bill73083 10:12, 19 Sept 2006
Some people seem to really want information about Milgem class ships on this page. If it is so important, make a specific page about the Milgem class ships and link this page to it Bill73083 2:45, 25 Sept 2006
I added a section about corvettes during the steam age. If anyone has any information that could be added to that section, that would be really great. I also added a section about current corvette classes. If anyone can add 1 sentance about specific classes along with a link to that corvette class' wikipedia page, that would also be great. Bill73083 10:34, 17 Nov 2006
Which meaning if any of "Corvette" should be the default meaning?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I don't think that "Corvette" should redirect here, but to the Chevrolet_Corvette. I think that Chevrolet_Corvette is more relevant to the average user of Wikipedia.
I agree, Chevrolet_Corvette should either be the default page or there should be a disambiguation page instead of this article. SolarWind 04:06, 9 July 2007
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sail Age
"In the Royal Navy, the corvette evolved into an un-rated vessel with a single gun deck and three square rigged masts (a sloop had two square-rigged and one fore-and-aft riged masts)"
This is at least unclear. Sloops were square-rigged with two (brig-sloop) or three (ship-sloop) masts of which the last as usual carried a fore-and-aft mizzen sail.
As far as I now, the term corvette was usually not used in the Royal Navy until after the Napoleonic Wars. What other navys called corvette was a ship-sloop or a small sixth rate (e. g. the Sixth Rate HMS Surprise, ex French corvette L'Unite). --172.158.82.13013:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
All Corvettes inspired by USS Cole attack?
I don't accept that most modern Corvettes were inspired by the attack on the USS Cole : most coastal navies have always operated similiar vessels. 145.253.108.2212:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that you should be a bit more careful before you simply delete a large portion of an article that people have been working on for quite some time, even if you disagree with some of its arguements.
There are very subtle differences between small warships. Many warships of small size are coastal patrol craft, missile boats, etc. Some of these ships can be very advanced. I think we have to be careful not to mistake these smaller vessels with the more modern corvettes that are currently being produced by countries around the world.
You do make a good point that corvettes were around before the 1990s, but that should be added to what is already there, rather than replace it. Bill7308319:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The original text strongly implies that the attack on the USS Cole created a need for corvettes like vessels but most of the examples pre date the Cole attack. I think it would be better to state that the littoral combat vessel was influenced by the Cole attack ( and the war on terror ) as the USN is moving towards 'brown water status'. 145.253.108.2212:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
incomplete argument concerning "large ships are harder to defend"
The whole argument about the smaller corvette being a more capable ship, is incomplete at best, and is incorrect in my opinion. Firstly - corvette sized warships are not more capable of defending themselves against all threats, but only against the asymetric type of threat presented by a small boat attack. In my opinion when a ship is sitting tied up to a pier or at anchor she is vulnerable regardless of her size because she cannot maneuver to bring weapons to bear.
-LTNols14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
more
Corvettes are certainly not more capable of defending themselves against say, an anti-ship missile, or a submarine attack, or even against naval gunfire. And they are more vulnerable to attacks made by large groups of small boats than their larger counterparts, because they mount fewer defensive systems, have a smaller crew to defend against boarding actions, and have far less armour. Second - the statement "large ships are harder to defend" is simply untrue. The reason that a corvette is an attractive alternative to a larger platform is because they are simply cheaper to produce, and can serve many nations maritime interests as well as a larger ship and can do so without costing as much.
When considering the survivability of s warship many factors must be considered including installed systems, armour, damage control systems, number of weapons and ammunition carried onboard, and crew size.
"The earliest examples of this problem were observed during the 1982 falklands war, in which the British Royal Navy suffered considerable losses of both shipping and lives due to Argentine air strikes on inadequately defended ships."
No problem was previously stated or implied. The Falklands was not the earliest example of ASCM strikes against military targets. And again, the vulnerablity of these ships had nothing to do with their size, as the British aircraft carrier present was not attacked. By this argument that "bigger ships are harder to defend" the carrier would have been hit before the smaller Type 42 destroyers and the frigates that were hit.
So I've given it a couple of weeks, and I've cleaned up the section on Modern Corvettes. I've removed references to the USS Cole as a reason to build Corvettes as it is untrue and illogical. All ships are equally vulnerable when inport, and niether size or installed systems have anything to do with Force Protection against asymetric threats while sitting alongside. All corvettes currently in service were planned, if not already afloat prior to the attack on USS Cole. I've also removed the references to the Falklands war, as the size of the British warships had nothing to do with Argentine success against them.
The Indonesian Navy will receive indigenously designed corvettes, called 104 M corvette in 2008. It is possible, the corvette will be armed with C-802, which is already installed in the locally-built Fast Patrol Boat FPB-57.
The following statement is both unverified and incorrect and will be removed.
1) There are 'plans' to install the C802 to the FPB-57. Non are installed yet. One 1 set of C802 was bought
2) Indigenously designed corvette program based on Italian Orrizonte Sistem Navali S.P.A (Ficantieri
Shipyard) hull appears to be shelved in favor of Russian corvettes.
LionFlyer (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove this line. It's now 2010 and this line refers to something that may happen in 2008 and as mentioned by another in 2007 it is was unverified IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested move 2009
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support move and Replace with dab page that solves whether the ship type or car is primary. BTW I think most people don't know that a corvette is a type of warship, since most people can't point out the types of warships in the first place. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. There's only a need to disambiguate if the current name would otherwise be shared with other articles. Chevrolet Corvette and Aérospatiale Corvette only use "Corvette" as part of their name, whereas the complete name for the ship is "Corvette". And despite the fact that the car has been in the news a lot lately (new models etc), the Chevrolet Corvette article only gets 2x more page views than Corvette, so I'm seeing no indication that the current situation—a hatnote at the top of the page—needs changing. The car is named after the ship, after all. Bear in mind that if a dab page is created, people looking for the car would still need two clicks to get where they're going. All we'd be doing by taking the disambiguation option is forcing those looking for the ship—32,000 of them last month—to click twice as well. Seems like a step backwards to me. --DeLarge (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, they use "Corvette" as the entire name. However the way that Wikipedia refers to it is by make and model. There's a reason why Wikipedia has some dab pages at the primary name - because of no primary usage. Part of your argument seems to be that even if there is no primary usage, some article should be there instead of a dab page... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone seems biased. You say that the Chevrolet Corvette page "only" gets 2x more page views? Since when is double the number of page views an insignificant number. Furthermore, I believe that the majority of people who have visited the Corvette page ultimately clicked on the redirect to the page about the car. If the redirect were reversed, then I suspect that the page views ratio would increase from 2x to 10x. Accept it, Chevrolet Corvette is probably what most people are thinking of when they type in Corvette. It's a waste of time for everyone to leave the page about the ship as the first result simply because users who like the page about the ship more than the car are trying to employ arguments of technicality -- the ship is "older", the car is named after the ship, etc. None of that really matters. Also, the fact that the discussion for this move is on this page and not Chevrolet Corvette further adds bias. This particular talk page is more likely to be accessed by users who are fans of the ship and who will oppose moving the page. Try re-posting this discussion on the Chevrolet Corvette page, and see how many people chose Support. Mac520 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with DeLarge. There is no case for "Corvette" to direct people to "Chevrolet Corvette" and disambiguation wouldn't really help. The Land (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - most dictionaries list corvette as a ship, with no mention of the car. Also, The Land and Ed have it exactly right - when there is only one other use of the word, a hatnote is preferred for dab. We already have that, so there is nothing to change here - and this is coming from someone from the Chevrolet Corvette page, and having been a fan of the car my whole life (well before I knew there was a ship). —MrandTalk • C14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The name of the car is the "Chevrolet Corvette", while the type of ship is "Corvette" and should remain so. – CZmarlin (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - In addition to the points noted above, "corvette ship" gets 3,780,000 google hits, whereas "corvette car" gets a mere 2,370,000. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose' - Corvettes have been a class of ship since the 1670s, whereas the Chevrolet Corvette has only been around since 1953. Established useage is therefore in favour of the ship type. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"from the French corvair"
Uh ? Is "corvair" a real word ? I can't find any reference, neither in French nor in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.186.106 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 January 2011
This is an archive of past discussions about Corvette. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I notice this has been set up for auto-archiving, so it seemed a good idea to make a start; there's over 250kb of discussion here, and it's probably best not to let a bot split it up.
I've moved the old discussions (everything before April 2011) to Achive 1; I've moved the RM from this year to Archive 2.
I trust that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
PS On reflection, I've moved the "no move decision questions" to Archive 2 also, as they are related to the RM. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Requested moves to "Corvette (ship)"
Requested move to "Corvette (ship)":2009
The following summary is the closing admin's summary of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.
The full discussion is preserved at Talk:Corvette/Archive 1#Requested move 2009 . Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move to "Corvette (ship)":2011
The following summary is the closing admin's summary of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.
The result of the move request was: not moved. While there is a huge amount of discussion here (often circular), the number of actual distinct arguments on both sides is limited. Arguments for the move are fairly strong based on the letter of the guidelines, but oppose arguments are not so obviously against policy as to be discountable. Numerical distribution of opinions is strongly in favour of the status quo – indeed so much so that if I were to close it on a simple !vote count this would come out not just as a "no consensus" but as a clear "consensus against". The repeated relistings have not led to a significant shift of this balance. On strength of arguments, it's a "no consensus". Even if I saw a fully compelling preponderance of the support arguments, given that this whole decision is not a matter of life or death, i.e. there is no argument that a "wrong" decision either way would seriously compromise core values and policies of the encyclopedia, I have no reason to make a closing against the wishes of the great majority of commenters. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Fut.Perf.☼06:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The full discussion is preserved at Talk:Corvette/Archive 2. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I've pasted the closing admin's summary here (with some minor changes to reflect the archived location of the discussion) - I don't want to go through all that again just because an editor hasn't read the archive. Please feel free to adjust as required to tell the whole story. Shem (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote out a couple of paragraphs that I thought summarised the discussion, but decided not to save because I felt that would probably spark a pointless debate. All I will say is that it was an extremely lengthy debate that can't really be summarised in one paragraph and that even the close was heavily contested (though upheld at AN as a reasonable judgement call for the closing admin to make, if I recall). In short, don't just go off the close, read the whole discussion (or as much of it as is humanly possible). Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Im refered to this commandanti class (and i dont speak english). this ship it s a patrol ship or a ofshore patrol vessel, but is not a corvette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juakoblabla (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of a hint as to the size of Corvette crew?
It seems very odd to have an article about a class of ship without any mention of the crew (except the Captain). How many sailors would be aboard a Corvette (it presumably varied over time)? mfc (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Approx. 50% less than perry class. That's all I know.
40' to 60' Length?
Are there any examples of Corvette-type ships of this length? All the examples of sailing Corvettes as well as all ships in the "List of Corvette and Sloop of War Classes" article have a Length of ~100'.
I'm curious as to where this information came from. The 40' to 60' seems to have been copied all over the web so searching for an example is a bit difficult... I'm thinking this information is bogus but I can't disprove it yet.
There was a charade, in the mid-1800s. The original USS Constellation was a frigate, with a distinguished career. Decades later there was a freeze on building new vessels. Officials wanted to retire the old obsolete frigate, and build a new sloop, to a more modern design.
The freeze on new construction forced them to almost completely dismantle the old vessel, and incorporate the remaining solid timber and serviceable metal, into what was actually a new vessel.
When I was at University I took out and browsed through a book that was an illustrated and rather boring account of the "retrofit", that maintained the fiction that it was not a total rebuild. But a decade later I was on a mailing list on nautical matters that included some real smarty-pants, published authors. They set me straight that, in spite of what USN histories may claim, the original USS Constellation was a frigate, and a brand new vessel was constructed using some of her timbers, decades later. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geo Swan:They are not saying that Constellation should be listed as a Frigate, but that the rebuild should be listed as a sloop of war, not here. Then again, the pages on naval vessels seem to be a mishmash of contradictory information. Rockphed (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
What about the point I made? USN histories maintain the fiction there was one vessel, originally a frigate, rebuilt as a sloop, with a very long career. But non-USN experts question this fiction, and maintain that the sloop was a brand new vessel, that happened to incorporate re-usable timbers and fittings from the frigate's disassembly. Two vessels - the original vessel a frigate, the second vessel a sloop. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither vessel was a corvette. One was a frigate, one was a sloop. If a sloop-of-war is a corvette, then why do we have a sloop of war article that isn't just a redirect to this article? I'll agree that the sloop of war article is spotty and much too briticentric, but if we are going to include a vessel that was never classified as a corvette in the list of notable corvettes we should explain why.Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Taiwanese corvette picture
I have removed the picture as there are toooooo many photos of modern corvettes and the photo adds nothing. Its taken from an angle that shows a grey boat. Doesn't show features or length, size armament...it could be a frigate, an offshore patrol vessel, pretty much any kind of warship. Not to mention there is an ip-hopping vandal who insists on re-adding the photo. They could re-add it further down the article and they could stop overlinking Taiwan in the caption, but they won't, so I will keep reverting. Btw, it's not an edit war if there are six ips re-adding. Here's your discussion. Llammakey (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
At issue is this picture. I won't include the caption because it isn't really relevant. The picture seems to show some of the features of the ship and some of its armament, but I agree that it does not add noticeable to the article. I think the stern of the ship is just out of frame.Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what does this image show that the Italian ship doesn't? Because this is being added to the lead. Nothing. The Italian ship is in full frame, shows a helicopter being carried and all of its armament. I wouldn't even add this to the article in any part because its just a picture of a ship. There are tons of pictures of unmoving ships in harbour. Crew are even blocking the view of the armament. Nothing about this image says "CORVETTE". It adds absolutely nothing to the article. This article is not a gallery or a random collection of photos. It is an article about corvettes. There are even more photos that could be trimmed from the modern corvettes section as they don't really show anything either beyond a ship. Llammakey (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have an idea for things to delete, please be bold and delete them. Just put your reason as "deleted superfluous pictures that do not add to the article." I almost went through and did that, but I don't feel comfortable deciding which images to keep and which to discard. I do agree that it is weird that there are 5 pictures of essentially the same modern ship and only 2 of age of sail (3 if you count the steam corvette). Rockphed (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I hid a couple of the images and moved the images around a little. While we are on the topic, I don't suppose we can get a nice profile of a flower-class corvette to replace the current head-on image. Then we could at least make the argument that we are trying to show the ships in profile. The other thing we might want to do is to expand the captions to explain what readers should learn from looking at the various pictures. After all, while an expert might not need an image explained, lay people need to have what they are looking at explained to them before they understand (and experts do not come to wikipedia to learn).Rockphed (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I think people chose that Flower-class image because it is colourised. This image does a pretty good job and I took it from the Flower-class article. However, saying anything like "note" and "take notice of" is a no-no from what I have learned from past experience. So I'm not sure how sure how to go about your suggestion about pointing out things. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language frowns upon that. How about "Corvette Comandante Foscari of the Italian Navy with a Helicopter on its aft helicopter pad", or "A Swedish Visby-class stealth corvette with its guns covered to reduce radar cross section". I'm not sure there is a good way to work information into all of the captions, but with 4 images of modern corvettes on the page, they are all somewhat samey without some discussion of what is going on in the picture. Even just explaining that the boxes on the front of the visby class corvette are covered armaments would help with understanding. Rockphed (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a great way to go about it. Llammakey (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2019 (UTCy )
Strongly disagree, the picture stays because this ship happens to be the most technologically advanced stealth technology corvette in the world, the design of the ship allows it to travel much faster than European, Russian or American corvettes with a maximum speed of 45 knots, much faster than any Italian corvette. And it has very powerful weapons payload that is designed to carry Hsiungfeng III hypersonic nuclear missiles.[1][2][3] Additionally it’s built with the most technologically advanced microchips in the world designed and made by Taiwan microchip companies such as Taiwan a Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation. Taiwan’s computer microchip technology has surpassed even Intel Corporation making Taiwan officially the world’s most technologically advanced computer microchip maker, and as such this picture should remain in order to show what the most advanced corvette in the world looks like. read this:
That is all stuff that is important if you would put in the section. The image demonstrates none of that. The image is crap. So no it does not stay. Llammakey (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
_IWM_FL_22394.jpg)
