text:
Landing Ship, Tank

Landing Ship, Tank (LST), or tank landing ship, is the naval designation for ships first developed during World War II (1939–1945) to support amphibious operations by carrying tanks, vehicles, cargo, and landing troops directly onto a low slope beach with no docks or piers. The shallow draft and bow doors and ramps enabled amphibious assaults on almost any beach.

The LST had a highly specialized design that enabled ocean crossings as well as shore groundings. The bow had a large door that could open, deploy a ramp and unload vehicles. The LST had a flat keel that allowed the ship to be beached and stay upright. The twin propellers and rudders had protection from grounding. The LSTs served across the globe during World War II including in the Pacific War and in the European theatre.

The first tank-landing ships were built to British requirements by converting existing ships; the UK and the US then collaborated upon a joint design. The British ships were used in late 1942 during the Allied invasion of Algeria, by 1943 LSTs participated in the invasion of Sicily and mainland Italy. In June 1944 they were part of the huge invasion fleet for the Normandy landings.

Over 1,000 LSTs were laid down in the United States during World War II for use by the Allies; the United Kingdom and Canada produced eighty more.

Maracaibo landing ships
The British evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940 demonstrated to the Admiralty that the Allies needed relatively large, ocean-going ships that could handle shore-to-shore delivery of tanks and other vehicles in amphibious assaults upon the continent of Europe. As an interim measure, three 4,000 to 4,800-gross register ton "Lake tankers", built to pass over the restrictive bars of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, were selected for conversion because of their shallow draft. Bow doors and ramps were added to these ships, which became the first tank landing ships, LST (1): HMS Misoa (F117), HMS Tasajera (F125) and HMS Bachaquero (F110). They later proved their worth during the invasion of Algeria in 1942, but their bluff bows made for inadequate speed and pointed out the need for an all-new design incorporating a sleeker hull.

Boxer class
The first purpose-built LST design was HMS Boxer (F121). It was a scaled-down design from ideas penned by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In order that it could carry 13 Churchill infantry tanks, 27 other vehicles and nearly 200 men (in addition to the crew) at a speed of 18 kn, it could not have a shallow draught sufficient for easy unloading. As a result, each of the three (HMS Boxer (F121), HMS Bruiser (F127), and HMS Thruster (F131)) ordered in March 1941 had a very long ramp stowed behind the bow doors.

The ships were built at Harland and Wolff from 1941 and completed in 1943. Bruiser and Thruster took part in the Salerno landings. All three were intended to be converted to fighter direction ships in order to have ground-controlled interception of enemy aircraft during landing operations but only Boxer was converted.

The U.S. were to build seven LST (1) but in light of the problems with the design and progress with the LST Mark II the plans were cancelled. Construction of the LST (1)s took until 1943 and the first US LST (2) was launched before them.

Development
At their first meeting at the Atlantic Conference in Argentia, Newfoundland, in August 1941, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill confirmed the Admiralty's views. In November 1941, a small delegation from the Admiralty arrived in the United States to pool ideas with the United States Navy's Bureau of Ships with regard to development of ships and the possibility of building further Boxers in the US. During this meeting, it was decided that the Bureau of Ships would design these vessels. As with the standing agreement, these ships would be built by the US so British shipyards could concentrate on building vessels for the Royal Navy. The specifications called for vessels capable of crossing the Atlantic, and the original title given to them was "Atlantic Tank Landing Craft" (Atlantic (T.L.C.)). Calling a vessel 300 ft long a "craft" was considered a misnomer and the type was re-christened "Landing Ship, Tank (2)", or "LST (2)".

The LST (2) design incorporated elements of the first British LCTs from their designer, Sir Rowland Baker, who was part of the British delegation. One of the elements provided for sufficient buoyancy in the ships' sidewalls so that they would float the ship even when the tank deck was flooded. The LST (2) gave up the speed of HMS Boxer, at only 10 kn, but carried a similar load while drawing only 3 ft forward when beaching.

Design
Within a few days, John C. Niedermair of the Bureau of Ships sketched out an awkward looking ship that proved to be the basic design for the more than 1,000 LST (2) that were built during World War II. To meet the conflicting requirements of deep draft for ocean travel and shallow draft for beaching, the ship was designed with a large ballast system that could be filled for ocean passage and pumped out for beaching operations. An anchor and mechanical winch system also aided in the ship's ability to pull itself off the beach. The rough sketch was sent to Britain on 5 November 1941 and accepted immediately. The Admiralty then requested that the United States build 200 "LST (2)" for the Royal Navy under the terms of lend-lease.

The preliminary plans initially called for an LST 280 feet (85 m) in length; but, in January 1942, the Bureau of Ships discarded these drawings in favor of specifications for a ship 290 ft long. Within a month, final working plans were developed that further stretched the overall length to 328 ft and called for a 50 ft beam and a minimum draft of 3.8 ft. This scheme distributed the ship's weight over a greater area, enabling her to ride higher in the water when in landing trim. The LST could carry a 2100 ST load of tanks and vehicles. The larger dimensions also permitted the designers to increase the width of the bow door opening and ramp from 12 to 14 ft in order for it to be able to accommodate most Allied vehicles. As the dimensions and weight of the LST increased, steel plating thickness increased from 1/4 in to 3/8 in on the deck and sides, with 1 in plating under the bow. By January 1942, the first scale model of the LST had been built and was undergoing tests at the David Taylor Model Basin in Washington, D.C.

Provisions were made for the satisfactory ventilation of the tank space while the tank motors were running, and an elevator was provided to lower vehicles from the main deck to the tank deck for disembarking. In April 1942 a mock-up of the well-deck of an LST was constructed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, to resolve the problem of ventilation within the LST well-deck. The interior of the building was constructed to duplicate all the features found within an actual LST. Being the home to the Armored Force Board, Fort Knox supplied tanks to run on the inside while Naval architects developed a ventilation system capable of evacuating the well-deck of harmful gases. Testing was completed in three months. This historic building remains at Fort Knox today.

Early LST operations required overcoming the 18th-century language of the Articles for the Government of the United States Navy: "He who doth suffer his ships to founder on rocks and shoals shall be punished..." There were some tense moments of concept testing at Quonset, Rhode Island, in early 1943 when designer Niedermair encouraged the commanding officer of the first U.S. LST to drive his ship onto the beach at full speed of 10 kn.

Production

The LST(2) was built as the LST-1 class and the LST-491 class.

In three separate acts dated 6 February 1942, 26 May 1943, and 17 December 1943, Congress provided the authority for the construction of LSTs along with a host of other auxiliaries, destroyer escorts, and assorted landing craft. The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Virginia, and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942.

The LST building program was unique in several respects. As soon as the basic design had been developed, contracts were let and construction was commenced in quantity before the completion of a test vessel. Preliminary orders were rushed out verbally or by telegrams, telephone, and air mail letters. The ordering of certain materials actually preceded the completion of design work. While many heavy equipment items, such as main propulsion machinery, were furnished directly by the Navy, the balance of the procurement was handled centrally by the Material Coordinating Agency—an adjunct of the Bureau of Ships—so that the numerous builders in the program would not have to bid against one another. Through vigorous follow-up action on materials ordered, the agency made possible the completion of construction schedules in record time.

The need for LSTs was urgent, and the program enjoyed a high priority throughout the war. Since most shipbuilding activities were located in coastal yards that were mainly used for construction of large, deep-draft ships, new construction facilities for the LSTs were established along inland waterways, some converted from heavy-industry plants, such as steel fabrication yards. Shifting the vessels was complicated by bridges across waterways, many of which were modified by the Navy to permit passage. A dedicated Navy "Ferry Command" orchestrated the transportation of newly constructed ships to coastal ports for final fitting out. Of the 1,051 LSTs built during the war, 670 were supplied by five "cornfield shipyards" in the Midwest. Dravo Corporation's facility at Neville Island, Pennsylvania, designated the lead shipyard for the project, built 145 vessels and developed fabrication techniques that reduced construction time and costs at all of the LST shipyards. The Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co. built the most LSTs of any shipyard, with 171 constructed at Evansville, Indiana. Chicago Bridge and Iron's shipyard in Seneca, Illinois, launched 156 ships and was specifically chosen because of their reputation and skills, particularly in welding. The American Bridge Company in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, built 119.

Modifications
By 1943, the construction time for an LST had been reduced to four months. By the end of the war, this had been cut to two months. Considerable effort was expended to hold the ship's design constant, but, by mid-1943, operating experience led to the incorporation of certain changes in the new ships.

From LST-513, the elevator to transfer equipment between the tank deck and the main deck was replaced with a 12 by ramp that was hinged at the main deck. This allowed vehicles to be driven directly from the main deck down to the tank deck and then across the bow ramp to the beach or causeway, speeding the process of disembarkation.

Changes in the later LST-542 class included the addition of a navigation bridge; the installation of a water distillation plant with a capacity of 4,000 impgal per day; the removal of the tank deck ventilator tubes from the center section of the main deck; the strengthening of the main deck in order to carry a smaller Landing Craft Tank (LCT); and an upgrade in armor and armament, with the addition of a 3"/50 caliber gun.

Design
The LST (2) design was successful and production extensive, but there was still a need for more LSTs for British operations. As such, it was decided to build a further 80 of the ships in the UK and Canada to be available in the spring of 1945.

The British Staff drew up their own specification, requiring that the ship:

 * Be able to embark and disembark tanks, motor transport, etc., on beaches of varying slopes; and amphibians and DD Sherman tanks into deep water
 * Carry five Landing Craft Assault (LCA), or similar craft, and one LCT (5) or LCT (6) on the upper deck, in place of transport, and, as an alternative to the LCT (5), two NL pontoon causeway to be carried; the LCT (5) and NL pontoon causeways to be capable of launching directly from the upper deck.
 * To carry 500 tons of military load and to beach with that and sufficient fuel and stores for a 1000 mi return journey at 10 kn, on draughts 4 ft forward and 11 ft aft.
 * To carry a load of sixty tons over the main ramp and ten tons over the vehicle ramp (i.e., the 50 ft ramp from the upper deck to the bow door. After trials, this was removed from some vessels)
 * To be fitted for operations in the tropics and in cold climates

Two major problems made a redesign necessary. The preferred light weight medium-speed (locomotive type) Electro-Motive Diesel 12-567 diesel engines were not immediately available. Staff wanted more power and higher speeds if possible, which the EMD engines could have provided. However, the only engines available were very heavy steam reciprocating engines from frigates that had been cancelled. These delivered two and a half times the power of the diesels. So large were they that significant changes had to be made to accommodate them. Lack of welded construction facilities meant that the hull had to be riveted. This combination of heavy hull and heavy engines meant that speed was only 3 kn faster than the LCT (2).

At the same time, other improvements were made—as well as simplifications required so most of the structure could be assembled with rivets. The cutaway hard chine that had been dropped in the American version of the Mark 2 vessels was restored. The tank deck, which was above the waterline, was made parallel to the keel, there was to be no round down to the upper deck, and the ship was enlarged to accommodate the more bulky machinery.

Provision was made for carrying the British Landing Craft Assault (LCA) in gravity davits, instead of American assault craft. Provision was also made for carrying Landing Craft Tank (LCT) and Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM), and NL pontoon causeways.

When the design commenced, engineers knew that the beaches where the ships were expected to land would be very flat, but it was not possible to produce a satisfactory vessel with a 3 ft draught forward, and very little keel slope, so the 1 in 50 keel slope was maintained. It was known that the 1:50 slope would often result in the LST grounding aft on a shallow beach, resulting in the vehicles being discharged into comparatively deep water.

Various methods had been investigated to overcome the problem, but heavy grounding skegs and the N.L. pontoon causeways were finally accepted as standard; the pontoon causeways were formed of pontoons 7 ft × 5 ft × 5 ft, made up into strings and rafts. When offloading, the rafts were secured to the fore end of the ship, and the load discharged directly onto the shore, or towed on the raft to the shore.

The ships were fitted out for service in both very cold and tropical conditions. The accommodation provided for both crew and army personnel was greatly improved compared with LST (2). The main hazard, apart from enemy action, was fire on the tank deck. Fire sprinklers were provided, but the water drenching system installed in later American vessels could not be provided.

The bow door arrangements were similar to the LST (2), but the design arranged the bow ramp in two parts in an attempt to increase the number of beaches where direct discharge would be possible. The machinery for operating the bow doors and ramp were electrical, but otherwise, steam auxiliaries replaced the electrical gear on the LST (2).

The general arrangements of the tank deck were similar, but the design increased headroom and added a ramp to the top deck, as in later LST (2)s. Provision was made for carrying LCA on gravity davits instead of the American built assault boats. The arrangements were generally an improvement over the LST (2), but suffered from a deeper draught, and, to some extent, from the haste of construction.

The first orders were placed in December 1943 with British builders, and 35 with Canadian builders. Swan Hunter delivered the first ships in December 1944. During 1944, follow up orders were placed in Canada for a further 36. These programmes were in full swing when the war ended, but not all vessels were completed.

The ships were numbered numbers LST-3001 to LST-3045 and LST-3501 to LST-3534. LST−3535 and later were cancelled.

Fifteen 40-ton tanks or 27 25-ton tanks could be carried on the tank deck with an additional fourteen lorries on the weather deck.

Propulsion
Steam was supplied by a pair of Admiralty pattern 3-drum water-tube type boilers, working at 225 psi. The main engines were of the 4-cylinder triple expansion 4-crank type, balanced on the Yarrow-Tweedy-Slick system, the cylinders being as follows: The common stroke was 30 in. The piston and slide valve rods were all fitted with metallic packing to the stuffing boxes, and all pistons fitted with packing rings and springs. The high-pressure valve was of the piston type, whilst the remaining ones were of the balanced type. The main engines were designed to develop 2750 hp at 185 rpm continuously.

With the ships being twin screw, the engines were fitted with a shaft coupling to the crank shaft at the forward end, allowing the engine to be turned end to end to suit either port or starboard side fitting.

Modifications for landing craft
When the LST (3)s were ordered, the LST (2) programme was in full swing, and similar arrangements were made to enable the LSTs to carry the 112 ft long LCT5 or LCT6 that were being built in America for the Royal Navy.

The LCT needed lifting onto the deck of the ship, being carried on wedge-shaped support blocks; at the time of launching she was set down on the "launch ways" by simply slacking off bolts in the wedge blocks, allowing the launch way to take the weight. To carry out a launch, the LST was simply heeled over about 11 degrees by careful flooding of tanks in the hull. The height of the drop was about 10 ft, and immediately after the launch the craft's engines were started and they were ready for operation.

This method was used for moving LCT5s from Britain to the Far East, although there seems to be no reference to LST (3)s being used, most being completed late in or after the war.

Even at the end of the war there was a need for more ships able to carry minor landing craft, and two of the LST (3)s then completing were specially fitted to carry LCM (7). These craft, which were 58 ft long and weighed about 28 tons, were carried transversely on the upper deck of the ship. They were hoisted on by means of a specially fitted 30-ton derrick; This 30-ton derrick replaced a 15-ton derrick, two of which were the standard fit of the LST (3). The 30-ton derrick was taller and generally more substantial than the 15 ton one.

The LCM (7)s were landed on trolleys fitted with hydraulic jacks. These ran on rails down each side of the deck, and were hauled to and fro by means of winches. The stowage was filled from fore to aft as each craft was jacked down onto fixed cradles between the rails. The ships completed to this standard were LST-3043/HMS Messina, and LST-3044/HMS Narvik. While these ships were able to carry LCMs, they were only able to carry out loading and unloading operations under nearly ideal weather conditions, and therefore could not be used for assault operations; they also lacked the facilities to maintain the landing craft (which the Dock Landing Ships provided).

The Landing Craft Assault were wooden-hulled vessels plated with armour, 41 ft long overall, 10 ft wide, and displacing 13 tons fully loaded. Draught was 2 ft, and normal load was 35 troops with 800 lb of equipment. A pair of Scripps marine conversions of Ford V8 engines gave it speeds of 11 kn unloaded, 8 kn service speed, 3 kn on one engine. Range was 50 – miles on 64 impgal. Armament was typically a Bren light machine gun aft; with two Lewis Guns in a port forward position.

The LCM (7)s that were carried on the LST (2) were considerably larger, 60 ft in length, 16 ft beam, with a hoisting weight of 28 tons, full load displacement of 63 tons. Beaching draught was 3 ft, and propulsion was provided by a pair of Hudson Invader petrol engines, later replaced with Grays diesels, both sets providing 290 bhp, giving a speed of 9.8 kn.

The main requirement of the design was to carry a 40-ton Churchill tank or bulldozer at 10 kn. 140 had been completed when the war ended, and some saw service through to the 1970s.

Variants
Some LST (3)s were converted to LST (A) (A for "assault") by adding stiffening so they could safely carry the heaviest British tanks.

Two LST (3)s were converted to command vessels, LST (C): LST 3043 and LST 3044. Post war they became HMS Messina (L112) and HMS Narvik (L114). They were better armed with ten 20 mm Oerlikons and four 40 mm Bofors.

Two LST (3)s were converted during building into Headquarters command ships LST (Q). These were L3012, which became L3101 (and later HMS Ben Nevis) and LST 3013, which became LST 3102, and then HMS Ben Lomond. They acted as LST "mother ships", similar in most aspects to American ships based on the LST (2) hull. They had two Quonset huts erected on the main deck to accommodate 40 officers. Berths on the tank deck berthed an extra 196 men. A bake shop and 16 refrigeration boxes for fresh provisions augmented the facilities normally provided for the crew. Four extra distilling units were added, and the ballast tanks were converted for the storage of fresh water.

Service in World War II

At the Armor Training School in Ft. Knox, Kentucky, buildings were erected as exact mock-ups of an LST. Tank crews in training learned how to maneuver their vehicles onto, in and from an LST with these facilities. One of these buildings has been preserved at Ft. Knox for historic reasons and can still be seen.

From their combat début in the Solomon Islands in June 1943 until the end of the hostilities in August 1945, the LSTs performed a vital service in World War II. They participated in the invasions of Sicily (Operation Husky), Italy, Normandy, and southern France in the European Theater and were an essential element in the island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific that culminated in the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Despite the large numbers produced, LSTs were a scarce commodity and Churchill describes the difficulty in retaining sufficient LSTs in the Mediterranean for amphibious work in Italy, and later the logistics of moving large numbers to the eastern theatres, while still supplying the large armies in Europe.

The LST proved to be a remarkably versatile ship. Thirty-nine of them were converted to become landing craft repair ships (ARL). In this design, the bow ramp and doors were removed, and the bow was sealed. Derricks, booms, and winches were added to haul damaged landing craft on board for repairs, and blacksmith, machine, and electrical workshops were provided on the main deck and tank deck.

Thirty-six LSTs were converted to serve as small hospital ships and designated LSTH. They supplemented the many standard LSTs, which removed casualties from the beach after landing tanks and vehicles. LSTs had brought 41,035 wounded men back across the English Channel from Normandy by D-Day+114 (28 September 1944). Other LSTs, provided with extra cranes and handling gear, were used exclusively for replenishing ammunition. They possessed a special advantage in this role, as their size permitted two or three LSTs to go simultaneously alongside an anchored battleship or cruiser to accomplish replenishment more rapidly than standard ammunition ships.

Three LST (2) were converted into British "Fighter Direction Tenders" (FDT), swapping their landing craft for Motor Launches and outfitted with AMES Type 11 and Type 15 fighter control radar to provide Ground-controlled interception (GCI) coverage for air defence of the D-Day landing areas. Of these ships, HMS FDT 216 was stationed off Omaha and Utah beaches, HMS FDT 217 was allocated Sword, Juno, and Gold beaches. HMS FDT 13 was used for coverage of the overall main shipping channel. In the period 6 June to 26 June Allied fighters controlled by the FDTs resulted in the destruction of 52 enemy aircraft by day, and 24 enemy aircraft by night.

LST flight decks
In the latter stages of World War II, some LSTs were fitted with flight decks that could launch small observation planes during amphibious operations. These were USS LST-16, USS LST-337, USS LST-386, USS LST-525, LST-776, and USS LST-906. Two others (USS LST-393 and USS LST-776) were fitted with the Brodie System for take off and landing.

It has been estimated that, in the combined fleets assembled for the war on Japan, the tonnage of landing ships, excluding landing craft, would have exceeded five million tons and nearly all built within four years.

Throughout the war, LSTs demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb punishment and survive. Despite the sobriquets "Large Slow Target" and "Large Stationary Target," which were applied to them by crew members, the LSTs suffered few losses in proportion to their number and the scope of their operations. Their brilliantly conceived structural arrangement provided unusual strength and buoyancy; HMS LST 3002 was struck and holed in a post-war collision with a Victory ship and survived. Although the LST was considered a valuable target by the enemy, only 26 were lost due to enemy action, and a mere 13 were the victims of weather, reef, or accident.

A total of 1,152 LSTs were contracted for in the great naval building program of World War II, but 101 were cancelled in the fall of 1942 because of shifting construction priorities. Of 1,051 actually constructed, 113 LSTs were transferred to Britain under the terms of Lend-Lease, and four more were turned over to the Greek Navy. Conversions to other ship types with different hull designations accounted for 116: 6 Miscellaneous Ships (AG), 14 Motor Torpedo Boat Tenders (AGP), 7 Self-Propelled Barracks Ships (APB), 13 Battle Damage Repair Ships (ARB), 39 Landing Craft Repair Ships (ARL), 3 Salvage Craft Tenders (ARST), 4 Aircraft Repair Ships (ARVA, ARVE), 1 Advance Aviation Base Ship (AVB), 4 Unclassified miscellaneous vessels (IX), and 36 LSTH. One LST which had been sunk in an accident was later raised and converted into a Covered Barge (YF).

United States

The end of World War II left the Navy with a huge inventory of amphibious ships. Hundreds of these were scrapped or sunk, and most of the remaining ships were put in "mothballs" to be preserved for the future. Additionally, many of the LSTs were demilitarized and sold to the private sector, along with thousands of other transport ships, contributing to a major downturn in shipbuilding in the United States following the war. Many LSTs were used as targets in aquatic nuclear testing after the war, being readily available and serving no apparent military applications. World War II era LSTs have become somewhat ubiquitous, and have found a number of novel commercial uses, including operating as small freighters, ferries, and dredges. Consequently, construction of LSTs in the immediate post-war years was modest. LST-1153 and LST-1154, commissioned respectively in 1947 and 1949, were the only steam-driven LSTs ever built by the Navy. They provided improved berthing arrangements and a greater cargo capacity than their predecessors. The success of the amphibious assault at Inchon during the Korean War showed the utility of LSTs once again. This was in contrast with the earlier opinion expressed by many military authorities that the advent of the atomic bomb had relegated amphibious landings to a thing of the past. During the Korean War a number of LSTs were converted to transport the much needed, but slow and short range LSU from the United States to the Korean theater of war using the piggy-back method. After arrival the LSU was slid off sideways from the LST. Additionally, LSTs were used for transport in the building of an Air Force base at Thule, Greenland during the Korean War. Fifteen LSTs of what were later to be known as the Terrebonne Parish class were constructed in the early 1950s. These new LSTs were 56 ft longer and were equipped with four, rather than two, diesel engines, which increased their speed to 15 kn. Three-inch / 50-caliber twin mounts replaced the old twin 40 mm guns, and controllable pitch propellers improved the ship's backing power. On 1 July 1955, county or, in the case of Louisiana, parish names were assigned to many LSTs, which up to then had borne only a letter-number hull designation.

In the late 1950s, seven LSTs of the De Soto County class were constructed. These were an improved version over earlier LSTs, with a high degree of habitability for the crew and embarked troops. Considered the "ultimate" design attainable with the traditional LST bow door configuration, they were capable of 17.5 kn.

Commercial ferry use
In 1946, a brand new concept of transport was developed in the UK. During World War II, the great potential of landing ships and craft was recognised; if it was possible to drive tanks, guns and lorries directly onto a beach, then theoretically the same landing craft could be used to carry out a similar operation in the civilian commercial market, providing there were reasonable port facilities. From this idea grew the worldwide roll-on/roll-off ferry industry. In the period between the world wars, Lt. Colonel Frank Bustard formed the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, with a view to cheap transatlantic travel. This never materialised, but he observed trials on Brighton Sands of a LST in 1943 when its peacetime capabilities were obvious.

In the spring of 1946, the company approached the Admiralty with a request to purchase three of these vessels. The Admiralty was unwilling to sell, but after negotiations agreed to let the ASN have the use of three vessels on bareboat charter at a rate of £13 6s 8d per day. These vessels were LSTs 3519, 3534, and 3512. They were renamed Empire Baltic, SS Empire Cedric, and SS Empire Celtic, perpetuating the name of White Star Line ships in combination with the "Empire" ship naming of vessels in government service during the war.

The chartered vessels had to be adapted for their new role. First the accommodation on board had to be improved, and alterations in the engine and boiler rooms had also to be made. Modified funnels and navigational aids needed to be provided before they could enter service. On the morning of 11 September 1946, the first voyage of the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company took place when Empire Baltic sailed from Tilbury to Rotterdam with a full load of 64 vehicles for the Dutch government. On arrival at Waalhaven, the vessel beached using the method employed during wartime landings, being held by a stern anchor. The vessel stayed on the beach overnight, returning at 08:00 the next morning. This leisurely pace of work was followed for the first few voyages, the beach being employed possibly because normal port facilities were unavailable due to wartime damage. Following the initial Rotterdam voyage, ASN used their new vessels to transfer thousands of vehicles for the British Army from Tilbury to Hamburg, and later to Antwerp in 1955.

The original three LSTs were joined in 1948 by another vessel, HMS LST 3041, renamed Empire Doric, after the ASN were able to convince commercial operators to support the new route between Preston Dock in Lancashire and the Northern Ireland port of Larne. Originally Liverpool was chosen, but opposition from other operators led to a move to Lancashire. However, special port facilities had to be constructed at both Preston and Larne before the new route could be opened – a wartime end-loading ramp built by engineers during World War II at Preston, and a floating pontoon from a Mulberry harbour connected via a bridge to the quay at Larne.

The first sailing of this new route was on 21 May 1948 by Empire Cedric. After the inaugural sailing, Empire Cedric continued on the Northern Ireland service, offering initially a twice-weekly service. Empire Cedric  was the first vessel of the ASN fleet to hold a Passenger Certificate, and was allowed to carry fifty passengers. Thus Empire Cedric became the first vessel in the world to operate as a commercial/passenger roll-on/roll-off ferry, and the ASN became the first company to offer this type of service.

Some of the first cargo on this service were two lorry-loads of 65 gas cookers each on behalf of Moffats of Blackburn, believed to be the first commercial vehicles carried in this way as freight. The Preston–Larne service continued to expand, so much so that in 1950 it added a route to Belfast. This service opened in 1950, and sailings out of Preston were soon increased to six or seven a week to either Belfast or Larne.

In 1954, the British Transport Commission (BTC) took over the ASN under the Labour government's nationalization policy. In 1955, another two LSTs were chartered into the existing fleet, Empire Cymric and  Empire Nordic, bringing the fleet strength to seven. The Hamburg service was terminated in 1955, and a new service was opened between Antwerp and Tilbury. The fleet of seven ships was to be split up, with the usual three ships based at Tilbury and the others maintaining the Preston to Northern Ireland service.

During late 1956, the entire fleet of ASN was taken over for use in the Mediterranean during the Suez Crisis, and the drive on/drive off services were not re-established until January 1957. At this point ASN were made responsible for the management of twelve Admiralty LST (3)s brought out of reserve as a result of the Suez Crisis, though too late to see service.

Army service
A major task at the end of World War II was the redistribution of stores and equipment worldwide. Due to the scarcity and expense of merchant shipping it was decided in 1946 that the Royal Army Service Corps civilian fleet should take over seven LSTs from the Royal Navy. These were named after distinguished corps officers: Evan Gibb, Charles Macleod, Maxwell Brander, Snowden Smith, Humfrey Gale, Reginald Kerr, and Fredrick Glover.

The LSTs needed to comply with Board of Trade regulations, and to be brought up to merchant navy standards, which involved lengthy alterations including extra accommodation. On completion, five vessels sailed for the Middle East, and two for the Far East.

During the evacuation of Mandatory Palestine, Humfrey Gale and Evan Gibb made fifteen voyages each between Haifa and Port Said lifting between them 26,000 tons of vehicles and stores.

Similar work was done worldwide until 1952 when the ships were handed over to the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, and subsequently in 1961 to the British-India Steam Navigation Company, tasked by the War Office directly, RASC having no further concern with their administration.

Aviation training
The rapid increase in the use of helicopters in the Royal Navy in the late 1950s and 1960s required an increase in the training and support facilities ashore and afloat. Operational training for aircrew was carried out by naval air stations at Portland and Culdrose. The scrapping of some carriers and conversion of others to commando carriers in the mid-1950s left a shortage of suitable decks. This led to the ordering of RFAUX Engadine (K08) in 1964; however, she would not be available till 1967. In the meantime it was decided to convert LST 3027 to serve as an interim training ship.

This work was carried out at Devonport Dockyard in 1964. The deck forward of the cargo hatch was cleared of all obstructions, and strengthened for helicopter use. A small deckhouse used to support the gun emplacements was retained, although no guns were fitted, and it was used by the Flight Deck Officer as a helicopter control position. Below deck, two 10,000 impgal aviation fuel tanks were installed at the fore end of the tank deck, and refuelling positions provided at the fore end of the flight deck. The tanks were sealed off by a bulkhead and the rest of the space used for stores, workshops and accommodation. Finally the bow doors were sealed, as they would no longer be needed. The flight deck was large enough for two Westland Wessex helicopters with rotors turning, or six could be parked with rotors folded. Renamed HMS Lofoten (K07) she proved extremely useful in service, and many lessons were learned that would be incorporated into Engadine.

World War II

 * USS LST-342 sank 18 July 1943 by torpedo from Japanese submarine Ro-106 off the Solomon Islands. Artist McClelland Barclay was killed during the attack.
 * During Exercise Tiger practice for an amphibious landing on 28 April 1944, German E-boats attacked a convoy in Lyme Bay. Two LSTs were sunk (LST-531 and USS LST-507) by torpedoes and two more damaged with 729 US army and navy personnel killed and missing.
 * In the West Loch disaster on 21 May 1944 USS LST-353 exploded while moored in West Loch at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This caused explosions on other LSTs. LST-39, USS LST-43, USS LST-69, USS LST-179 and USS LST-480 sank and others damaged. The explosions killed 163 sailors and wounded 396.

Post-war

 * USS LST-52 participated in Operation Crossroads, the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll in July 1946, as a target.
 * USS LST-467 sunk in 1979 as an artificial reef near the U.S. Virgin Islands.
 * USS Bulloch County (LST-509) (as Vietnam People's Navy armed transport HQ-505) sank 14 March 1988 during the Johnson South Reef Skirmish with China.

Indonesia

 * KRI Teluk Ratai (509), ex-USS LST-678, is a museum ship in Pariaman, West Sumatra
 * KRI Teluk Bone (511), ex-USS Iredell County (LST-839), was decommissioned by the Indonesian Navy on 15 August 2019

Philippines
The Philippine Navy received 20+ units of the LST Mk.2 starting in the late 1940s. This includes BRP Laguna (LT-501), ex-USS LST-230 and BRP Benguet (LT-507), ex-USS Daviess County (LST-692). The BRP Sierra Madre (LT-57), ex-USS Harnett County (LST-821) permanently beached on the Second Thomas Shoal. The ship serves as an advance outpost, and is currently at the center of a territorial dispute between China and the Philippines.

Singapore
RSS Resolution (L-204), ex-USS LST-649, is operated by the Republic of Singapore Navy as a training ship at Tuas Naval Base, Singapore. She was one of the five landing ships bought by Singapore on 5 December 1975 which consists of USS LST-836, USS LST-649, USS LST-629, USS LST-579 and USS LST-613.

South Korea
USS LST-849 was commissioned in 1945 and was an active ship until 2006. She served in the Okinawa campaign in May–June 1945 and earned one battle star for her service in World War II. She was transferred to the Republic of Korea Navy in 1958, commissioned as ROKS Wi Bong (LST-676), and served there until 2006. She was used to transport thousands of soldiers and their equipment from South Korea to South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. In 2007, she was decommissioned and sold to the city of Gunsan, South Korea for display in a maritime museum in a deal with the navy.

Taiwan

The Republic of China Navy currently operates 4 LST-542 Class vessels and 1 LST-1 Class Vessel, as well as decommissioning 1 of their LST-542 Class Vessels as of recent. All 6 ships saw service during WW2.

 * ROCS Chung Chien (LST-205),ex-USS LST-716, is active with the Republic of China Navy as of 2022
 * ROCS Chung Chie (LST-218), ex-USS Berkeley County (LST-279), is active with the Republic of China Navy as of 2022
 * ROCS Chung Ming (LST-227), ex-USS Sweetwater County (LST-1152), is active with the Republic of China Navy as of 2022
 * ROCS Chung Yeh (LST-231), ex-USS Sublette County (LST-1144), is active with the Republic of China Navy as of 2022
 * ROCS Kao Hsiung (LCC-1), ex-USS Dukes County (LST-735), is in service as a Testbed for the Republic of China Navy as of 2022.
 * ROCS Chung Shun (LST-208), ex-USS LST-732, was decommissioned by the Republic of China Navy on 1 April 2021

Thailand

 * HTMS Pangan (LST-713), ex-USS Stark County (LST-1134), is a museum ship in Surat Thani
 * HTMS Lanta (LST-714), ex-USS Stone County (LST-1141), is a museum ship in Krabi

Vietnam
Tran Khanh Du (HQ-501), ex-USS Maricopa County (LST-938), had been transferred to the Republic of Vietnam Navy, and after the Fall of Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces. , she is active and in commission with the Vietnamese People's Navy.

United States

 * USS LST-325, ex-RHS Syros (L-144), is a museum ship in Evansville, Indiana.
 * USS LST-393 is a museum ship in Muskegon, Michigan.
 * MV Cape Henlopen, ex-USS LST-510, was converted to a passenger and auto ferry and operates between New London, Connecticut, and Orient Point, on the East End of Long Island, New York.

Modern developments

The commissioning of the Newport-class tank landing ship in 1969 marked the introduction of an entirely new concept in the design of LSTs. She was the first of a new class of 20 LSTs capable of steaming at a sustained speed of 20 kn. To obtain that speed, the traditional blunt bow doors of the LST were replaced by a pointed ship bow. Unloading is accomplished through the use of a 112 ft ramp operated over the bow (similar in concept to the original HMS Boxer) and supported by twin derrick arms. A stern gate to the tank deck permits unloading of LVTs into the water or the unloading of other vehicles into a landing craft utility (LCU) or onto a pier. Capable of operating with high-speed amphibious squadrons consisting of LHAs, LPDs, and LSDs, the Newport-class LST can transport tanks, other heavy vehicles, and engineering equipment that cannot readily be landed by helicopters or landing craft. The Newport type were removed from U.S. Navy service in the 1990s, and Spanish Navy, Chile, Australia, and Malaysia but serves on in the navies of Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, Taiwan, in a modified form and soon with Peru.

Elsewhere, over 100 Polish Polnocny-class landing ships were produced from 1967 to 2002. The Indian Navy maintains a fleet of seven Polnocny-class LSTs and LCUs known collectively as the Kumbhir-class tank landing ship.

Operators

 * operates two Kalaat Beni Hammed-class tank landing ships.
 * operates four Polnocny-class landing ships.
 * operates six Polnocny-class landing ships.
 * operates one Newport-class tank landing ship, purchased from the United States, and one Round Table-class landing ship logistics, purchased from the United Kingdom.
 * operates two BATRAL-class landing ships, purchased from France.
 * operates, 12 Yuhai-class landing ships, 10 Yubei-class landing ships, 10 Yunshu-class landing ships, 1 Yudeng-class landing ship, 4 Yuting-class landing ships, 10 Yuting II-class landing ships, and 15 Yuting III-class landing ships.
 * operates 2 Newport-class tank landing ships and 4 LST-542-class tank landing ships, all purchased from the United States.
 * operates a single BATRAL-class landing ship, purchased from France.
 * operates two Silba-class landing ship-minelayers.
 * operates a single LST-542-class tank landing ship, purchased from the United States.
 * operates three Polnocny-class landing ships.
 * operates one Salamandra-class landing ship.
 * operates a single BATRAL-class landing ship, purchased from France.
 * operates five Jason-class tank landing ships.
 * operates one Magar-class amphibious warfare vessel s, three Shardul-class tank landing ship s, and three Kumbhir-class tank landing ship s.
 * operates nine Teluk Bintuni-class tank landing ships, 11 Teluk Gilimanuk-class landing ships, four Teluk Semangka-class tank landing ships, and an post-war Japanese-built LST-542-class tank landing ship.
 * operates four Hengam-class landing ships and four Karbala-class landing ships.
 * 🇮🇷 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy operates three Hormuz 24-class landing ships and two Hormuz 21-class landing ships.
 * operates two Galana-class landing ships.
 * operates four Cheon Wang Bong-class tank landing ships and four Go Jun Bong-class tank landing ships.
 * operates one Polnocny-class landing ship.
 * operates three BATRAL-class landing ships, purchased from France.
 * operates the SNV Nasr al Bahr
 * operates two Terrebonne Parish-class tank landing ships, purchased from the United States.
 * operates one LST-1-class tank landing ship, one LST-542-class tank landing ship, both purchased from the United States, and two Bacolod City-class support vessels.
 * operates five Lublin-class minelayer-landing ships.
 * operates 12 Ropucha-class landing ships, two Alligator-class landing ships, and two Ivan Gren-class landing ships.
 * operates three Polnocny-class landing ships.
 * operates two Sichang-class tank landing ships.
 * operates two Bayraktar-class tank landing ships and the TCG Osman Gazi
 * operates a single Polnocny-class landing ship.
 * operates three Al-Quwaisat-class LSTs.
 * operates eight General Frank S. Besson-class support vessels.
 * operates four Capana-class tank landing ships.
 * operates three Polnocny-class landing ships and two LST-542-class tank landing ships, captured from South Vietnam.
 * operates a single Polnocny-class landing ship.

Former operators

 * decommissioned its last LST, ARA Cabo San Antonio in 1997.
 * decommissioned its only Round Table-class landing ship logistics in 2013.
 * decommissioned its last Polnocny-class landing ship in 2017.
 * decommissioned all its LST's following World War II.
 * decommissioned its only Polnocny-class landing ship in 1998.
 * decommissioned its last Polnocny-class landing ships, following the dissolution of its navy in 1993.
 * decommissioned its last BATRAL-class landing ship in 2017.
 * decommissioned its 14 Frosch-class landing ship following German reunification.
 * lost its two Polnocny-class landing ships during the Gulf War at the Battle of Bubiyan.
 * decommissioned its last De Soto County-class tank landing ship in 1992.
 * decommissioned its last Miura-class tank landing ship in 2002.
 * lost its only Newport-class tank landing ship due to a fire in 2009.
 * decommissioned its lone Polnocny-class landing ship in 1991, following the collapse of the government.
 * transferred its four remaining LST-542-class tank landing ships to The Philippines in 1975.
 * decommissioned its last Newport-class tank landing ship in 2012.
 * British-Royal-Fleet-Auxiliary-Ensign.svg Royal Fleet Auxiliary decommissioned its last Round Table-class landing ship logistics in 2008.
 * decommissioned its last Newport-class tank landing ship in 2000.
 * two Silba-class landing ship-minelayers were captured by Croatia in 1992.

Literature
Jonah's Cathedral by R. D. Wall, is a novel of the Vietnam War based on the author's experiences while serving on an LST in the Mekong Delta in 1966. The book, #1 in the Jonah Wynchester Series, follows the exploits of U.S. Navy Gunner's Mate Jonah Wynchester from the time he reports aboard his new assignment, the LST USS Winchester County, at the Navy Amphibious Base in Little Creek, Virginia, on New Year's Day 1966 through the time the ship departs for Vietnam. The "Cathedral" refers to the nickname the crew have given the ship, a decrepit, run-down LST in the ready reserve fleet, that is suddenly re-activated and fully manned for the rapidly expanding need for LSTs in the Vietnam theater. Book #2, "Mekong Covenant" follows the ship across the Pacific into the deadly brown waters of the Mekong Delta.

The Ninety and Nine by William Brinkley, author of Don't Go Near the Water, portrays an LST running supplies to Anzio during World War II. The title refers to the ship's company of ninety enlisted men and nine officers. The book opens with a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill – "The destinies of two great empires ... seemed to be tied by some god-damned things called LST's."

In the biography Man In Motion: Michigan's Legendary Senate Majority Leader, Emil Lockwood by Stanley C. Fedewa and Marilyn H. Fedewa, Lockwood colorfully describes his World War II service aboard LST-478. "We were always in the thick of it," Emil said, "because it was our job on the LSTs to carry personnel-operated tanks, artillery, supplies—anything, you name it—into the heart of a war zone."

The novel Warm Bodies by Donald R. Morris portrays life on an LST in the 1950s. The title refers to the use of any available body in port during overhaul for any duty necessary. "A Warm Body is man with at least one arm and two fingers who can pick up something when he is told to." Although a work of fiction, the novel is based on Morris' experience as an officer aboard an LST.

title: Landing Ship, Tank


text:
Talk:Backstroke

Untitled
Question: Do you think it's important to add that US Swimming competes in yards? All US colleges and age group swimmers compete in short course yards throughout the Fall, Winter, and Spring months.

The following portion strikes me as weird:

There are three common distances swum in competitive backstroke swimming, [...]
 * 50m Breaststroke
 * 100m Breaststroke
 * 200m Breaststroke

It looks as a bad copy-paste from another page...

 * Yes, I copied that from the Breaststroke article, which I also wrote. Thanks for spotting that. Chris 73 | Talk 14:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Women's 50 LC Back World Record (as of 3/29)
In one of the weirder situations I have ever seen, Leila Vaziri tied her own world record in the 50 LCM Backstroke (28.16). The catch is that her first world record was during semifinals at world champs (3/28) and the tie of it came the next day during finals (3/29)! I noted the second attempt with (finals) as in this case, I think the disambiguation is necessary (even though the presumption is that all records are set in finals or timed finals unless otherwise noted) as it is the same swimmer at the same competition. Please don't change the record (unless you have a better way to show the tie) until it gets broken. –Pakman044 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly forgot, the finals results and the semifinals results from omegatiming.com. –Pakman044 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed and Ergonomics
I have somewhat of a problem with this section in the article. I read the sentence "Backstroke is the second slowest stroke after breaststroke." This troubles me. Is this in reference to only the Olympic events (ie- 50m, 100m, and 200m), or in terms of maximum speed? I happen to think that as distance increases, backstroke tends to slowly over take the butterfly in terms of speed and time. I have nothing as of now to support my claim, however I think that this section could still be more clear.

Furthermore, I think that the sentence "Due to its position on the back, backstroke uses different muscles in the upper body than other styles." should be elaborated on as it seems to leave the sense of an incomplete thought.

I'd like to hear what others think about this. Master Shake 9 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

do not swimifyourmouth is full Fair use rationale for Image:Backstroke up.jpg
Image:Backstroke up.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

backstroke is a backstroke by: the most famous author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.216.153 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

15yd or 15 meter Underwater Rule History
abby me tae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.216.153 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Does someone know the historical origin of the 15yd/15meter underwater limitation for backstroke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.163.147 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do happen to know the story of the 15m under rule, remembering a bit of what my coach told me. Once upon a time a man swam the dolphin kick underwater for the entire length of the race. He was in complete streamline and cut through the water much quicker than the swimmers actually doing backstroke. Needless to say, he won. There was no rule that he couldn't swim as he did at the time, so they changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.33.125 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

4 strokes
There are only threee strokes regulated by FINA: Breast stroke, back stroke, and butterfly. "Unlike the backstroke, the butterfly stroke, and the breaststroke, the front crawl is not regulated by the FINA, but it is nearly universally swum in freestyle swimming competitions."

MichaelCYoung (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

4 strokes
There are only threee strokes regulated by FINA: Breast stroke, back stroke, and butterfly. Forward Crawl is usually used in freestyle, but any stroke is allowed there. ". Unlike the backstroke, the butterfly stroke, and the breaststroke, the front crawl is not regulated by the FINA, but it is nearly universally swum in freestyle swimming competitions."

MichaelCYoung (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To find my best friend Hossain Nassim,by the way he knows very well my name is Rasoul BAM
Hi there Just wondering is there any chance to find me Hossain Nassim phone number please his a my best friend in ABADAN my name is Rasoul BAM by the way he knows me very well,if you can please get me his phone number or email address of him,many thanks Kind Regards

Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhoneI Rasoul BAM (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Promotion to Top importance
This article is one of the four competitive strokes. It is seen in every major swimming competition, linked in 100s if not 1000s of pages on wikipedia and external sites. Therefore, I have upgraded it's importance to Top. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Backstroke


text: Category:Danish painters

title: Category:Danish painters


text:
Talk:Franz Ferdinand (band)

Hatnote to other uses
I propose that a hatnote be added to this page for Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and to the page Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation). This change will ease navigation between the related topics. These two pages already contain hatnotes pointing to this page for the band. Adding the links on this article will make them bi-directional to aid any reader that lands on this page when intending to find other uses of "Franz Ferdinand".

Request for comments from and other interested editors.

Thanks for your consideration. DutchTreat (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Hatnote, in particular the section Hatnote. Where we have two articles with similar titles, we only put a hatnote on the title without disambiguation (Franz Ferdinand), pointing to the more specific, disambiguated title (Franz Ferdinand (band)), and not the other way round. A hatnote would only be required here if there was another article for which 'Franz Ferdinand (band)' could be a valid title. --Michig (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Franz Ferdinand (band)


text: Category:Guadeloupe

title: Category:Guadeloupe


text:
Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 3

To 172.
172, do not resume your propoganda attacks on this article. I and several other (more reasonable) wiki users reached a compromise on how to balance the political POV of the article during the time during which it was locked down.

I have deleted nothing (no allegations, nothing) from the article, but I have added balancing terms and info to the segments on the SOTA and Reagans (alleged) involvement in the coup, as agreed to previously. Allegations are made against Reagan and the CIA over these issues, that is true. But remember that they are also disputed by the CIA/Reagan administration (respectively). BOTH SIDES MUST BE PRESENTED OR NONE AT ALL.

I fear another edit war will break out if you resume your previous attempts to present your opinion of Reagan and the SOTA as if it was absolute fact.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Well, the page is locked again now.
I seriously hope you are happy, 172. Because of your inability to even acknowledge the existence of another viewpoint on (heatedly) controversial issues, it was necessary to lock the page up again and start from scratch.

I have proven myself willing to allow for other viewpoints as a necessity in building an NPOV article for a fact-based encyclopedia. Originally, I would just delete the passages espousing leftist propoganda against the SOTA and the Reagan administration. I couldn't see how anyone could believe such patent lies, such unfounded untruths, Marxist claims which have been denied by the CIA for years and years, and there has never ben any solid proof to back up the allegations.

Eventually though, I realized that a significant number of people actually believe these allegations. Since it is a popular opinion among members of the political left (and almost solely among leftists) that the SOTA is evil and that Reagan was the man behind the coup, then I have come to realize that it is NECESSARY to include these allegations in the article.

However, it will NEVER BE ACCEPTABLE to present these opinions as fact, for several reasons including: 1.) The equally large belief of the political right that both of these allegations are false and groundless. 2.) The CIA's consistent and total denial, over the years, of the allegations against the SOTA. 3.) The Reagan administrations unswerving denial of any involvement in the Montt coup. 4.) The absolute lack of any non-disputed evidence to back up either of these claims.

To state the leftist OPINION on these issues that you believe in as fact, without also acknowledging the denials by legitimate government sources, is to establish a biased, POV article. You also do not seem to fathom that because YOU don't view the CIA as a legitimate source of Info doesn't mean that I and millions of others do just that. The CIA and Pres. Ronald Reagan are at least as respectable as any partisan, muckraking website you can find, and they must be acknowledged alongside your picks. Don't you know that I know how the game works here? You conveniantly dismiss every idea you don't agree with as "flat-earth theory", but you should know that I view your unfounded claims in a similar manner: as fanciful, Marxist lies and tinfoil-hat, anti-American propoganda. This article will never go anywhere if we base our edits on our opinion of each other (and I view you as a kind of sleazy, lying, Stalinist tyrant, to be truthful).

You may not like it, but you will eventually have to admit that in a fight that is essentially between  your sources (leftist websites, politicos, etc.) and my sources (the CIA, Reagan administration officials), the only way to fairly establish an NPOV is by presenting BOTH SIDES.

Let the people who read this new unbiased, NPOV article decide who's right and who's wrong for themselves. Compromise =Balance= successful Encyclopedia. Remember that, 172.

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

{NOTE: I am now going to rest. If you would like to discuss/argue/ cuss over this issue with me, then I will be here tomarrow.}

title: Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 3


text:
Project Excelsior

Project Excelsior was a series of parachute jumps made by Joseph Kittinger of the United States Air Force in 1959 and 1960 from helium balloons in the stratosphere. The purpose was to test the Beaupre multi-stage parachute system intended to be used by pilots ejecting from high altitude. In one of these jumps Kittinger set world records for the longest parachute drogue fall, the highest parachute jump, and the fastest speed by a human through the atmosphere. He held the latter two of these records for 52 years, until they were broken by Felix Baumgartner of the Red Bull Stratos project in 2012, though he still holds the world record for longest time in free fall.

Background
As jet planes flew higher and faster in the 1950s, the Air Force became increasingly worried about the safety of flight crews who had to eject at high altitude. Tests in Operation High Dive with dummies had shown that a body in free-fall at high altitude would often go into a flat spin at a rate of up to 200 revolutions per minute (about 3.3 revolutions per second). This would be potentially fatal.

Project Excelsior was initiated in 1958 to design a parachute system that would allow a safe, controlled descent after a high-altitude ejection. Francis Beaupre, a technician at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, devised a multi-stage parachute system to facilitate human tests. This consisted of a small 6 ft diameter stabilizer or "drogue" parachute, designed to prevent uncontrolled spinning at high altitudes, and a 28 ft diameter main parachute that deployed at a lower altitude. The system included timers and altitude sensors that would automatically deploy both parachutes at the correct points in the descent, even if the parachutist were unconscious or disabled.

To test the parachute system, staff at Wright Field built a 200 ft high helium balloon with a capacity of nearly 3000000 ft3 that could lift an open gondola and test pilot into the stratosphere. Captain Joseph Kittinger, who was test director for the project, made three ascents and test jumps. As the gondola was unpressurized, Kittinger wore a modified David Clark MC-3A partial pressure suit during these tests, plus additional layers of clothing to protect him from the extreme cold at high altitude. Together with the parachute system, this almost doubled his weight.

Test jumps
The first test, Excelsior I, was made on November 16, 1959. Kittinger ascended in the gondola and jumped from an altitude of 76400 ft. In this first test, the stabilizer parachute was deployed too soon, catching Kittinger around the neck and causing him to spin at 120 revolutions per minute. This caused Kittinger to lose consciousness, but his life was saved by his main parachute which opened automatically at a height of 10000 ft.

Despite this near-disaster on the first test, Kittinger went ahead with another test only three weeks later. The second test, Excelsior II, was made on December 11, 1959. This time, Kittinger jumped from an altitude of 74700 ft and descended in free-fall for 55000 ft before opening his main parachute.

The third and final test, Excelsior III, was made on August 16, 1960. During the ascent, the pressure seal in Kittinger's right glove failed, and he began to experience severe pain in his right hand from the exposure of his hand to the extreme low pressure. (See Space exposure.)  He decided not to inform the ground crew about this, in case they should decide to abort the test. Despite temporarily losing the use of his right hand, he continued with the ascent, climbing to an altitude of 102800 ft. The ascent took one hour and 31 minutes and broke the previous crewed balloon altitude record of 101516 ft, which was set by Major David Simons as part of Project Manhigh in 1957. Kittinger stayed at peak altitude for 12 minutes, waiting for the balloon to drift over the landing target area. He then stepped out of the gondola to begin his descent.

The small stabilizer parachute deployed successfully and Kittinger fell for 4 minutes and 36 seconds, setting a long-standing world record for the longest free-fall. During the descent, Kittinger experienced temperatures as low as -94 °F. In the free-fall stage, he reached a top speed of 614 mph. For context, a free-falling average human body moves at a velocity of 240-290 km/h. At an altitude of 17500 ft, Kittinger opened his main parachute and landed safely in the New Mexico desert. The whole descent took 13 minutes and 45 seconds and set a world record for the highest parachute jump.

A plaque attached below the open door of the Excelsior III gondola read, "This is the highest step in the world".

Kittinger held the world records for highest parachute jump and highest speed of a human in atmosphere until October 14, 2012 when Felix Baumgartner jumped from 127852 ft and reaching a speed of 377.12 m/s as part of the Red Bull Stratos project, with Kittinger serving as a technical advisor to Baumgartner. Kittinger does, however, still hold the records for longest drogue fall and longest freefall.

Response

Kittinger's efforts during Project Excelsior proved that it was possible for an air crew to descend safely after ejecting at high altitudes. President Dwight D. Eisenhower awarded Kittinger the C. B. Harmon Trophy for his work on Excelsior. Kittinger also received an oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross, the J.J. Jeffries Award, the A. Leo Stevens Parachute Medal, and the Wingfoot Lighter-Than-Air Society Achievement Award.

title: Project Excelsior


text:
Katherine Anna Kang

Katherine Anna Kang (born December 15, 1970) is an American video game designer.

Career
In 2000, as founder and CEO of Fountainhead Entertainment, she championed machinima and became known as one of machinima's biggest supporters. Through Fountainhead Entertainment, she produced, wrote, and directed a variety of machinima pieces and co-founded the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences. In Machinima For Dummies, the machinima piece Anna is mentioned as "…one of the top ten list of every prominent machinima maker in the world."

While at Fountainhead Entertainment, Kang produced and designed mobile games for id Software. Mobile game titles Doom RPG and the Orcs & Elves series were heralded as some of the best mobile games of their time. Orcs & Elves was eventually ported to the Nintendo DS with Kang producing and designing.

In 2000, Kang wrote, directed, and produced the documentary Gamers. The documentary included interviews from video gaming luminaries, with a brief focus on history and predictive trends. The documentary was released in limited distribution throughout Europe and the US in 2001.

Formerly, Kang was the Director of Business Development for id Software where she worked on Quake III Arena and various mission packs and Quake II ports. In 2008, she returned to id Software as President of id Mobile where she produced and designed Wolfenstein RPG and Doom II RPG. She also produced the iPhone-only game Doom Resurrection. A 2014 article listed her as a "former director of business development at id Software", following her husband's departure from id in 2013.

Kang is also co-founder of Armadillo Aerospace.

Personal life
Kang married computer programmer and businessman John Carmack in January 2000. In August 2004, Kang gave birth to their first son, Christopher Ryan. Their second son was born in November 2009. Due to her involvement with id Software and John Carmack, she was mentioned in the final chapters of Masters of Doom. The couple divorced in 2021.

Awards
Through Fountainhead Entertainment, Kang has won the following awards:
 * AMAS Best Technical Achievement for Anna
 * AMAS Best Direction for In The Waiting Line
 * IGN.com Adventure Game of the Year for Doom RPG
 * 1UP.com Mobile Game of the Year for Doom RPG
 * Gamespot's Mobies Mobile Game of the Year for Doom RPG
 * Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Best Cell Game for Orcs & Elves
 * IGN.com Best of E3 – Best Wireless RPG for Orcs & Elves
 * IGN.com Best Wireless Story for Orcs & Elves
 * Leipzig Game Convention Best Mobile Game for Orcs & Elves

Machinima
Fountainhead's machinima include the award-winning short Anna; In The Waiting Line, aired on MTV; Game Over, aired on UPN; and Sidrial released via Fileplanet.

Games

 * Quake II (1997), for Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, developed by id Software, published by Activision
 * Kingpin: Life of Crime (1999), for Microsoft Windows, Linux Interplay Entertainment Corp
 * Quake III Arena (1999), for Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, developed by id Software, published by Activision
 * Doom RPG (2005), developed by id Software, published by JAMDAT
 * Orcs & Elves (2006), for mobile phone, developed by id Software, published by EA
 * Orcs & Elves (2007), for Nintendo DS, developed by id Software, published by EA Mobile
 * Orcs & Elves 2 (2007), developed by id Software, published by EA Mobile
 * Wolfenstein RPG (2008), for mobile phone, by id Software, published by EA Mobile
 * Doom Resurrection (2009), for iOS, developed by id Software
 * Doom 2 RPG (2010), for mobile phone, by id Software

title: Katherine Anna Kang