Military history: Maritime / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Removed the USS Saipan Expeditionary Strike Group from list, as the USS Saipan was decommissioned on 20 April 2007.--Asacan 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole thing needs updating as I believe now all the Tarawa-class vessels are either decomissioned or in reserve, and the new America class one's are not mentioned.

Also, the whole article needs serious re-working: the "Organization" section is not about the organization of an ESG but gives some past examples of ESGs (and similar predecessor units) and some akward overview of their service histories of some of them; then the "Expeditionary Strike Groups" section gives an outdated list of ESGs; followed by the "ESG units" section which gives an woefully incomplete akward (and outdated) overview of the service histories of 4 of them in a manner similar to that in the "Organization" section.. Plus the leade has unexplained acronyms. Gecko G (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've researched it and this whole concept is outdated, the navy has redifined what an ESG is. In a nutshell it's any amphibious force of an ARG or larger when commanded by an O-7 (or higher) instead of an O-6, and it no longer has surface combatants nor subs attached. I've got sources prepared and it's just a matter of finding the time to write everything up and wikify it given my schedule and lack of 'net time. Gecko G (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, oddly, Expeditionary strike group redirects to Expeditionary Strike Group, while Carrier Strike Group redirects to Carrier strike group. Shouldn't these be parallel? I would expect the canonical articles for both to be capitalized or not capitalized, but not one of each. Is there a subject matter expert who know which formulation the Navy uses? (I will add this note to the talk page of the other article as well.) —KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your observation is a good and just one. The redirect of "Carrier Strike Group" to "Carrier strike group" is wrong. According to the United States Navy, it should be with capital letters as in "Carrier Strike Group", See: The Carrier Strike Group. I will make the proper fixes. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Navy style and Wikipedia style, neither expeditionary strike group nor carrier strike group should be capitalized unless they are part of a proper name. They are simply common nouns that designated generic military units or organizations, such as company, destroyer, submarine, platoon, command center, squadron, division, etc. See MOS:MILTERMS. This, I will move this page to "Expeditionary strike group" after a short time for comments. Holy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Organization section is very poorly written and is almost incomprehensible to a casual reader. It should be completely rewritten in simpler sentences and a more detailed explanation to prevent the reader's eyes from glazing over. 174.63.31.146 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]