Talk:USCGC Eagle (WIX-327)

USS Constitution

This page for the Eagle claims that the USCGC Eagle "is the only active commissioned sailing vessel in American government service." However the USS Constitution is also a sailing vessel that is actively commissioned in American Government service. I know that the Constitution no longer sails (except for one short voyage in 1997). However she certainly meets the requirements of the statement in this article. Maybe the wording could be changed to "the only active commissioned vessel that sails regularly" with a parenthetical remark to the Constitution? If no one objects or changes the article suitably, I will do so in the next couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.181.249 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutter

The Eagle is not a Coast Guard Cutter (CGC). Does anyone else think the title of this article needs changing? ScottyBoy900Q 15:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you'd need to have a little chat with the Coast Guard and talk them into changing their nomenclature (and website) first. As near as I can figure, while the ship is not technically a "cutter" as we normally think of it, the USCG now calls all their larger vessels "cutters", and Eagle happens to fall into that category. (As you can see from history and redirs, this one has already had more than its share of titling confusion!) Stan 19:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Info

A dup with possibly useful bits:

"== USCGC EAGLE =="

The USCGC EAGLE, "America's Tall Ship," is a 295' barque used as a training cutter for members of the US Coast Guard. Each summer, EAGLE conducts cruises with cadets from the US Coast Guard Academy, OC's from the Officer Candidate School, or enlisted recruits embarked for periods ranging from a week to 2 months. These cruises fulfill multiple roles; the primary mission is training the cadets, but the ship also performs a valuable public relations role. Often, EAGLE will make calls at foreign ports as a goodwill ambassador.

History

---

EAGLE was initially constructed at the Blohm & Voss Shipyard in Hamburg, Germany in 1936. Her original name was HORST WESSEL, named for a member of the Nazi Party. She was one of three identical vessels used to train recruits for service in the Kriegsmarine. At a later date, two further copies of this design were completed. At the end of World War II, the four vessels then existent were distributed to various Allied nations as war reparations. They became TOVARISCH [ex-GORCH FOCK] (Russia), SAGRES II [ex-ALBERT LEO SCHLAGETER] (Portugal), MIRCEA (Romania), and EAGLE (USA). After the war, West Germany constructed the fifth vessel of the class, named GORCH FOCK II.

During her many years of service, EAGLE has traveled to ports throughout the United States and the world. In the early 1980's she undertook a yearlong cruise to Australia from her home at the US Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. During this cruise Academy instructors were embarked to conduct the cadets' courses underway. At other times, EAGLE has participated in various Tall Ship races and events. Some of the most notable have been the various incarnations of Operation Sail, most notable being the bicentennial OpSail '76.

Design Summary

Displacement.................1816 tons

Length Overall...............295 feet

Length on waterline..........233 feet

Beam.........................39.1 ft

Freeboard....................9.1 ft

Draft (fully loaded).........17 ft

Height of main & fore masts..147.3 ft

Height of mizzenmast.........132 ft

Sail Area....................21350 sqft "

Stan 03:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above numbers do not match the official numbers at http://www.uscga.edu/eagle/eagle_stats.aspx --- Skapur 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision (5/06)

The revision is not so much a rewrite as a new layout. The article has been given section headings and the ship's measurements have been put in tabular form. A second photo and some more history have been added. Obviously, Stan's material on this page has been a resource. B00P 05:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2014 New Revision/Update

Greetings,

I am a former EAGLE sailor and have read numerous books about operations and history on the Barque. I am planning to make a significant update to this page. I would like to add a large (1000+ words) section on the training mission of the ship and what skills cadets learn while onboard. It will include a discussion of how cadets (and officer candidates) learn key leadership and teamwork skills. I also hope to update some historical information on the EAGLE, including a more comprehensive discussion of the transfer of the ship from Germany to the US Coast Guard, OPSAIL events, and other incidents, such as when the Barque collided with the M/V Philippine Jose Abad Santos in 1967. This will include pictures of the training and the various historical events of the ship. Finally, I plan to fix and update a few minor inaccuracies in the article itself and add a slew of additional citations.

If you have any comments or thoughts on this addition, please post them here and let me know what you think. I will be developing these new ideas in my Sandbox and will post the link here as it develops. I plan to go live with any changes in mid December.

Please note that the views and facts I will be expressing as part of this update are mine and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Commandant or of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worrfle (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 November 2014‎

Sounds great! I'll keep an eye for your sandbox. Just make sure that you're including reliable sources to back up your statements. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for more information. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed most of my update to this page and it is in my sandbox if anyone has comments. I plan on going live with it in the next few days. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worrfle (talk • contribs) 16 December 2014‎

Constructed and designed by John Stanley

In this article is to read "Constructed and designed by John Stanley". Anybody a "good" quote to it? In the German Wikipedia is noting to read like this, in the article of the ship, the Gorch Fock class etc. And if he constructed it, who is he? Curriculum vitae? Greetings,--Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Eagle figurehead on the Bow

The article needs to give credit to the sculptor, Robert Lee Perry. Perry was an artist from Massachussets, and carved the wood Eagle in 1976 for the ship's restoration that year. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Horst Wessel section

I changed the wording in the Horst Wessel section heading a few days ago from "Segelschulschiff" to "Sail Training Ship"; this was reverted with the edit summary “'no reason to not use the proper term here, especially as it is explained in the first sentence.”
First off, the reason to not use “the proper term” is that (as this is the English language WP) we should write in English (per WP:ENGLISH) and the proper term, in English, for this type of vessel is “Sail Training Ship” (it's a common enough term; see here): And as it isn't just a translation of the German, “Sail School Ship” isn't really appropriate either.
We don't refer to this one as the schlachtschiff Scharnhorst or this as navire de ligne Dunkerque, any more than the German WP uses the French term for the latter (de), or the English term for this one (de) so there's really no justification for doing it here.
Also, the reason why it is “explained in the first sentence” is because someone else felt the need to put it there; there's no pressing need for a foreign term, and the format goes against NCSHIPS.
If there is any good reason why we should be ignoring the guidelines in this case perhaps someone could explain it? Xyl 54 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ship prefixes are generally not spelled out, except perhaps for a one-time explanation per article for ones the reader is not likely to be familiar with. This is what is in the Lead of the article as the alternate name. Is their any good reason it needs to be spelled out more than once in the article? - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have to refer to "SSS Horst Wessel" any more than necessary, although that's consistent with the style of an article named "USCGC Eagle". Because we have "Segelschulschiff" in the infobox and on the ratings' caps in the 1937 photo, the English equivalent should be given at some point; and that's what I'd like to see kept. The translation of schul seems to be more properly "school", not "training" (Ger. "schulung"), no matter what the Wikipedia article might be titled. There's also the matter of making clear that this ship's intended role seems to always have been as a training vessel. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilcat: I don't disagree with you about the presentation of or expanding of a ship prefix, but it is sonething of a moot point; it would seem, on further reading, we shouldn't have a prefix here at all, per NCSHIPS. The German Navy didn't use them, and (per the de article) it wasn't used for this ships, so per NC SHIPS we shouldn't be making one up, as someone somewhen seems to have done here.
Dhtwiki: Again, I don't disagree that “school” is a better rendering of schul, but (again) it's a moot point; we shouldn't be using foreign terms when English ones will do (per MOS:FOREIGN, and WP:UE), and the correct term for this type of ship (per google search, not just per some WP article) is “Sail Training Ship”, not “Sail School Ship” (see Gsearch here, for that)
So unless there is a reason not to, I suggest we a) lose the SSS prefix altogether (per NCSHIPS), b) lose the term Segelschulschiff where it occurs (per MOS:FOREIGN), and c) replace it (once, in the infobox, under “Ship type”) with “Sail Training Ship” (per WP:UE)
We could also do with linking the term Cutter in the introduction, as it has a particular meaning in relation to the USCG. (in fact I'll do that now, it's hardly contentious) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

---
OK, I've assumed nolo contendere and gone ahead with those changes. Thank you for your comments. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Shouldn't there be some mention that the original engine room was a duplicate of a u-boat engine room, allowing the Germans to train a large cadre of u-boat officers despite limitations of the inter-war naval treaties?--agr (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly; do you have a source for that information? Did the HW have electric as well as diesel engines? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Srsly?

"In June 1946, a U.S. Coast Guard crew sailed her from Bremerhaven to Orangeburg, New York—through a hurricane—assisted by Kapitänleutnant Schnibbe and many of his crew who were still aboard". Uh-huh. a murrican crew SAILED an unfamiliar ship "through a thunderstorm" and survived... with possibly (but of course very unlikely!!1!) a leeetle "assistance" of her original german crew (someone forgot to mention "all of them - of course!- durrty NAZI-scumbags!1!!")... Yeah, sure. Wouldn´t you agree that it was most likely the other way ´round? 2003:DC:F738:A800:2D84:FF0A:1485:B64D (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is nothing but poor grammar that any red neck drop out would laugh at. 67.199.215.79 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)