USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room



Message

SoulBlazer -> USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names (11/2/2002 10:19:27 AM)

Since I have a MA in American History, I thought maybe this might be of intrest to some people, as it's not really explained in the manual.

All American and Japanese ships are named to a system. Here's the one used for the American Navy.....

Carriers: In WWII times, they were named for famous past ships or important battles in American History. Now they are also named for famous people.
Battleship: Named for states
Battlecruisers: Named for territories (?)
Heavy Cruisers: Named for large cities
Light Cruisers: Named for smaller cities
Destroyers: Named for famous people, usually in the military
Transports: Also named for people, normaly presidents, civilians, or important people
Submarines: Named for fish or mammals

This table for Japanese ships was copied from the Imperial Japanese Navy website at [url]www.combinedfleet.com[/url]

Battleships
Capital ships were mostly named after provinces, although Kongo-class, being battlecruisers, were named after mountains.
Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers and seaplane carriers were mostly named after mythical flying creatures.
Heavy Cruisers
Large, Heavy or "Type A" Cruisers were named mostly after mountains, but Mogami-class were named after rivers as they were originally laid down as Type-B (light) cruisers.
Light Cruisers
Light, Small, or "Type B" cruisers were generally named after rivers & streams.
Destroyers
First class destroyers were named after environmental or calendar names.
2nd-Class Destroyers
Second-class destroyers were named after plants.

Submaries only had numbers, although with a letter at the front to stand for ther class.
Transports and cargo ships always had the word Maru (ship, I think?) in their name.

I suspect the British/Australian naming system is very close to the USA system.



Jo van der Pluym -> Re: USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names (11/2/2002 5:25:10 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Since I have a MA in American History, I thought maybe this might be of intrest to some people, as it's not really explained in the manual.

All American and Japanese ships are named to a system. Here's the one used for the American Navy.....

I suspect the British/Australian naming system is very close to the USA system. [/B][/QUOTE]

SoulBlazer

Mayby can you answer the following question about ship types.

Why have the following shiptypes 2 times the same character.

BB = Battleship
SS = Submarine
DD = Destroyer
FF = Frigate


And for info about the Dutch warships in WWII here the following link:
http://leden.tref.nl/~jviss000/



SoulBlazer -> (11/3/2002 12:55:40 AM)

Well, it's very old naval tradition. :) I'm not sure exactly where those terms came from, but they have been used for a long time, and were invented by the British. It's just basicaly shorthand, meaning what kind of ship it is. For example, I was going to list what CV stood for, but it just flew right out of my head. :) Suffice it to say there is a reason for it.



ExNavyDoc -> (11/5/2002 10:18:19 AM)

CV stands for Carrier, Heavier-than-air aircraft. This dates from the days when the USN had both heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air aircraft.

The designation carries over to squadron designations also. "V" means fixed-wing heavier than air, i.e. airplanes. "Z" designated lighter than air aircraft, i.e. blimps.



Grotius -> (11/5/2002 10:39:29 AM)

Thanks for that post, ExNavyDoc. Do you know anything about the origin of some of the other mysterious abbreviations, e.g.:

CA - Cruiser, er, Armed?

AK - why not AC?

BB, DD, FF, SS - those abbreviations do *look* cool, so maybe that's enough. And I guess they are clearer than just a single B or D or what have you.



ExNavyDoc -> (11/6/2002 8:15:46 AM)

From [URL=http://www.warships1.com/index_ships_list.htm]"USN Ship Designations"[/URL] :

quote:

Nomenclature History
Warships were designated and numbered in system originating in 1895. Under this system, ships were designated as "Battleship X", "Cruiser X", "Destroyer X", "Torpedo Boat X" and so forth where X was the series hull number as authorized by the US Congress. These designations were usually abbreviated as "B-1", "C-1", "D-1", "TB-1" and so forth. This system became cumbersome by 1920, as many new ship types were developed that needed new categories assigned, especially in the Auxiliary ship area. On 17 July 1920, the system was revised so that all ships were designated with a two letter code, with the first letter being the ship type and the second letter being the sub-type. For example, the Repair ship Prometheus was re-designated as AR-4, with the "A" standing for Auxiliary, the "R" for Repair and the 4 meaning the fourth ship in that series. Ship types that did not have a subclassification simply repeated the first letter. So, Battleships became "BB-X" and Destroyers became "DD-X" with X being the same number as previously assigned.


See also:
[URL=http://www.nvr.navy.mil/class.htm]U.S. Naval Vessel Register[/URL]

HTH

Doc



Grotius -> (11/6/2002 10:28:32 AM)

Hi Doc,

Thanks very much for the explanation. That certainly clears it up for me!

Thanks again.



Jo van der Pluym -> (11/6/2002 1:43:34 PM)

Doc

Thank you for the info



The Gnome -> (12/12/2002 11:17:21 PM)

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be ;), but I thought that the "C" in CV was for cruiser. And the "V" for aViation. Thus, aviation cruiser.



Feinder -> (12/13/2002 12:11:29 AM)

I can confirm that the "V" in CV is for "heavier than air" aircraft, ie. not blimp.

And an "AC" is Auxillary : Collier. The "AK" I believe is for any dry cargo. The "AC" class probably had the ability to "refuel" ships at sea (with coal). Can someone confirm/refute this? While the AK class would need to use it's cranes and such to unload it's cargo.

It might be that aircraft-carrier units adopted the first letter of "C", because they were often built on converted Cruiser and BattleCruise hulls.

-F-



Toro -> (12/13/2002 11:28:08 AM)

CA -- originally, the "A" stood for "armored."

CV --
The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations":

"On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. "However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption."

Still looking for the "AK" thing.



Ron Saueracker -> Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions. (12/17/2002 5:07:07 PM)

Especially for Capital ships. Names like Inflexible, Swiftsure, Monarch, Devastation, Thunderer, Victory (and their translated counterparts) etc. are much more appealing to me (and their sailors most likely) than boring and unimaginative names such as those based on geographical locations.

Personally, I was very disappointed with the names given to the Upholder Class of subs which Canada purchased from the UK. HMCS Chicoutimi for Christ's sake!?! Cornerbrook? Ooohhh, I'm scared!:p



Feinder -> (12/17/2002 9:34:31 PM)

Actually Ron,

There was great "propaganda utility" to having Cruisers and Light Cruisers named for cities (at least among USN ships). They were able to sell bonds in those cities where in theory, the money raised was to finance the production and maintenance of that specific ship. In the end, it was a crock, because a war-bond is a war-bond is war-bond. But folks at home didn't know that, and gave the folks of that city a way to "connect" to the war.

Bond buying slogan A : "Buy a bond that helped to build a tank with just a number that got killed by a Pather in a field in France."

or

Bond buying slogan B : "Citizens of Birmingham! Buy a bond that will help to build and sustain America's newest cruiser! It is armed to the teeth with plenty of firepower to help blast from the sky those Krazy Kamikazes from the sky!"

-F-



SoulBlazer -> (12/17/2002 11:47:48 PM)

Not to mention some of our most famous battles and ships in the history of the American navy are expressed with the carriers. Critical battles that helped to shape who we are as a people (Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway) or ships that have a long standing tradition of being almost invincible (Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp) help to inspire people serving on the ships.

And battleships named after states works for me as well.....it's like saying "We're a union of fifty states, seperate and yet joined, and here's one of our fifty (or so) battleships -- seperate, and yet joined!" (Although sometimes there was more then one purpose being served, like with the USS Washington)

The British naming system has always struck me as being.....well, a little arrogant. :)



Ron Saueracker -> (12/18/2002 7:20:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Not to mention some of our most famous battles and ships in the history of the American navy are expressed with the carriers. Critical battles that helped to shape who we are as a people (Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway) or ships that have a long standing tradition of being almost invincible (Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp) help to inspire people serving on the ships.

And battleships named after states works for me as well.....it's like saying "We're a union of fifty states, seperate and yet joined, and here's one of our fifty (or so) battleships -- seperate, and yet joined!" (Although sometimes there was more then one purpose being served, like with the USS Washington)

The British naming system has always struck me as being.....well, a little arrogant. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Whats more arrogant than shoving your country in someones yard with 12 to 16" guns?:D



tanjman -> Re: Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions. (12/18/2002 8:18:34 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Especially for Capital ships. Names like Inflexible, Swiftsure, Monarch, Devastation, Thunderer, Victory (and their translated counterparts) etc. are much more appealing to me (and their sailors most likely) than boring and unimaginative names such as those based on geographical locations. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah but the RN came up short when it started naming Corvettes after flowers i.e.

HMS Cowslip (moooo, you slip is showing)
HMS Tulip (tip toe thru the tulips... tip toe with me)

:D



Ron Saueracker -> Re: Re: Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions. (12/18/2002 9:13:40 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]Yeah but the RN came up short when it started naming Corvettes after flowers i.e.

HMS Cowslip (moooo, you slip is showing)
HMS Tulip (tip toe thru the tulips... tip toe with me)

:D [/B][/QUOTE]

HMS Pink...what's wrong with that?:D



Toro -> (12/19/2002 12:21:23 AM)

If the UK moves into plant names, you could have the HMS Marijuana... wait, that might not work...



Admiral DadMan -> (12/19/2002 12:54:00 AM)

HMS [I]Canibus[/I]
HMS [I]Coca Leaf[/I]
HMS [I]Poppy Seed[/I]



LTCMTS -> Names, Editors and Tables (1/7/2003 6:05:03 AM)

First, a quick comment on classifications. The CV was indeed initially a cruiser, heavier than air aircraft. The The Langley, though numbered in the series, was considered an experimental ship, and did not count against the US overall tonnage for carriers until 1930. The coverted battle cruisers were originally designated CC for "large scout cruiser". Before 1921, "protected" cruisers, armored cruisers, battlecruisers (ie. large scout cruisers) and scouts were in different series without the use of acronyms. In 1921 they were integrated in a single series and designated either "armored cruisers" (CA) or "Light cruisers" (CL). The Treaty cruisers were initially rated CLs until the differentation between 8in and 6in gun cruisers under the London Treaty. Since all the "armored" cruisers had passed out of active service by then, the designation CA became "Heavy" (ie 8in gun) cruisers and CL became "light" (ie. 6in gun cruisers). Note this had nothing to do with tonnage. The Brooklyns displaced as much if not more than the first two classes of "heavy" cruisers" (or the Exter, York, Furutaka and Aoba classes for that matter). The 5in gun cruisers were not redesignated CLAAs until 1949. For further reference, check Friedman's excellent Design History series.
Second, does anyone know who wrote the data editor, where I can get a manual and when the "edit" function for weapons, ship classses and aircraft will be functional?
Third, I downloaded the UV 1.10 tables from Marc Balasko's website the other evening. IEither I got a bad file or something got lost when I extracted the file. The range for the 5" Mk.12 in the Mk.22 SP mount at 35 degrees was shown as 31,000 yds, not the ~17,400 yds it should be. There were other errors as well. Any comments?



tanjman -> UV 1.10 tables? (1/7/2003 8:50:12 PM)

LTCMTS,

Do you mean the Scenario 17 OOB? If so I'm the one who compiled it. I obtained the data for this OOB from the editor and from the UV ship, aircraft & weapons data screens. BTW I just checked my copy of the OOB and it show 18,000 yds for the 5in/38 Mk 22 Gun. So I'm not sure which file you see the 31,000 yds listed.

BTW I'm slowly updating the scenario 17 OOB to version 2.20 of the UV database, as well as correcting any errors I made while entering the data, so feedback is appreciated.



GunRange -> (1/7/2003 9:19:33 PM)

To root out superstition among sailors, RN named one of their destroyers as Friday. They eaven launched her on Friday the 13th.



Feinder -> (1/7/2003 9:47:13 PM)

And I heard the tale that the HMS Friday went on her maiden voyage, and was ne'r seen again!

-F-



GunRange -> (1/7/2003 10:10:09 PM)

I heard she sunk in Channel, on Firday.



LTCMTS -> (1/8/2003 7:43:10 AM)

No, it wasn't the Scenario 17 OOB. It was the series of files posted by Juliet7Bravo as tables extracted from UV 1.10. The reason why I wondered about the accuracy or whether the download or extraction was corrupt, was that I haven't seen any rthreads about complaints of ahistorical weapons effectiveness for the 1850 ton DDs.
Actually I am most interested in the data editor. The Novastar Pacific War editor was constrained by the "hardwired" equipment and organizational trees in the DOS based program, which also constrained the numbers of data entrees and fields. From what I've seen so far from the unsupported data editor, the translation to a Win32 app has expanded the supported data elements. It should allow the inclusion of lesser known weapons, such as the 36cm Type 41 gun in twin turrets with a maximum elevation of 33 degrees mounted aft in the Ise and Hyuga and the lessor nations in the Pacific, such as the Dutch, French, Chinese, Soviets and Thais with more accuracy. It would also support more coastal artillery, ahistorical ships, weapons, aircraft, etc. based on alternate historical scenarios, such as the ending of the "BB Holiday" in 1931, or in creating "Plan Orange", US-Japanese only scenarios that you couldn't create in Pacific War. This could still apply to UV. Remember that the US could have taken the Caroline Islands (and Truk) from the Spanish in 1898 or accepted them in trade from the Germans for a base in the Philippines in 1905. Imagine the Pacific campaigns with the main US fleet base at Truk ( the "Pacific Gibralter" or "Great Western Base" the USN sought for almost 30 years in the Philippines or Guam, before giving up on the concept and adopting the strategy envisioned by the "cautionaries"). Or the completion of the NAVOIL (Hydrogen peroxide) powered torpedo program in 1941-42 for the USN.



tanjman -> UV Editor (1/8/2003 8:36:25 PM)

LTCMTS,

I have good news and bad news concerning the UV Editor.

Bad :( news first:

1) The editor as it now stands is not supported by Matrix/2by3. I am hoping that once WitP is released with a (from what I've read on the WitP forum) much better editor, it will be back fitted to UV.

2) If the weapon, ship or aircraft are not already in the UV data base you cann't use/add it.

3) Modifying a current ship class's weapons suite can cause those weapons to become permenantly disabled/damaged.

4) There is no official help file.

5) The only official word from Matrix/2by3 is do not edit any scenario but # 17, all others have hardwired OOBs that will not transfer if copied to another scenario slot.

Good :) news:

1) You can create/delete ships (using current ship classes), air groups, ground units, bases/beaches, leaders & pilots.

2) You can modify the start date and number of turns in a scenario.

3) You can modifiy to limited extent AI behavoir. This is mainly limited to which bases to target, which to expand and which to use as barge hubs.

4) There is a tool available (Scenario 17 OOB on Spooky's UV site) that explains what a lot of what the editable fields do and can be used to plan a new scenario's OOB.

I have been working on a Editor FAQ but I keep getting side tracked by other things. If you have any question about the editor I'll be glad to answer what I can. :) Good luck.

BTW there have been a lot of OOB changes since ver 1.10 of UV. So many in fact that I think thats why Juliet7Bravo gave up on keeping those files updated.



LTCMTS -> (1/8/2003 11:43:54 PM)

Thanks

As another question. Has anyone tried to push an AVP or AVD to Tulagi as a temp seaplane base once the Marines are ashore and then tried to trnasfer the cruiser VSO flights to the AVP/D? I'm trying to do this as this should give you about 20 short range floatplanes for local recon and security and get them off the cruisers so you don't get a repeat of what happened on the Quincy and Astoria at Savo Island?



panda124c -> (1/10/2003 1:42:08 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Whats more arrogant than shoving your country in someones yard with 12 to 16" guns?:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Shoving your country in someones yard with 6 to 8" guns? :rolleyes: :D



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875