Hypothetical US Carrier names (Full Version)

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



Message


Kilroy -> Hypothetical US Carrier names (4/29/2003 1:46:58 PM)

Edting scen17, added the Owari and would like to counterbalance with a US carrier. Just for fun against the AI. What's a good name for the US carrier. Sorry guys didn't mean to post this to the war room.

Thanks, Greg Kilroy




SoulBlazer -> (4/30/2003 3:27:23 AM)

Some of my favorite and 'historical' US Carrier names I use from PTO 2:

Gettysburg
Vicksburg
Belleu Wood
Cowpens
Bunker Hill
Battan
America

Some of these were actually used for carriers in later years.




Tankerace -> (4/30/2003 9:58:18 AM)

Don't forget these:

Antietam
Shangri La
Tarawa
Valley Forge

Midway
Coral Sea
Franklin Roosevelt

Saipan
Wright

All late war Essex, Midway, or Saipan class carriers




Yamamoto -> Re: Hypothetical US Carrier names (4/30/2003 10:04:49 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kilroy
[B]Edting scen17, added the Owari and would like to counterbalance with a US carrier.
[/B][/QUOTE]

"End" ? You named a Japanese CV "End"? As in "The End", "That's all she wrote", "The fat lady is singing"? Why did you choose that as a name? I would hate to serve on a CV with such a fatalistic sounding name.

How about Shirogi? (White Castle, like Akagi means red castle)

Yamamoto




Raverdave -> ?????????? (5/2/2003 9:21:32 PM)

Where did "Cowpens" come from? What an awful name for a ship!:eek:




SoulBlazer -> (5/2/2003 10:03:08 PM)

I'm not surprised you have'nt heard of the Battle of Cowpens -- I doubt most Americans would reconize the name either. But it was one of the most important American victories in the Revolution.

Cowpens was fought January 17 1781 in (what I'm almost sure) is now South Carolina. The name came because most of the battle was fought on....well, cowpens, grazing and storing areas. :)

British Tory Banastre Tarleton was commanding one of the wings of Lord Cornwallis as the British army swept through South Carolina. The year previous, the Contentials had suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Camden (basicaly ceading control of the south to the British) and now the Americans were finally re-organizing under the overall command of Generals Daniel Morgan and Nathanal Greene (some of the best generals in the rebel armies, but never really reconized).

Due to worries about the American armies, Cornwallis had spilit his forces in order to use his manpower and training edge to counter a similar move by Greene (the Brits had about four thousand total soliders compared to three thousand under Greene). Tarelton and Morgan clashed at ground that Morgan had chosen, that looked like a trap, at Cowpens.

The American battle plan was simple. In previous battles all through the Revolution, Milita had preformed very badly. They were'nt used to regular combat or the shock weight of a British charge, and even though they were the meat of the Contentional armies, their value was dubious at best. And Morgan was outnumbered here by about three to one. He decided to give orders to his milita to fire two vollies, and then fall back and regroup while the regular Contentianls came forward to fight.

The plan worked better then he dreamed. The milita fired their vollies at the charging British, who, when they saw the Americans turning tail yet again, throught for sure the battle was won and charged -- only to run into devasting fire from the regular soliders as the milita caverly charged in one flank and the milita reformed on the other. The British were totally routed and Tarelton hardly escaped with his life.

Exact losses are unknown, but best estimates say the British lost about 2800 in killed or wounded compared to only 12 Americans killed and 60 wounded.

Between this battle and another victory nearby at a battle called Kings Mountain (fought October 7 1780) the tide had turned in the south. Greene followed up with a draw at Guilfords Court House and another clear victory at Ninty-Six. Faced with this battles and Greene's smart moves to retake the south, Cornwallis fled the Carolinas in the summer of 1781 and headed for the coast of Virginia to resupply and get more men. Hence, enter Yorktown and the end of the war.

Cowpens has been refered to as 'The American Cannae'. One of my favorite historians, Robert Leckie, follows by saying "This battle was the gem of the Revolution -- brought off by a American backwoodsman, who, like the great Hannibal himself, was mearly adapting to men and terrain. This battle, combined with Kings Mountain, also set the stage for Greene's retaking of the south".

Sorry for the long history. :D But I do love to study the Revolution and I carry a MA in American History.

BTW -- for anyone who has seen the movie The Patroit with Mel Gibson -- Cowpens is the battle in the last half hour of the movie, where Mel's character takes his revenge. The movie is pretty accurate with the details of the battle but not the terrain. (and eariler in the movie you see a little of Camden as well).




Full Moon -> (5/2/2003 11:05:41 PM)

Battle of Cowpens. That is a funny name for an important battle.:)
BTW, USS Cowpens (CVL-25) was originally a cruiser and converted to a carrier. Here is a picture of her.

[IMG]http://www.air-navy.com/images/cowpens-t.jpg[/IMG]




Raverdave -> (5/3/2003 9:21:57 AM)

Thanks SoulBlazer! That was a very interesting read....even more so as I know bugger-all about the American Revolution.
:cool:




Luskan -> (5/16/2003 10:23:58 PM)

I'd just like to point out that it was two australians that won the War of Independance for the yanks ;) (Got to worry about the people who did the casting for that oh-so-historically accurate movie The Patriot).

;)




Admiral_Arctic -> Where are your bottles of champaigne? (5/18/2003 8:54:33 PM)

USN ADMIRAL ARCTIC

USN ADMIRAL ARCTIC II

USN ADMIRAL ARCTIC III

USN ADMIRAL ARCTIC IV




TheElf -> (5/23/2003 11:55:39 PM)

How bout "United States" The keel was laid near the end of the war but the new name was never used. Can't remember if they scrapped the ship in favor of a newer design or just renamed the ship. Normally I'd research this before posting, but I'm just not in the mood...




Cap Mandrake -> (5/25/2003 3:44:45 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheElf
[B]How bout "United States" The keel was laid near the end of the war but the new name was never used. Can't remember if they scrapped the ship in favor of a newer design or just renamed the ship. Normally I'd research this before posting, but I'm just not in the mood... [/B][/QUOTE]


The goofiest nickname for an American carrier is the "Queerbarge" (USS Keersarge). From what I hear, even the crew called it that (but not in front of the Captain) :D




byron13 -> (6/16/2003 1:01:39 AM)

Now for naming Commonwealth ships. The top four most popular names, used over the centuries, are:

1. HMS Outrageous
2. HMS Contagious
3. HMS Imflammable
4. HMS Indescribable




Snigbert -> (6/16/2003 9:25:56 PM)

I haven't seen many US ships named after Civil War battles? Is that to avoid upsetting Southerners/Northerners who lost the battles? I never saw a Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Antietem...maybe they existed but just had obscure roles.




denisonh -> (6/16/2003 9:28:09 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I haven't seen many US ships named after Civil War battles? Is that to avoid upsetting Southerners/Northerners who lost the battles? I never saw a Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Antietem...maybe they existed but just had obscure roles. [/B][/QUOTE]

Or Manassas, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorsville....




donaldo -> (6/16/2003 11:17:23 PM)

CV-13 Franklin was named after the Civil War battle outside Nashville, not Benjamin Franklin.

However, CV-31 "BonHomme Richard" was named after the ship commanded by John Paul Jones that defeated Serapis during the American revolution. In turn, Jones had named the ship in honor of Benjamin Franklin by referring to "Poor Richard's Almanac"- "Bonhomme Richard" is French for "Good Man Richard."




donaldo -> (6/16/2003 11:19:11 PM)

CV-13 Franklin was named after the Civil War battle outside Nashville, not Benjamin Franklin.

However, CV-31 "BonHomme Richard" was named after the ship commanded by John Paul Jones that defeated Serapis during the American revolution. In turn, Jones had named the ship in honor of Benjamin Franklin be referring to "Poor Richard's Almanac"-"Bonhomme Richard" is French for "Good Man Richard."




Admiral DadMan -> (6/16/2003 11:37:10 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]Or Manassas, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorsville.... [/B][/QUOTE] Bull Run, Appomatox Courthouse...




[QUOTE]Originally posted by donaldo
[B]CV-13 Franklin was named after the Civil War battle outside Nashville, not Benjamin Franklin. [/B][/QUOTE]Wrong, baby puppy.

[URL=http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cv13.htm]Franklin (CV-13)[/URL]

"From: Dictionary Of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, 1977, pp. 443-44.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was born in Boston but moved at an early age to Philadelphia where his countless talents and unlimited energies found expression in successful contributions as statesman, diplomat, scientist, editor-author, and philosopher. Dur ing the Revolution he was appointed American Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Court enabling him to function also as the Navy's representative in Europe. He promoted the plan to bring the war to British shores, supporting Lambert Wickes' spectacula r raids and enabling John Paul Jones to perform his daring feats by providing funds, attending to purchases and repairs, and determining questions of authority and discipline. His astute and visionary policies merit for him deserved recognition in the an nals of the infant Navy as well as esteem as a founder of the United States. (The first four ships of the name honor Benjamin Franklin; CV-13 perpetuates the names of these ships.)"




mogami -> CV-13 (6/17/2003 12:34:06 AM)

Hi, The Franklins nickname was "Big Ben"




Snigbert -> (6/17/2003 1:25:10 AM)

[B]Or Manassas, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorsville.... [/B]

I dont think there would be as much of a problem naming them after Union losses, since the North isn't sensitive about Civil War issues anymore. We also named other warships after US losses such as Wake Island, Coral Sea, Bunker Hill, etc. It seems that the War Department was just trying to be sensitive to the lingering feelings of the Southerners, or didn't want to celebrate events of the Civil War.




SoulBlazer -> (6/17/2003 4:11:47 AM)

True. It's the south that seems to have problem accepting the war still. :D

Antietum is the only carrier I can think off that was named after a Civil War battle.

Franklin was actually a minor Civil War battle, all things considered, so it makes sence the ship would be named after Ben.




byron13 -> (6/17/2003 9:34:37 AM)

Don't you think the likely reason for not tending to name ships after civil war battles is that a civil war necessarily denotes a division within the country - something you don't usually brag about? It's hardly a proud thing to present to the rest of the world. And there is no reason remind its crew of old wounds. Couldn't there be some ill will if a Virginian serves aboard the U.S.S. Gettysburg? Heck, let's just name the next Nimitz class carrier the [I]USS Roe v. Wade[/I]. No, better to name ships after things that supposedly unified us than divided us.

As for the Antietam . . . Dunno. Maybe a tribute to those of both sides that perished in the bloodiest of the Civil War battles? Or maybe it was recognized as a bad idea and was a one-off.




donaldo -> (6/17/2003 9:38:37 PM)

Sorry about the double post, don't know why it happened. I'll look into it more but I found this quickly, it is from the Warships1 site (I know the site does contain mistakes).

From: Dictionary Of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, 1977, pp. 443-44.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was born in Boston but moved at an early age to Philadelphia where his countless talents and unlimited energies found expression in successful contributions as statesman, diplomat, scientist, editor-author, and philosopher. During the Revolution he was appointed American ]inister Plenipotentiary to the French Court enabling him to function also as the Navy's representative in Europe. He promoted the plan to bring the war to British shores, supporting Lambert Wickes' spectacular raids and enabling John Paul Jones to perform his daring feats by providing funds, attending to purchases and repairs, and determining questions of authority and discipline. His astute and visionary policies merit for him deserved recognition in the annals of the infant Navy as well as esteem as a founder of the United States. (The first four ships of the name honor Benjamin Franklin; CV-13 perpetuates the names of these ships.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Webmasters Note. It has come to my attention that the above may in fact be incorrect as the plaque placed aboard USS FRANKLIN CV-13 when she commissioned said she was named for the civil war battle of Franklin......so did the author of the book "FRANKLIN Comes Home" who put her in commission and rode her throughout her career.


I know that the ships nickname was "Big Ben" so there may have been some ambiguity about this even with the crew.

Like Antietam, Franklin was a bit of a draw, Hood continued to advance after the battle but had pretty well wrecked his army. I'm not sure how "minor" Franklin was, the Confederates lost more men than Burnside had at Fredericksburg, and almost as many as Grant at Cold Harbor even though Grant attacked with three times as many troops. It was probably the most concentrated bit of slaughter in the war, if any battle could make an argument in favor of unity this was it.




SoulBlazer -> (6/17/2003 9:43:21 PM)

I only called the battle 'minor' because it was a battle the north did'nt want to fight and the south regreted starting. I can't remember who commanded the Union forces (it's early :) ) but he was falling back to the defences of Nashville to join up with Thomas and wait for Hood's attack there. A rearguard action. Hood stupidly sent in his men in a staight frontal attack and lost six generals when all he had to do was wait 24 hours. I guess I can't blame him for wanting to attack a wing of the Union army but it was'nt a very smart attack. The total sum value of the battle was minor -- just enough to ensure Thomas would havea easier time destroying Hood's army when he attacked himself in a month.




Snigbert -> (6/18/2003 1:14:27 AM)

[B]? Heck, let's just name the next Nimitz class carrier the USS Roe v. Wade. No, better to name ships after things that supposedly unified us than divided us.[/B]

Some people feel that naming the last one USS Ronald Reagan was just as bad...



[B]A rearguard action. Hood stupidly sent in his men in a staight frontal attack and lost six generals when all he had to do was wait 24 hours. I guess I can't blame him for wanting to attack a wing of the Union army but it was'nt a very smart attack. The total sum value of the battle was minor -- just enough to ensure Thomas would havea easier time destroying Hood's army when he attacked himself in a month.[/B]

I understand there was an infantry charge at Franklin that dwarfed Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. Does anyone know the details on that?




Zeta16 -> (6/18/2003 4:41:22 AM)

Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it. However, I do not think a President who cut the military and detested it so much would ever get a ship named after him. However in his three photo ops on Carriers he sure acted like he love the navy!!!



[IMG]http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027610.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]www.navsource.org/archives/02/027614.jpg[/IMG]




mogami -> Battle of Franklin (6/18/2003 5:37:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]? Heck, let's just name the next Nimitz class carrier the USS Roe v. Wade. No, better to name ships after things that supposedly unified us than divided us.[/B]

Some people feel that naming the last one USS Ronald Reagan was just as bad...



[B]A rearguard action. Hood stupidly sent in his men in a staight frontal attack and lost six generals when all he had to do was wait 24 hours. I guess I can't blame him for wanting to attack a wing of the Union army but it was'nt a very smart attack. The total sum value of the battle was minor -- just enough to ensure Thomas would havea easier time destroying Hood's army when he attacked himself in a month.[/B]

I understand there was an infantry charge at Franklin that dwarfed Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. Does anyone know the details on that? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, The 20,000 men of AP Stewart's corps made the charge at Franklin. One of the best Confederate Generals Pat Cleburne was killed leading his division. The South lost more men then during Picketts charge (More then the Union would lose at Cold Harbor)




byron13 -> (6/18/2003 7:18:21 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]

Some people feel that naming the last one USS Ronald Reagan was just as bad...

[/B][/QUOTE]

You know, I was thought of this very case when I made my post. Guess part of the logic was, like Forrestal, Vinson, and Stennis, he did great things for the Navy and also happened to be a president. Heck, I guess you could say that the Lincoln is a divisive name. When you get down to it, any name will have its detractors. But my primary argument is that naming a ship after a battle in which Americans were divided is not setting the nation's best before the rest of the world.

And why no more revolutionary battles? Is it early political correctness? Brits get as peeved about having NATO maneuvers with the Saratoga as we would with a Japanese ship named the Pearl Harbor? I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.




Snigbert -> (6/18/2003 7:53:59 PM)

[B]I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.[/B]

That is exactly what I think should be done, and for the same reason. Carl Stennis was a known racist and war monger but did a lot for the navy so he has a carrier named for him. Reagan had many political opponents...the next CVN has already been named George HW Bush, so it seems like they are isolating democrats. Although I fully agree that Bush Sr is a war hero and deserves the ship name. You want to have names that will unite, not divide. Especially as you have higher and higher rates of minorities and women in the military who might be offended by someone like Reagan.

What is wrong with Enterprise, Yorktown or Hornet?

[B]Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it. However, I do not think a President who cut the military and detested it so much would ever get a ship named after him. However in his three photo ops on Carriers he sure acted like he love the navy!!![/B]

Dubya Bush is making large cuts to the military too, I dont think taking advantage of the peace dividend warrants his not having a ship named after him. I think he shouldn't have a ship named after him because of the security damage he did to our country by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese.




denisonh -> (6/18/2003 9:26:01 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.[/B]

That is exactly what I think should be done, and for the same reason. Carl Stennis was a known racist and war monger but did a lot for the navy so he has a carrier named for him. Reagan had many political opponents...the next CVN has already been named George HW Bush, so it seems like they are isolating democrats. Although I fully agree that Bush Sr is a war hero and deserves the ship name. You want to have names that will unite, not divide. Especially as you have higher and higher rates of minorities and women in the military who might be offended by someone like Reagan.

What is wrong with Enterprise, Yorktown or Hornet?

[B]Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it. However, I do not think a President who cut the military and detested it so much would ever get a ship named after him. However in his three photo ops on Carriers he sure acted like he love the navy!!![/B]

Dubya Bush is making large cuts to the military too, I dont think taking advantage of the peace dividend warrants his not having a ship named after him. I think he shouldn't have a ship named after him because of the security damage he did to our country by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am unclear about the problems surrounding tha naming of a CVN after Ronald Reagan, so maybe somebody can enlighten me.

I do not know about the Navy side of the house, but the US Army transitioned from the broken, underfunded post-Vietnam Army of the late 70's to a tremendously capable fighting force by the time Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989. Today's Army is in large part a product of the rebirth under the Reagan administration.

If he did even a tenth of what he did for the Navy as he did the Army, I could think of no one more fitting.

Not to mention, some would argue that the increased military expenditures and increase in capability made a significant (if not decisive) contribution to ending the cold war.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.578125