|
Musashi
Apr 4, 2015 18:06:47 GMT -6
Post by dave on Apr 4, 2015 18:06:47 GMT -6
Ian/WO How are RN ships names determined? The US named their battleships after states and now name submarines after states and cities except for the Jackson. We name destroyers and frigates after Naval and Marine heroes. I have been looking at some WW 2 materials and could not determine the reason for name selection.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 5, 2015 6:57:04 GMT -6
Hi Dave, how’s the leg? Well to be honest I am not a Naval Cove, I may dabble a bit but on the whole I leave those things to many on this board who are more “Ship Savvy” then moi, but this is a good link to start with; linkIan.
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 5, 2015 10:17:58 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Apr 5, 2015 10:17:58 GMT -6
Hi Dave, how’s the leg? Well to be honest I am not a Naval Cove, I may dabble a bit but on the whole I leave those things to many on this board who are more “Ship Savvy” then moi, but this is a good link to start with; linkIan. Thanks for sharing! I found it very interesting. Beth
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 5, 2015 11:42:52 GMT -6
Post by dave on Apr 5, 2015 11:42:52 GMT -6
Ian Thank you for the link and the map on the other thread. I see the reason for name selection for the different ship classes. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 5, 2015 12:09:34 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 5, 2015 12:09:34 GMT -6
You are both welcome, and I am glad you enjoyed the link.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 6, 2015 21:02:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Apr 7, 2015 8:16:19 GMT -6
Dave, you seem to have a significant interest in ships and naval matters. In that light, I have several websites that I frequent and that you might find interesting. Rather than referencing them all at once and having them get lost in the clutter, I thought that I would list them one at a time and maybe trigger discussion surrounding each one in turn. Here is the first one, that attempts to address the question of what was the best battleship(s) of WW2. I encourage you to click on "Detailed Information" in each section in order to get a better feel for why things were rated as they were.
www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 7, 2015 9:45:22 GMT -6
Dave: Naming of ships in the Royal Navy does not follow any particular pattern that I can detect, with a couple of exceptions. Rather they seem to follow themes. The relatively new Type 45 Destroyers for instance all have names beginning with D - Daring, Dragon, Dauntless etc. The Type 23 Frigates all carry names associated with Dukes -- Among them Montrose. immediately proceeded them the Type 22, included a variety of name selections including Campbelltown, remembering a WWII four piper loaned to the RN and shared names for town in the USA and the UK.
Other series of ships have carried county or city names, overseas colonies, and various other sources. Then there is Ark Royal, a name consistent throughout RN history.
Cities have, with the naming of Cheyenne, ceased being a name source for submarines. States are now the name source, but there will be inevitable exceptions there as well. You mention the Henry Jackson. She was originally the Rhode Island and the name was changed to honor Senator Jackson just after his passing in that he had a lot to do with the development of the Ohio Class. Another is the John Warner, a yet to be commissioned Virginia, and again the name was chosen as an exception to policy to honor Senator Warner for his overall contribution to the Navy and his influence in the construction of the Virginia Class.
Cities are now honored by the Littoral Combat Ships and large Amphibs.
At one time naming of USN ships was fairly straightforward, but now not so much in that there has been a transition of types over the last half of the last century.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Apr 7, 2015 9:53:46 GMT -6
QC You are correct that USS Archerfish sank her 4 torpedoes. One of 8 Japanese carriers sunk by US subs. Regards Dave Dave, I'm reading Archer-Fish's report of their fifth mission and the captain writes that he shot a spread of six Mk 14 torpedoes from the bow tubes at a large carrier and saw two hits while surfaced and heard four more "that corresponded to the firing interval" while diving to avoid the single escort. The spread was programmed to hit from stern forward. The first hit was "just inside stern near props and rudder." The second hit "... was about fifty yards forward of the first." Best of wishes, Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 7, 2015 10:17:48 GMT -6
I believe the four hits comes from post-war analysis Billy. You find a lot of differences between patrol reports and the very thorough post war damage evaluations. The first two probably did her in, because breaking up noise was immediately detected. The possibility of six hits should not be dismissed though, as the torpedoes were set for shallow running and two may have run somewhat deeper and exploded with keel hits which possibly went undetected by the postwar analysis.
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 7, 2015 10:34:48 GMT -6
Post by dave on Apr 7, 2015 10:34:48 GMT -6
Dave, you seem to have a significant interest in ships and naval matters. In that light, I have several websites that I frequent and that you might find interesting. Rather than referencing them all at once and having them get lost in the clutter, I thought that I would list them one at a time and maybe trigger discussion surrounding each one in turn. Here is the first one, that attempts to address the question of what was the best battleship(s) of WW2. I encourage you to click on "Detailed Information" in each section in order to get a better feel for why things were rated as they were.
www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Jodak I do study US Naval history especially WW II. I find the detailed information fascinating and have reread the information. The USS Alabama, 5 hour drive from me, is the only battleship I have been on and am able to see and relate much of what I have read. I look forward to seeing the additional sites you have. Thank you very much. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 7, 2015 12:08:31 GMT -6
Post by jodak on Apr 7, 2015 12:08:31 GMT -6
What I find interesting at the above link is that the author rates the Iowas as superior to the Yamatos. Of course that is just one person's analysis/opinion, but he provided good information as to his basis, and I tend to agree with him. On first blush many would probably think that the Yamatos were superior on the basis of their larger guns, but I think that is fallacious reasoning. It seems that, whether it is battleships or tanks, people want to compare guns to guns and armor to armor, when in reality they should be comparing guns to armor. In other words, it is not the relative size of each ship's guns, but their effectiveness against the other ship's armor that matters. In the situation in question, the Iowa's 16 inch guns/shells would have probably been just as effective against the Yamato's armor as the Yamato's 18 inch guns/shells would have been against the Iowa's armor, and, when the other factors such as the Iowa's much superior fire control are factored in, the Iowas come out ahead. The South Dakota's, of which Alabama is one, fare nearly as well. Their armor was only slightly less capable than the Iowas, and they actually fired the same size shell, although their 45 caliber guns had a somewhat shorter range than the Iowas' 50 caliber guns. It is also interesting that the Richelieus fared as well as the did and the Bismarks as poorly as they did.
While the North Carolinas were not included, they also fired the same size/caliber shell as the South Dakotas and were fairly comparable in most other regards as well, so their overall rating should be about the same. This is some information about the older U.S. battleships - www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 8, 2015 15:30:00 GMT -6
Post by justvisiting on Apr 8, 2015 15:30:00 GMT -6
I believe the four hits comes from post-war analysis Billy. You find a lot of differences between patrol reports and the very thorough post war damage evaluations. The first two probably did her in, because breaking up noise was immediately detected. The possibility of six hits should not be dismissed though, as the torpedoes were set for shallow running and two may have run somewhat deeper and exploded with keel hits which possibly went undetected by the postwar analysis. QC, I think the keel hits are likely as the first two hits in the stern and slightly forward of the stern may have allowed enough water into the ship that the forward areas were raised enough to be hit in the keel. Billy
|
|
|
Musashi
Apr 8, 2015 17:51:31 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Apr 8, 2015 17:51:31 GMT -6
The post war analysis was rather stingy with crediting hits for all the boats and not just with Archerfish, so I would not rate it as a sure thing but the scenario you paint is likely regardless of analysis. Four or six, either would have done the job.
|
|