Peter,

I've always found the USN system of naming carriers after presidents a bit
odd, probably because if we did something similar the navy would end up
having to persuade tars that it would be an honour to serve in HMS Harold
Wilson or HMS Tony Blair (shudder).

You think that's bad? How about HMS Neville Chamberlain? Yeesh!

On the other hand Britain has had many glorious national figures either
predating Parliament (Boudica) or extraneous to it (Hotspur, Black Prince,
Lionheart). These have provided the RN a wonderful source of inspirational
ship names.

Imagine having to walk around with "Margaret Thatcher" on your cap band!

Or tattooed anywhere. g

******

Digression on cap bands with ship's names:

My Dad started his naval service as a gunner's mate on the USS TENNESSEE
(BB-34) during the mid-1930s. At that time US Navy enlisted were still
issued flathats, with one's ship's name on the hat ribbon like the RN still
does.

Sometime around the late 1930s, the US Navy switched to a standard hat
ribbon that simply read "US NAVY." According to Dad, the Navy did this
because having a ship's name on the hat ribbon was an invitation to
fisticuffs if crew from more than one ship found themselves drinking in the
same bar.

Not unlike gang clothing / "colors" in the US today.

Dad adds that this was a time when there was considerable unit pride within
individual ships. More positive expressions of this pride were found in
athletic activities like softball leagues, boxing "smokers," liberty boat
races (these had oars back then) and the like. It was quite an honor, for
example, to be the Pacific Fleet boxing champion in one's weight class.

******

Surely a sailor would be happier in the USS Saratoga than in the USS
Wilbert Z. Bloggs?

I suppose.

I've always thought it somewhat ironic that USS SARATOGA (CV-3) found itself
serving with HM Indian Ocean forces at one point in WWII. But probably
preferable to the RN having to endure the presence of USS YORKTOWN (CV-5).
g

******

Another anomaly about US Navy ship names - until fairly recently in our
ship-naming history it was very difficult - maybe even impossible - to find
ships named after US Civil War battles in which the South prevailed. For
example only recently have we now a USS CHANCELORSVILLE (CG-62), named for
what was perhaps Lee's most brilliant victory in that conflict. But we've
yet to see a USS MANASSAS, other than in an episode of "JAG" that ran in
2000. And we probably never will since Manassas (also called Bull Run,
located in Virginia near Washington, DC) is where the North lost not one,
but two battles.

This simply proves that winners get to write the history - and name the
ships after *their* brilliant victories.

--
Mike Kanze

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Penta
writes
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:52:02 GMT, "Andrew.Venor"
wrote:


While I would normally agree, I can think of two exceptions.

I think it was an appropriate when the Navy named a destroyer after Adm.
Arleigh Burke and a supply ship after Bob Hope while they were still
alive.

ALV

Maybe.

However, I must admit to a definite prejudice when it comes to how the
US names its ships.

We just....well...

We suck at it, alright?

In WAR (a Play-by-email sim I play in), I was trying to create
something of a naming policy for the Israeli Navy (just so I had a
post in, and because I was bored, and because I figured I may want to
do a round of naval expansion later on, so I may as well set down such
things.). So I wander over to FAS, Navy sites, etc. See how the US
does it, since I don't speak Hebrew IRL.

Policy? What policy?
Besides the fact that most of the names suck. (When compared to, say,
the British naming traditions.)

Names like Invincible and Illustrious are fine, but Indomitable and
Indefatigable are a bit of a mouthful.

I always liked the alternative names for the old RN carriers Glorious,
Furious and Courageous - Curious, Spurious and Outrageous!

I've always found the USN system of naming carriers after presidents a
bit odd, probably because if we did something similar the navy would end
up having to persuade tars that it would be an honour to serve in HMS
Harold Wilson or HMS Tony Blair (shudder). Imagine having to walk around
with "Margaret Thatcher" on your cap band!

We need standards. Badly.

Naming major ships after politicians loses you the traditional names, as
a previous poster pointed out. Surely a sailor would be happier in the
USS Saratoga than in the USS Wilbert Z. Bloggs?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!