Aircraft Carrier naming

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!

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:57:00 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:


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.

You'll pardon me for saying that I wonder how we could get that back,
including in the Army and other services.

Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit
identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment?

John

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:55:33 -0500, in rec.aviation.military.naval Penta
wrote:

Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit
identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment?

Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to
stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average
time on station is two years.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:11:56 -0600, William Hughes
wrote:

Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to
stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average
time on station is two years.

Why do we do that, anyway?

Actually, I'm pondering starting a new thread on this. Hold on.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:11:56 -0600, William Hughes
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:55:33 -0500, in rec.aviation.military.naval Penta
wrote:

Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit
identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment?

Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to
stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average
time on station is two years.

All,

William Hughes's reply brought a number of thoughts to mind, from
the inane to the complex.

Eventually, however, I settled on something.

As an exercise for the group, let me lay out multiple scenarios.

1. The US Navy, or a fictional copy thereof, is (on a whim, basically)
scrapping everything. RAMN contributors have been directed to produce
a replacement. Cover all issues, from uniforms to living conditions to
regulations, including every aspect of personnel policies and general
"cultural" stuff, as well as force structure and equipment buys.
However, limits a Pay changes must keep in mind Congress. Cultural
stuff: Do keep in mind the general society.

2. The navy of a major NATO ally or an important regional country* is
doing the same thing. Describe the projected local security situation,
also, and keep it in mind. In this case, nothing is off-limits.

3. A small country is looking at the same thing. Examples: Panama,
Philippines. No limits, just describe and remember the projected
security situation

*Definition: flippable. Basically, say who you're using, then run with
it.

Thoughts:

1. To organize this and allow for filters, let's try to agree on a
common subject header? [RAMNEX 1: topic, RAMNEX 2: topic, and so
forth?]

2. Sources are, as always, a good idea.

3. Does anybody have free, non-ad-filled webspace we could compile and
host this on? It'd be a cool thing to keep around, but I dunno how to
get access to my school's webserver.

John

According to my Dad, part of this was due to the circumstances of the
Depression. For many, the armed forces were - literally - a better
alternative to whatever was available at home. So there was a stronger
motivation to treat one's unit as a real "home" and not just as a waypoint.
And thus easier to get folks interested in "community" stuff like softball
leagues.

Also there was a stronger sense of community in the US 70 years ago. We
were a much more homogeneous society then and diversity (as we know it
today) essentially did not exist in the armed forces.

From the command side, there were many collateral duties for junior officers
like Athletics Officer on the larger afloat units - and these really meant
something as JOs were in part evaluated on how well they performed here as
well as with their more traditional duties. For example, if you were the
boxing coach on a battleship you were expected to find and develop
contenders within your ship's company for the fleet Battle Force boxing
championships. Today, with administrivia overflowing from JO in-baskets,
such attention to things like unit athletics has fallen by the wayside.

Having said the above, I'm very impressed by the various expressions of unit
pride I see emanating from the Iraq occupation. We've all read any number
of stories about wounded service members expressing concern for their
unit-mates and wanting to get back with them as soon as possible.

So maybe the old-fashioned kind of pride hasn't disappeared at all, but
taken on a new form.
--
Mike Kanze

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

-Mark Twain


"Penta" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:57:00 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:


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.

You'll pardon me for saying that I wonder how we could get that back,
including in the Army and other services.

Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit
identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment?

John

In article , Mike Kanze
wrote:

According to my Dad, part of this was due to the circumstances of the
Depression. For many, the armed forces were - literally - a better
alternative to whatever was available at home. So there was a stronger
motivation to treat one's unit as a real "home" and not just as a waypoint.
And thus easier to get folks interested in "community" stuff like softball
leagues.

Mikes Good sense snipped.

If you look at the make-up of the service it has also changed.
Certainly among the enlisted and the JO's many more are married now
than were in the 1920's through the 40's and most live off base. In the
past base housing was much more prevelent for those that were married
and most of the single folks lived in either in the barracks or the Q
and not many of the lower grade E's (or o's) had cars so all were much
more dependent on Navy sponsored activities. Even at in the modern era
I found my squadrons at NUW the squadron was much tighter than in
VAQ-209 where every lives spread all over the DC metro area and
basically gets together for manditory fun and that's about it.

Pugs

"If they can put a man on the moon why can't they put a man on Lifetime
TV?"

Colin Quinn