Matrix Games Forums

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

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.

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 USS Roe v. Wade. 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.

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.

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.

? 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.

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



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.

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

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!!!

Originally posted by Snigbert
? 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.

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



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.

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

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)

Originally posted by Snigbert


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

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.

I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.

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?

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!!!

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.

Originally posted by Snigbert
I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.

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?

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

Nobody is questioning that Reagan did great things for the Navy. It is a matter of naming a ship for a poltical figure whose politics many people disagree with when the ship itself is an apolitical entity and shouldn't be seen to support one side or the other. I would be saying the same thing if there was a USS William Clinton (even if he had won the medal of honor and increased military spending 10 fold). The name of a ship should be non-partisan, just something supportive of US History or America in general like the USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, etc. You want a name everyone on the ship can feel inspired by, not just people of a specific political persuasion.



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.

Personally I think it was just a matter of time, the Soviet Union was corrupt and rotting from within. If someone else had been in office at the time they would have gotten (false) credit for winning the cold war. I think the people who deserve the most credit are the countless veterans who served and put their lives on the line from 1945-1991 to stand up to communism.

Well if we are not going to use political figures why doesn't anyone bring up the Truman, Kennedy, and FDR.

It is perfectly ok to name a ship after someone already dead to honour them.

It is extremely poor form to name it after someone who has not died yet.

One could almost call it a bad omen.

Well if we are not going to use political figures why doesn't anyone bring up the Truman, Kennedy, and FDR.

I didnt bring them up because I didnt want to go back and think of every ship named after a politician. I just made an example of the most recent case.

The English and French had some excellent ship naming practices, at least for their major capital ships. Names like Devastation, Terror, Monarch, Warspite, Illustrious, Victory, Swiftsure, Dreadnought, Revenge, La Fantastique, Heros, Vengeur, Terrible, Temeraire...the list goes on. Very inspirational. Japanese destroyers and aircraft carriers were named well too. Naming subs after fish makes sense. Ships named for famous warriors and leaders like the German practice for capital ships and American destroyers also has great merit. Commemorating famous battles should be a given.

However, there is nothing more boring than naming ships after places. :rolleyes:

Moreover, there is also nothing more annoying than not following a standard for ship classes. What were they thinking when the Yorktown class is named respectively after a Revolutionary battle, an endeavour, and a bug? Or the Seawolf class is named after a fish, a state, and a president who dabbled in nuclear physics? Have a plan...one that politicians can't frig around with!

Worst name for a ship in your opinion?

Mine is the Flower Class corvette HMS PINK!:eek: How would a German U Boat Commander say "Take a dink and stick it in the PINK", possibly something said as a torpedo is fired at the corvette.

Worst names?

HMS Glowworm

IJN Taiho (translates to Big Lucky Bird or Big Happy Bird)

The name "Ain't Scared 'o Nothin" was apparently offered as the name for South Carolina, the USN first true dreadnought!:D

USS Deliverance?:p

Originally posted by Snigbert
I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.

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?

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!!!

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.

Bush Sr. a war hero? Hell, he was merely one of thousands of late war pilots. Why not call Daffy Duck a war hero for all the propoganda work "he" did? The American military seems to award medals just for surviving or completing simple tasks. The amount of medals on most senior US officers makes many banana republic general's clusters look minimalist!:D

Gonna get in trouble here...:p

Bush Sr. a war hero? Hell, he was merely one of thousands of late war pilots. Why not call Daffy Duck a war hero for all the propoganda work "he" did?

I guess it depends on one's definition of the word 'hero'. I personally get really annoyed the way the media tosses the word around so that it loses all meaning. You rescue a cat from a tree and you're a hero on the six o'clock news.
George Bush Sr. destroyed an enemy ship, was shot down, wounded, and forced to survive at sea until he was rescued by a US sub. In my eyes he is a hero. Not in the sense of Auddie Murphy or Sergeant York, but I think people who exhibit bravery, self sacrafice and honor during combat are heroic.

The American military seems to award medals just for surviving or completing simple tasks.

I disagree with that. Although the system which has allowed officers to recommend one another for medals is suspect, it isn't as easy for enlistedmen to receive medals like the Bronze/Silver star, Navy Cross, etc without a real display of courage under fire or valor.

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.

I'm not sure how to take this. First I'd like to hear your definition of a typical navy puke. Second I'd like to hear how, in your opinion, a typical Navy puke would love anything about that individual. Third, and most importantly, I'd like to know what military service you have under your belt that affords you the right to say anything about some of the most professional, hardworking, dedicated people I have ever had the honor to serve with.

You should be careful when throwing around generalizations like that... Someone might take offense.