Page 1 of 2

USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:19 am
by SoulBlazer
Since I have a MA in American History, I thought maybe this might be of intrest to some people, as it's not really explained in the manual.

All American and Japanese ships are named to a system. Here's the one used for the American Navy.....

Carriers: In WWII times, they were named for famous past ships or important battles in American History. Now they are also named for famous people.
Battleship: Named for states
Battlecruisers: Named for territories (?)
Heavy Cruisers: Named for large cities
Light Cruisers: Named for smaller cities
Destroyers: Named for famous people, usually in the military
Transports: Also named for people, normaly presidents, civilians, or important people
Submarines: Named for fish or mammals

This table for Japanese ships was copied from the Imperial Japanese Navy website at www.combinedfleet.com

Battleships
Capital ships were mostly named after provinces, although Kongo-class, being battlecruisers, were named after mountains.
Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers and seaplane carriers were mostly named after mythical flying creatures.
Heavy Cruisers
Large, Heavy or "Type A" Cruisers were named mostly after mountains, but Mogami-class were named after rivers as they were originally laid down as Type-B (light) cruisers.
Light Cruisers
Light, Small, or "Type B" cruisers were generally named after rivers & streams.
Destroyers
First class destroyers were named after environmental or calendar names.
2nd-Class Destroyers
Second-class destroyers were named after plants.

Submaries only had numbers, although with a letter at the front to stand for ther class.
Transports and cargo ships always had the word Maru (ship, I think?) in their name.

I suspect the British/Australian naming system is very close to the USA system.

Re: USN/ISN Classifaction of ship names

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 3:25 pm
by Jo van der Pluym
Originally posted by SoulBlazer
Since I have a MA in American History, I thought maybe this might be of intrest to some people, as it's not really explained in the manual.

All American and Japanese ships are named to a system. Here's the one used for the American Navy.....

I suspect the British/Australian naming system is very close to the USA system.
SoulBlazer

Mayby can you answer the following question about ship types.

Why have the following shiptypes 2 times the same character.

BB = Battleship
SS = Submarine
DD = Destroyer
FF = Frigate


And for info about the Dutch warships in WWII here the following link:
http://leden.tref.nl/~jviss000/

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:55 pm
by SoulBlazer
Well, it's very old naval tradition. :) I'm not sure exactly where those terms came from, but they have been used for a long time, and were invented by the British. It's just basicaly shorthand, meaning what kind of ship it is. For example, I was going to list what CV stood for, but it just flew right out of my head. :) Suffice it to say there is a reason for it.

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 8:18 am
by ExNavyDoc
CV stands for Carrier, Heavier-than-air aircraft. This dates from the days when the USN had both heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air aircraft.

The designation carries over to squadron designations also. "V" means fixed-wing heavier than air, i.e. airplanes. "Z" designated lighter than air aircraft, i.e. blimps.

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 8:39 am
by Grotius
Thanks for that post, ExNavyDoc. Do you know anything about the origin of some of the other mysterious abbreviations, e.g.:

CA - Cruiser, er, Armed?

AK - why not AC?

BB, DD, FF, SS - those abbreviations do *look* cool, so maybe that's enough. And I guess they are clearer than just a single B or D or what have you.

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:15 am
by ExNavyDoc
From "USN Ship Designations" :
Nomenclature History
Warships were designated and numbered in system originating in 1895. Under this system, ships were designated as "Battleship X", "Cruiser X", "Destroyer X", "Torpedo Boat X" and so forth where X was the series hull number as authorized by the US Congress. These designations were usually abbreviated as "B-1", "C-1", "D-1", "TB-1" and so forth. This system became cumbersome by 1920, as many new ship types were developed that needed new categories assigned, especially in the Auxiliary ship area. On 17 July 1920, the system was revised so that all ships were designated with a two letter code, with the first letter being the ship type and the second letter being the sub-type. For example, the Repair ship Prometheus was re-designated as AR-4, with the "A" standing for Auxiliary, the "R" for Repair and the 4 meaning the fourth ship in that series. Ship types that did not have a subclassification simply repeated the first letter. So, Battleships became "BB-X" and Destroyers became "DD-X" with X being the same number as previously assigned.
See also:
U.S. Naval Vessel Register

HTH

Doc

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:28 am
by Grotius
Hi Doc,

Thanks very much for the explanation. That certainly clears it up for me!

Thanks again.

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:43 am
by Jo van der Pluym
Doc

Thank you for the info

Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:17 pm
by The Gnome
Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be ;), but I thought that the "C" in CV was for cruiser. And the "V" for aViation. Thus, aviation cruiser.

Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:11 pm
by Feinder
I can confirm that the "V" in CV is for "heavier than air" aircraft, ie. not blimp.

And an "AC" is Auxillary : Collier. The "AK" I believe is for any dry cargo. The "AC" class probably had the ability to "refuel" ships at sea (with coal). Can someone confirm/refute this? While the AK class would need to use it's cranes and such to unload it's cargo.

It might be that aircraft-carrier units adopted the first letter of "C", because they were often built on converted Cruiser and BattleCruise hulls.

-F-

Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 9:28 am
by Toro
CA -- originally, the "A" stood for "armored."

CV --
The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations":

"On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. "However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption."

Still looking for the "AK" thing.

Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions.

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:07 pm
by Ron Saueracker
Especially for Capital ships. Names like Inflexible, Swiftsure, Monarch, Devastation, Thunderer, Victory (and their translated counterparts) etc. are much more appealing to me (and their sailors most likely) than boring and unimaginative names such as those based on geographical locations.

Personally, I was very disappointed with the names given to the Upholder Class of subs which Canada purchased from the UK. HMCS Chicoutimi for Christ's sake!?! Cornerbrook? Ooohhh, I'm scared!:p

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:34 pm
by Feinder
Actually Ron,

There was great "propaganda utility" to having Cruisers and Light Cruisers named for cities (at least among USN ships). They were able to sell bonds in those cities where in theory, the money raised was to finance the production and maintenance of that specific ship. In the end, it was a crock, because a war-bond is a war-bond is war-bond. But folks at home didn't know that, and gave the folks of that city a way to "connect" to the war.

Bond buying slogan A : "Buy a bond that helped to build a tank with just a number that got killed by a Pather in a field in France."

or

Bond buying slogan B : "Citizens of Birmingham! Buy a bond that will help to build and sustain America's newest cruiser! It is armed to the teeth with plenty of firepower to help blast from the sky those Krazy Kamikazes from the sky!"

-F-

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:47 pm
by SoulBlazer
Not to mention some of our most famous battles and ships in the history of the American navy are expressed with the carriers. Critical battles that helped to shape who we are as a people (Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway) or ships that have a long standing tradition of being almost invincible (Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp) help to inspire people serving on the ships.

And battleships named after states works for me as well.....it's like saying "We're a union of fifty states, seperate and yet joined, and here's one of our fifty (or so) battleships -- seperate, and yet joined!" (Although sometimes there was more then one purpose being served, like with the USS Washington)

The British naming system has always struck me as being.....well, a little arrogant. :)

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:20 am
by Ron Saueracker
Originally posted by SoulBlazer
Not to mention some of our most famous battles and ships in the history of the American navy are expressed with the carriers. Critical battles that helped to shape who we are as a people (Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway) or ships that have a long standing tradition of being almost invincible (Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp) help to inspire people serving on the ships.

And battleships named after states works for me as well.....it's like saying "We're a union of fifty states, seperate and yet joined, and here's one of our fifty (or so) battleships -- seperate, and yet joined!" (Although sometimes there was more then one purpose being served, like with the USS Washington)

The British naming system has always struck me as being.....well, a little arrogant. :)


Whats more arrogant than shoving your country in someones yard with 12 to 16" guns?:D

Re: Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions.

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:18 pm
by tanjman
Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Especially for Capital ships. Names like Inflexible, Swiftsure, Monarch, Devastation, Thunderer, Victory (and their translated counterparts) etc. are much more appealing to me (and their sailors most likely) than boring and unimaginative names such as those based on geographical locations.


Yeah but the RN came up short when it started naming Corvettes after flowers i.e.

HMS Cowslip (moooo, you slip is showing)
HMS Tulip (tip toe thru the tulips... tip toe with me)

:D

Re: Re: Always thought the British and French had the best ship naming traditions.

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 7:13 pm
by Ron Saueracker
Originally posted by tanjman
Yeah but the RN came up short when it started naming Corvettes after flowers i.e.

HMS Cowslip (moooo, you slip is showing)
HMS Tulip (tip toe thru the tulips... tip toe with me)

:D


HMS Pink...what's wrong with that?:D

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:21 pm
by Toro
If the UK moves into plant names, you could have the HMS Marijuana... wait, that might not work...

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:54 pm
by Admiral DadMan
HMS Canibus
HMS Coca Leaf
HMS Poppy Seed

Names, Editors and Tables

Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 4:05 am
by LTCMTS
First, a quick comment on classifications. The CV was indeed initially a cruiser, heavier than air aircraft. The The Langley, though numbered in the series, was considered an experimental ship, and did not count against the US overall tonnage for carriers until 1930. The coverted battle cruisers were originally designated CC for "large scout cruiser". Before 1921, "protected" cruisers, armored cruisers, battlecruisers (ie. large scout cruisers) and scouts were in different series without the use of acronyms. In 1921 they were integrated in a single series and designated either "armored cruisers" (CA) or "Light cruisers" (CL). The Treaty cruisers were initially rated CLs until the differentation between 8in and 6in gun cruisers under the London Treaty. Since all the "armored" cruisers had passed out of active service by then, the designation CA became "Heavy" (ie 8in gun) cruisers and CL became "light" (ie. 6in gun cruisers). Note this had nothing to do with tonnage. The Brooklyns displaced as much if not more than the first two classes of "heavy" cruisers" (or the Exter, York, Furutaka and Aoba classes for that matter). The 5in gun cruisers were not redesignated CLAAs until 1949. For further reference, check Friedman's excellent Design History series.
Second, does anyone know who wrote the data editor, where I can get a manual and when the "edit" function for weapons, ship classses and aircraft will be functional?
Third, I downloaded the UV 1.10 tables from Marc Balasko's website the other evening. IEither I got a bad file or something got lost when I extracted the file. The range for the 5" Mk.12 in the Mk.22 SP mount at 35 degrees was shown as 31,000 yds, not the ~17,400 yds it should be. There were other errors as well. Any comments?