Jump to content


USS Missouri, BB-63, has been recommissioned.

Clickbait I lied Now with 70% less Rick Astley

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Lert #41 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:11 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

A question was asked.

 

An answer was given. 

 

There's no guarantee that you have to like the answer or agree with it. *shrugs*

 

An answer was given to a question I didn't ask, with a smarmy 'well, since you asked' included. Hint: I didn't ask that. Posting 'well, since you asked' in that case was just smarmy smart-assness.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


DOCTOR_CITADEL #42 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 787
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostLert, on 16 May 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

Just one question ... Why do so many Americans find it necessary to always say 'BB-63' after saying 'USS Missouri'? I would think it's perfectly clear what ship you're talking about without going to that extra length.

^^^The question

 

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 16 May 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

Normally it's just 'Missouri' for me. However, I wanted the thread title to sound more legitimate and official like. So, BB-63 was included~

Answer #1

 

View PostMrDeaf, on 16 May 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

 

well, since you asked...

 

USS Missouri (1841)

BB-11, USS Missouri

BB-63, USS Missouri

SSN-780, USS Missouri

Answer #2

 

View PostLert, on 16 May 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

 

And answer was given to a question I didn't ask, with a smarmy 'well, since you asked' included. Hint: I didn't ask that.

It appeared to me that both of those were reasonable responses to your question. Each a different explanation of perhaps why the designation was included. That's how I, and probably most others, would have taken it. Seems to me that you just latched onto an obscure reason to tear into somebody for providing relevant information to the conversation.  

 

I was actually interested to learn about the other Missouris, myself. 

 


OverPowered Gaming Fleet Admiral / [OPG] Admiral 

                 For OverPowered Gaming Recruitment & Information (click here)               

                OverPowered Gaming's Clan Entrance Requirements (click here)               

             OverPowered Gaming's Teamspeak Address: 158.69.112.116: 10026             


MrDeaf #43 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:23 PM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,928
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

I have zero knowledge of how long a SSN can operate before overhaul or decommissioning

I have zero knowledge of BB-11 or its fate

I do know BB-63 is a Museum ship that gets used in movies a lot

I do know USN keeps around their USS Constitution (1797), but I have zero knowledge of what happened to the other wooden hull sailing ships

 

So there you have it, ambiguity at its best. 3/4 "no clue of their fates" and 1/4 "that's a museum ship"


Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


Lert #44 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:25 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Answer #1

 

And a perfectly reasonable and acceptable, if very personal one-case-only one. I find it interesting that just because I did not overtly type 'Yes, thank you for explaining why you included it this once, I understand your reason for putting it in the title of your thread now' you automatically assume that means I either didn't accept or didn't read it. Assumptions on your part.
 

 

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Answer #2

 

*sigh*

 

For the Xth time. That's not an answer to the question I asked. I mean, would you accept 'fish' as an answer to your question of 'what time is it'? Or, even better, 'Well, since you asked, fish'?

 

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

It appeared to me that both of those were reasonable responses to your question. Each a different explanation of perhaps why the designation was included. That's how I, and probably most others, would have taken it

 

See above example of 'fish' and 'what time is it'. I asked why in general people often include hull designations for Battleships, later adding the qualifier 'but not as often for cruisers and destroyers' to further explain my question.

 

I mean, I could possible see #2 as being an answer to what I asked, if you believed me stupid enough to not understand that multiple ships at different points in history can carry the same name, but:

 

1) Why thank you for your generous estimation of my mental capacity

2) Doesn't explain why it's not done so often for cruisers and destroyers

3) Don't be a smarmy so-and-so and go 'well, since you asked' (here's a list of Missouris). That is just insulting.

 

Now, any more questions?

 

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

I was actually interested to learn about the other Missouris, myself.

 

That is a fair point. However, in that case, I would still argue that it's more efficient to use hull designations or dates when talking about a Missouri other than the one people logically automatically assume when reading 'USS Missouri' on a forum about a game where only one Missouri exists or is relevant ...

 

Still doesn't answer why hull numbers are not regurgigated for cruisers and destroyers though. Which is an integral part of my question. 'Laziness' has been thrown around, but honestly, if one additional keystroke is so much effort, why draw the line at six keystrokes being ok and 7 just too many?


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


DOCTOR_CITADEL #45 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 787
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

Lert,

 

I'm a huge firearm buff, so I'll use this as an example. 

 

Take the .45 Colt cartridge. Some people call it the .45 "Long" Colt, when that distinction is no longer proper or necessary. Still, it's not an inaccurate designation. While ".45 Colt" is the proper term, people will still know what you mean by ".45 Long Colt."

 

Just differences in vernacular or Navy tradition that's been passed down, perhaps?


OverPowered Gaming Fleet Admiral / [OPG] Admiral 

                 For OverPowered Gaming Recruitment & Information (click here)               

                OverPowered Gaming's Clan Entrance Requirements (click here)               

             OverPowered Gaming's Teamspeak Address: 158.69.112.116: 10026             


Lert #46 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

Lert,

 

I'm a huge firearm buff, so I'll use this as an example. 

 

Take the .45 Colt cartridge. Some people call it the .45 "Long" Colt, when that distinction is no longer proper or necessary. Still, it's not an inaccurate designation. While ".45 Colt" is the proper term, people will still know what you mean by ".45 Long Colt."

 

Just differences in vernacular or Navy tradition that's been passed down, perhaps?

 

Does not even begin to explain why the hull number is regurgitated for Battleships (and CVs come to think of it) but not Cruisers and Destroyers (which can just as easily be confused with another later or earlier ship of the same name). Is it a distinction that adding the hull number is something you do for capital ships only?

 

@OP: I do apologize for derailing your thread. Your joke was funny, I chuckled. Had I known that what I honestly believed to be a simple question would explode so much, I wouldn't have posted it in your thread.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


DOCTOR_CITADEL #47 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 787
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostLert, on 16 May 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

 

Does not even begin to explain why the hull number is regurgitated for Battleships (and CVs come to think of it) but not Cruisers and Destroyers (which can just as easily be confused with another later or earlier ship of the same name). Is it a distinction that adding the hull number is something you do for capital ships only?

 

@OP: I do apologize for derailing your thread. Your joke was funny, I chuckled. Had I known that what I honestly believed to be a simple question would explode so much, I wouldn't have posted it in your thread.

 

To be fair, you are the one that caused the explosion if you go back and read through the post. The post that multiple ships carried the name Missouri *is* a reasonable response to your question, despite the possible jab. It implied that the reason people list out the designation is for clarity, in the case that other ships may have also carried that name. That's a perfectly reasonable response. It wasn't spelled out in that reply because it was implied. Surely, any reasonable person could see that. Your diatribe after that was completely blown out of proportion. 

 

I've said my peace.

 

 


OverPowered Gaming Fleet Admiral / [OPG] Admiral 

                 For OverPowered Gaming Recruitment & Information (click here)               

                OverPowered Gaming's Clan Entrance Requirements (click here)               

             OverPowered Gaming's Teamspeak Address: 158.69.112.116: 10026             


Lert #48 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:41 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

To be fair, you are the one that caused the explosion if you go back and read through the post.

 

 

Mine is different. I mean, you even acknowledge the 'jab'. Are you implying that I shouldn't answer to 'jab's and just let people 'jab' at me without acknowledging them and replying to the 'jab's? That that 'jab' was perfectly fine and acceptable, and I should just let myself be 'jab'bed and accept it? I answered the jab with sarcasm. And that apparently was going too far, 'completely blown out of proportion', according to you?

 

Still doesn't answer me why - and I'm feeling myself falling into repetition here - it's different for BBs than for CAs / CLs and DDs.

 

 


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


DOCTOR_CITADEL #49 Posted 16 May 2017 - 06:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 787
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostLert, on 16 May 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

 

 

Mine is different. I mean, you even acknowledge the 'jab'. Are you implying that I shouldn't answer to 'jab's and just let people 'jab' at me without acknowledging them and replying to the 'jab's? That that 'jab' was perfectly fine and acceptable, and I should just let myself be 'jab'bed and accept it? I answered the jab with sarcasm. And that apparently was going too far, 'completely blown out of proportion', according to you?

 

Still doesn't answer me why - and I'm feeling myself falling into repetition here - it's different for BBs than for CAs / CLs and DDs.

 

 

 

Well, defending yourself is never a problem, but what you *perceived* as a jab could have most certainly just been writing style. Your response thereafter was a gross overreaction. If you really want to have your question answered definitively, there's always Google. You can get answers there all day long without belittling people for their explanations to your questions. Perhaps MrDeaf does not possess the encyclopedic noggin' of naval knowledge you claim to have and was trying to be helpful with what he did know. 

 

Peace, Love, and Hair Grease!


OverPowered Gaming Fleet Admiral / [OPG] Admiral 

                 For OverPowered Gaming Recruitment & Information (click here)               

                OverPowered Gaming's Clan Entrance Requirements (click here)               

             OverPowered Gaming's Teamspeak Address: 158.69.112.116: 10026             


MrDeaf #50 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,928
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

IDK, USN are really fixated onto hull designation and hull numbers.

AFAIK, other countries do it differently.

 

IJN e.g.

English: Akizuki-class Destroyer (1942), Akizuki-class Destroyer (1959), Akizuki-class (2010)

Japanese: 秋月型駆逐艦, あきずき型護衛艦(初代), あきずき型護衛艦(2代)

Translated: "Akizuki-class Destroyer", "Akizuki-class Escort ship (First Generation)", "Akizuki-class Escort ship (2nd Generation)"

 

Hull numbers

Akizuki (1942): Hull No.360 (under construction) -> Akizuki (launched)

Akizuki (1959): DD-960 (USN) -> DD-161 (JMSDF) -> ASU-7010 (auxiliary)

Akizuki (2010): DD-115 (JMSDF)

 

IJN used a different scheme entirely.

Mutsuki was "Destroyer No.19"

Fubuki was "Destroyer No.35"

Until they ditched it, because it was confusing, and changed over to names.

 

And then, the number painted on the hull was not the hull number.

The number painted on the hull designated "destroyer squadron number"

Which is why you have Hatsuharu and Nenohi with the same "21" painted on their hulls. https://upload.wikim...e/Nenohi_II.jpg

And then, to further confuse you, IJN used Kanji (子日)for their ship names, but the destroyers had their names painted in Katakana (ネノヒ)


Edited by MrDeaf, 16 May 2017 - 07:07 PM.

Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


Lert #51 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:11 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDOCTOR_CITADEL, on 16 May 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

 

Well, defending yourself is never a problem, but what you *perceived* as a jab could have most certainly just been writing style. Your response thereafter was a gross overreaction. If you really want to have your question answered definitively, there's always Google. You can get answers there all day long without belittling people for their explanations to your questions. Perhaps MrDeaf does not possess the encyclopedic noggin' of naval knowledge you claim to have and was trying to be helpful with what he did know. 

 

Peace, Love, and Hair Grease!

 

What 'encyclopedic noggin' of naval knowledge' do I 'claim to have'?

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


RivertheRoyal #52 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:27 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,629
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

It's like I'm watching two of my uncles arguing about the weather.... 

 

Now, I respect the both of you very much. But it's getting a little silly now.

Lert, you asked a legitimate answer—one that I don't think has been adequately answered yet either. 

Doctor, you pointed out that Lert could have handled things more...tactfully. I agree on this as well, but that's neither here nor there. 

 

As my Grandma would ask my uncles—"Are ya'll discuss'n anything important? Seems to me you're arguing just 'cause." 

In my words, do you guys see anything productive coming out of whatever's going on? Outside of the original question, I mean. 

 

 

Anyway, with that out of the way, I think people mention the numbers of capital ships because it's easier. There are relatively few battleships when compared to cruisers, destroyers, and even carriers to a lesser extent—meaning that there are few number combinations available. I mean, given that the Iowas were the last of the battleships, we know that the BB classification numbers likely only go up to 64. So, maybe the classification numbers are tacked on simply because people remember them, as opposed to classes which had more ships in them?  


Edited by RivertheRoyal, 16 May 2017 - 07:32 PM.


Yoshiblue #53 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:41 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 986
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

Yeb, it has gotten rather silly. 

 

If not to be very specific in what you're talking about or how people memorize it (As River said), I always imagined it was also to give it the illusion of greater importance. I once knew a person who kept calling the M1911 a ".45 Colt M1911-A1" and I was like, "Dude, just call it a M1911. You said it was a gun earlier. So we know what you're talking about. No need to add the extra information." As you would imagine, it took a bit to get that resolved. Legend says they still give the full designation to this day.


Edited by Yoshiblue, 16 May 2017 - 07:46 PM.


Jnobsir #54 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:43 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 203
  • Member since:
    09-03-2015

So this deviates from the ongoing conversation above, but I have a question.

 

Anyone think outfitting those turrets with paintball guns would be viable? They would need to be bigger of course, but just imagine Kayak paintball wars!

 

This concludes this brief intermission. Please don't hurt me. :hiding:

 

 


Edited by Jnobsir, 16 May 2017 - 07:45 PM.

 

Greetings, I am Sir J. Nobsir, Knight of the Table which was once Square, The Esteemed Duke of Somewhere Else, Lord of the Shining Seas, Admiral of the Red Swedish Fish, Baron of Barn-doors, Defender of the Alliance, Conqueror of Catan, Door Keeper of Downtown, Earl of Eating Utensils, Protector of the Prune turned Potato, Man Slightly Qualified to Potentially Lead Some Kind of Expedition, Overload of Overthinking, Prince of Powder-kegs, Croissant Connoisseur and Overall Master of Ludicrous and Stupid Self Bestowed Titles.

 


MrDeaf #55 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,928
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

So, I looked into why USN uses name and puts the hull number in with the name.

and came up with no answers.

 

Instead, I got side tracked and found...

IMO, "#1 most used name in short span of time" USN ship... USS Meredith

 

DD-434 (Gleaves-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1940, Apr. 24, Sunk 1942, Oct. 15

DD-726 (Sumner-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1943, Dec. 21, Sunk 1944, Jun. 9

DD-890 (Gearing-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1945, Jun. 28, Scrapped 1995


Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


Lert #56 Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:55 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Not a lucky name.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


RivertheRoyal #57 Posted 16 May 2017 - 08:05 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,629
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostMrDeaf, on 16 May 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

So, I looked into why USN uses name and puts the hull number in with the name.

and came up with no answers.

 

Instead, I got side tracked and found...

IMO, "#1 most used name in short span of time" USN ship... USS Meredith

 

DD-434 (Gleaves-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1940, Apr. 24, Sunk 1942, Oct. 15

DD-726 (Sumner-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1943, Dec. 21, Sunk 1944, Jun. 9

DD-890 (Gearing-class) USS Meredith: Launched 1945, Jun. 28, Scrapped 1995

 

Jeez, you'd think they'd have learned after the second ship sunk...

 

Though, the third one lasted a good 50 years, so I guess 3's the lucky number? 



MrDeaf #58 Posted 16 May 2017 - 08:09 PM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,928
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 16 May 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

 

Jeez, you'd think they'd have learned after the second ship sunk...

 

Though, the third one lasted a good 50 years, so I guess 3's the lucky number? 

 

Well, if you look at the date it was launched... Launched ≠ Commissioning

It's already near the end of WW2 and DD-890 Meredith was commissioned after WW2 ended, in Dec.

 

I haven't really heard of warships sinking outside of war, so it lived a peacetime life... I would guess.


Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


mohawkdriver #59 Posted 16 May 2017 - 11:05 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,716
  • Member since:
    09-06-2013

View PostLert, on 16 May 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Just one question ... Why do so many Americans find it necessary to always say 'BB-63' after saying 'USS Missouri'? I would think it's perfectly clear what ship you're talking about without going to that extra length.

 

We want everyone to know exactly what we're talking about.

Lert #60 Posted 16 May 2017 - 11:16 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,540
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmohawkdriver, on 16 May 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

We want everyone to know exactly what we're talking about.

 

So why isn't it done (nearly as often) for CAs / CLs and DDs?

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users