RivertheRoyal

USS Missouri, BB-63, has been recommissioned.

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

76 posts in this topic

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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~

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

well, since you asked...

 

USS Missouri (1841)

BB-11, USS Missouri

BB-63, USS Missouri

SSN-780, USS Missouri


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want l'm off to find that kayak mod!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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.

 

Clarification of the ship.  A bit like if I asked about the HMS Dreadnaught.  Which one?  Or the King George V, or even Ark Royal.  Navies reuse names so its a way for people to quickly identify which ship is being talked about.

If the headline had been USS Missouri I might have asked a question if this was a new warship for the navy instead of the battleship.

Edited by Wowzery

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, since you asked..

 

WVn7B8O.jpg

 

Please point out to me where I asked 'how many USS Missouris were there'.

 

USS Missouri (1841)

BB-11, USS Missouri

BB-63, USS Missouri

SSN-780, USS Missouri

 

In the context of this gaming forum it's absolutely perfectly crystal clear which Missouri was meant. In fact, I would bet that there are more people who think of the Iowa class battleship harbored at Pearl when seeing the name 'USS Missouri' than realize that ship is designated BB-63.  If OP had just said 'USS Missouri' or even just 'Missouri' I strongly doubt that anyone on this forum would've even considered a nucleair sub or a frigate destroyed by fire in 1843.

 

So, again, why include it in the first place? It's only meaningful to people who already know what ship you're talking about, and then it's pointless.

 

I see it all the time.

 

"I went to visit USS Iowa BB-61!" Yeah? Which other USS Iowa still exists that you can visit?

"I finally got the USS Texas BB-35!" Out of the large choice of Texas's available in this game, I'm sure.

 

etc etc etc.

 

Second note: Why is it so often done with Battleships, and a lot less often with Destroyers or Cruisers? Everyone always says Fletcher or Mahan or New Orleans or Baltimore, not Fletcher DD-445 or Mahan DD-364 or New Orleans CA-32 or Baltimore CA-68, etc.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

You ok Lert? you're a grumpy cat right now.

Edited by AquaSquirrel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ok Lert? you're a grumpy cat right now.

 

When people are all smarmy while putting words in my mouth and answering questions I never asked, yeah, I get a bit grumpy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second note: Why is it so often done with Battleships, and a lot less often with Destroyers or Cruisers? Everyone always says Fletcher or Mahan or New Orleans or Baltimore, not Fletcher DD-445 or Mahan DD-364 or New Orleans CA-32 or Baltimore CA-68, etc.

 

If I can speculate, it probably has to do with 1) either laziness (like who wants to repeat three digits) or 2) the eminence that only battleships possess. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

WVn7B8O.jpg

 

Please point out to me where I asked 'how many USS Missouris were there'.

 

 

In the context of this gaming forum it's absolutely perfectly crystal clear which Missouri was meant. In fact, I would bet that there are more people who think of the Iowa class battleship harbored at Pearl when seeing the name 'USS Missouri' than realize that ship is designated BB-63.  If OP had just said 'USS Missouri' or even just 'Missouri' I strongly doubt that anyone on this forum would've even considered a nucleair sub or a frigate destroyed by fire in 1843.

 

So, again, why include it in the first place? It's only meaningful to people who already know what ship you're talking about.

 

I see it all the time.

 

"I went to visit USS Iowa BB-61!" Yeah? Which other USS Iowa still exists that you can visit?

"I finally got the USS Texas BB-35!" Out of the large choice of Texas's available in this game, I'm sure.

 

etc etc etc.

 

Second note: Why is it so often done with Battleships, and a lot less often with Destroyers or Cruisers? Everyone always says Fletcher or Mahan or New Orleans or Baltimore, not Fletcher DD-445 or Mahan DD-364 or New Orleans CA-32 or Baltimore CA-68, etc.

 

There are two USS Missouri in current existence.

One is BB-63

The other is SSN-780.

 

SSN-780 is pretty new, but you really don't hear much about it, so people may think that one had something done to it.

 

 

For all I know, if that 'BB-63' wasn't in the title, I would have guessed the USN was commissioning a new USS Missouri. Maybe a LCS USS Missouri.

Edited by MrDeaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSN-780 is pretty new, but you really don't hear much about it, so people may think that one had something done to it.

 

Yeah, because brand new ships still in active duty are often being recommissioned left right and center and nuclear subs are so relevant on this game's forum, right.

 

Are you honestly insinuating that people would honestly think of the SSN when reading the title of this thread? Really? Even if they did, just a click on the thread would quickly dissuade them of that notion.

 

But all that falls apart when you consider my second question. Regurgitating the hull number is done much, much more often for Battleships than Cruisers and Destroyers. It seems that you believe that everyone would automatically think of the SSN when Missouri is mentioned, but automagically knows you're talking about DD-364 and not, say, DDG-72 when talking about 'Mahan'.

 

There's a double standard going on and I want to understand it, without smarmy people putting words into my mouth.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battleships were always considered the prides of their navies...so tradition of eminence, perhaps? 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, because brand new ships still in active duty are often being recommissioned left right and center and nuclear subs are so relevant on this game's forum, right.

 

Are you honestly insinuating that people would honestly think of the SSN when reading the title of this thread? Really? Even if they did, just a click on the thread would quickly dissuade them of that notion.

 

But all that falls apart when you consider my second question. Regurgitating the hull number is done much, much more often for Battleships than Cruisers and Destroyers. It seems that you believe that everyone would automatically think of the SSN when Missouri is mentioned, but automagically knows you're talking about DD-364 and not, say, DDG-72 when talking about 'Mahan'.

 

There's a double standard going on and I want to understand it, without smarmy people putting words into my mouth.

 

Well, like I said, I'm not really knowledgeable when it comes to how USN operates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When people are all smarmy while putting words in my mouth and answering questions I never asked, yeah, I get a bit grumpy.

 

A question was asked.

 

Answers were given. 

 

No rule says that you have to like the answers or even agree with them. *shrugs*

 

Seems like a whole lot of hullabaloo over nothing to me. 


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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

 

 

well, since you asked...

 

USS Missouri (1841)

BB-11, USS Missouri

BB-63, USS Missouri

SSN-780, USS Missouri

Answer #2

 

 

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. 

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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'?

 

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?

 

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?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

tC5uumk.png

 

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.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

tC5uumk.png

 

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!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.