Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
TsundereMusashi

Naming the Ohio the Ohio....

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

108
[SMEAC]
Members
357 posts
5,281 battles

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

Edited by TsundereMusashi
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 5
  • Confused 21
  • Boring 6
  • Angry 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[XBRTC]
Members
210 posts
8,803 battles
1 minute ago, TsundereMusashi said:

considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

Is this a serious question?

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,132
[LEGIO]
Members
3,355 posts
6,953 battles

I rather doubt red state vs blue state politics are supposed to factor into the decision of naming a warship for a state.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[SMEAC]
Members
357 posts
5,281 battles
3 minutes ago, SteveStevenson said:

Is this a serious question?

Yes, of the states they could of used to name either the Georgia or Ohio. Why on Earth would they name  either ship after those states, especially the Ohio after they named the Tier IX premium US BB Georgia? 

 

The Georgia left me a feeling a bit awkward but not bothered by afterwards, but i'm honestly very startled they'd go ahead and name the following US premium BB Ohio out of all the options they had available. 

Edited by TsundereMusashi
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,842 posts
6,718 battles

Pretty sure Ohio is named so because it's a Montana-class hull, and the second hull of the planned Montanas was to be named Ohio.

I've got nothing on Georgia though. The hull looks similar to the Iowas, but it's not exactly the same. And only two of the planned 6 Iowas weren't completed, Kentucky and Illinois.

 

Edit: also inb4 the lock. :Smile_hiding:

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[CAG-1]
Members
1,872 posts
9 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

The world does not revolve around the USA and you'd have to be a local to even know that. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things.

WoWs is a worldwide title . Whereas you may find a battleship that merely shares the same name as some state with supposed women rights issues offensive, the rest of the world could care less about that local drama. You'd have to be American to even care.

I'm pretty sure American women are not oppressed. I know a few Muslim women who would LOL at the suggestion...

Edited by ElectroVeeDub
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[-TOG-]
Members
125 posts
5,511 battles
7 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

Obvious troll is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,244
[SALVO]
Members
23,388 posts
24,003 battles
9 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

Leave politics out of this.  If this naming thing leaves a sour taste in your mouth, that's on you, not WG.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,481
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,862 posts

You know it was an actual planned BB right? Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with what the ship was actually named when it was to be built back then. :Smile_facepalm:

WG didn't name it, the US Navy / government did, in 1940, along with the Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Louisiana.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[XBRTC]
Members
210 posts
8,803 battles
1 minute ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Yes, of the states they could of used to name either the Georgia or Ohio. Why on Earth would they name  either ship after those states, especially the Ohio after they named the Tier IX premium US BB Georgia? 

Because American Battleships are named after states. Neither Ohio or Georgia were ever laid in steel during the era the game is concerned with, both having been used as pre-dreadnought BB names and then as SSBN names when naval convention changed to name ballistic missile subs after states. Thus, neither name interferes with a historical ship you might see later on.

Ohio was planned to be a Montana-class BB, so it is somewhat appropriate to make her the T10 alt-Montana. I don't know that Georgia was ever planned to be one, but it is a free name.

Maybe don't be fixated on something so dumb?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[LOSC]
Members
470 posts

What a Lost Soul.

Call Antifa, next time you are in trouble ok!!!!

Keep the politics at your home not here!

I bet it kills ya to see this one!!! uss halyburton (ffg-40)

 

Edited by Halli_SPARTA
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[WOLFC]
Members
1,500 posts
8,063 battles
12 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

They released a ship knowing full well it was mostly known as a torture chamber.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Nueve_de_Julio_(C-5)

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,438
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,140 posts
17 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

 

Quote

 

USS Ohio (BB-68)[edit]

Ohio was to be the second Montana-class battleship. She was to be named in honor of the 17th state, and was assigned to the Philadelphia Navy Yard for construction. Ohio would have been the fourth ship to bear that name had she been commissioned.[72][73]

 

Please try to keep politics out of this forum. I'm sure that there are plenty of other forums around the internet where you can find a soapbox for your ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[-AF-]
Beta Testers
303 posts
5,200 battles

Hmmmmm.  Half thought this thread was in regards to Ohio State trying to trademark the word "The", as in The Ohio State.  Anyway, still patiently waiting for the tech branch which produces the USS California (BB-44).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,981 posts
1,448 battles
25 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

Take this SJW, political [edited], load it in your nearest 18 inch gun and fire it far, far, far away....preferably into the Bermuda triangle so it gets randomly lost. 

WG can then go ahead and add the USS California, cuz even if that state is trash, that ship would be great to see in game.  Who gives a rip about the name.

Edited by KnightFandragon
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[WOLFC]
Members
1,500 posts
8,063 battles
3 minutes ago, Halli_SPARTA said:

What a Lost Soul.

Call Antifa, next time you are in trouble ok!!!!

Keep the politics at your home not here!

I bet it kills ya to see this one!!! uss halyburton (ffg-40)

 

Oh look...snowflake with a Spartan symbol can't handle having his politics criticised.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/154563/sparta-myth-rise-fascism-trumpism

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,967
[PVE]
Members
10,236 posts
18,844 battles
33 minutes ago, TsundereMusashi said:

Is there a particular reason why Wargaming is naming the next US premium BB the Ohio? Just as we got the Georgia as is, considering the politics that is going on in both those states in regards to women's rights it's in really bad taste to have two USN premium BB's named after Georgia and Ohio. 

You can NOT be serious. Please tell me you don't believe what you just posted? This ranks right up there with the forum member who was offended by the Christmas flag because it represented Christians. I mean just WHAT???? :Smile_facepalm:

This is a game based on WW1-WW2. It is a non political game as well. The names used are the names that were used, would have been used, or are in some way consistent with how that particular navy named ships at the time.

As to why Ohio. It is simple. The ship class is the Montana class. WG tries when possible to name their ships after the class/lead ship that carries the name. The Montana was to be the 1st ship of the Montana class of BB's as proposed and approved before being cancelled last minute. It was to carry hull ID BB-67. So that is why the T10 is the Montana.

Ohio was the 2nd ship of the line and was to carry hull ID BB-68. With the line of ships not actually built, and thus no historically significant ship to use the name of, it is only natural they would use the 2nd one. So, it was picked because it was to be the actual 2nd ship of the class.

Wow. The things people actually take offense to in a game??? :Smile_amazed:

Edited by AdmiralThunder
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[SMEAC]
Members
357 posts
5,281 battles
17 minutes ago, Halli_SPARTA said:

What a Lost Soul.

Call Antifa, next time you are in trouble ok!!!!

Keep the politics at your home not here!

I bet it kills ya to see this one!!! uss halyburton (ffg-40)

 

You sound mad, do you need a milkshake to lighten up the mood?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[TSG4B]
[TSG4B]
Members
240 posts
9,062 battles

Don't know about woman rights, don't care. But I do remember what happened at Kent State. But keep politics out of the forum, please!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×