The Military Thread

I have two questions.

1. How come the US military has an entire system for designating and naming an aerospace vehicle (be it a plane, missile, spacecraft, or some other form of aerial/space vehicle), and also observes the widely used "prefix—name" (i.e. the USS John Doe) format for identifying its ships, but apparently lacks any such system for land vehicles and weapons (both individual and crew-served)?

2. What's with the inconsistency in the naming of US military land vehicles? Some get both designations and names, like the M1 Abrams and many variants of the Bradley family (e.g. M2 Bradley), while others only get either a designation and/or a descriptor (e.g. M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, HMMWV) or a name (Stryker).

Because ships are special and nowhere near as replaceable as land vehicles. Though most armored vehicles receive informal names from their crew.

Also there's a convention in regards to tank designations. All of them are named after generals of some kind.

Humvees, Strykers, and so on aren't tanks and thus aren't beholden to it.

Ship naming has roots that pre-date America and is rooted in both tradition and in some cases superstition. Most US military equipment outside of naval vessels have had shifting naming conventions and traditions. Tanks are an exception as noted we name them after Generals for the models.

edited 22nd Jan '18 1:13:03 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Yea, most individual tanks do tend to get informal names from there crew.

They just dont get formal ones because there so much more disposable.... each ship is an investment that costs billions, and is internationaly recognized as that countries sovereign soil.

A tank is just a 200 million dollar tractor that some one slaped a bunch of armor and a gun on.

Ship naming definitely has a lot to do with tradition, names like Enterprise get carried over to new ships and there are lots of rules for which ships get which names.

The numeral/letter naming systems are usually part of a designation system like what's used for aircraft. If you want to make your head spin check out the electronic systems naming system which is called JETDS. For equipment in general it's kind of just all over the place.

Is it possible for a retired flagship's officers previous command be investigated?

Because General Kelly is setting off some serious red flags with his stint in the White House.

I refuse to believe this racist fuck didn't do some incredibly disgusting things while he was in the Marines.

...

Of by a factor of more than twenty. A le-clerk cost nine point three mil fresh of the factory floor, a latest-model leopard 2 is several million less than that, and the abrams is probably between those.

6.21 million for the abrams, yea, I got the wires in my brain crossed and was thinking airplanes there my bad.

But thats just, even more its just an armored tractor.

We got the naming system for tanks from the Brits, who name all of their tanks for British generals. When we sold them the Medium Tank M3, they dubbed it the M3 Lee, and its upgraded version the M3 Grant, using names of famous American generals.

In a move that no doubt pleased many Southerners, the US Army followed the precedent and named our next medium tank the M4 Sherman.

Best tank.

Kanonenjagdpanzer 4 life.

And it seems like postwar designs (Patton, Abrams which, granted, is a sample size of two) mostly take their names from tank commanders.

Let's see:

Walker Bulldog: Yes

Sheridan: No.

Other (light) tanks were never adopted and hence not named. Well, unless I get a lead on who Buford is.

I keep thinking of Babylon 5 when hearing that name...

IIRC, Word of God is that Captain John Sheridan is intended to be a descendant of General Phillip Sheridan. As it is, he was a cavalry commander under Grant, so it still counts.

General John Buford was a Union cavalry general who fought off the Confederate army at Gettysburg with his one division long enough for the rest of the Union army to get up there and win the battle.

I'm still slightly disappointed that the Brits nicked the name 'Matilda' before the Aussies built their first tank. That would have been on brand for the Aussies.

Or the Kiwis with their mighty, menacing and scary looking tank with the totally intimidating name of Bob Semple.

And to complete the "mostly unused Commonwealth tank trifecta", the Canadian made Ram (an M3 cousin that at least got used as a trainer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_tank

edited 22nd Jan '18 9:07:55 AM by Rationalinsanity

They also made an APC that they called the 'Kangaroo.'

Come on, Commonwealth. At least let the Australians have the Kangaroo.

M4A4 Sherman best medium tank.

edited 22nd Jan '18 10:29:45 AM by TheWildWestPyro

So good, even the Soviets used it.

Oh yes, they did, and they loved it!

Here's decorated tank commander Dmitriy Loza talking about his Shermans (link is in English, don't worry)

edited 22nd Jan '18 10:31:08 AM by TheWildWestPyro

The Soviets got the diesel powered A2 with the 76mm version. Which ironically means the 76mm Sherman saw combat before the US and UK 76mm Shermans.

The British got the A4, which was mostly converted into the Firefly using the 17pdr.

edited 22nd Jan '18 10:59:57 AM by AngelusNox

I have a soft spot for the Churchill, but yes, Sherman best tank.