@zgryphon: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > I'm more for option...

zgryphon
2016-01-07T01:52:46-05:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

I'm more for option 2, as I think it would be better to nix the manufacturer designation since I believe most people would type starting from the model designation. I also believe that the name is important, as many American military designations are overloaded, for example there are close to 20 different weapons and vehicles with the designation M3.

Since each ship is considered individual and unique and as ships are more commonly known by their names first, we could use the reverse format, e.g. USS Enterprise CV-6.

Names are particularly important for American aircraft, since the numbering scheme for those was revised in the 1960s, so there are duplications. If you say "F-4", for instance, you probably mean the F-4 Phantom II jet fighter from the '60s, but you might mean the WWII-vintage F-4 Lightning, which was a photo reconnaissance variant of the P-38 Lightning fighter. (And for that matter, if you say P-38 you might mean the Lightning, you might mean a German handgun, or you might mean a can opener. :) Let's not use the Allied recognition names for WWII Japanese aircraft, though, whatever we do. "h6k_mavis" just... lacks gravitas somehow. :) (Besides, not all of them had one.)

And, as you say, for other weapons systems it gets even muddier, since the US Army had (and still has) the habit of calling the first of each type of something adopted "M1" and so forth, which leaves us with, among many others, the M1 (Garand) rifle, the M1 carbine (which is not a carbine version of the M1 rifle), and the M1 Abrams main battle tank.

I agree that manufacturer names aren't as critical for aircraft, particularly with WWII American and Japanese aircraft, albeit for different reasons. In the case of Japanese aircraft, there's an indication in their designation codes as to who made them (the M in A6M is for Mitsubishi); whereas wartime American aircraft, though designed by particular manufacturers, were often produced by more than one company because of wartime production needs. (Around half of the "Consolidated" B-24 Liberators produced, for instance, were actually made by Ford.) I'm also down with your proposed strategy for ships; I think that contains all the necessary information to make a proper identification. Slightly trickier for ships belonging to nations that don't use prefixes and/or unique hull numbers, but like weapon naming, that's a different bridge that can be crossed elsewhere.

Anyway, that was a long-winded response given that I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just noticed the inconsistency and thought it was odd.