"Ship named after WWII Medal of Honor winner" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board
|
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 03 May 2018 10:01 p.m. PST |
The 13th San Antonio-class amphibious warship will be named after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor for actions off Okinawa in 1945, the service announced on Wednesday… link |
Shagnasty  | 04 May 2018 8:54 a.m. PST |
Does the Navy have any reasonable procedures for naming ships any more. It seems as if they can name anything for anything. Political and social expediency takes precedent over tradition. The man should be honored with an escort vessel. |
nevinsrip  | 05 May 2018 2:45 p.m. PST |
1945? It's about time! God bless him and the men and women who serve on the vessel named for him. |
| Mark 1 | 08 May 2018 5:31 p.m. PST |
Agree with Shagnasty. I much preferred the tradition of naming carriers after events or principals of national importance (historic battles like "Lexington" or "Tarawa", or guiding principals like "Independence" or "Enterprise"), battleships after states, cruisers after cities, escort vessels after dead people (well, not exactly, more like heroes, but only AFTER their passing), and submarines after fish (and, if running out of fish, then other animals). The more current approach of naming carriers after pandering for favor with a voter base, and cruisers we don't know because what is a cruiser today anyway, and destroyers after big donors to somebody's campaign … eh, I just feel like it cuts the legs out from under a service that should be standing tall on it's history and traditions. That said, I wonder if it will be a point of pride in the future for sailors to say they served aboard the USS McCool. -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
|
